DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on page 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues The correction data and the corrected image in claim 1 are causally related, the model image in SUN cannot be regarded as the correction data and the corrected data of claim 1 at the same time”. The office agrees. However, in the office action, the model image in SUN is NOT cited to read on both correction data and the corrected data. Instead, it is only cited to read on the correction data, the corrected data is the corrected original in SUN. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Other argument is built upon the argument above and therefor also not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as
a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 20, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN103679642 ) in view of Cao (US20170026597) and Nawaz ( "Metal artifact reduction in X-ray CT imaging based on iterative reconstruction approach", August 2015)
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a method for image correction implemented on at least one device each of which has at least one processor and storage, the method comprising:
receiving an original image including a metal artifact resulted from a metal object ([0011], the original image data; [0050], Step S1: acquiring projection data of an original image);
pre-correcting the original image([0014], acquire the original preliminary corrected image; [0051], Step S2: … preliminary corrected image corresponding to the original);
generating correction data ([0015], acquires image data of the model; [0052] Step S3: … acquiring the model image corresponding to the image data of the model ) based on the original image and the pre-corrected image ([0015], the original image and the corrected image original, the image difference area; [0052] Step S3: The ratio of the original image and the corrected image original, the image difference area between the two graphical correction model image) ;
weighting the original image ( [0129] based on the original image I0x,y ) and the pre-corrected image([0129], and the preliminary corrected image ICx,y) based on the correction data and a regularity degree of the metal artifact ([0129], multiple correction region smoothing processing); and
generating a corrected image ([0129], after correction of the original image I0x,y is the model image IEx,y ).
Sun does not expressly teach weighting.
However, in the art of image correction, Cao teaches weighting ( 10-13 in Fig. 3).
Cao’s teaching is combinable with that of Sun because the Sun’s original image with metal artifact is similar to Cao’s image with normal and defect pixels, Sun’s pre-corrected image is similar to pre-correcting defect pixels in Cao, and the similarity measure in Cao is similar to image data of the model in Sun; thus Cao’s obtaining the corrected image with weighting normal pixel and defective pixel with weighting of normal pixel and the pre-corrected pixel based on the similarity measure ( 12-13 in Fig. 3) could be utilized in Sun for calculating the corrected image. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cao and Sun, By calculating the corrected image in Sun with Cao’s method of weighting original image data, pre-corrected image data, and image data of the model.
An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for such combination for the purpose of getting a corrected image.
Sun in view of Cao does not expressly teach wherein the regularity degree of the metal artifact is associated with actual projection data of the metal artifact and ideal projection data of the metal artifact.
However, Nawaz teaches the regularity degree of the metal artifact ( Page 2422, left column, In order to smoothen out the image, edge preserving blur filter is applied) is associated with actual projection data of the metal artifact and ideal projection data of the metal artifact( FBP algorithm is now performed on the reconstruction projection data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cao and Sun with that of Nawaz, by substituting smoothing processed correction region in Cao and Sun with the metal pixel region smoothed following the teaching of Nawaz, with motivation of “metal artifact reduction” ( Nawaz, 2421, left column, para 2).
Claim 20 recites the system and medium for the method in claims 1, thus are also rejected.
Regarding claim 23, Sun in view of Cao and Nawaz teaches method of claim 1, wherein the regularity degree of the metal artifact is calculated by comparing actual projection data of the metal artifact and ideal projection data of the metal artifact( Nawaz, Page 2421, Left column, Linear Interpolation).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun n view of Cao and Nawaz, further in view of Viturro(US20090273813)
Regarding claim 13, Sun in view of Cao, Nawaz teaches the method of claim 1.
Sun and Cao does not expressly teach
further comprising performing a compensation on the corrected image, the performing a compensation on the corrected image comprising:
segmenting a high frequency part of the original image;
segmenting a low frequency part of the corrected image; and fusing the high frequency part of the original image and the low frequency of the corrected image.
However, Viturro teaches
the performing a compensation on the corrected image comprising:
segmenting a high frequency part of the original image([0027], which low spatial frequency large amplitude defects are corrected);
segmenting a low frequency part of the corrected image; and fusing the high frequency part of the original image and the low frequency of the corrected image( [0027], high spatial frequency defects, as well as any residual low frequency defects are corrected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sun in view of Cao and Nawaz with that of Viturro, by performing Viturro’s compensation on the corrected image in Sun in view of Cao and Nawaz, with motivation that “ streak defects are corrected” ( Viturro, Abstract)
Allowable Subject Matter
The term “weighting intensity” in claims 2 and 15 and weighting coefficients in claim 14 are interpreted as described in Formular (3) and paragraph [0094].
With such interpretation Claims 2 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-7, 10-11, 13 and 16-19 are also objected to since they recite the limitations in claim 2 or 15.
Claims 14-19, 21 and 22 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGENG SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-3712. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am to 5pm, EST, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dwayne Bost can be reached on 571 272 8243. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jiangeng Sun/Examiner, Art Unit 2671