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
IDS filed 12/8/23 and 5/14/24 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention with the exception of U.S. patent application publication 2009/0116713 by Yan et al. which has particular relevance as noted below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Method for determining image quality of a X-ray CT scan of a turbine blade”.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim is currently dependent upon claim 12 but it appears applicant’s intention is for it to be dependent upon claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “relatively” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The relative term renders “high contrast” and “low contrast” indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
NOTE: no art rejection for claim 6 has been provided below as no valid scope for examination can be identified.
Regarding claims 10-12, the phrase "optionally" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 18 and 20 are drawn to functional descriptive material recorded on one or more computers. A computer medium can be defined as encompassing statutory medium, but it also encompasses non-statutory subject matter such as a signal or carrier wave.
A “signal” embodying functional descriptive material is neither a process nor a product (i.e., a tangible “thing”) and therefore does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of §101. Rather, “signal” is a form of energy, in the absence of any physical structure of tangible material. Paragraph 168 of applicant’s specification publication specifically states that the program can be in the form of a signal.
Because the full scope of the claim encompasses non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is non-statutory. The examiner suggests amending the claim to "a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program” or equivalent. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a mathematical concept of deriving metrics from image data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because deriving measures of contrast/sharpness and determining a quality value based thereon are pure mathematical concepts with no further elements recited within the claim . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claims 2-20 add additional generic computer elements and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2009/0116713 by Yan et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches a computer-implemented method of quantifying the quality of a scan image of at least a portion of an object against a background, the method comprising: deriving a first measure of contrast and a first measure of sharpness from a first region of the scan image (paragraphs 37 and 38; sharpness is determined at each block and is weighted by contrast thus capturing a measure of each), and a second measure of contrast and a second measure of sharpness from a second region of the scan image (figure 2; paragraph 32; plurality of blocks are measured); and determining a quality index value indicative of the quality of the scan image based on the first measure of contrast, the first measure of sharpness, the second measure of contrast and the second measure of sharpness (paragraph 49; quality index is calculated based upon sharpness values for all edge blocks that have been weighted by contrast).
3) Regarding claim 2, Yan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, a larger measure of contrast is indicative of increased contrast, and wherein the quality index value is determined to be proportional to a product of the first and second measures of contrast; or a larger measure of contrast is indicative of decreased contrast, and wherein the quality index value is determined to be inversely proportional to a product of the first and second measures of contrast (paragraphs 48 and 49; equation 19; measure of contrast divides the edge width value [i.e. sharpness] thereby making it inversely proportional to the output “perceptual sharpness measure” [i.e. quality], paragraph 49 discloses that all the edge block values are then averaged [i.e. a product] to produce the index value).
4) Regarding claim 4, Yan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, a larger measure of sharpness is indicative of increased sharpness, and wherein the quality index value is determined to be proportional to a product of the first and second measures of sharpness; or a larger measure of sharpness is indicative of decreased sharpness, and wherein the quality index value is determined to be inversely proportional to a product of the first and second measures of sharpness (paragraphs 48 and 49; equation 19; measure of contrast divides the edge width value [i.e. sharpness] thereby making sharpness proportional to the output “perceptual sharpness measure” [i.e. quality], paragraph 49 discloses that all the edge block values are then averaged [i.e. a product] to produce the index value).
5) Regarding claim 5, Yan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each measure of sharpness is dependent on, for the region concerned, the width of an edge transition zone representing an edge where the scan image transitions between the object and the background, and/or a gradient of pixel or voxel values in the edge transition zone (paragraph 48; sharpness equations depends on edge width).
6) Regarding claim 7, Yan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of said regions is a line or cluster of pixels or voxels which includes at least a part of the object and at least a part of the background (figure 3; paragraphs 33-35; edge block areas contain object neighbors [i.e. smooth blocks] and texture block neighbors [i.e. background]).
7) Regarding claim 8, Yan teaches the method of claim 1, comprising identifying the first and second regions based on user selection and/or based on mathematical analysis of the scan image (paragraph 33; Sobel and Canny edge detection can be utilized to determine the multiple edge blocks).
8) Regarding claim 9, Yan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the object is of a predetermined type (paragraph 31; ROI can be a guide wire for example), comprising first and second component sections, and wherein the first region of the scan image is selected to align with at least a part of the first section and wherein the second region of the scan image is selected to align with at least a part of the second section (image blocks inherently “align” with their own location in the image, which is to say, there is currently no distinction in the claim between “region” and “section”).
9) Regarding claim 10, Yan teaches a computer-implemented method of assessing the quality of a plurality of scan images, each scan image being of at least a portion of an object against a background, the method comprising: quantifying the quality of each scan image using the method of claim 1; and assessing the quality of the scan images based on their quality index values (paragraph 57; calculated index values are used to assess image quality), optionally wherein the method comprises identifying, based on the quality index values, one of the scan images whose quality meets a given quality criterion, optionally wherein the quality criterion is that the identified scan image has the best quality of the scan images or has a quality above a given threshold value (NOTE: “optionally” language essentially turns the limitations into an “or” statement).
10) Regarding claim 11, Yan teaches the method of claim 10, comprising, based on the quality index values, identifying a trend or change in scan image quality across the scan images (paragraph 60; series of images can be obtained and a gradient calculated), optionally wherein the plurality of scan images is a series of scan images and the trend or change is identified across the series of scan images.
11) Regarding claim 12, Yan teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: obtaining the scan images using an object scanner configured with one or more process variable values, with at least one process variable value different for each scan image; or obtaining the scan images using an object scanner configured with the same process variable values for each scan image (paragraph 60-62; parameters can be varied for each image, however examiner notes that all images are inherently obtained with either the same or different variable values).
12) Regarding claim 16, Yan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: each scan image is a CT scan image (paragraph 20; CT scan is disclosed), a 3DCT scan image, or a 2DCT scan image derived from a 3DCT scan image; and/or each scan image is obtained using an object scanner, and/or said object scanner is a CT scanner; and/or each scan image is an image of a cross-section of at least a portion of the object; and/or the object has at least one internal or exposed cavity; and/or the object is a turbine blade; and/or each quality index value is determined based on a mathematical combination of, or by mathematically combining, the first measure of contrast, the first measure of sharpness, the second measure of contrast and the second measure of sharpness, optionally by multiplication and/or division; and/or each quality index value is a single and/or integrated value; and/or each quality index value is a simple number and/or a real number.
13) Regarding claim 17, Yan teaches an apparatus to carry out the method of claim 1 (figure 11; paragraph 63; a computer).
14) Regarding claim 18, Yan teaches a quality-quantification computer program which, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (paragraph 63; program instructions).
15) Regarding claim 19, Yan teaches n image scanning system comprising: an object scanner; and quality-quantification apparatus configured to communicate with the object scanner, wherein the system is configured to carry out the method of claim 1 (figure 11; imaging device is connected to computer).
16) Claim 20 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 18 and 19 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
17) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2009/0116713 by Yan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2009/0066939 by Vankatachalam et al.
Yan does not specifically teach the method of claim 1, wherein each measure of contrast is dependent on, for the region concerned, a ratio of a value of a pixel or voxel representative of the object and a value of a pixel or voxel representative of the background.
Vankatachalam teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each measure of contrast is dependent on, for the region concerned, a ratio of a value of a pixel or voxel representative of the object and a value of a pixel or voxel representative of the background (paragraph 22; contrast measurement can be a ratio of two adjacent image areas).
Yan and Vankatachalam are combinable because they are both from the X-ray imaging field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Yan and Vankatachalam to add contrast as a ratio between two regions. The motivation for doing so would have been for defect detection (paragraph 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Yan with Vankatachalam to obtain the invention of claim 3.
18) Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2009/0116713 by Yan et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0158563 by Rinck et al.
19) Regarding claim 13, Yan does not specifically teach a computer-implemented method of obtaining scan images to meet a given quality criterion, each scan image being of at least a portion of an object against a background, the method comprising: obtaining a first scan image using an object scanner configured with one or more process variable values, and quantifying the quality of the first scan image using the method of claim l; and in a searching step, adjusting the configuration of the object scanner by adjusting at least one process variable value, obtaining a subsequent scan image using the object scanner with its adjusted configuration, and quantifying the quality of that subsequent scan image using the method of claim 1; and in a searching step, adjusting the configuration of the object scanner by adjusting at least one process variable value, obtaining a subsequent scan image using the object scanner with its adjusted configuration, and quantifying the quality of that subsequent scan image using the method of wherein the method comprises carrying out the searching step at least once or repeatedly at least until the quality index values of the obtained scan images indicate that the given quality criterion is met.
Rinck teaches a computer-implemented method of obtaining scan images to meet a given quality criterion, each scan image being of at least a portion of an object against a background, the method comprising: obtaining a first scan image using an object scanner configured with one or more process variable values, and quantifying the quality of the first scan image using the method of claim l; and in a searching step, adjusting the configuration of the object scanner by adjusting at least one process variable value, obtaining a subsequent scan image using the object scanner with its adjusted configuration, and quantifying the quality of that subsequent scan image using the method of claim 1; and in a searching step, adjusting the configuration of the object scanner by adjusting at least one process variable value, obtaining a subsequent scan image using the object scanner with its adjusted configuration, and quantifying the quality of that subsequent scan image using the method of wherein the method comprises carrying out the searching step at least once or repeatedly at least until the quality index values of the obtained scan images indicate that the given quality criterion is met (paragraph 154; medical images can be assessed for quality and then rescanned with different parameters until the quality is acceptable).
Yan and Rinck are combinable because they are both from the medical imaging field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Yan and Rinck to add rescanning. The motivation for doing so would have been to “avoid image artifacts” (paragraph 154). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Yan with Rinck to obtain the invention of claim 13.
20) Regarding claim 14, Rinck (as combined with Yan in the rejection of claim 13 above) teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the given quality criterion is defined such that it is met when: the quality index values of the obtained scan images indicate that at least one of the obtained scan images has a quality above a given threshold value (paragraph 154; sufficient quality is required [i.e. a threshold]); and/or the quality index values of the obtained scan images indicate that the one of the obtained scan images which has the highest quality has a quality which is a given threshold amount better than that of the scan image with the next best quality; and/or the quality index values of the obtained scan images indicate that the quality of the subsequent scan image of that searching step is better than that of the first scan image or of each other scan image.
21) Regarding claim 15, Rinck (as combined with Yan in the rejection of claim 13 above) teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the method comprises: adjusting the configuration of the object scanner by referring to a database of image scans and associated process variable values and quality index values, or by referring to a database of process variable values and associated quality index values; and/or adjusting the configuration of the object scanner based on the quality index value of at least one obtained scan image and/or based on the quality index value of each obtained scan image (paragraph 154; apparatus automatically provides imaging parameter adjustments based on the poor quality of a scan).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights