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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the at least candidate region” should be written as “the at least one candidate region” (emphasis added).
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is missing at the end of the claim.
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.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “adding and synthesizing at least one enhanced image corresponding to (i) the at least one candidate region, or (ii) the at least one candidate region and the target image, to obtain an X-ray image of the target region” (emphasis added). The phrase “corresponding to” in claim 16 as reproduced above creates ambiguity as to what the at least one enhanced image is added and synthesized into. Since the claim does not specify the object of the adding and synthesizing, the scope of the claim is ambiguous. For purposes of applying prior art, in place of the “corresponding to” language currently in claim 16, the claim is interpreted to recite: adding and synthesizing at least one enhanced image into (i) the at least one candidate region, or (ii) the at least one candidate region and the target image, to obtain an X-ray image of the target region. (emphasis added). Claims 23 and 30 substantially correspond to claim 16, differing by reciting “add and synthesize” instead of “adding and synthesizing” and are rejected for the same reasons. Dependent claims 17-22 and 24-29 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claims 16 and 23 respectively.
Claims 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, and 28 recite the phrase “corresponding to” that creates the same type of ambiguity discussed with respect to claims 16, 23 and 30 above. For the same reasons, in place of “entirely superimposing the at least one enhanced image corresponding to” (claims 18, 20, 21, 27 and 28), “synthesizing image parts corresponding to respective candidate regions in enhanced images corresponding to” (claims 18, 20, 21, 27 and 28), “entirely superimpose the at least one enhanced image corresponding to” (claim 25), and “synthesize image parts corresponding to respective candidate regions in enhanced images corresponding to” (claim 25), the claims are interpreted to recite: “entirely superimposing the at least one enhanced image into” (claims 18, 20, 21, 27 and 28), “synthesizing image parts corresponding to respective candidate regions in enhanced images into” (claims 18, 20, 21, 27 and 28), “entirely superimpose the at least one enhanced image into” (claim 25), and “synthesize image parts corresponding to respective candidate regions in enhanced images into” (claim 25). (emphasis added).
Claims 21 and 28 recite “the overexposed region or the underexposed region” (emphasis added). However, there are multiple preceding instances of “an overexposed region” and “an underexposed region”. Thus, the antecedent basis of “the overexposed region” and “the underexposed region” is unclear. For purposes of applying prior art, each “overexposed region” is interpreted to be the same overexposed region and each “underexposed region” is interpreted to be the same underexposed region.
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
An invention that is not a machine, an article of manufacture, a composition or a process cannot be patented. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980).
The Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 dated February 23, 2010 states, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically 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, particularly when the specification is silent” and “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.”1
Claim 30 recites a “computer-readable storage medium”. No special definition of “storage medium” was found in the specification. The most relevant portion of the specification was found in paragraph 84: “Implementations of the storage medium for providing the program code may include a floppy disk, a hard disk, a magneto-optical disk, an optical memory (such as a CD-ROM, a CD-R, a CD-RW, a DVD-ROM, a DVD-RAM, a DVD- RW, and a DVD+RW), a magnetic tape, a non-volatile storage card, and a ROM” (emphasis added).
While paragraph 84 provides examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media, the list is on-exhaustive and the term “may” is used, which means the “storage medium” could be implemented with none of the listed structures or as a transitory propagating signal. The Examiner is required to interpret the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the claims consistent with the specification. As outlined in MPEP 2111, “an examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution”.2
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “storage medium” in claim 30 consistent with the specification encompasses transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. Therefore, claim 30 is not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17-22 and 24-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome all applicable objections for minor informalities and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
An Exposure Indicator for Digital Radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 to Shepard et al. is considered pertinent because it discloses the Exposure Index (EI), calculated as the “average pixel value of the FOR-PROCESSING IMAGE within the ANATOMICAL REGION OF INTEREST” (pg. 52), which is conceptually similar to the “average of pixel values” in claim 16, but differs in that the EI is related to the dose at the detector, not absorbed in the patient.
KR102188524B1 is pertinent for disclosing on page 1, “an exposure indicator (EI) was developed that can prevent and minimize errors in over-exposure and under-exposure of radiation by informing users of the absorbed dose of the image detector. The exposure index is set on the premise that the signal acquired by the image detector is proportional to the air kerma value, and the imaged signal is based on information converted into a histogram”, which is conceptually similar to the use of the average pixel values in claim 16 and the histogram in claim 17, but the exposure index is used to optimize dose at the detector, not absorbed in the patient.
Contrast Enhancement Using Brightness Preserving Bi-Histogram Equalization to Kim et al. is particularly relevant to the “global threshold” in claim 17, as it discloses calculating the mean of an input image and using the mean as a global threshold to segment the input image into two subimages, and then histogram equalization is applied to each subimage separately.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm EST.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2010/week08/TOC.htm#ref20
2 “In contrast, an examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. Thus, the Office does not interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).”.