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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection on claim 1, applicant argued that Wiemker does not teach generating a VMI at a particular energy level to achieve improved contrast, Wiemker’s “contrast boosting” is fundamentally different from VMI generation, and the system recited in claim 1 determines optimal energy levels based on target materials.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., user-specified energy level to achieve improved contrast for target materials, determines optimal energy levels based on target materials, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Despite of applicant’s argument, the argued claim language is broad to be interpreted “input” either directly or indirectly indicative of a particular X-ray energy level. Argued claim does not limit VMI’s “improved contrast” in comparison to what. By definition of VMI, VMI inherently provides improved contrast to conventional, single-energy CT (SECT) or polychromatic images. Wiemker’s VMI system has user to select a base image and a predetermined template image (paragraphs 0037-0039), wherein both base image and predetermined template image are with specified/particular energy levels (paragraph 0044). In response to applicant's argument that Wiemker has different purpose and different solution from intended claim invention of instant application, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Again, argued claim is broad for interpretation. It lacks sufficient language to reflect intended invention (e.g., intended features or distinctions applicant argued in filed REMARKS).
Thus, rejection is proper and maintained.
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) 1-11, 13-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemker et al. (US2023/0144823).
To claim 1. Wiemker teach a system for transforming computed tomography data, the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor configured to:
receive input indicative of a particular X-ray energy level at which to generate a virtual monoenergetic image (VMI) of a subject that includes a plurality of target materials with improved contrast (paragraphs 0009-0010, 0022, user chooses a special image data to generate base image/virtual monoenergetic image at 200 keV; paragraphs 0005, 0016, 0020-0021, 0052-0053, contrast-boosted; Fig. 3, paragraphs 0044, 0051, image chosen with a particular energy level keV, which shows that the spectral image data user selected to input is with a particular X-ray energy level, which obviously render inputting with an indicative of a particular X-ray energy level) and;
receive computed tomography (CT) data of a subject; generate a VMI version of the CT data at the particular X-ray energy; and cause the VMI version of the CT data to be presented (paragraph 0051, spectral CT imaging system generate a number of spectral channels/special image data that can be converted into various representations, such as virtual monoenergetic image).
To claim 2, Wiemker teach claim 1.
Wiemker teach wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to: provide the CT data to a trained model; receive output from the trained model; and generate the VMI version of the CT data based on the output of the trained model (paragraphs 0023, 0050, 0056-0057).
To claim 3, Wiemker teach claim 2.
Wiemker teach wherein the trained model is a trained convolutional neural network (CNN) that was trained using CT data of one or more subjects, each representing at least one material of a plurality of materials, and synthesized monoenergetic CT (MCT) images of at least one of the one or more subjects based on X-ray attenuation of the plurality of materials (paragraphs 0008, 0012, 0022, 0048).
To claim 4, Wiemker teach claim 3.
Wiemker teach wherein the CT data comprises multi-energy computed tomography (MECT) image data of the one or more subjects (paragraph 0056, multispectral input images).
To claim 5, Wiemker teach claim 3.
Wiemker teach wherein the CT data comprises MECT projection domain data of the one or more subjects (despite lack of disclosure, projection domain data is well-known in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate by design preference, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 6, Wiemker teach claim 3.
Wiemker teach wherein the CT data comprises a VMI at an energy level of at least 40 kilo-electronvolts (keV) of the one or more subjects (paragraph 0011, 40keV), and the particular X-ray energy is below 40 keV (despite lack of disclosure, having a VMI at a particular is an obvious modification by design preference to one of ordinary skill in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 7, Wiemker teach claim 3.
Wiemker teach wherein the one or more subjects includes a phantom comprising a plurality of samples, each of the plurality of samples representing at least one material of a plurality of materials (despite lack of disclosure, imaging phantom is well-known in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 8, Wiemker teach claim 2.
Wiemker teach wherein the trained model is a least squares model (paragraphs 0054-0056, obvious in training linear model).
To claim 9, Wiemker teach claim 8.
Wiemker teach wherein the particular X-ray energy is above 40 keV (paragraph 0009, 200keV).
To claim 10, Wiemker teach claim 8.
Wiemker teach wherein the CT data is MECT image data (paragraph 0056, multispectral input images).
To claim 11, Wiemker teach claim 1.
Wiemker teach wherein the input indicative of the particular X-ray energy level at which to generate the VMI of the subject comprises input explicitly indicating the plurality of target materials (obvious as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 13, Wiemker teach claim 1.
Wiemker teach wherein the input indicative of the particular X-ray energy level at which to generate the VMI of the subject comprises input explicitly indicating a task associated with the CT data (obvious as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 14, Wiemker teach claim 13.
Wiemker teach wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to: receive, via a user input device, the input explicitly indicating the task associated with the CT data (obvious as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 15, Wiemker teach claim 13.
Wiemker teach wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to: receive, from an electronic medical record system, the input explicitly indicating the task associated with the CT data (paragraphs 0006-0008, obviously imaging data is retrieved from electronic medical record system).
To claim 16, Wiemker teach claim 1.
Wiemker teach wherein the plurality of target materials comprises at least two of: gray matter;
white matter; an iodine contrast-media; calcium; a mixture of blood and iodine; adipose tissue; hydroxyapatite; lung; liver; muscle; or blood (paragraphs 0008, 0011, 0035, 0045-0046, iodine-based contrast agent, soft tissue comprising adipose tissue is well-known in the art, hence Official Notice is taken)
To claim 17, Wiemker teach claim 1.
Wiemker teach wherein the VMI version of the CT data is a 40 keV VMI (paragraph 0011).
To claim 18, Wiemker teach claim 1.
Wiemker teach wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to: generate a second VMI version of the CT data at a second particular X-ray energy (paragraph 0022, the spectral image comprises a virtual monoenergetic image generated for an energy of 40 keV and a virtual monoenergetic image generated for an energy of 200 keV).
To claim 19, Wiemker teach claim 18.
Wiemker teach wherein the second VMI version of the CT data is a 50 keV VMI (despite lack of disclosure, having a VMI at a particular is an obvious modification by design preference to one of ordinary skill in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 20, Wiemker teach claim 18.
Wiemker teach wherein the second VMI version of the CT data is a VMI at an energy below 40 keV (despite lack of disclosure, having a VMI at a particular is an obvious modification by design preference to one of ordinary skill in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 21, Wiemker teach claim 1.
Wiemker teach wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to:
receive the CT data from at least one of a CT scanner, a CT scanner over a wide area network, or memory (paragraph 0007).
To claim 22, Wiemker teach claim 21.
Wiemker teach wherein the CT scanner is a dual-energy computed tomography scanner that is configured to generate the CT data (paragraph 0035).
To claim 23, Wiemker teach claim 22.
Wiemker teach wherein the CT scanner is a photon counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) scanner that is configured to generate the CT data (paragraph 0008, photon counting detector technology).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemker et al. (US2023/0144823) in view of Lee et al. (US2021/0110583).
To claim 12, Wiemker teach claim 11.
Wiemker teach wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to: identify the particular X-ray energy as an X-ray energy at which contrast between the plurality of target materials is substantially maximized (obvious in paragraph 0042).
Lee further teach wherein the at least one hardware processor is further configured to: identify the particular X-ray energy as an X-ray energy at which contrast between the plurality of target materials is substantially maximized (Fig. 6, 12, 15-16, paragraphs 0024-0029, 0034, 0037, 0043, 0144-0145, 0162-0168), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the system of Wiemker, in order to further optimize presentation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 January 16, 2026