Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0142] recites “Consider the descriptions above, the object information may include at least one of personal information … a scanning position of the object (e.g., patents) …”. It is unclear of “patents” is the intended word there in the context of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al. (“Metal artifact reduction based on sinogram correction in CT”, DOI: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2009.5401793; hereinafter “Jeong”).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong discloses a system for metal artifacts correction, comprising: at least one storage medium including a set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including (Section III. Results, Figs. 3-4, Jeong discloses metal-artifact-reduction algorithm, which involves various image processing techniques (see Section II. Method) and consequently outputting a resultant modified image. The Examiner asserts that the computation and processes performed by Jeong are performed using a computing machine using programs which can perform image processing and output a resultant image, in which the computing machine includes the claimed “processor” and “storage medium”.): obtaining an image to be processed including a metal portion (Fig. 3(a), Section I. Introduction, Section II. Method, Jeong discloses a process of reducing metal artifacts precent in CT images.); determining initial projection data by performing data restoration on the metal portion of the image to be processed (Section II. Method, B. Reprojection after filtering the CT image, Jeong discloses obtaining data
P
r
e
p
r
o
j
(
u
,
ϕ
) (i.e., initial projection data) representing the metal segments of a CT image by interpolating surrounding non-metallic pixels.); determining target projection data by filtering the initial projection data (C. Reprojection data modification, D. Merging the projection data, Jeong discloses obtaining
P
^
L
I
(
u
,
ϕ
)
by applying a low-pass filter to the interpolated data, which is used to obtain the corrected projection data
P
c
o
r
r
(
u
,
ϕ
) (i.e., target projection data).); and determining a target image based on the target projection data (D. Merging the projection data, Fig. 3(d), Jeong discloses obtaining a final image
I
c
o
r
r
(
x
,
y
), which is based on correct projection data
P
c
o
r
r
(
u
,
ϕ
) (i.e., target projection data).).
Claims 17 and 20 are the method and non-transitory computer readable medium claims corresponding to claim 1, and are similarly rejected (see Section II. Method regarding the method. Regarding the non-transitory computer readable medium, the Examiner asserts (similarly to the assertion made above) that the processes and methods taught by Jeong are performed using a computing machine which includes the claimed “non-transitory computer readable medium”.).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data includes: obtaining the target projection data by performing low-pass filtering on the initial projection data (D. Merging the projection data, Jeong discloses obtaining the target projection data
P
c
o
r
r
(
u
,
ϕ
) by performing by applying a low-pass filter to the interpolated data.).
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 3, Jeong discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the obtaining the target projection data by performing the low-pass filtering on the initial projection data includes: obtaining restoration data corresponding to the metal portion in the initial projection data (Section II. Method, B. Reprojection after filtering the CT image, Jeong discloses obtaining data
P
r
e
p
r
o
j
(
u
,
ϕ
) (i.e., initial projection data) representing the metal segments of a CT image by interpolating surrounding non-metallic pixels.); and obtaining the target projection data by performing the low-pass filtering on the restoration data corresponding to the metal portion (D. Merging the projection data, Jeong discloses obtaining
P
^
L
I
(
u
,
ϕ
)
by applying a low-pass filter to the interpolated data.).
Claim 19 is the method claim corresponding to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 16, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the image to be processed includes a radiographic image (Fig. 3(a), Section I. Introduction, Section II. Method, Jeong discloses a process of reducing metal artifacts precent in CT images.).
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 4 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of De Man et al. (US 2005/0286749; hereinafter “De Man”).
Regarding Claim 4, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data includes: (D. Merging the projection data, Jeong discloses obtaining
P
^
L
I
(
u
,
ϕ
)
by applying a low-pass filter to the interpolated data.).
Jeong does not disclose determining a target filter based on the initial projection data.
De Man teaches determining a target filter based on the initial projection data ([0024-0025], De Man teaches applying an adaptive filter onto projection data, wherein the adaptive filter is computed based on attenuation values of the projection data.).
Jeong and De Man are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong such that it incorporated De Man’s method of using an adaptive filter to filter projection data. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use a specific adaptive filter which is appropriate for the projection data compared to a more generic filter that is applied to all types of projection data.
Claim 5 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of De Man in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0311490; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 5, Jeong in view of De Man discloses the system of claim 4.
Jeong in view of De Man does not teach determining the target filter based on the initial projection data using a trained first model.
Lee teaches determining the target filter based on the initial projection data using a trained first model ([0051], Fig. 2, Lee teaches using a trained DL network to determine filter parameters, which are used to filter sinogram data.).
Jeong, De Man, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong in view of De Man such that it further incorporated the trained DL model taught by Lee as a way to determine a filter to be applied to projection data. The motivation for this combination being the ability to train a model such that it is fine-tuned to the context of the image to be restored.
Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Gao et al. (US 2016/0012615; hereinafter “Gao”).
Regarding Claim 6, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose wherein the determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data includes: obtaining object information of an object corresponding to the image to be processed, the object information including at least one of personal information, a scanning position, a scanning parameter, or historical scanning data; determining a target filter based on the object information; and determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data using the target filter.
Gao teaches wherein the determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data includes: obtaining object information of an object corresponding to the image to be processed, the object information including at least one of personal information, a scanning position, a scanning parameter, or historical scanning data; determining a target filter based on the object information; and determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data using the target filter ([0040], [0055-0056], Fig. 8, Gao teaches obtaining an imaging input which includes scanning operational parameters such as tube voltage (i.e., scanning parameter) and information regarding the imaged body part (i.e., scanning position – in that knowing which body part is imaged gives information regarding where the scanner was positioned in respect to the body to obtain an image). The information is then used to select a filter based on the imaging input.).
Jeong and Gao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong such that Jeong’s filtering process incorporated the methods taught by Gao such that the filter is based on scanning parameters or scanning position associated with the motivation. The motivation for this combination being the ability to select a filter which is specific to the context of the image which is being analyzed.
Claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Gao in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 7, Jeong in view of Gao teaches the system of claim 6.
Jeong in view of Gao does not teach wherein the determining the target filter based on the object information includes: determining the target filter based on the object information using a trained second model.
Lee teaches wherein the determining the target filter based on the object information includes: determining the target filter based on the object information using a trained second model ([0051], Fig. 2, Lee teaches using a trained DL network to determine filter parameters, which are used to filter sinogram data. The Examiner notes here that this limitation is interpreted as a target filter (specifically, “the target filter based on the object information” as defined in claim 6) is obtained based on a trained model. The limitation as presented, does not specifically require that object information is utilized by the training model in order to make the filter determination (i.e., “determining the target filter based on the object information using a trained second model, wherein the trained second model utilizes object information to determine the target filter based on the object information” as supported by Applicant’s Fig. 9.), but rather that a trained model is used to determine a target filter.).
Jeong, Gao, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong in view of Gao such that the target filter based on object information, as taught by Jeong in view of Gao, is obtained by Lee’s process of using a trained model to determine filter parameters in order to generate the claimed “second model”. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use a trained model that can learn optimal filtering strategies based on input data (see [0025-0026], Lee).
Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Batenburg et al. (US 2014/0219417; hereinafter “Batenburg”).
Regarding Claim 8, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data includes: C. Reprojection data modification, D. Merging the projection data, Jeong discloses obtaining
P
^
L
I
(
u
,
ϕ
)
by applying a low-pass filter to the interpolated data, which is used to obtain the corrected projection data
P
c
o
r
r
(
u
,
ϕ
) (i.e., target projection data).).
Jeong does not disclose determining a target filter based on a data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data.
Batenburg teaches determining a target filter based on a data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data ([0074], Batenburg teaches determining a filter based on a set of virtual projection data sets which have been reconstructed based on an algebraic reconstruction algorithm (i.e., data restoration process). The Examiner notes that the virtual projection dataset is reconstructed based on the algebraic reconstruction algorithm, and as the filter is determined based on the virtual projection dataset, the filter is furthermore also then based on the algebraic reconstruction algorithm.).
Jeong and Batenburg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong such that it incorporated Batenburg’s methods of determining a filter based on the restoration algorithm. The motivation for this combination being the ability to calculate a filter which is specifically based on (i.e., influenced by) the reconstruction method applied to the projection data.
Claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Batenburg in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 9, Jeong in view of Batenburg teaches the system of claim 8.
Jeong in view of Batenburg does not teach wherein the determining the target filter based on the data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data includes: determining the target filter based on the data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data using a trained third model.
Lee teaches wherein the determining the target filter based on the data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data includes: determining the target filter based on the data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data using a trained third model ([0051], Fig. 2, Lee teaches using a trained DL network to determine filter parameters, which are used to filter sinogram data. The Examiner notes here (similarly to the interpretation applied to claim 7) that this limitation is interpreted as a target filter (specifically, “the target filter based on the data restoration process” as defined in claim 8) is obtained based on a trained model. The limitation as presented, does not specifically require that restoration process information is utilized by the training model in order to make the filter determination (i.e., “determining the target filter based on the data restoration process using a trained third model, wherein the trained third model utilizes data restoration process information to determine the target filter based on the data restoration process” as supported by Applicant’s Fig. 10.), but rather that a trained model is used to determine a target filter.).
Jeong, Batenburg, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong in view of Batenburg such that the target filter based on a data restoration process, as taught by Jeong in view of Batenburg, is obtained by Lee’s process of using a trained model to determine filter parameters in order to generate the claimed “third model”. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use a trained model that can learn optimal filtering strategies based on input data (see [0025-0026], Lee).
Claim 10 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Tsujii (US 4,729,100; hereinafter “Tsujii”).
Regarding Claim 10, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose wherein the determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data includes: determining a target frequency band based on at least one of object information of an object corresponding to the image to be processed, a data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data, or the initial projection data; wherein the object information includes at least one of personal information, a scanning position, a scanning parameter, or historical scanning data; and obtaining the target projection data by filtering out data higher than the target frequency band from the initial projection data.
Tsujii teaches wherein the determining the target projection data by filtering the initial projection data includes: determining a target frequency band based on at least one of object information of an object corresponding to the image to be processed, a data restoration process corresponding to the initial projection data, or the initial projection data (Figs. 2-3, Col 3, lines 1-45, Tsujii teaches utilizing thresholds TH1 and TH2 to segment projection data into regions of high reliability, medium reliability, and low reliability (i.e., the regions are based on the initial projection data).); wherein the object information includes at least one of personal information, a scanning position, a scanning parameter, or historical scanning data; and obtaining the target projection data by filtering out data higher than the target frequency band from the initial projection data (Col 5, lines 52-63, Col 6, lines 1-8, Tsujii teaches applying filter functions h1,h2, and h3 to the projection data based on reliability region (i.e., filter h1 is applied to the projection data such that it filters out low reliability region f(x) ≥ TH2).).
Jeong and Tsujii are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong such that Jeong’s filtering methods are incorporated with Tsujii’s logic of applying filters to a specific portion of the projection data, such that data within the specific portion are filtered out. The motivation for this combination being the ability to specifically define portions of the projection data which are not reliable and should be filtered out.
Claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Nakai (US 2016/0095560; hereinafter “Nakai”).
Regarding Claim 11, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1.
Jeong does not disclose wherein the determining the initial projection data by performing the data restoration on the metal portion of the image to be processed includes: obtaining object information of an object corresponding to the image to be processed, wherein the object information includes at least one of personal information, a scanning position, a scanning parameter, or historical scanning data; determining a target restoration process based on the object information; and obtaining the initial projection data by performing the data restoration on the metal portion of the image to be processed based on the target restoration process.
Nakai teaches wherein the determining the initial projection data by performing the data restoration on the metal portion of the image to be processed includes: obtaining object information of an object corresponding to the image to be processed, wherein the object information includes at least one of personal information, a scanning position, a scanning parameter ([0035], [0054], Nakai teaches obtaining a count rate. The Examiner notes [0035], wherein the count rate is a measure of signal outputs per unit time, and is therefore dependent on the scanning time. The Examiner notes [0142] from Applicant’s specification (cited from associated US Publication US 2024/023321), wherein a scanning parameter includes the scanning time. Therefore, Nakai’s “count rate” is analogous to the claimed “scanning parameter” as the count rate is providing information regarding the scanning time. Furthermore, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, Nakai’s “count rate” is analogous to the claimed “scanning parameter” as the count rate is a metric (i.e., parameter) that is associated with scanning of an object.), or historical scanning data; determining a target restoration process based on the object information; and obtaining the initial projection data by performing the data restoration on the metal portion of the image to be processed based on the target restoration process ([0067-0069], [0115], Nakai teaches selecting a reconstruction processing method (i.e., a target restoration process) based on a count rate (i.e., scanning parameter) determined from a scanogram.).
Jeong and Nakai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong such that it incorporates Nakai’s methods of determining a reconstruction method based on the scanning information. The motivation for this combination being the ability to determine a reconstruction method which is specific to information relating to the input data.
Claims 14-15 are rejected as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Wang and Cao (WO 2017/111997; hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 14, Jeong discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the determining the initial projection data by performing the data restoration on the metal portion of the image to be processed includes: determining a metal image based on the image to be processed (Fig. 3(a), Section I. Introduction, Section II. Method, Jeong discloses a process of reducing metal artifacts precent in CT images.);
Jeong does not disclose determining a metal trajectory based on the metal image; and obtaining the initial projection data by performing the data restoration based on the metal trajectory.
Wang teaches determining a metal trajectory based on the metal image (Fig. 1, [0030], [0034], Wang teaches obtaining a metal projection trace of a region of interest, wherein the region of interest is a region of low reliability due to metal presence.); and obtaining the initial projection data by performing the data restoration based on the metal trajectory (Fig. 1, [0034], Wang teaches performing data recovery (i.e., data restoration) along the metal projection trace.).
Jeong and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of improving image quality of radiograph images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jeong such that it incorporates Wangs methods of obtaining a metal projection trace, which is used to recover data along the metal projection trace. The motivation for this combination being the ability to account for radiograph data present in both horizontal and vertical axis of a detector channel.
Regarding Claim 15, Jeong in view of Wang teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the metal trajectory includes a metal trajectory sinogram (See Fig. 13, [00139], Wang teaches obtaining a CT projection trace of a metal portion.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights