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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 05/06/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are pending, with claims 8 and 10-15 currently withdrawn from consideration.
Corrective Actions by Applicant
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 9, and 17 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s presented arguments.
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 6 overcomes the objection to claim 6. This is persuasive. The objection to claim 6 has been withdrawn.
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1 and 16 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 4, 16, and 19. This is persuasive, based on the inclusion of the eligible subject matter of claims 2 and 17 into claims 1 and 16, respectively. All 101 rejections have thus been withdrawn.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 4-5 and 19-20 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 5 and 20. This is persuasive. All 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Sun fails to disclose determining a difference between a functional image of an object and a synthetic functional image of the same object, and changing at least one of first image acquisition parameters based on this difference to generate second image acquisition parameters. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument focuses on Sun’s “prior information database” of prior medical images, which Sun uses to generate the simulation/synthetic images. The argument considers that, since the database can include images of many different subjects or patients, the same object is not considered in each of the images.
However, this is only one embodiment disclosed by Sun. Sun also discloses embodiments where the database contains prior images of the same target/object/patient. Paragraphs 0015 and 0016 briefly indicate that the database can include images of the current target. Paragraphs 0096 and 0151 specify that after performing each scan during the steps of figure 5, the obtained scan data can be entered into the database. Finally, paragraph 0150 discusses alternative steps that are taken when the current target’s information is or is not already in the database.
Thus, Sun discloses embodiments that do read on generating multiple images of the same object. This cyclical interpretation of Sun’s figure 5 being repeated over time with the same object/target/patient is integral to the updated and clarified claim mappings of Sun and Kraus provided below.
On pages 10-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Kraus fails to remedy the above deficiencies of Sun. The examiner posits that this argument is rendered moot by the response to the above argument.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0192619-A1) in view of Kraus (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0301289-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a molecular imaging scanner (see figure 1, medical device 110) comprising:
a plurality of photon detectors (see paragraph 0045);
and a processing unit (see figure 1, processing device 120 and figure 2, processor 210) to:
determine an anatomical image of an object (see paragraphs 0038-0039, where the medical device can include a multi-modality system that can obtain anatomical images of an object, such as CT images, as well as functional images such as PET images; paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0096 detail a "prior information database" of previous scan data, which can include the same object/patient as the present target object/patient; thus, this database can include previously determined anatomical images of the target/object from previous iterations of the method of figures 5-6);
input the anatomical image to a trained neural network to generate a synthetic (figure 5, step 530 and paragraphs 0084-0092 outline a process of using the database to determine updated procedure/acquisition parameters, which can include generating simulation/synthetic images; figure 6 and paragraphs 0099-0119 detail this simulation process of step 530 in full; however, paragraph 0091 specifies that, in the case of the modality of the previous image differing from the current modality to be used, the simulation image is not changed to be the same as the present modality; thus, assuming a new iteration of the method is to generate a final functional/PET image, a previous anatomical image would be accordingly changed into a synthetic anatomical image and not a synthetic functional image, as required by the claim);
acquire molecular imaging data of the object using first image acquisition parameters (see figure 5, step 540 and paragraphs 0093-0094, where, after the updated procedure/acquisition parameters were acquired, a new actual scan is performed on the target, which again can be assumed to be a functional scan in any iteration of figures 5-6);
reconstruct a functional image of the object based on the molecular imaging data (see figure 5, step 550 and paragraphs 0095-0096, where the scan data is reconstructed to generate a final functional image of the target that is also added to the database for future iterations);
determine a difference between the functional image and the synthetic functional image; change at least one of the first image acquisition parameters based on the difference to generate second image acquisition parameters (in future iterations of the method, the above process would be repeated again; more specifically, the repetition of figure 5, step 530 and paragraphs 0084-0092 would involve generating more simulation functional/PET images and choosing acquisition parameters from amongst them and the previous actual functional images; see specifically paragraph 0089, where acquisition parameters can be chosen from among historical and simulation values, which reads on determining differences between them);
acquire second molecular imaging data of the object using the second image acquisition parameters (this process can respectively be repeated again at figure 5, step 540);
and reconstruct a second functional image based on the second molecular imaging data (this process can respectively be repeated again at figure 5, step 550).
Sun fails to disclose input the anatomical image to a trained neural network to generate a synthetic functional image of the object (emphasis added via underline). In other words, Sun merely fails to disclose generating synthetic images of a different modality than of the original image, such as generating a functional image from an anatomical image as required by the claim.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Kraus discloses determine an anatomical image of an object (see figure 1, steps REC-1, REC-2 and paragraphs 0161-0162, where first and second medical image data are received; paragraph 0164 specifies that the first and second medical image data are of different types/modalities; paragraph 0092 specifies that the first and second medical image data can be anatomical or functional images);
input the anatomical image to a trained neural network to generate a synthetic functional image of the object (see figure 1, step DET-1 and paragraph 0169, where the first medical image data is applied to a trained function to generate synthetic image data; paragraphs 0082-0084 specify how the synthetic image data is generated to be of the same presentation/modality as the second imaging data; figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0200-0204 illustrate an example of first image IM_1 being transformed into synthetic image IM_sy that shares the same presentation/modality with second image IM_2).
Sun and Kraus are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis for multi-modality medical imaging systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Kraus into Sun by using Kraus’s method to generate synthetic images of different modalities because doing so allows for obtaining additional imaging data for analysis without subjecting the patient to additional radiation (see Kraus paragraphs 0004-0005), which is notably a goal shared by Sun (see Sun paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 4, Sun in view of Kraus discloses wherein reconstruction of the functional image and determination of the difference occur during acquisition of third molecular imaging data of the object using the first image acquisition parameters (see Sun paragraph 0042, where the acquisition parameters generated during new scans can be used to continuously update and/or optimize the database for use during subsequent scans).
Regarding claim 16, Sun discloses a non-transitory medium storing program code, the program code executable by at least one processing unit to cause a computing system to (see paragraph 0021).
The remainder of claim 16 recites steps identical to those of claim 1. Therefore, Sun in view of Kraus discloses claim 16 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Sun in view of Kraus discloses claim 19 as applied to claim 4 above.
Claims 3, 5, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0192619-A1) in view of Kraus (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0301289-A1), and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2019/0122400-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sun in view of Kraus fails to disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein the second functional image is reconstructed based on the molecular imaging data and the second molecular imaging data (see paragraphs 0043-0044, where, if acquisition parameters are updated, reconstruction is executed using both the new imaging data and all previous imaging data).
Sun and Li are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis for acquisition parameter adjustment in medical systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Li into Sun and Kraus because doing so reduces the radiation dose administered to the patient (see Li paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 5, Sun in view of Kraus fails to disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein the second functional image is reconstructed based on the molecular imaging data, the second molecular imaging data and the third molecular imaging data (see paragraphs 0043-0044, where, if acquisition parameters are updated, reconstruction is executed using both the new imaging data and all previous imaging data).
Sun and Li are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis for acquisition parameter adjustment in medical systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Li into Sun and Kraus because doing so reduces the radiation dose administered to the patient (see Li paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 18, Sun in view of Kraus and Li discloses claim 18 as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20, Sun in view of Kraus and Li discloses claim 20 as applied to claim 5 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0192619-A1) in view of Kraus (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0301289-A1), and further in view of Grass et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2020/0337668-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sun in view of Kraus fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Grass discloses a table to support the object (see figure 1, table top 118),
wherein the difference is less activity in a region of the functional image than in the region of the synthetic functional image, the at least one of the first image acquisition parameters is a speed of the table, and the change is a decrease in the speed of the table (see figure 5 and paragraph 0040, where if a decrease in contrast agent concentration/activity is detected by comparing successive scan planes/images, the speed of the table top is accordingly reduced).
Sun and Grass are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image analysis for acquisition parameter adjustment in medical systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Grass into Sun and Kraus because doing so allows for ensuring a desired, predetermined amount of activity occurs in each successive image during scanning (see Grass paragraph 0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, which is reiterated from the previous office action, and still applies after an updated search.
Regarding claim 6, although Sun in view of Kraus generally disclose medical imaging systems for changing acquisition parameters based on the difference between acquired and synthetic functional images (see 103 rejections of claim 1 above), the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest doing so specifically by decreasing the acceptance angle with respect to a region that has greater activity in the acquired functional image than in the synthetic functional image, as required by claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights