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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the application that is submitted by the inventor/assignee. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following application and has made the following comments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2024, 05/29/2025 and 08/06/2025 are considered and attached.
Priority
This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) of:
CN202111275260.6, filed in China on 10/29/2021.
PCT/CN2022/128365, filed in China on 10/28/2022.
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) is/are:
“a scanner configured to” in claim 21, line 2. The corresponding structure is disclosed in paragraph [0045]: “the scanning device 110 may include an X-ray scanner or a computed tomography (CT) scanner. In some embodiments, the scanning device 110 may include a mammography scanner.”
“a reconstruction module configured to” in claim(s) 21, line 4. The corresponding structure is disclosed in paragraph [0088]: “In 420, a plurality of tomographic images of a plurality of slices may be reconstructed based on the plurality of projection images. In some embodiments, the operation 420 may be performed by the image processing system 100 (e.g., the processing device 140), the computing device 200 (e.g., the processor 210), or the image processing system 300 (e.g., the obtaining module 310).” Therefore, the interpretation of the “reconstruction module” is a computing system and equivalent thereof.
“an image processing module configured to” in claim(s) 21, line 6. The corresponding structure is disclosed in paragraph [0043]: “image processing system 100 may include a scanning device 110, a network 120, a terminal 130, a processing device 140, and a storage device 150”. Therefore, the interpretation of the “image processing module” is a computing system and equivalent thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 4-10, 13-16, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts – reconstruction algorithms and pixel-level fusion operations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements include generic computing components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and obtaining projection images is insignificant extra-solution data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because obtaining projection images and reconstructing tomographic images are well understood routine and conventional (WURC) in medical imaging, as evidenced by applicant's specification (¶[0003]).
Step 1: Claims 1, 19, and 21 recite a process, manufacture, and machine respectively. All fall
within statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claims recite reconstructing tomographic images
from projection data and generating fusion images from the tomographic images. Under
BRI, these steps encompass mathematical concepts – reconstruction algorithms and
pixel-level fusion operations (e.g., MIP, averaging, weighted sums, preset ratio fusion) as
described throughout the specification. The mathematical limitations are considered
together as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements include generic computing components
(processor, storage, CRM, modules) and obtaining projection images. The computing
components are mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Obtaining
projection images is insignificant extra-solution data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The
claims recite only the high-level result-fusion images from tomographic data. The specific technical steps (MIP intermediate images combined with reference images
from angle-specific mapping) that reflect the improvement described in the specification are not recited in the claims.
Step 2B: Obtaining projection images and reconstructing tomographic images are WURC
in medical imaging, as evidenced by applicant's specification (¶[0003]). Generic computing
components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims analysis:
Claim
Eligible?
Reason
2
No
Further defines fusion mathematics
3
Yes
Pipeline of mapping images at target angles ➔ reference image ➔ fusion
reflects described improvement
4
No
Mathematical calculation (averaging/weighting)
5
No
Mathematical calculation (preset ratio)
6
No
Mathematical algorithm (filtering/back-projection)
7-10
No
Mental processes (slice selection/ordering)
11
Yes
MIP ➔ intermediate image combined with reference image reflects
Specific technical pipeline
12
Yes
Iterative MIP fusion reflects specific incremental image-building improvement
13
No
Data selection criteria
14-16
No
WURC/insignificant extra-solution activity
17
Yes
Simultaneous fusion with reconstruction reflects real-time processing improvement
22
No
Same as claim 2
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 14-15, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kreeger et al. (US-20220013089-A1, filed 04/01/2021, hereinafter Kreeger)
CLAIM 1
Regarding claim 1, Kreeger teaches a method (Kreeger, ¶ [0013]: “a method including the steps of obtaining a plurality of images, each of the images in the plurality having at least one corresponding region, generating a merged image…”) implemented on at least one machine (Kreeger, ¶ [0051]: “an x-ray image acquisition, processing and display system 108”, see FIG. 7) each of which has at least one processor and at least one storage device (Kreeger, ¶ [0051]: “a storage memory 130 coupled to the processor 120”) for image processing, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of projection images (Kreeger, ¶ [0027-0028]: “The notation Mp refers to a conventional mammogram, which is a two-dimensional projection image of a breast … Tp refers to an image that is similarly two-dimensional but is taken at a respective tomosynthesis angle between the breast and the origin of the imaging X-rays …”) generated at a plurality of angles (Kreeger, ¶ [0003]: “each projection image obtained at a different angular displacement of the x-ray source relative to the image detector as the x-ray source is scanned over the detector.”);
reconstructing, based on the plurality of projection images, a plurality of tomographic images of a plurality of slices (Kreeger, ¶ [0028]: “Tr refers to an image that is reconstructed from images Tp, for example in the manner described in said earlier-filed patent applications, and represents a slice of the breast as it would appear in a projection X-ray image of that slice at any desired angle, not only at an angle used for Tp or Mp images”, see Tr image set in FIG. 2); and
obtaining a target image sequence (Kreeger, ¶ [0039]: “the display can simultaneously or sequentially or in toggled mode display merged images IMERGE”) based on the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044], see images set Tr in FIG. 2), wherein the target image sequence including one or more fusion images, and the one or more fusion images are generated based on one or more tomographic images of the plurality of tomographic images corresponding to one or more slices of the plurality of slices. (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044]: “The image data is forwarded to the region compare and image merge processor which compares the images on a region by region basis, searching for that image with the most desirable display data for that region … When the image with the most desirable display data for that region is identified, the pixels of that region are copied over to the corresponding region of the merged image … region 36M from image Ms is written to region 36I of the merged image 30, and region 35Tr of tomosynthesis slice 10A is copied to region 35I of the merged image 30.”, see FIG. 2. Kreeger teaches fusing image Ms and a slice image Tr with corresponding region)
CLAIM 2
Regarding claim 2, Kreeger teaches the method of Claim 1. In addition, Kreeger teaches each fusion image of the one or more fusion images is generated by fusing an intermediate image corresponding to a slice of the one or more slices and a reference image corresponding to the slice. (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044]: “The image data is forwarded to the region compare and image merge processor which compares the images on a region by region basis, searching for that image with the most desirable display data for that region … When the image with the most desirable display data for that region is identified, the pixels of that region are copied over to the corresponding region of the merged image … region 36M from image Ms is written to region 36I of the merged image 30, and region 35Tr of tomosynthesis slice 10A is copied to region 35I of the merged image 30.”, see FIG. 2. The Examiner notes the slice image from Tr set corresponds to “intermediate image”, and Ms corresponds to “reference image”)
CLAIM 14
Regarding Claim 14, Kreeger teaches the method of Claim 1. In addition, Kreeger teaches the plurality of projection images are acquired by a digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) device. (Kreeger, ¶ [0003]: “breast tomosynthesis systems construct a 3D image volume from a series of 2D projection images”, ¶ [0033-0034])
CLAIM 15
Regarding Claim 15, Kreeger teaches the method of Claim 1. In addition, Kreeger teaches processing the plurality of projection images. (Kreeger, ¶ [0031]: “The terms IMERGE, Tp, Tr, Ms and Mp also encompasses information, in whatever form, that is sufficient to describe such an image for display, further processing, or storage …”. The Examiner notes Tp and Mp are projection images)
CLAIM 19
Regarding Claim 19, Kreeger teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor (Kreeger, ¶ [0051]: “a storage memory 130 coupled to the processor 120”) to implement a method (Kreeger, ¶ [0013]: “a method including the steps of obtaining a plurality of images, each of the images in the plurality having at least one corresponding region, generating a merged image…”) comprising:
obtaining a plurality of projection images (Kreeger, ¶ [0027-0028]: “The notation Mp refers to a conventional mammogram, which is a two-dimensional projection image of a breast … Tp refers to an image that is similarly two-dimensional but is taken at a respective tomosynthesis angle between the breast and the origin of the imaging X-rays …”) generated at a plurality of angles (Kreeger, ¶ [0003]: “each projection image obtained at a different angular displacement of the x-ray source relative to the image detector as the x-ray source is scanned over the detector.”);
reconstructing, based on the plurality of projection images, a plurality of tomographic images of a plurality of slices (Kreeger, ¶ [0028]: “Tr refers to an image that is reconstructed from images Tp, for example in the manner described in said earlier-filed patent applications, and represents a slice of the breast as it would appear in a projection X-ray image of that slice at any desired angle, not only at an angle used for Tp or Mp images”, see Tr image set in FIG. 2); and
obtaining a target image sequence (Kreeger, ¶ [0039]: “the display can simultaneously or sequentially or in toggled mode display merged images IMERGE”) based on the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044], see images set Tr in FIG. 2), wherein the target image sequence including one or more fusion images, and the one or more fusion images are generated based on one or more tomographic images of the plurality of tomographic images corresponding to one or more slices of the plurality of slices. (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044]: “The image data is forwarded to the region compare and image merge processor which compares the images on a region by region basis, searching for that image with the most desirable display data for that region … When the image with the most desirable display data for that region is identified, the pixels of that region are copied over to the corresponding region of the merged image … region 36M from image Ms is written to region 36I of the merged image 30, and region 35Tr of tomosynthesis slice 10A is copied to region 35I of the merged image 30.”, see FIG. 2. Kreeger teaches fusing image Ms and a slice image Tr with corresponding region)
CLAIM 21
Regarding Claim 21, Kreeger teaches an imaging device (Kreeger, ¶ [0032-0034]: “an image generation and display system”), comprising: a scanner configured to obtain a plurality of projection images (Kreeger, ¶ [0051]: “The system includes an x-ray source that projects x-rays at a detector in order to acquire x-ray images of breast tissue under the control of an acquisition control”) generated at a plurality of angles (Kreeger, ¶ [0003]: “each projection image obtained at a different angular displacement of the x-ray source relative to the image detector as the x-ray source is scanned over the detector”); a reconstruction module (Kreeger, ¶ [0034]: “a computer system 3 configured as a reconstruction engine”) configured to reconstruct, based on the plurality of projection images, a plurality of tomographic images of a plurality of slices (Kreeger, ¶ [0028]: “Tr refers to an image that is reconstructed from images Tp, for example in the manner described in said earlier-filed patent applications, and represents a slice of the breast as it would appear in a projection X-ray image of that slice at any desired angle, not only at an angle used for Tp or Mp images”, see Tr image set in FIG. 2); and an image processing module configured to obtain a target image sequence (Kreeger, ¶ [0039]: “the display can simultaneously or sequentially or in toggled mode display merged images IMERGE”) based on the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044], see images set Tr in FIG. 2), wherein the target image sequence including one or more fusion images, and the one or more fusion images are generated based on one or more tomographic images of the plurality of tomographic images corresponding to one or more slices of the plurality of slices. (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044]: “The image data is forwarded to the region compare and image merge processor which compares the images on a region by region basis, searching for that image with the most desirable display data for that region … When the image with the most desirable display data for that region is identified, the pixels of that region are copied over to the corresponding region of the merged image … region 36M from image Ms is written to region 36I of the merged image 30, and region 35Tr of tomosynthesis slice 10A is copied to region 35I of the merged image 30.”, see FIG. 2. Kreeger teaches fusing image Ms and a slice image Tr with corresponding region)
CLAIM 22
Regarding claim 22, Kreeger teaches the device of Claim 21. In addition, Kreeger teaches each fusion image of the one or more fusion images is generated by fusing an intermediate image corresponding to a slice of the one or more slices and a reference image corresponding to the slice. (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044]: “The image data is forwarded to the region compare and image merge processor which compares the images on a region by region basis, searching for that image with the most desirable display data for that region … When the image with the most desirable display data for that region is identified, the pixels of that region are copied over to the corresponding region of the merged image … region 36M from image Ms is written to region 36I of the merged image 30, and region 35Tr of tomosynthesis slice 10A is copied to region 35I of the merged image 30.”, see FIG. 2. The Examiner notes the slice image from Tr set corresponds to “intermediate image”, and Ms corresponds to “reference image”)
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreeger in view of Rundo et al. (US-20200184648-A1, hereinafter Rundo).
CLAIM 7
Regarding Claim 7, Kreeger teaches the method of Claim 2.
Kreeger does not explicitly disclose determining, according to a generation order in which the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices are generated in reconstruction, an initial slice.
Rundo is in the same field of art of breast imaging. Further, Komori teaches determining, according to a generation order in which the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices are generated in reconstruction, an initial slice. (Rundo, ¶ [0089-0092]: “[0089] a first portion A1, comprising the lesion L identified in at least one slice S, may be segmented from a first slice image S1 acquired at first time instant t1; a second portion A2, comprising the lesion L identified in at least one slice S, may be segmented from a second slice image S2 acquired at a second time instant t2, for instance the second time instant t2 being subsequent to the first time instant t1;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kreeger by incorporating chorological order indexing method for acquired image data that is taught by Rundo, to make an image generation with chorological order indexing; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since among its several aspects, the present invention recognizes there is a need to better visualization of medical image data (Rundo, ¶ [0009]: “Such images facilitate visualizing the internal parts of the rib cage, specifically both lungs parenchyma. A time series of such images may provide a moving picture of the chest internal pails.”).
Kreeger, in view of Komori, then teaches designating the fusion image corresponding to the initial slice as an initial image of the target image sequence. (Kreeger, ¶ [0043-0044]: “… When the image with the most desirable display data for that region is identified, the pixels of that region are copied over to the corresponding region of the merged image … region 36M from image Ms is written to region 36I of the merged image 30, and region 35Tr of tomosynthesis slice 10A is copied to region 35I of the merged image 30.”, see FIG. 2. Kreeger teaches fusing image Ms and a slice image Tr with corresponding region) (Rundo, ¶ [0089-0092]: “[0089] a first portion A1, comprising the lesion L identified in at least one slice S, may be segmented from a first slice image S1 acquired at first time instant t1; a second portion A2, comprising the lesion L identified in at least one slice S, may be segmented from a second slice image S2 acquired at a second time instant t2, for instance the second time instant t2 being subsequent to the first time instant t1;”)
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 8
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kreeger and Rundo teaches the method of Claim 7. In addition, the combination of Kreeger and Rundo the determining, according to a generation order in which the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices are generated in reconstruction (Kreeger, ¶ [0034]: “a reconstruction engine that reconstructs the Tp images into reconstructed image slabs Tr representing breast slices …”), an initial slice includes: designating a slice corresponding to a tomographic image generated earliest or latest in the reconstruction of the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices as the initial slice. (Rundo, ¶ [0089-0092]: “[0089] a first portion A1, comprising the lesion L identified in at least one slice S, may be segmented from a first slice image S1 acquired at first time instant t1; a second portion A2, comprising the lesion L identified in at least one slice S, may be segmented from a second slice image S2 acquired at a second time instant t2, for instance the second time instant t2 being subsequent to the first time instant t1;”)
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreeger in view of Chui et al. (US-20210118199-A1, hereinafter Chui).
CLAIM 11
Regarding Claim 11, Kreeger teaches the method of claim 2.
Kreeger does not explicitly disclose determining the one or more intermediate images includes: for each slice of the one or more slices, obtaining the intermediate image corresponding to the current slice by performing a maximum intensity projection operation on the tomographic image corresponding to the current slice.
Chui is in the same field of art of breast tomosynthesis system. Further, Chui teaches determining the one or more intermediate images includes: for each slice of the one or more slices, obtaining the intermediate image corresponding to the current slice by performing a maximum intensity projection operation on the tomographic image corresponding to the current slice. (Chui, ¶ [0058]: “techniques such as averaging, MIP (maximum intensity projection), filtering, etc. may be used for intra-object combination. Intra-object combination techniques aim to preserve the structure of the 3D object without losing valuable information from any of the image slices, while minimizing competing information from multiple image slices that do not provide valuable information and/or visually confuse the end-user”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kreeger by incorporating the maximum intensity projection (MIP) operation that is taught by Chui, to make a breast imaging method that apply MIP operation on image data; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since among its several aspects, the present invention recognizes there is a need for better visualization of 3D image data (Chui, ¶ [0058]: “techniques such as averaging, MIP (maximum intensity projection), filtering, etc. may be used for intra-object combination. Intra-object combination techniques aim to preserve the structure of the 3D object without losing valuable information from any of the image slices, while minimizing competing information from multiple image slices that do not provide valuable information and/or visually confuse the end-user”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 17
Regarding Claim 17, Kreeger teaches the method of Claim 1.
Kreeger does not explicitly disclose the fusing process of the one or more tomographic images of the plurality of tomographic images corresponding to the one or more slices of the plurality of slices is performed simultaneously with the reconstructing process of the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices.
Chui is in the same field of art of breast tomosynthesis system. Further, Chui teaches the fusing process (Chui, ¶ [0047]: “the 2D synthesizer utilizes both the tomosynthesis image stack along with the created 3D object grid in order to merge the relevant features into one or more 2D synthesized images”) of the one or more tomographic images of the plurality of tomographic images corresponding to the one or more slices of the plurality of slices is performed simultaneously with the reconstructing process (Chui, ¶ [0031]: “reconstruction engine that reconstructs the Tp images into reconstructed image “slices” Tr”) of the plurality of tomographic images of the plurality of slices. (Chui, ¶ [0033]: “The imaging and display system further includes a 2D image synthesizer that operates substantially in parallel with the reconstruction engine for generating 2D synthesized images using a combination of one or more Tp, Mp, and/or Tr images”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kreeger by incorporating method to perform multiple image processing methods in parallel that is taught by Chui, to make a tomosynthesis system that can perform reconstruction and image fusion in parallel; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since among its several aspects, the present invention recognizes there is a need to improve efficiency (Chui, ¶ [0033]: “ This provides an end-user (e.g., medical personnel, radiologist, etc.) with the most clinically-relevant image data in an efficient manner, and reduces time spent on other images that may not have significant data.”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 16
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreeger in view of Yang et al. (US-20170301114-A1, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 16, Kreeger teaches the method of Claim 15.
Kreeger does not explicitly disclose the processing includes at least one of image segmentation, grayscale transformation, or window width and window level adjustment.
Yang is in the same field of art of breast tomosynthesis system. Further, Yang teaches the processing includes at least one of image segmentation, grayscale transformation, or (***The Examiner notes since a listing with “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required.) window width and window level adjustment. (Yang, ¶ [0004-0005]: “the pre-processing the projection image may further include generating a negative film of the segmented projection image, and correcting a geometrical error of the negative film of the segmented projection image”; ¶ [0126]: “A maximum gray value Max_A in a segmented projection image may be determined. A corrected gray value of each pixel in the segmented projection image may be determined by subtracting its gray value from Max_A. The corrected gray value of a pixel may be assigned to the pixel as its gray value”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kreeger by incorporating pre-processing methods that is taught by Yang, to make a tomosynthesis system that preprocess projection images before reconstruction; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since among its several aspects, the present invention recognizes there is a need to improve quality of reconstructed image in tomosynthesis system (Yang, ¶ [0003]: “it may be desirable to develop an image reconstruction method and system that may remove or reduce artifacts to improve the quality of reconstructed image”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9-10 and 12-13 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHUT HUY (JEREMY) PHAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5797. The examiner can normally be reached Mo - Fr. 8:30am - 6pm ET.
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, O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313)446-4912. 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.
/NHUT HUY PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674