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 .
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 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1, 7 and 10:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are directed an idea of reconstructing a 3D cardiac image, which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
For claim 1 (similar as for claims 7 and 10), the claim in the instant application include:
Method comprising:
positioning an x-ray tube head and a digital radiographic detector about a patient to be radiographically imaged, the tube head comprising a plurality of x-ray sources;
firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected timed sequence to capture a plurality of radiographic cardiac images of the patient over a plurality of cardiac cycles;
separating the captured cardiac images each into one of a plurality of phase groups according to a cardiac phase of said captured radiographic cardiac images; and
reconstructing a 3D cardiac image for each of the plurality of phase groups using the corresponding separated cardiac images.
For the limitation of “separating the captured cardiac images each into one of a plurality of phase groups according to a cardiac phase of said captured radiographic cardiac images”, it can be interpreted as human can group captured cardiac images each into one of a plurality of phase groups. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as Mental Processes.
For the limitation of “reconstructing a 3D cardiac image for each of the plurality of phase groups using the corresponding separated cardiac images”, it can be interpreted as using a mathematical method, the corresponding separated cardiac images can be reconstructed a 3D cardiac image for each of the plurality of phase groups. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as Mathematical Concepts.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
positioning an x-ray tube head and a digital radiographic detector about a patient to be radiographically imaged, the tube head comprising a plurality of x-ray sources;
firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected timed sequence to capture a plurality of radiographic cardiac images of the patient over a plurality of cardiac cycles.
Regarding “
positioning an x-ray tube head and a digital radiographic detector about a patient to be radiographically imaged, the tube head comprising a plurality of x-ray sources”,
it is considered as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Regarding “
firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected timed sequence to capture a plurality of radiographic cardiac images of the patient over a plurality of cardiac cycles”,
it is considered as data gathering of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the above recited additional elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include data gathering and positioning an x-ray tube head. The additional elements (e.g., data gathering and positioning an x-ray tube head) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional element (e.g. data gathering and positioning an x-ray tube head). They are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., data gathering and positioning an x-ray tube head) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 6, 8 – 9 and 11 – 12, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 7 and 10, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 7 and 10 wherein limitations regarding "displaying …", “comprising …”, and/or “is repeated …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claims 1, 7 and 10 as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0369464), hereinafter referred as Lee.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses method (abstract) comprising:
capturing a plurality of radiographic cardiac images of a living patient ([0049 – 0059, 0123], “acquires X-ray images by radiating X-rays to an object 30 placed on a table 103”; [0085, 0094], cardiac cycle);
assigning each of the captured cardiac images into one of a plurality of phase groups according to a cardiac phase of said each of the captured cardiac images ([0124], “the plural X-ray images are grouped according to heart phases”; also Fig. 9, [0101], “the image grouping unit 153 groups the plural X-ray images into X-ray images acquired from the same cardiac phase based on the detected characteristics.”); and
reconstructing a 3D cardiac image for each of the plurality of phase groups using the corresponding assigned captured cardiac images ([0133 - 0135], “acquiring a left image and a right image of each set of the 3D volume data by performing volume rendering of each set of the 3D volume data at two points of view corresponding to left and right eyes of a human, and acquiring a plurality of 3D stereo images based on the acquired left and right images of each set of the 3D volume data”).
Regarding claim 9 (depends on claim 7), Lee discloses the method wherein each member of a phase group comprises a cardiac image of the living patient captured during the same cardiac phase (Fig. 9, Group 1 images comprise an image of a common cardiac phase 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8 and 10 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kyriakou (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0265234).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses method (abstract) comprising:
positioning an x-ray tube head and a digital radiographic detector about a patient to be radiographically imaged (Figs. 3 - 4, [0049 - 0057], “acquires X-ray images by radiating X-rays to an object 30 placed on a table 103”), the tube head comprising a plurality of x-ray sources (Fig. 4, [0054 – 0057]);
firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected timed sequence to capture a plurality of radiographic cardiac images of the patient over a cardiac cycle ([0049 – 0059, 0123], “acquires X-ray images by radiating X-rays to an object 30 placed on a table 103”; [0085, 0094], cardiac cycle);
separating the captured cardiac images each into one of a plurality of phase groups according to a cardiac phase of said captured radiographic cardiac images ([0124], “the plural X-ray images are grouped according to heart phases”); and
reconstructing a 3D cardiac image for each of the plurality of phase groups using the corresponding separated cardiac images ([0133 - 0135], “acquiring a left image and a right image of each set of the 3D volume data by performing volume rendering of each set of the 3D volume data at two points of view corresponding to left and right eyes of a human, and acquiring a plurality of 3D stereo images based on the acquired left and right images of each set of the 3D volume data”).
However, Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the images are captured over a plurality of cardiac cycles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Kyriakou discloses a method for reconstructing a 3D cardiac image (abstract). In addition, Kyriakou discloses the method wherein the images are captured over a plurality of cardiac cycles ([0040 - 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee, and capture images over a plurality of cardiac cycles. The motivation for doing this is to that reconstruction can be more accurate.
Regarding claim 2 (depends on claim 1), Lee discloses the method further comprising displaying the reconstructed 3D cardiac images ([0042, 0120]).
Kyriakou discloses a 4D reconstruction using the reconstructed 3D cardiac images ([0020, 0026, 0029, 0047]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely perform the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of combination were predictable (KSR scenario A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee, and displaying a 4D reconstruction using the reconstructed 3D cardiac images. The motivation for doing this is to that application of Lee can be extended so that more aspect of reconstructed images can be shown.
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 1), Lee discloses the method wherein the members of each phase group comprise an image of a common cardiac phase (Fig. 9, Group 1 images comprise an image of a common cardiac phase 1).
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 1), Lee discloses the method wherein the tube head comprises a linear array of x-ray sources (Fig. 4, #110a – 110e).
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 1), Lee fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the step of firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected sequence is repeated over a plurality of cardiac cycles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Kyriakou discloses a method for reconstructing a 3D cardiac image (abstract). In addition, Kyriakou discloses the method wherein firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected sequence is repeated over a plurality of cardiac cycles ([0025, 0047 – 0048], iterative; [0042 – 0043], repeated at different heart rate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee, and firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected sequence is repeated over a plurality of cardiac cycles. The motivation for doing this is to that reconstruction can be more accurate.
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 1), Lee discloses the method wherein the step of firing the plurality of x-ray sources in a preselected sequence comprises capturing a plurality of radiographic cardiac images of the patient each at a different imaging angle (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses method (abstract) comprising:
capturing a plurality of radiographic cardiac images of a living patient at a rate of at least four radiographic images per cardiac cycle over a cardiac cycle ([0049 – 0059, 0123], “acquires X-ray images by radiating X-rays to an object 30 placed on a table 103”; [0085, 0094], cardiac cycle);
assigning each of the captured cardiac images into one of at least four phase groups according to a cardiac phase of said each of the captured cardiac images ([0124], “the plural X-ray images are grouped according to heart phases”; also Fig. 9, phase 1 to n); and
reconstructing a 3D cardiac image for each of the plurality of phase groups using the corresponding captured cardiac images ([0133 - 0135], “acquiring a left image and a right image of each set of the 3D volume data by performing volume rendering of each set of the 3D volume data at two points of view corresponding to left and right eyes of a human, and acquiring a plurality of 3D stereo images based on the acquired left and right images of each set of the 3D volume data”).
However, Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the images are captured over at least four cardiac cycles.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Kyriakou discloses a method for reconstructing a 3D cardiac image (abstract). In addition, Kyriakou discloses the method wherein the images are captured over at least four cardiac cycles ([0040 - 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee, and capture images over at least four cardiac cycles. The motivation for doing this is to that reconstruction can be more accurate.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, they are corresponding to claim 2, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 10), Lee discloses the method wherein each member of a phase group comprises a cardiac image of the living patient captured during the same cardiac phase (Fig. 9, Group 1 images comprise an image of a common cardiac phase 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677