METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIUMS FOR IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION

Application No. 18/531,634

• Filed: Dec 06, 2023
• Priority: Dec 06, 2022 — CN 202211578019.5
• Examiner: PERLMAN, DAVID S
• Art Unit: 2673
• Tech Center: 2600 — Communications
• Assignee: Shanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co. Ltd.
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 .

Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2024 have been considered by the examiner.

Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), of which papers have been placed in the file wrapper.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “computer-readable storage medium”, consistent with a conclusion reached by one of ordinary skill in the art based on both the specification disclosure and the state-of-the-art, is that the full scope covers transitory “signals.” The state-of-the-art at the time the invention was made included signals, carrier waves and other wireless communication modalities (e.g., RF, infrared, etc.) as media on which executable code was recorded and from which computers acquired such code. Thus, the full scope of the claim covers "signals" and their equivalents, which are non-statutory per se. (In re Nuijten). The examiner suggests clarifying the claim to exclude non-statutory signal embodiments, such as (but not limited to) by reciting a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.”
.

Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method for determining a reconstructed image based on a determined weight, and based on first derivative of a Radon transform.
The limitations of the claims, use mathematical formulas to compute weights corresponding to detection angles, a first derivative of a Radon transform, and an image reconstruction, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these computations cover mathematical concepts and calculations.
The limitations recite a mathematical calculations. The grouping of “mathematical concepts’ in the 2019 PEG includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, limitation (a) falls into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. While a reconstructed image is determined, there is no further description as to how this is integrated into a practical application.
In particular, claims 1, 14, and 15 only recite one additional element — using a processor to obtain projection mages and make computations. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to compute a confidence vector amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.

Note: no prior art rejection has been provided.

Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Silver et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0123614 A1) A method and system for reconstructing an x-ray image from a partial orbit through the use of a "virtual" fan angle. The virtual fan angle is determined based upon the range of angular positions spanned by a source in a CT instrument or a selected smaller angle. Exposure data is obtained and he virtual fan angle is used to weight the exposure data. Image reconstruction can then proceed using the weighted exposure data. The described methods and system also function for data collected over a complete orbit.
Ning et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0253528 A1) A cone-beam scanning system scans along a half circle. The reconstruction uses a weighting function which decreases for rows farther from the scan plane to take the redundancy of the projection data into account. Another embodiment uses a circle plus sparse helical scan geometry. Image data can be taken in real time.
Lee et al. (“Grangeat-type helical half-scan computerized tomography algorithm for reconstruction of a short object”) In this paper, we extend our previous work to a helical case without data truncation. We modify the Grangeat’s formula for utilization and estimation of Radon data. Specifically, we categorize each characteristic point in the Radon space into singly, doubly, triply sampled, and shadow regions, respectively. A smooth weighting strategy is designed to compensate for data redundancy and inconsistency. In the helical half-scan case, the concepts of projected trajectories and transition points on meridian planes are introduced to guide the design of weighting functions. Then, the shadow region is recovered via linear interpolation after smooth weighting. The Shepp–Logan phantom is used to verify the correctness of the formulation, and demonstrate the merits of the Grangeat-type half-scan algorithm.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PERLMAN whose telephone number is [phone].
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 10:00am -6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at [phone]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is
[phone].
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 [phone] (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call [phone] (IN USA OR CANADA) or [phone].

/DAVID PERLMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673

Prosecution Timeline

• Dec 06, 2023: Application Filed
• May 19, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101 (current)