DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 2/27/2026. Claims 1-11 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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 of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered. The title of the instant application and Claims 1, 7, and 11 have been amended.
Applicant’s amendment to the title, which now reads “Medical Image Processing Apparatus and Method”, overcomes the specification objective. Specification Objection has been withdrawn.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections,
Applicant argues: Choi and Avinash fail to disclose or suggest Claim 1 and 11 amendments to recite at least calculating, for the area of interest, a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being obtained based on the scan data and being different from the first image.
For the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims, and claim 11, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Licato (US 20100131885).
To briefly summarize, Choi discloses a processing apparatus for calculating numerical values based on multi-energy CT scan data and Licato discloses an apparatus that determines numerical values, for an area of interest, based on different images. Thus, Choi and Licato disclose an apparatus for calculating, for an area of interest in the first image, a first numerical value based on the first image and calculating, for the area of interest, a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being obtained based on the scan data and being different from the first image.
Choi, Licato, and Huber disclose the remaining limitations recited throughout the claims and are considered analogous art in the medical image analysis field aimed at providing methods of analyzing and displaying multi-energy scan data. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Choi, Licato, and Hubers’ known prior art, discussed in greater detail below, the combination of references would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to predictably render the claimed limitations found throughout claims 1-11 of the instant application as there are obvious motivations to combine, further detailed below.
Examiner Note
A “dual-energy” CT scans, often spelt as “dual energy”, and “spectral scans” are known in the art as forms of “multi-energy” CT scans, as exemplified on page 3, lines 11-13, of the instant application, which states “The multi-energy CT scan may be referred to as, for example, a dual-energy CT scan or spectral imaging.” Accordingly, the use of “dual-energy”, “dual energy”, and “spectral scans”, in reference to scans, scan data, or scan apparatuses from prior art, is interpreted to be equivalent to “multi-energy” scans or scan data and the terms may be used interchangeably throughout the remainder of the current office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20200163637) in view of Licato (US 20100131885).
Regarding (Currently Amended) claims 1 and 11:
Choi teaches: A processing apparatus (claim 11: method) for a medical image that is obtained by a multi-energy CT scan (Abstract; FIG. 1, image processor 150; FIGS 3 and 4, processor 320; ¶ [0002] “The disclosure relates to a[n]…image processing apparatus, a[n] …image processing method, …”; ¶ [0056] “In the present specification, an image may include a medical image obtained by a medical imaging apparatus such as a computed tomography (CT) apparatus…”; ¶ [0081] “a CT system 100 may perform spectral tomography imaging according to dual-energy CT imaging …for a plurality of energy levels…”.),
comprising: processing circuitry that reconstructs (claim 11: generating) a first image based on scan data that is obtained by a multi-energy CT scan (¶ [0081] “… image data may be acquired by scanning an object at a plurality of energy levels or by using a photon counting detector (PCD). For example, a CT system 100 may perform spectral tomography imaging according to dual-energy CT imaging… The spectral tomographic image data may be acquired via a PCD including an integrated circuit for each pixel, which quantizes an energy level of a photon.”; ¶ [0073] “According to embodiments, the image processor 150 may perform some or all of the processes for reconstructing a tomographic image.”;
Regarding the limitation of “generating a first image based on scan data”, recited in claim 11 of the instant application, Choi teaches ¶ [0073] “the image processor 150 may perform some or all of the processes for reconstructing a tomographic image, to thereby generate the tomography data.” Furthermore, reconstructing an image based on scan data is considered equivalent to generating an image based on scan data by the examiner because both processes use scan data to construct (i.e. generate) an image using pixels. “Reconstructing” implies the image construction process is based on image data from a previous image, while “generating” does not, but both the reconstruction and generating processes are relying on previously provided image scan data in the context of claims 1 and 11 to reconstruct and generate an image. Thus, Choi teaches reconstructing and generating a first image based on scan data that is obtained by a multi-energy CT scan.); [[and]]
calculates, for an area of interest specified in the first image, a first numerical value based on the first image (¶ [0082] FIG. 2 (shown below) “According to embodiments of the disclosure, material separation information 230 acquired based on a tomographic image 210 that is a spectral tomographic image is provided to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI).”); as previously disclosed, (¶ [0081] “tomographic image data may be acquired by scanning an object at a plurality of energy levels…”; ¶ [0120] “The ROI may be a predetermined region including one or a plurality of pixels. When the user selects the ROI, the tomographic image processing apparatus may generate or calculate material separation information for the selected ROI, which indicates a probability that the ROI corresponds to each material in the material combination, and display the generated material separation information (S712). The tomographic image processing apparatus may generate material separation information with respect to the selected ROI based on material separation information previously generated by applying a material separation model.”; An “area of interest” is known to those of ordinary skill in the art to be equivalent to a “region of interest” or “ROI” as taught by Choi.);
calculates, for the area of interest, a second numerical value
; and causes a display to display, side by side, the first numerical value and [a] second numerical value (Refer to Choi’s teaching of a display in GUI of FIG 2 and FIG. 12 (found below). Choi teaches a first numerical value (e.g. 5% Calcium) and a second numerical value (e.g. 1% Iodine) that have been calculated, with respect to a region of interest (i.e. area of interest), (FIG 2 ¶ [0083]; FIG 12, [0141]-[0142] “FIG. 12 illustrates a GUI view for providing material separation information 1220 with respect to an ROI 1210, according to an embodiment of the disclosure…the material separation information 1220 with respect to the ROI 1210 may indicate the probability that the ROI 1210 corresponds to each material in a selected material combination. For example, as shown in FIG. 12, probabilities that the ROI 1210 correspond to water, brain, calcium, and iodine may be 70%, 20%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.”) based on a first (tomographic) image (¶ [0120]), the first (tomographic) image being obtained based on the scan data (¶ [0081] “Spectral tomographic image data may be acquired by scanning an object at a plurality of energy levels…”). Examiner notes, although the first numerical (Calcium) value in Choi FIG. 12 appears above the second numerical (Iodine) value, the displayed relationship is considered to be a “side by side” relationship, as they mirror the corresponding top and bottom relationship exemplified in FIG. 7 of the instant application disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
610
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi further teaches the material separation model may vary according to material combinations selected by user input or automatically (¶ [0090]), the setting values of the values of parameters necessary to perform spectral tomography imaging may be vary depending on configuration (¶ [0123]), and the display in region 840, which can be configured to display the image and material separation values (seen in FIG. 12), may vary.).
Choi is not relied on for the below claim language:
In a related art, Licato teaches: systems, methods and computer instructions for “displaying multi-energy data, such as dual energy data, for example” (¶ [0027]), including receiving dual energy (i.e. multi-energy) CT data (i.e. CT scan data) (¶ [0028] “dual energy data can be received at a workstation from data source, such as a CT system that acquires dual energy data”), generating multiple images (e.g. material density image for water and material density image for iodine) of the same anatomy from dual energy scan data (FIG. 4, ¶ [0042] “The quadrants 408 and 411 include material density images for water and iodine, respectively, which images depict the same anatomy.”). Licato further teaches specifying a region of interest (i.e. area of interest) (FIG. 4, ¶ [0042] “Regions of interest 412 and 414 are specified in the material density images…Other regions of interest can be selected in the monochromatic image in 406 and/or the material density images in 408 and 411.”). Licato’s system teaches determining quantitative data values for the regions and displays them (FIG. 4, ¶ [0042] “The densities of materials in the regions of interest 412 and 414 can be displayed as a material density graph that plots the material densities of the regions of interest relative to the material densities of two materials with known densities.”). Thus, Licato teaches determining numerical values (e.g. first numerical value, second numerical value, etc.) for the area of interest based on different images (e.g. a first image, and a second image, the second image being obtained based on the scan data and being different from the first image, etc.) depicting the same anatomy that are generated from a scan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Choi’s image processing apparatus and method of reconstructing and generating a first image, and calculating a first and a second numerical value based on a region of interest from a dual energy (i.e. multi energy) CT scan to incorporate the teachings of Licato’s techniques of determining numerical values based on two separate images of a region of interest from a dual energy CT scan, resulting in a framework of determining numerical values (e.g. first numerical value, second numerical value) of a same area of interest, based on two separate images (taught by Licato), by using calculation methods taught by Choi. Doing so would increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among such images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the framework, discussed in the previous paragraph of this office action, that results in a first image, a first numerical value, and a second numerical value, based on a second image, taught by Choi and modified by Licato’s teachings, to the display techniques taught by Choi. Doing so would predictably allow the display to display side-by-side images of a first image, a first numerical value, based on an area of interest from a CT scan, and a second numerical value, based on a second image, the second image being obtained based on the scan data and being different from the first image. The motivation to combine references is to decrease the amount of time required to view data from different energies or values. These improvements address limitations in prior art asserted by Choi by improving diagnostic efficiency (Choi ¶ [0003]). Both inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of medical image processing and analysis for the purpose of displaying CT scan derived data, specifically relating to dual energy (i.e. multi-energy) data and regions of interest (i.e. areas of interest).
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 2:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Choi further discloses: wherein the scan data is count data obtained by counting X-rays according to multiple energies, (¶ [00981] “ Spectral tomographic image data may be acquired by scanning an object at a plurality of energy levels or by using a photon counting detector (PCD).”, “Spectral tomographic image data refers to raw data acquired via the X-ray detector 113.”); For example, a CT system 100 may perform spectral tomography imaging according to dual-energy CT imaging utilizing a plurality of tubes in the X-ray generator 112 for a plurality of energy levels…”.);
and [the] image is an image obtained using the count data corresponding to the multiple energies of the X-rays (¶ [0089], FIG. 3 “The processor 320 displays an input tomographic image of an object on the display 330.”).
Choi is not relied on for the below claim language:
In a related art, Licato teaches: using the count data corresponding to the multiple energies of spectral imaging systems, such as photon counting systems (¶ [0027]). Examiner notes, page 4, lines 5-9, of the instant application’s specifications exemplifies a photon counting X-ray CT apparatus as a type of multi-energy X-ray CT apparatus. Licato teaches the second image is an image obtained using the multi-energy CT scan data from a second image, and the second image being different from the first image (¶ [0028]; ¶ [0042]), as previously explained in 35 U.S.C. 103 claim 1 and 11 rejections, found above. Thus, Licato teaches the second image is an image obtained using the count data corresponding to the multiple energies of the X-rays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus and method, previously modified by Licato, to incorporate the technique of obtaining the second image using the count data corresponding to the multiple energies of the X-rays, taught by Licato. Doing so would increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 3:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 1, including processing circuitry that calculates, for the area of interest, a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being obtained based on the scan data and being different from the first image.
Choi further teaches: further comprising an input interface that receives an area that relates to calculation of [a] second numerical value along a craniocaudal direction of a subject in specification of the area of interest, (¶ [0083], FIG. 2 “the material separation information 230 is provided with respect to a position or region selected by the user in the tomographic image 210. The GUI may provide the material separation information 230 corresponding to an ROI 220 including a point or a region selected by the user in the tomographic image 210. The material separation information 230 may include the type of a material corresponding to the ROI 220 and probability information indicating a probability that the ROI 220 corresponds to a specific material. The ROI 220 may be selected by the user via a cursor 222, a touch input, etc."; ¶ [0110] “a tomographic image processing apparatus performs both an operation of scanning the object and material separation operation. The tomographic image processing apparatus may control spectral CT imaging at a plurality of energy levels by controlling a scanning unit provided therein or by controlling a CT system connected thereto, and acquire a spectral tomographic image.”; FIG. 8 teaches an input interface; ¶ [0128], FIG. 8 "The user may apply via the 3-3 UI element 836 the material separation model to acquired spectral tomographic image data.").
Choi goes on to teach wherein the processing circuitry calculates [a] second numerical value based on each of a plurality of (¶ [0108], FIG. 6 “According to an embodiment of the disclosure, material separation information 630a may represent in a graph the probability that the ROI corresponds to each material. The graph may be provided together with information indicating a numerical value corresponding to each material.”; ¶ [0139] “According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the ROI may be defined as a region 1110 including a plurality of pixels. The user may select a predetermined region via a cursor or a touch input. Furthermore, the user may change a size of the selected ROI (1110a and 1110b). According to the embodiment of the disclosure, the tomographic image processing apparatus may generate material separation information with respect to the selected ROI by extracting pieces of material separation information corresponding to pixels in the selected ROI from among pieces of material separation information corresponding to all pixels, which are generated by applying the material separation model, and merging together the extracted pieces of material separation information.”; Choi further states, “determined material combination for an ROI selected in the input tomographic image based on an external input, wherein the input tomographic image is a spectral tomographic image comprising a plurality of tomographic images respectively corresponding to a plurality of energy levels.” (¶[0023]). Thus, Cho teaches the processes circuitry calculates numerical material separation values (i.e. second numerical values) for a plurality of images (i.e. second images) contained in the ROI (i.e. in the area)).
Choi fails to explicitly disclose using a second image to calculate the second numerical value, the second image being different from the first image, when applying the limitations found in this claim.
However, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in claim 1, does calculate, for an area of interest specified in the first and second image, a first numerical value based on the first image and a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being based on the scan data and being different from the first image, and using different types of images (e.g. material density image for water, material density image for iodine, monochromatic images, and/or effective-z images)(Licato ¶¶ [0042]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus, previously modified by Licato to account for the second image being different than the first image, when calculating the second numerical values based on a second image, to incorporate the input interface and techniques for calculating the second numerical value based on each of a plurality of the second images contained in the area, taught by Choi, in order to base the second numerical value calculations on the area that relates to the second image. Doing so would increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 4:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Choi further teaches: wherein an image type of a second image to be analyzed for [a] second numerical value and an item of [a] second numerical value are preset according to an imaging protocol in the multi-energy CT scan (¶ [0010] “The at least one processor may be further configured to select the material combination based on a type of the object or the external input.”; ¶ [0111] “First, the tomographic image processing apparatus performs basic imaging on the object (S702). In this case, the basic imaging may be single energy imaging performed at a predetermined energy level. The basic imaging may be performed according to a protocol that is set by the user or automatically set.”; ¶ [0114] “Furthermore, the tomographic image processing apparatus selects a scanning protocol and a material combination (S708)…. The scanning protocol may be the same as or different from a protocol for performing the basic imaging in operation S702.”; As previously discussed, numerical values are provided based on material separation information (¶ [0108]) and the processing apparatus taught by Choi applies the protocols discussed in paragraph [0114] to the material separation model and corresponding selected material combination to acquire material separation information (¶ [0119])).
Choi fails to explicitly disclose using a second image to calculate the second numerical value, the second image being different from the first image, when applying the limitations found in this claim.
However, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in claim 1, does calculate, for an area of interest specified in the first and second image, a first numerical value based on the first image and a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being based on the scan data and being different from the first image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus, previously modified by Licato to use a second image being different than the first image, to incorporate the imaging protocol techniques taught by Choi in order to analyze a second type of image. Doing so would increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 5:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Choi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry calculates, based on [a] second image, (¶ [0178] “According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the tomographic image processing apparatus may generate the material separation model by solving an equation for material separation.”); ¶ [0192] “In detail, the data recognizer 2420 may receive a value of each pixel in spectral tomographic image data (i.e., raw data) and output material separation information indicating a probability that each pixel corresponds to a specific material. The data recognizer 2420 may be further modeled to generate the material separation information according to a material combination.”).
Choi fails to explicitly disclose using a second image to calculate the second numerical value, the second image being different from the first image, when applying the limitations found in this claim.
However, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in claims 1 and 4, does calculate, for an area of interest specified in the first and second image, a first numerical value based on the first image and a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being based on the scan data and being different from the first image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus, previously modified by Licato to use a second image being different than the first image, to incorporate the calculation teachings of Choi in order to calculate the second numerical values corresponding to some items that can be output among items of the second numerical values that are preset. Doing so would increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 6:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Choi further teaches: when an item different from the some items that can be output among the items of [a] second numerical value corresponding to the different item (¶ [90] “The processor 320 may determine a material combination automatically or according to an external input such as a user input. ”; ¶¶ [124] – [129], FIG.’s 8 and 9). ¶¶ [124] – [129] Teaches selecting different items than the preset items and processing circuitry calculates the different items’ numerical values corresponding to the image. FIG.’s 8 and 9 display the user interface of items that may be selected.
Choi fails to explicitly disclose using a second image to calculate the second numerical value, the second image being different from the first image, when applying the limitations found above.
However, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in the claims claim 6 depends upon, does calculate, for an area of interest specified in the first and second image, a first numerical value based on the first image and a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being based on the scan data and being different from the first image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus, previously modified by Licato to use a second image being different than the first image, to incorporate the selection, output, and calculation techniques taught by Choi, and discussed in this claim, in order to provide a processing circuitry that calculates the second numerical value corresponding to the different item based on the second image when an item different from the some items that can be output among the items of the second numerical values that are preset is selected. Doing so would predictably increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Regarding (Currently Amended) Claim 7:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Choi further teaches: the processing circuitry causes the display to further display a list of the some items that can be output among the items of the second numerical values that are preset (¶ [125], FIG. 8 (Shown below) “The third region 830 is a region for selecting a material combination. The third region 830 may include a 3-1 UI element 832 for selecting a material combination. The 3-1 UI element 832 may provide information about at least one material combination selectable for the object selected by the user. For example, when the user selects the brain in the 2-1 UI element 822, the 3-1 UI element 832 may provide as options Water/Brain, Water/Brain/Calcium, Water/Brain/Calcium/Fat, and Water/Brain/Calcium/Iodine combinations material combinations that are selectable material combinations for the brain.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus, previously modified by Licato to use a second image being different than the first image, to incorporate the display techniques taught by Choi, and discussed in this claim, in order to further display a list of the some items that can be output among the items of the second numerical values that are preset. Doing so would predictably increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
PNG
media_image3.png
729
1021
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Choi further teaches: the first image is an energy cumulative image corresponding to all energies that are cumulated over multiple energies or three-dimensional volume data corresponding to the all energies (Choi teaches receiving and using multiple energy data for imaging, calculating, and display purposes (¶ [0027] “… the inventions described herein are not limited to dual energy data embodiments and can be used in connection with other types of multi-energy data, as one skilled in the art will appreciate.”; ¶¶ [0027]-[0029])). Choi further teaches the input and display may consist of either an energy cumulative CT image, or an energy cumulative CT image and a selected energy CT image (¶¶ [0081] “A spectral tomographic image is an image representing information about attenuation of radiation at a plurality of energy levels.”; ¶ [0089] “According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the signal energy tomographic image and the spectral tomographic image may be sequentially input as the input tomographic image, or only the spectral tomographic image may be input as such.”)
Regarding Claim 10:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Choi further teaches: the processing circuitry manages [a] second image and [a] second numerical value [a] first image using header information that relates to counting of X-ray photons.
Choi discloses an apparatus may first display a basic tomographic image obtained by performing basic imaging (¶ [0112]), then users may select and/or enter different parameters and elements from regions of the user interface (¶ [0121] - [0128], FIG 8. (Shown below)), including energy levels and number of energy levels (¶ [0123]), “acquired by scanning an object at a plurality of energy levels or by using a photon counting detector (PCD) (¶ [0081]),” and that element 840 (FIG. 8) may display a second image (tomographic image) and a second numerical value (e.g. material separation information like iodine %) (¶ [0129]). According to ¶ [0123], elements 810 and 814 (FIG. 8) represent regions of the user interface where the user may manage the second image and second numerical value displayed, with respect to the first image displayed, by entering values related to the counting of X-ray photons (e.g. “# of Energy bins,”). Element 810 may vary, including reflecting other photon counting values, based on the configuration of the spectral imaging. See ¶ [0113] for further teaching in regards to managing energy level and number of energy levels by user.
PNG
media_image4.png
751
1021
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Choi fails to explicitly disclose the relationship between the second image, the second image being different than the first image, and the second numerical value in association with the first image.
However, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in claim 1, does calculate, for an area of interest specified in the first and second image, a first numerical value based on the first image and a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being based on the scan data and being different from the first image. Thus, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in claim 1, does teach an associated relationship between the first image, the second image (being different from the first image), and the second numerical value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus, previously modified by Licato to use a second image being different than the first image, to incorporate the header techniques taught by Choi in order to provide a processing circuitry that manages the second image, the second numerical value, and the associated first image that relates to counting of X-ray photons. Doing so would predictably increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20200163637) in view of Licato (US 20100131885) further in view of Huber (US 20170357754).
Regarding Claim 9:
Choi in view of Licato teaches the limitations of claim 1
Choi further teaches: the processing circuitry manages [a] second image and [a] second numerical value [a] first image, using header information
Choi discloses an apparatus may first display a basic tomographic image obtained by performing basic imaging (Choi ¶ [0112]), then users may set, select, and/or enter different parameters and elements from regions of the user interface, including energy level and number of energy levels, scanning protocols, material combinations, and material separation models (¶¶ [0123] - [0127]) and that element 840 (FIG. 8) may display a second image and a second numerical value (e.g. material separation information like iodine %) according to the spectral tomographic image data and users’ input (¶¶ [0128]- [0129]). According to ¶ [0123], FIG. 8, elements 810 and 814 represent regions of the user interface where the user may manage the second image and second numerical value displayed, with respect to the first image displayed, by entering values related to the counting of X-ray photons (e.g. “# of Energy bins,”). Choi also discloses ¶ [0123] “The first region 810 is a region for setting values of parameters necessary to perform spectral tomography imaging. The first region 810 may include a 1-1 UI element 812 for setting an energy level and a 1-2 UI element 814 for setting the number of energy levels. The type and values of the parameters in the first region 810 may vary depending on a configuration of a scanning unit for performing spectral tomography imaging or a spectral tomography imaging mode”.
Choi fails to explicitly disclose the relationship between the second image, the second image being different than the first image, and the second numerical value in association with the first image.
However, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in claim 1, does calculate, for an area of interest specified in the first and second image, a first numerical value based on the first image and a second numerical value based on a second image, the second image being based on the scan data and being different from the first image. Thus, the processing apparatus taught by Choi, and modified by Licato in claim 1, does teach an associated relationship between the first image, the second image (being different from the first image), and the second numerical value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Choi’s processing apparatus, previously modified by Licato to use a second image being different than the first image, to incorporate the header techniques taught by Choi in order to provide a processing circuitry that manages the second image, the second numerical value, and the associated first image that relates to the first image. Doing so would predictably increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]).
Choi and Licato fail to explicitly disclose the processing circuitry using header information of time series data to manage the second image and second numerical value, in association with the first image.
In a related art, Huber teaches: medical image datasets of dual energy may be presented by points of time (¶ [0064] “In accordance with one embodiment, the invention thus relates to a system for processing of medical image data…” ¶ [0065] “an image data acquisition system, in particular a dual-energy computed tomography system, which serves to acquire image data”; ¶ [0066] “a processing unit, which serves to create a container, which comprises the image data and a control object uniquely assigned to the image data”; ¶ [0129] “In this case the additional program code contains extensions, which allow the control system to present the images in various new ways. These presentations include the programmatic transformation of the data representation in the origin data (image data RBD) into pixel values on the presentation device. In such cases the data can be presented on a slice (2D), on a volume (3D) or also extending over points in time or modalities (4D).”). Thus, Huber teaches managing dual energy data based on a time-series data model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Choi and Licato to incorporate the time-series data management teachings of Huber to provide a processing circuitry that manages the second image and the second numerical value in association with the first image, using header information (taught by Choi) of time-series data that relates to the first image. Doing so would allow the system to display images and data in various new ways, and provide the user with more viewing options, which aligns with disadvantages of technical parameters and restricted conditions recognized by Huber (Huber ¶¶ [0006]-[0007]) found in prior art. Additionally, combining the teachings of Choi, Licato, and Huber would, again, predictably increase the amount of multi-energy-based data for physicians to rely on for analysis by providing clinical insight into the relationships among medical images, aspects Licato identifies as lacking in prior art (Licato, ¶ [0011]). All three inventions lie in the same field of medical image analysis based on acquired dual-energy data, i.e. multi-energy data.
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 SAMUEL DAVID BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)272-0607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/S.D.B./
Samuel Baynes
Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665