DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the interpretation of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the resulting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered and are persuasive. The previous interpretation of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the resulting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, see the citation of the Ziegler et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2009/0202036) reference in the rejection that follows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 5 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub No. 2020/0311878) in view of Ziegler et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2009/0202036).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub No. 2020/0311878) discloses:
An X-ray CT apparatus comprising:
a scanner configured to acquire projection data of a subject and comprises a radiation tube (Figure 6, paragraph [0029], projection images of a patient at different angles is obtained);
a processor configured to
calculate a plurality of reconstruction weight coefficients based on the projection data at a projection angle (paragraphs [0029]-[0033], weights are generated for the reconstruction); and
generate a tomographic image based on the projection data and the reconstruction weight (paragraphs [0029]-[0035], the weights are used in creating the reconstructed image),
wherein the reconstruction weight calculation unit is configured to calculate a reconstruction weight, which includes a reliability weight indicating a degree of reliability of the projection data (paragraphs [0031]-[0032] the weight matrix expresses a reliability of trustworthiness of the projection data for the data fidelity term), through standardization using a sum of weight coefficients obtained for each projection angle (paragraphs [0031]-[0033], the weighted least squares approach is a summation – the system uses a regularization term to reduce the noise; see paragraph [0031] regarding the projections at different angles)
Matsuura et al. does not explicitly disclose:
calculate a reconstruction weight based on a weight coefficient of the projection data divided by a sum of the weight coefficients of pieces of the projection data
Ziegler et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2009/0202036) discloses:
calculate a reconstruction weight based on a weight coefficient of the projection data divided by a sum of the weight coefficients of pieces of the projection data at a same projection angle (paragraph [0039], normalization via dividing a weight by the sum of weights is a well known process in the art)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ziegler et al. with the system of Matsuura et al. such that the system would have been configured to calculate a reconstruction weight based on a weight coefficient of the projection data divided by a sum of the weight coefficients of pieces of the projection data as described in Ziegler. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “applying a dynamic interpolation” and “increas[ing] resolution” (paragraphs [0007] and [0010] of the Ziegler reference).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuura et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the reliability weight increases for projection data having a higher detector output (paragraphs [0032], a higher weight corresponds to a higher signal-to-noise ratio)
Regarding claim 6, the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682