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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5 and 8-9) and claims 28-40 are added in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-16 and 19-24 are withdrawn and canceled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Since the restriction requirement properly made, the restriction requirement is now made final. Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-9, and 28-40 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 28, 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al., US 2013/0051643.
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses a system for image correction (Abstract; para 0008; a system and method for performing image correction and generate corrected images), comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions (fig. 1, element 4; para 0021; a storage or database);
at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions (fig. 1, element 3; para 0021; a computer processor), the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including:
obtaining a first image of a target object (para 0037; technique 60 begins with the acquisition of raw cardiac CT data at STEP 62, with the CT cardiac data being acquired via one of any number of known scanning techniques typically employed in cardiac imaging);
determining, using a preset evaluation tool, an image quality evaluation result of the first image (para 0042-0043; a rough image quality check is performed on the reconstructed images to determine if motion correction is necessary. That is, an image quality metric is calculated for the reconstructed images and compared to a pre-determined image quality metric threshold value; A determination is made at STEP 80 as to whether the image quality metric for the reconstructed images meets the pre-determined image quality metric threshold value); and
in response to determining that the image quality evaluation result of the first image does not satisfy a preset condition, correcting the first image using a correction algorithm (para 0042-0044; That is, an image quality metric is calculated for the reconstructed images and compared to a pre-determined image quality metric threshold value; If, however, the image quality metric for the reconstructed images does not meet the pre-determined image quality metric threshold value 84, it is determined that motion correction should be prescribed for those images; …where motion correction of the images is performed. According to one embodiment of the invention, the motion correction is accomplished by way of the algorithm).
Regarding claim 2, the system of claim 1, Jackson further discloses wherein the determining, using a preset evaluation tool, an image quality evaluation result of the first image includes:
determining, based on the first image, a second image of a target region of the target object (para 0037); and
determining, based on the second image using the preset evaluation tool, the image quality evaluation result of the first image (para 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 3, the system of claim 2, Jackson further discloses wherein the determining, based on the first image, a second image of a target region of the target object includes:
determining, based on the first image using an image segmentation algorithm, the second image of the target region of the target object (para 0005 and 0043).
Regarding claim 4, the system of claim 1, Jackson further discloses wherein the determining, using a preset evaluation tool, an image quality evaluation result of the first image includes:
determining, based on an image quality evaluation model, the image quality evaluation result of the first image, wherein the image quality evaluation model is associated with one or more evaluation indicators, the one or more evaluation indicators including at least one of an anatomical sharpness, a contrast of the target region, a morphological fit degree of the target region, an enhancement degree of the target region, an image signal uniformity, an image noise level, or an artifact inhibition degree (para 0047).
Regarding claim 5, the system of claim 2, Jackson further discloses wherein the target region includes a coronary artery (para 0036), and the image quality evaluation result of the first image includes a comprehensive evaluation result of a morphological fit degree of the coronary artery and an enhancement degree of the coronary artery (para 0042-0045).
Regarding claim 8, the system of claim 1, Jackson further discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the correction algorithm based on the image quality evaluation result of the first image and/or the preset evaluation tool (para 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 1, Jackson further discloses wherein the first image corresponds to a target phase of the target object (para 0027, 0032, 0037, and 0042), and the correcting the first image using a correction algorithm (para 0042-0044) includes:
determining, based on the target phase, at least two motion vector fields of the target object corresponding to at least two sub-phases related to the target phase;
for each of the at least two sub-phases (para 0032, 0037, and 0042),
determining an image motion deviation corresponding to the sub-phase based on a motion vector field corresponding to the sub-phase and a reconstructed image corresponding to the sub-phase (para 0032, 0037, and 0042);
determining a raw data deviation corresponding to the sub-phase based on the image motion deviation corresponding to the sub-phase (para 0037 and 0039-0044); and
generating corrected raw data corresponding to the target phase by correcting, based on raw data deviations corresponding to the at least two phases, raw data corresponding to the target phase (para 0042-0044).
Regarding claim 28, the system of claim 1, Jackson further discloses wherein the preset condition includes a desired image quality score or a desired image quality grade that the first image needs to satisfy (para 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 36, the system of claim 8, Jackson further discloses wherein different image quality evaluation results correspond to the same or different correction algorithms (para 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 37, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 38, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 2 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 39, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 3 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 40, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-35 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure, taken individually or in combination, does not teach the claimed invention having the following limitations, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations.
Regarding dependent claim 29, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having “obtaining the corrected first image; determining, using the preset evaluation tool, an image quality evaluation result of the corrected first image; and in response to determining that the image quality evaluation result of the corrected first image does not satisfy the preset condition, sending a prompt to a user”, and a combination of other limitations thereof as recited in the claim.
Regarding claims 30-25, the claims have been found allowable due to its dependencies to claim 29 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al., US 2003/0133623 discloses a process and system for automating the image quality inspection and correction for scanned document which previously required a human operator.
Wang et al., US 2022/0187406 discloses a method for motion correction of Magnetic Resonance (MR) images.
Sun et al., US 2019/0150877 discloses a method for determining a correction profile of an imaging device.
Wollenweber, US 2012/0082350 discloses a method for evaluating the effectiveness of a motion correction procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM.
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.
/VAN D HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights