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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number CN202110610746.4 dated 6/1/2021.
Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 1/4/2024 and 11/21/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 17-19 recites the limitation "the system of claim". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hsieh et al (US 20040066911 A1, hereafter referred to as Hsieh) in view of Scholz et al (US 20080123806 A1, hereafter referred to as Scholz), further in view of Tang et al (US 20190164317 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Hsieh teaches A system, comprising:
at least one storage device storing executable instructions for image reconstruction; and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device (Hsieh in ¶2, 29 discloses a processor and memory for computed tomographic (CT) image reconstruction, and more particularly to methods and apparatus for a truncation compensation scheme), wherein when executing the executable instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a projection image of a subject acquired by an imaging device (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses obtaining projection data for CT systems),
the projection image including a first region with a normal exposure corresponding to a first portion of the subject (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses “augmenting partially sampled field of view data using fully sampled field of view data”; Under BRI, “normal exposure” reads on “fully sampled”)
and a second region with an overexposure corresponding to a second portion of the subject (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses “augmenting partially sampled field of view data using fully sampled field of view data”; Under BRI, “overexposure” reads on “partially sampled”).
Hsieh does not explicitly teach all of using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region; and reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject.
However, Scholz teaches using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region (Scholz in Fig. 3-4, Abstract, ¶2-5 discloses “correcting truncation artifacts … extrapolate truncated projection images by projecting an equivalent body disposed at the location of the object under examinations onto an extended detector surface according to the beam geometry.”; Fits model to value/gradient at normal boundary edge pixels, projects to estimate/correct extrapolated (second region) pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh by incorporating gradient-matched forward projection extrapolation that is taught by Scholz, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh’s polynomial slope fitting from boundary samples with Scholz’s divergent geometry model projection matching both value and gradient yields the predictable result of more accurate and consistent edge extrapolation.
Hsieh in view of Scholz does not explicitly teach all of reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject.
However, Tang teaches reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject (Tang in Fig. 9A-10B, Abstract, ¶56-57 discloses reconstructing artifact-reduced volume from original measured and extrapolated/corrected projections).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh in view of Scholz by incorporating explicit reconstruction of an artifact-reduced volume image using the original measured projection data combined with the extrapolated/corrected projection data that is taught by Tang, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh in view of Scholz’s boundary-matched edge extrapolation technique with Tang’s reconstruction from original and extrapolated projections yields the predictable result of improved artifact reduction and accuracy in the final reconstructed volume.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the obtaining a projection image of a subject includes:
obtaining a raw projection image of the subject acquired by the imaging device (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses obtaining projection data for CT systems);
segmenting the raw projection image according to a maximum pixel value among pixel values of pixels of the raw projection image (Hsieh in Fig. 7-8, ¶32-42 discloses detecting truncation boundaries via edge detection); and
determining the projection image based on the segmented raw projection image (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses “augmenting partially sampled field of view data using fully sampled field of view data”; Under BRI, “normal exposure” reads on “fully sampled”).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
performing an air correction operation on the projection image (Hsieh in Fig. 8 discloses implicit preprocessing/normalization common in CT; water model includes air outside.).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the imaging device includes a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) device (Hsieh in ¶24 discloses cone beam CT imaging).
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Hsieh teaches A method for image reconstruction, implemented on a computing device having at least one processor and at least one storage device (Hsieh in ¶2, 29 discloses a processor and memory for computed tomographic (CT) image reconstruction, and more particularly to methods and apparatus for a truncation compensation scheme), wherein when executing the executable instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a projection image of a subject acquired by an imaging device (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses obtaining projection data for CT systems),
the projection image including a first region with a normal exposure corresponding to a first portion of the subject (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses “augmenting partially sampled field of view data using fully sampled field of view data”; Under BRI, “normal exposure” reads on “fully sampled”)
and a second region with an overexposure corresponding to a second portion of the subject (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses “augmenting partially sampled field of view data using fully sampled field of view data”; Under BRI, “overexposure” reads on “partially sampled”).
Hsieh does not explicitly teach all of using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region; and reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject.
However, Scholz teaches using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region (Scholz in Fig. 3-4, Abstract, ¶2-5 discloses “correcting truncation artifacts … extrapolate truncated projection images by projecting an equivalent body disposed at the location of the object under examinations onto an extended detector surface according to the beam geometry.”; Fits model to value/gradient at normal boundary edge pixels, projects to estimate/correct extrapolated (second region) pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh by incorporating gradient-matched forward projection extrapolation that is taught by Scholz, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh’s polynomial slope fitting from boundary samples with Scholz’s divergent geometry model projection matching both value and gradient yields the predictable result of more accurate and consistent edge extrapolation.
Hsieh in view of Scholz does not explicitly teach all of reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject.
However, Tang teaches reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject (Tang in Fig. 9A-10B, Abstract, ¶56-57 discloses reconstructing artifact-reduced volume from original measured and extrapolated/corrected projections).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh in view of Scholz by incorporating explicit reconstruction of an artifact-reduced volume image using the original measured projection data combined with the extrapolated/corrected projection data that is taught by Tang, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh in view of Scholz’s boundary-matched edge extrapolation technique with Tang’s reconstruction from original and extrapolated projections yields the predictable result of improved artifact reduction and accuracy in the final reconstructed volume.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Hsieh teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising at least one set of instructions for image reconstruction, wherein when executed by at least one processor of a computing device (Hsieh in ¶2, 29 discloses a processor and memory for computed tomographic (CT) image reconstruction, and more particularly to methods and apparatus for a truncation compensation scheme), wherein when executing the executable instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a projection image of a subject acquired by an imaging device (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses obtaining projection data for CT systems),
the projection image including a first region with a normal exposure corresponding to a first portion of the subject (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses “augmenting partially sampled field of view data using fully sampled field of view data”; Under BRI, “normal exposure” reads on “fully sampled”)
and a second region with an overexposure corresponding to a second portion of the subject (Hsieh in Abstract and ¶19-20 discloses “augmenting partially sampled field of view data using fully sampled field of view data”; Under BRI, “overexposure” reads on “partially sampled”).
Hsieh does not explicitly teach all of using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region; and reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject.
However, Scholz teaches using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region (Scholz in Fig. 3-4, Abstract, ¶2-5 discloses “correcting truncation artifacts … extrapolate truncated projection images by projecting an equivalent body disposed at the location of the object under examinations onto an extended detector surface according to the beam geometry.”; Fits model to value/gradient at normal boundary edge pixels, projects to estimate/correct extrapolated (second region) pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh by incorporating gradient-matched forward projection extrapolation that is taught by Scholz, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh’s polynomial slope fitting from boundary samples with Scholz’s divergent geometry model projection matching both value and gradient yields the predictable result of more accurate and consistent edge extrapolation.
Hsieh in view of Scholz does not explicitly teach all of reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject.
However, Tang teaches reconstructing, based on the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region and the corrected second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region, a target image of the subject (Tang in Fig. 9A-10B, Abstract, ¶56-57 discloses reconstructing artifact-reduced volume from original measured and extrapolated/corrected projections).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh in view of Scholz by incorporating explicit reconstruction of an artifact-reduced volume image using the original measured projection data combined with the extrapolated/corrected projection data that is taught by Tang, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh in view of Scholz’s boundary-matched edge extrapolation technique with Tang’s reconstruction from original and extrapolated projections yields the predictable result of improved artifact reduction and accuracy in the final reconstructed volume.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8-9, 11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hsieh et al (US 20040066911 A1, hereafter referred to as Hsieh) in view of Scholz et al (US 20080123806 A1, hereafter referred to as Scholz), further in view of Tang et al (US 20190164317 A1, hereafter referred to as Tang), further in view of Yang et al (US 20110317894 A1, hereafter referred to as Yang).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang teaches The system of claim 1.
Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang does not explicitly teach all of wherein the using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region includes: correcting, using the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region, the second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region one by one starting from a second pixel adjacent to the first region
However, Yang teaches wherein the using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region includes:
correcting, using the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region, the second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region one by one starting from a second pixel adjacent to the first region (Yang in Abstract, Fig. 9, ¶11 discloses row-by-row extension starting from measured boundary outward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang by incorporating row-by-row sequential extension starting from the measured boundary outward that is taught by Yang, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang’s hybrid slope-matched extrapolation and explicit reconstruction from augmented projections with Yang’s explicit row-dependent sequential processing from the boundary edge yields the predictable result of more consistent and smoother edge extrapolation.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang, further in view of Yang teaches The system of claim 4, wherein the correcting, using the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region, at least one of the second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region one by one starting from a second pixel adjacent to the first region includes:
for a current second pixel to be corrected, determining a value reference pixel corresponding to the current second pixel, the value reference pixel being a first pixel in the first region or a corrected second pixel in the second region (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 43-44 discloses boundary normal pixels are used and values are derived from fitted boundary);
determining a gradient reference pixel in the first region corresponding to the current second pixel (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 39-44 discloses gradient sourcing from normal region);
determining a local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 38-44 discloses local slope/curvature computed from boundary normal samples); and
determining, based on a reference pixel value of the value reference pixel and the local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel, the corrected second pixel value of the current second pixel (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 39-44 discloses extrapolated values from projection combining boundary value and matched gradient).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang, further in view of Yang teaches The system of claim 5, wherein the determining a value reference pixel corresponding to the current second pixel includes:
designating a corrected second pixel located in a same row as the current second pixel and adjacent to the current second pixel as the value reference pixel corresponding to the current second pixel (Yang in Abstract, Fig. 9, ¶11 discloses row-by-row extension uses prior extended/boundary values for next positions).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang, further in view of Yang teaches The system of claim 5, wherein the determining a local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel includes:
determining, based on the gradient reference pixel, two gradient estimation pixels (Hsieh in ¶2, 29-36 discloses slope fitted from multiple spaced boundary normal samples); and
determining, based on pixel values of the two gradient estimation pixels and a count of pixels spacing the two gradient estimation pixels, the local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel (Hsieh in ¶2, 29-36 discloses determining boundary parameters, including slopes, by fitting polynomials to multiple spaced pixel samples near the truncation edge in the reliable data. For linear fitting, the slope is the difference in pixel value over the spacing between samples).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang, further in view of Yang teaches The system of claim 8, wherein the determining, based on the gradient reference pixel, two gradient estimation pixels includes:
designating the gradient reference pixel as one of the two gradient estimation pixels (Hsieh in ¶2, 29-36 discloses fitting includes boundary edge pixel as primary sample); and
designating a first pixel located in a same row as the gradient reference pixel and separated by a first count of pixels as another gradient estimation pixel (Tang in Fig. 8, Abstract, ¶36-40, 56-57 discloses multi-point fitting with spaced inward samples).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang, further in view of Yang teaches The system of claim 8, wherein the determining, based on pixel values of the two gradient estimation pixels and a count of pixels spacing the two gradient estimation pixels, the local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel includes:
determining a difference between the pixel values of the two gradient estimation pixels (Hsieh in ¶2, 29-36 discloses determining boundary parameters, including slopes, by fitting polynomials to multiple spaced pixel samples near the truncation edge in the reliable data. For linear fitting, the slope is the difference in pixel value over the spacing between samples); and
determining the local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel by dividing the difference by the count of pixels spacing the two gradient estimation pixels (Hsieh in ¶2, 29-36 discloses determining boundary parameters, including slopes, by fitting polynomials to multiple spaced pixel samples near the truncation edge in the reliable data. Slope can be difference over samples).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang teaches The system of claim 16.
Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang does not explicitly teach all of wherein the using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region includes: correcting, using the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region, the second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region one by one starting from a second pixel adjacent to the first region.
However, Yang teaches wherein the using first pixel values of first pixels in the first region to correct second pixel values of second pixels in the second region includes:
correcting, using the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region, the second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region one by one starting from a second pixel adjacent to the first region (Yang in Abstract, Fig. 9, ¶11 discloses row-by-row extension starting from measured boundary outward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang by incorporating row-by-row sequential extension starting from the measured boundary outward that is taught by Yang, since both reference are analogous art in the field of CT projection truncation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang’s hybrid slope-matched extrapolation and explicit reconstruction from augmented projections with Yang’s explicit row-dependent sequential processing from the boundary edge yields the predictable result of more consistent and smoother edge extrapolation.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Hsieh in view of Scholz, further in view of Tang, further in view of Yang teaches The system of claim 17, wherein the correcting, using the first pixel values of the first pixels in the first region, at least one of the second pixel values of the second pixels in the second region one by one starting from a second pixel adjacent to the first region includes:
for a current second pixel to be corrected, determining a value reference pixel corresponding to the current second pixel, the value reference pixel being a first pixel in the first region or a corrected second pixel in the second region (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 43-44 discloses boundary normal pixels are used and values are derived from fitted boundary);
determining a gradient reference pixel in the first region corresponding to the current second pixel (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 39-44 discloses gradient sourcing from normal region);
determining a local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 38-44 discloses local slope/curvature computed from boundary normal samples); and
determining, based on a reference pixel value of the value reference pixel and the local pixel gradient value of the gradient reference pixel, the corrected second pixel value of the current second pixel (Scholz in Fig. 4, ¶17, 39-44 discloses extrapolated values from projection combining boundary value and matched gradient).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10 and 12-14 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 JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 1/17/2025