DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on October 13, 2023, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/059674, filed on April 12, 2022, which claims foreign priority to European Patent application EP 21170069.5, filed on April 23, 2021. Claims 1-18 have been amended via preliminary amendment. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-18 are pending on the application.
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 .
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 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.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “System of claim 1” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 2 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 2 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 1”.
Claim 3 recites “System of claim 2” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 3 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 2” in line 1 of claim 3 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 2”.
Claim 4 recites “System of claim 3” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 4 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 3” in line 1 of claim 4 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 3”.
Claim 5 recites “System of claim 1” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 5 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 5 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 1”.
Claim 6 recites “System of claim 5” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 6 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 5” in line 1 of claim 5 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 2”.
Claim 7 recites “System of claim 1” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 7 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 7 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 1”.
Claim 8 recites “System of claim 1” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 8 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 1” in line 1 of claim 8 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 1”.
Claim 8 further recites “PET/SPECT” and “MRI” in line 3 of the claim. However, the acronyms PET, SPECT, and MRI are undefined in the claims. To clarify that the acronyms mean positron emission tomography, single photon emission computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, respectively, examiner suggests amending “PET/SPECT” and “MRI in recited line 3 of claim 8 to “positron emission tomography (PET)/SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography)” and “magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), respectively.
Claim 9 recites “System of claim 2” in line 1 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “System” recited in line 1 of claim 9 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “System of claim 2” in line 1 of claim 9 will be interpreted as “The system of claim 2”.
Claim 13 recites “generating training data for use in a system as per claim 12” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a system” recited in line 1 of claim 13 pertains to another “system” different from the clamed “system” recited in line 1 of claim 12, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “generating training data for use in a system as per claim 12” in lines 1-2 of claim 13 will be interpreted as “generating training data for use in the system of claim 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “module for facilitating… reconstruction”, “module configured to… receive... predict… provide… acts… for receiving… ”, “system for… reconstruction… to map… to establish… to compute… to back-project… to apply… to train… to obtain… performing… reconstructions… to obtain… providing… ”, “[s]ystem for generating… for use… to obtain”, “module, predicting”, “module… processing… to obtain”, respectively, in claims 1-2, 4, 10-14, 16.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig. 1-3; Par. [0081, 105, 218-222, 227] describe a programmed computing device or computer, including for example software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software, capable of performing the described functionality.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 1 recites the limitation “an iterative reconstruction operation, wherein, in one or more steps, imagery in image domain is… reconstructed in a given step… reconstructed at a given iteration step” in lines 2-14 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a given step” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a given step” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “given step” different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “given iteration step” different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, and also different from the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “an iterative reconstruction operation, wherein, in one or more steps, imagery in image domain is… reconstructed in a given step… reconstructed at a given iteration step” in lines 2-14 of the claim will be interpreted as “an iterative reconstruction operation, wherein, in one or more steps, imagery in image domain is… reconstructed in a given iteration step of the one or more steps… reconstructed at another given iteration step of the one or more steps”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “imagery in image domain is reconstructable from measured projection data in projection domain… a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data, the estimated projection data obtained… a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data, the estimated projection data obtained” in lines 2-13 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, or if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “measured projection data” different from the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, or if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 9 of the claim, or if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “measured projection data” different from the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in lines 3 and 9 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the estimated projection data” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “estimated projection data” previously recited in line 10 of the claim, or if the claimed “the estimated projection data” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “estimated projection data” previously recited in line 13 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, it is not clear if the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” recited in lines 12-13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 9-10 of the claim, or if the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” recited in lines 12-13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” different from the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 9-10 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the module acts as a data quality improver so that the new correction data has a higher quality than the input correction data” in line 2 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the new correction data” limitation recited in line 2 of the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate. additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “new correction data” limitation recited in line 2 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “output correction data” recited in line 5 of claim 1, or if the claimed “new correction data” limitation recited in line 2 of claim 2 encompass embodiments corresponding to “new correction data” different from the claimed “output correction data” recited in line 5 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-4 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the quality is one of noise, and the system comprises plural such machine learning modules, configured for a respective different noise reduction level” in lines 1-3 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the quality” recited in line 1 of claim 3 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “data quality” recited in line 1 of claim 2, or if the claimed “the quality” recited in line 1 of claim 3 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “higher quality” recited in line 2 of claim 2, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “such (i.e. said) machine learning modules” limitation recited in line 2 of claim 3. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the plural machine learning modules” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the plural machine learning modules” limitation recited in line 2 of claim 3. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claims 6 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the convolutional neural network has an effective receptive field larger than a neighborhood of a voxel in image domain or of a pixel in projection domain” in lines 1-3 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the convolutional neural network” limitation recited in lines 1-2 of claim 7. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “voxel in image domain” and “pixel in projection domain” encompass embodiments pertaining to the claimed “imagery in image domain” and “measured projection data in projection domain” recited in lines 2-3 of claim 1, respectively, or if the claimed “voxel in image domain” and “pixel in projection domain” encompass embodiments pertaining to another “voxel” in an “image domain” and another “pixel” in a “projection domain” different from the claimed “imagery in image domain” and “measured projection data in projection domain” recited in lines 2-3 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the data or image quality pertains to any one or more of: noise, resolution and image artifact” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the data” recited in line 1 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the clamed “measured projection data” recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the data” recited in line 1 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the clamed “input correction data” recited in line 4 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the data” recited in line 1 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the clamed “output correction data” recited in line 5 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the data” recited in line 1 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the clamed “back-projected error projection data” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the data” recited in line 1 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the clamed “estimated projection data” recited in line 10 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the data” recited in line 1 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the clamed “new correction data” recited in line 2 of claim 2, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “image quality” recited in line 2 of claim 9 pertains to the clamed “current image” recited in line 6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “image quality” recited in line 2 of claim 9 pertains to the clamed “new image” recited in line 7 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “iterative reconstruction, in one or more steps, of imagery… establish input correction data as a deviation, if any, between the projection data and the estimated projection data… a current image for a given iteration step” in lines 1-3 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a deviation… between the projection data and the estimated projection data” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 9-13 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a deviation… between the projection data and the estimated projection data” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “deviation… between the projection data and the estimated projection data” different from the claimed “deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” recited in lines 9-13 of claim 1, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “a current image” recited in line 3 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “current image” previously recited in line 6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a current image” recited in line 3 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “current image” different from the claimed “current image” previously recited in line 6 of claim 1, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” for “iterative reconstruction” previously recited in line 1 of claim 10, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a given iteration step” previously recited in line 14 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “given iteration step” different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” for “iterative reconstruction” previously recited in line 1 of claim 10, different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of claim 1, different from the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of claim 1, and also different from the claimed “a given iteration step” previously recited in line 14 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “a trained machine learning module as per claim 1” in lines 10-11 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in line 10 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in line 10 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “machine learning module” different from the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example. Additionally, since the claimed “as per claim 1” recited in line 11 of claim 10 is being interpreted as claim 1 being fully incorporated into claim 10, it is not clear if the claimed “projection data”, “a current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “projection error data” recited in lines 1-7 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “projection data”, “current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, and “projection error data” recited in lines 3-10 of claim 1, or if the claimed “projection data”, “a current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “projection error data” recited in lines 1-7 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding other “projection data”, “a current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “projection error data” different from the claimed “projection data”, “current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, and “projection error data” recited in lines 3-10 of claim 1, respectively, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “iterative reconstruction, in one or more steps, of imagery… a current image for a given iteration step… establish input correction data as a deviation, if any, between the projection data and the estimated projection data…” in lines 1-7 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a current image” recited in line 3 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “current image” previously recited in line 6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a current image” recited in line 3 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “current image” different from the claimed “current image” previously recited in line 6 of claim 1, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” for “iterative reconstruction” previously recited in line 1 of claim 11, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a given iteration step” previously recited in line 14 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 3 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “given iteration step” different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” for “iterative reconstruction” previously recited in line 1 of claim 10, different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, different from the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of claim 1, and also different the claimed “a given iteration step” previously recited in line 14 of claim 1, for example. Furthermore, it is not clear if the claimed “a deviation… between the projection data and the estimated projection data” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 9-13 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a deviation… between the projection data and the estimated projection data” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “deviation… between the projection data and the estimated projection data” different from the claimed “deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” recited in lines 9-13 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “a trained machine learning module as per claim 1” in lines 8-9 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in line 8 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in line 8 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “machine learning module” different from the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example. Additionally, since the claimed “as per claim 1” recited in line 9 of claim 11 is being interpreted as claim 1 being fully incorporated into claim 11, it is not clear if the claimed “projection data”, “a current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “input correction data”, “correction image data”, and “new image” recited in lines 1-14 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “projection data”, “current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “input correction data”, “correction image data”, and “new image” recited in lines 3-14 of claim 1, or if the claimed “projection data”, “a current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “input correction data”, “correction image data”, and “new image” recited in lines 1-14 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding other “projection data”, “a current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “input correction data”, “correction image data”, and “new image” different from the claimed “projection data”, “current image”, “given iteration step”, “estimated projection data”, “input correction data”, “correction image data”, and “new image” recited in lines 3-14 of claim 1, respectively, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “train, based on training data, a machine learning module” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in lines 1-2 of claim 12 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in lines 1-2 of claim 12 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “machine learning module” different from the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 13 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “generating training data… process projection data to obtain correction image data… providing the correction image data at the first and second qualities as training data… respective back-projected error projection data… respective projection data and respective estimated projection data… respective forward-projection into projection domain of a respective current image… process projection data to obtain correction projection data at first and second qualities, the system providing the correction projection data at the first and second quality as training data for input and training target in the training system… using different amounts of the projection data to obtain the respective correction projection data, based on a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data, the respective estimated projection data obtained by respective forward-projection into projection domain of a respective current image reconstructed at a given respective iteration step” in lines 1-18 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “first and second qualities” recited in line 11-12 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first and second quality” and “first and second qualities” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “the first and second quality” recited in line 12 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first and second quality” and “first and second qualities” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, or if the claimed “the first and second quality” recited in line 12 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first and second qualities” recited in line 11-12 of the claim, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “training data” recited in lines 4-18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “training data” previously recited in line 1 of claim 13, or if the claimed “training data” recited in lines 4-18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “training data” different from the claimed “training data” previously recited in line 1 of claim 13, for example. Additionally it is not clear if any of the claimed “back-projected error projection data”, “projection data”, “estimated projection data”, “a respective current image”, “correction projection data”, “measured projection data” recited in lines 1-18 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “back-projected error projection data”, “projection data”, “estimated projection data”, “a current image”, “correction data”, “measured projection data” recited in claim 1, or not, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 18 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 18 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 18 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “given iteration step” different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of claim 1, different from the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 7 of claim 1, and also different from the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 14 of claim 1, for example. Furthermore, it is not clear if the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” recited in lines 15-16 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 8-10 of claim 13, or if the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” recited in lines 15-16 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 9-13 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” recited in lines 15-16 of claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” different from the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 8-10 of claim 13, or different from the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 9-13 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an iterative reconstruction operation, wherein, in one or more steps, imagery in image domain is reconstructable… reconstructed in a given step… reconstructed at a given iteration step” in lines 1-15 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a given step” recited in line 8 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a given step” recited in line 8 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “given step” different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 15 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 15 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 8 of the claim, or if the claimed “a given iteration step” recited in line 15 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “given iteration step” different from any one of the claimed “one or more steps” of “iterative reconstruction operation” previously recited in lines 1-2 of the claim, and also different from the claimed “a given step” previously recited in line 8 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “an iterative reconstruction operation, wherein, in one or more steps, imagery in image domain is reconstructable… reconstructed in a given step… reconstructed at a given iteration step” in lines 1-15 of the claim will be interpreted as “an iterative reconstruction operation, wherein, in one or more steps, imagery in image domain is reconstructable… reconstructed in a given iteration step of the one or more steps… reconstructed at another given iteration step of the one or more steps”.
Claim 14 further recites the limitation “imagery in image domain is reconstructable from measured projection data in projection domain… a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data, the estimated projection data obtained… a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data, the estimated projection data obtained” in lines 2-14 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “measured projection data” different from the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in line 10 of the claim, or if the claimed “measured projection data” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “measured projection data” different from the claimed “measured projection data” previously recited in lines 2 and 10 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the estimated projection data” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “estimated projection data” previously recited in line 11 of the claim, or if the claimed “the estimated projection data” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “estimated projection data” previously recited in line 14 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, it is not clear if the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 10-11 of the claim, or if the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” different from the claimed “a deviation between measured projection data and estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 10-11 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 17-18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “train, based on training data, a machine learning module” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in lines 1-2 of claim 15 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, or if the claimed “a machine learning module” recited in lines 1-2 of claim 15 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “machine learning module” different from the claimed “machine learning module” recited in line 1 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “obtain correction image data at first and second quality… obtain correction projection data at first and second qualities… correction projection data at the first and second quality” in lines 3-19 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “first and second qualities” recited in line 13-14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first and second quality” and “first and second qualities” previously recited in lines 3-11 of the claim, or not, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “the first and second quality” recited in line 19 of claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first and second quality” and “first and second qualities” previously recited in lines 3-11 of the claim, or if the claimed “the first and second quality” recited in line 19 of claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first and second qualities” recited in line 13-14 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 further recites “generating training data for use in a training a machine learning module… providing the correction image data at the first and second qualities as training data for input and training target in a training system … providing the correction projection data at the first and second quality as training data for input and training target in a training system” in lines 1-20 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “training data” recited in lines 4-18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “training data” previously recited in line 1 of claim 16, or if the claimed “training data” recited in lines 4-18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “training data” different from the claimed “training data” previously recited in line 1 of claim 13, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “training target “ and “training system” recited in line 20 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “training target “ and “training system” previously recited in line 12 of claim 16, or if the claimed “training target “ and “training system” recited in line 20 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “training target “ and “training system” different from the claimed “training target “ and “training system” previously recited in line 12 of claim 16, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 further recites “processing includes performing iterative reconstructions … respective error projection data representing a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data, and the respective estimated projection data obtained by respective forward-projection into projection domain of a respective current image… performing iterative reconstructions using different amounts of the projection data to obtain the respective correction projection data, based on a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data, the respective estimated projection data obtained by respective forward-projection into projection domain of a respective current image reconstructed at a given respective iteration step” in lines 1-20 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” recited in lines 15-16 of claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” previously recited in lines 7-8 of claim 16, or if the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” recited in lines 15-16 of claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” different from the claimed “a respective deviation between respective measured projection data and respective estimated projection data” previously recited in lines7-8 of claim 16, for example. Also, it is not clear if the claimed “a respective current image” recited in lines 17-18 of the claim of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “a respective current image” previously recited in lines 9-10 of the claim, or if the claimed “a respective current image” recited in lines 17-18 of the claim of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “respective current image” different from the claimed “a respective current image” previously recited in lines 9-10 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, it is not clear if the claimed “a given respective iteration step” recited in line 18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any one of the steps corresponding to the claimed “iterative reconstructions” recited in 4-14 of the claim, or if the claimed “a given respective iteration step” recited in line 18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding another “given respective iteration step” different from any one of the steps corresponding to the claimed “iterative reconstructions” recited in 4-14 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
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 17 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a computer program per se (“computer program element”) and does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175, USPQ at 676). For more information, see MPEP § 2106.
For examination purposes examiner has interpreted the claimed “computer program element” to be a non-transitory computer readable medium stored therein a program when executed by a computer performing the prescribed steps as recited. See MPEP 2106.01 (I).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim 18 is held to claim a signal per se, and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (CRM). The specification is either silent or open-ended thus not limiting CRM to just non-transitory media. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. See guidelines for Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer readable Media, 1351 OG 212, Feb. 23, 2010.
For examination purposes examiner has interpreted the claimed “computer readable medium having stored thereon the program” recited in claim 18 to be a non-transitory computer readable medium stored therein a program when executed by a computer performing the prescribed steps as recited. See MPEP 2106.01 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. In particular, US PG Pub. Nos. 2021/0104023 A1, 2015/0243070 A1, 2020/0357148 A1, 2019/0325621 A1, 20200273214 A1, and 2019/0206095 A1, and Chinese Pat. Application Pub. CN 112581554 A and CN112348936A, as a whole, appear to teach a similar concept to applicant’s disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677