DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guntzer et al. (US. 9,649,079 B1; hereinafter “GUNTZER”) in view of De Man et a. (US 2007/0147579 A1; hereinafter “De Man”).
Regarding claim 21, GUNTZER teaches a method implemented on a computing device including a processor and a storage medium for determining a dose of modulation (DOM) profile (see GUNTZER, fig. 1), the method comprising:
obtaining a topogram image of an object (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, 210, acquire scout image 215, col. 5, lines 55-65), wherein the topogram image comprises attenuation data of the object, wherein the attenuation data of the object in the topogram image is used to estimate attenuation characteristics of the object (see GUNTZER, col. 3, lines 30-40; “attenuation of ionizing radiation”; subject 110);
segmenting the topogram image into a plurality of regions (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, identify anatomical stage 255, col. 7, lines 20-40, fig. 3);
determining a regional DOM profile for each of the plurality of regions based on the topogram image (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, calculate local dose 290, col. 9, 15-35, DLP, dose length produce as DOM profile);
determining a plurality of regional DOM profiles, wherein each of the plurality of regional DOM profiles corresponds to one of the plurality of regions of the topogram image (see GUNTZER, fig. 3, plural stages 262,271,281, DLP); and
generating a DOM profile related to a computed tomography (CT) scan of the object based on the plurality of regional DOM profiles (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, 295, combined DLP for display fig. 4, col. 9, lines 30-35).
GUNTZER is silent to teaching that wherein the regional DOM profile is a continuous curve indicating a continuous change of a radiation dose.
In the same field of endeavor, De Man teaches a method wherein the regional DOM profile is a continuous curve indicating a continuous change of a radiation dose (see De Man, para. 0007, current curve as a function of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of GUNTZER with the teaching of De Man in order to provide optimal radiation profile and reduce image noise (see De Man, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 40, GUNTZER teaches a system for determining a dose of modulation (DOM) profile (see GUNTZER, fig. 1), comprising:
at least one storage device storing a set of instructions (see GUNTZER, fig. 1, memory 140); and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device (see GUNTZER, fig. 1, proc 145), when executing the stored set of instructions, the at least one processor causes the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a topogram image of an object (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, 210, acquire scout image 215, col. 5, lines 55-65), wherein the topogram image comprises attenuation data of the object, wherein the attenuation data of the object in the topogram image is used to estimate attenuation characteristics of the object (see GUNTZER, col. 3, lines 30-40; “attenuation of ionizing radiation”; subject 110);
segmenting the topogram image into a plurality of regions (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, identify anatomical stage 255, col. 7, lines 20-40, fig. 3);
determining a regional DOM profile for each of the plurality of regions based on the topogram image (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, calculate local dose 290, col. 9, 15-35, DLP, dose length produce as DOM profile);
determining a plurality of regional DOM profiles, wherein each of the plurality of regional DOM profiles corresponds to one of the plurality of regions of the topogram image (see GUNTZER, fig. 3, plural stages 262,271,281, DLP); and
generating a DOM profile related to a computed tomography (CT) scan of the object based on the plurality of regional DOM profiles (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, 295, combined DLP for display fig. 4, col. 9, lines 30-35).
GUNTZER is silent to teaching that wherein the regional DOM profile is a continuous curve indicating a continuous change of a radiation dose.
In the same field of endeavor, De Man teaches a system wherein the regional DOM profile is a continuous curve indicating a continuous change of a radiation dose (see De Man, para. 0007, current curve as a function of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of GUNTZER with the teaching of De Man in order to provide optimal radiation profile and reduce image noise (see De Man, para. [0006]).
Claim(s) 22-26 and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTZER and De Man as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Couch et al. (US. Pub. No. 2012/0150505 A1; hereinafter “COUCH”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of GUNTZER and De Man teaches the method of claim 21.
The combination of GUNTZER and De Man is silent to teaching, wherein the determining the regional DOM profile for each of the plurality of regions based on the topogram image comprises:
determining a reference topogram image for the each of the plurality of regions based on the plurality of regions; and
determining the regional DOM profile for the each of the plurality of regions based on a plurality of reference topogram images of the plurality of regions.
In the same field of endeavor, COUCH teaches a method wherein the determining the regional DOM profile for each of the plurality of regions based on the topogram image comprises:
determining a reference topogram image for the each of the plurality of regions based on the plurality of regions (see COUCH, fig. 4, 405, 415, para. [0067]); and
determining the regional DOM profile for the each of the plurality of regions based on a plurality of reference topogram images of the plurality of regions (see COUCH, fig. 10, 1015, 1035, dose estimation, para. [0086-88]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of GUNTZER and De Man with the teaching of COUCH in order to improve medical imaging quality and accurate radiation exposure needed (see COUCH, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the determining the reference topogram image for the each of the plurality of regions based on the plurality of regions comprises:
extracting features of the each of the plurality of regions (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, 245, identify anatomical landmark);
for each of the plurality of regions, determining the reference topogram image from a plurality of candidate topogram images based on the extracted features (see COUCH, fig. 5A, 5B, para. [0068-69]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the determining the regional DOM profile for the each of the plurality of regions based on the plurality of reference topogram images comprises:
for the each of the plurality of regions, obtaining a scan protocol associated with a corresponding reference topogram image (see COUCH, fig. 3, imaging protocol 334, para. [0060-61]); and
determining the regional DOM profile related to the each of the plurality of regions based on one or more parameters of the scan protocol associated with the corresponding reference topogram image (see COUCH, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the determining the regional DOM profile related to the each of the plurality of regions based the on one or more parameters of the scan protocol associated with the corresponding reference topogram image comprises:
for the each of the plurality of regions, obtaining one or more image parameters of the region in the topogram image of the object (see COUCH, para. [0047]); and
determining the regional DOM profile related to the each of the plurality of regions based on the one or more image parameters of the region and the one or more parameters of the scan protocol associated with the corresponding reference topogram image (see COUCH, fig. 10, 1010, para. [0086-87]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the determining the regional DOM profile for the each of the plurality of regions based on the plurality of reference topogram images of the plurality of regions comprises:
for the each of the plurality of regions, obtaining a reference 3D image corresponding to a corresponding reference topogram image (see COUCH, para. [0025], fig. 5);
obtaining a DOM profile generation model (see COUCH, para. [0046]); and
executing the DOM profile generation model to generate the regional DOM profile based on the reference 3D image and the corresponding reference topogram image (see COUCH, fig. 6, para. [0072,78]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing a localizer scan before the topogram image of the object is obtained (see GUNTZER, fig. 2, 215).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
adjusting a tube current of an X-ray tube based on the DOM profile (see COUCH, para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 1, the topogram image includes an anterior-posterior (AP) topogram image or a lateral topogram image (see COUCH, fig. 5, para. [0068]).
Claim(s) 27-32 and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Hibbard (US PUB 2019/0192880 A1; hereinafter “HIBBARD”).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 26.
The combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH is silent to teaching that wherein the DOM profile generation model includes a neural network model.
In the same field of endeavor, HIBBARD teaches a method wherein the DOM profile generation model includes a neural network model (see HIBBARD, fig. 1, neural network 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH with the teaching of HIBBARD in order to optimize treatment plan and efficiently generate dose maps (see HIBBARD, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH teaches the method of claim 26.
The combination of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH is silent to teaching that wherein the DOM profile generation model is generated by a process comprising:
obtaining a preliminary model;
obtaining a set of training data; and
training the preliminary model based on the set of training data to generate the DOM profile generation model.
In the same field of endeavor, HIBBARD teaches a method wherein the DOM profile generation model is generated by a process comprising:
obtaining a preliminary model (see HIBBARD, fig. 7, initialization model 705, para. [0076]);
obtaining a set of training data (see HIBBARD, fig. 7, training data 720, para. [0076); and
training the preliminary model based on the set of training data to generate the DOM profile generation model (see HIBBARD, fig. 7, 726, para. [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of GUNTZER, De Man and COUCH with the teaching of HIBBARD in order to optimize treatment plan and efficiently generate dose maps (see HIBBARD, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man , COUCH and HIBBARD teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the set of training data comprises:
a plurality of sample CT images, a plurality of sample 3D images corresponding to the plurality of sample CT images, respectively, and a plurality of sample topogram images corresponding to the plurality of sample CT images, respectively (see HIBBARD, para. [0035,77,92]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man , COUCH and HIBBARD teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the set of training data is associated with multiple regions of the object (see HIBBARD, para. [0039], anatomical region, segmentation) and the DOM profile generation model is a universal model (see HIBBARD, para. [0076], initial config).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man , COUCH and HIBBARD teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the set of training data is associated with a region of the object (see HIBBARD, para. [0078]) and the DOM profile generation model is a specialized model (see HIBBARD, para. [0077], specialized for 3D).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man , COUCH and HIBBARD teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the training the preliminary model based on the set of training data to generate the DOM profile generation model comprises:
determining a plurality of sample DOM profiles based on the plurality of sample CT images (see HIBBARD, fig. 7, select training data 730, para. [0079]);
executing the preliminary model based on the plurality of corresponding sample 3D images and the plurality of corresponding sample topogram images to generate a plurality of predicted DOM profiles (see HIBBARD, estimate result 735, para. [0079]); and
training the preliminary model by minimizing an average difference between the plurality of predicted DOM profiles and the plurality of sample DOM profiles (See HIBBARD, fig. 7, error, criteria 740,745, para. [0080]).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man , COUCH and HIBBARD teaches the method of claim 32, wherein differences between the plurality of predicted DOM profiles and the plurality of sample DOM profiles are assessed in terms of a loss function (see HIBBARD, para. [0134], loss function).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man , COUCH and HIBBARD teaches the method of claim 32, wherein the preliminary model is updated by different strategies, comprising:
in response to a difference between a sample DOM profile and a predicted DOM profile in a present iteration is less than a threshold, updating part or all parameters of the preliminary model; or in response to the difference between the sample DOM profile and the predicted DOM profile in the present iteration is greater than a difference in a preceding iteration, stopping updating the preliminary model in the present iteration (see HIBBARD, fig. 7, 745,750, para. [0079-80]).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of GUNTZER, De Man , COUCH and HIBBARD teaches the method of claim 32, further comprising:
generating the DOM profile generation model until all of the set of training data are traversed or a preset condition is satisfied, wherein the preset condition includes that a difference between a sample DOM profile and a corresponding predicted DOM profile is less than a threshold in one or more consecutive iterations (see HIBBARD, fig. 7, 745,755, para. [0079-80]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-35 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,103. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims 21-35 and 40 in the instant application is broader and is taught by the narrow scope of claims 1-18 of Patent 11,813,103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 and 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights