ULTRA-HIGH RESOLUTION CT RECONSTRUCTION USING GRADIENT GUIDANCE

DETAILED ACTIONS 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 . Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 07/31/2026 has been entered in full. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-7 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0092739 A1), hereinafter referred to as Li, in view of Santerre et al., (US 8,954,298 B2), hereinafter referred to as Santerre, in further view of Ma et al., "Structure-Preserving Super Resolution with Gradient Guidance" (2020), hereinafter referred to as Ma, in further view of Su et al., (US 2020/0402205 A1), hereinafter referred to as Su. Claim 1 Li discloses a computer-implemented method for ultra-high resolution computed tomography (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”) comprising: (a) acquiring (Li, Fig. 5, step 510, obtaining an image), using computed tomography (CT) (Li, [0039], “the systems may include a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, a radiotherapy (RT) system, a computed tomography (CT) system, an emission computed tomography (ECT) system, an X-ray photography system, a positron emission tomography (PET) system, or the like, or any combination thereof.”), a medical image of a subject ([0040], “The term “image” in the present disclosure is used to collectively refer to image data (e.g., scan data, projection data) and/or images of various forms, including a two-dimensional (2D) image, a three-dimensional (3D) image, a four-dimensional (4D), etc”, “ The term “region,” “location,” and “area” in the present disclosure may refer to a location of an anatomical structure shown in the image or an actual location of the anatomical structure existing in or on the subject's body”), wherein the medical image has a lower resolution (Li, [0083], “the current resolution level of the image obtained by the processing device 120A described in operation 510 may be lower than a resolution level threshold. Accordingly, the image quality of the obtained image may be relatively low”); and (b) processing the medical image (Li, Fig. 5, step 550, processing the image using the target processing model), with aid of a deep learning network model (Li, [0095], “the target processing model may include a neural network model, such as a convolutional neural network (CNN) model (e.g., a full CNN model, V-net model, a U-net model, an AlexNet model, an Oxford Visual Geometry Group (VGG) model, a ResNet model), a generative adversarial network (GAN) model, or the like, or any combination thereof”), to reconstruct an ultra-high resolution medical image (Li, Fig. 13, step 1360, Reconstructing a target image based on the target k-space data, [0099], “the processed image with the target resolution level may be an ultra-resolution reconstructed image”) that resolves one or more anatomical structures not resolvable in the medical image (Li, [0040], “The term “anatomical structure” in the present disclosure may refer to gas (e.g., air), liquid (e.g., water), solid (e.g., stone), cell, tissue, organ of a subject, or any combination thereof, which may be displayed in an image (e.g., a planning image, or a treatment image, etc.) and really exist in or on the subject's body.”, [0046], “the imaging device 110 may be directed to select an anatomical slice of a subject along a slice selection direction and scan the anatomical slice to acquire a plurality of echo signals from the slice”, [0042], “the systems and methods in the present disclosure may generate a processed image with an improved resolution level by processing the image using the target processing model. A reference resolution level range corresponding to the image may be determined, from the group of resolution level ranges, based on the current resolution level of the image. Each of the group of resolution level ranges may correspond to a processing model. The target processing model corresponding to the reference resolution level range may be used to process the image. The application of the target processing model may improve the resolution of the image, and improve the accuracy of the processed image.”), wherein the deep learning network model is trained using a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based framework (Li, [0095], “the target processing model may include a neural network model, such as a convolutional neural network (CNN) model (e.g., a full CNN model, V-net model, a U-net model, an AlexNet model, an Oxford Visual Geometry Group (VGG) model, a ResNet model), a generative adversarial network (GAN) model, or the like, or any combination thereof”) with a gradient guidance. Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the medical image has a lower resolution and is acquired using a shortened scanning time. However, Santerre teaches wherein the medical image has a lower resolution and is acquired using a shortened scanning time (Santerre, [Col. 4 lines 29-54], “Scanners 106, on the other hand, in some embodiments may be described as low-resolution and/or as having a fast scan rate, at least relative to medical scanners and even typical industrial scanners used today. For example, scanners 106 may be configured to acquire data associated with a rotor blade at lower resolutions than at least one of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 microns. "At lower resolutions" refers to resolutions that are based on distances that are greater than the enumerated value. Additionally or alternatively, some embodiments of scanners 106 may be configured to acquire data at a rate of at least 15, 25, 50, 100, or 1,000 millimeters per minute. For example, in embodiments of scanners that move relative to a rotor blade, or vice versa, the rate of acquiring data may correspond to the rate of relative movement and thus may be described in terms of meters of the length, or span, or the rotor blade per second.”). Li and Santerre are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical imaging using computer tomography. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Li to incorporate the teachings of Santerre wherein the medical image has a lower resolution and is acquired using a shortened scanning time. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been for a faster scan rate (Santerre, Col. 4 lines 29-54). The combination of Li in view of Santerre does not explicitly disclose wherein the deep learning network model is trained using a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based framework with a gradient guidance. However, Ma teaches wherein the deep learning network model is trained using a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based framework with a gradient guidance (Ma, Fig. 2, “Our architecture consists of two branches, the SR branch and the gradient branch. The gradient branch aims to super-resolve LR gradient maps to the HR counterparts. It incorporates multi-level representations from the SR branch to reduce parameters and outputs gradient information to guide the SR process by a fusion block in turn. The final SR outputs are optimized by not only conventional image-space losses, but also the proposed gradient-space objectives”, Section 3.2.1, “Once we get the SR gradient maps by the gradient branch, we are able to integrate the obtained gradient features into the SR branch to guide SR reconstruction in turn”, Section 4.1, “We use the architecture of ESRGAN as the backbone of our SR branch and the RRDB block as the gradient block. We randomly sample 15 32 × 32 patches from LR images for each input mini-batch. Therefore the ground-truth HR patches have a size of 128 × 128. We initialize the generator with the parameters of a pre-trained PSNR-oriented model. The pixelwise loss, perceptual loss, adversarial loss and gradient loss are used as the optimizing objectives”). PNG media_image1.png 282 730 media_image1.png Greyscale Li and Ma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of super resolution using GAN. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Li to incorporate the teachings of Ma wherein the deep learning network model is trained using a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based framework with a gradient guidance. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to optimize the final super resolution outputs by not only conventional image-space losses, but also the proposed gradient-space objectives (Ma, Fig. 2). The combination of Li in view of Santerre in further view of Ma does not explicitly disclose wherein the deep learning network model is trained using clinical computed tomography (CT) image data pairs, each data pair comprising a low resolution CT image and a corresponding ultra-high resolution CT image, wherein the low resolution CT image and the ultra-high resolution CT image are each acquired by CT scanning of a same subject. However, Su teaches wherein the deep learning network model (Su, [0030], “a system for generating a trained NN model and using the trained NN model for generating deep learning (DL) assessments”) is trained using clinical computed tomography (CT) image data pairs, each data pair comprising a low resolution CT image and a corresponding ultra-high resolution CT image (Su, [0011], “the neural network model is trained with a plurality of training image sets. Each training image set of the plurality of training image sets includes an LR image corresponding to a training image and a plurality of HR residual sub-images corresponding to the training image and configured as a target output of the neural network model”, [0047], “Techniques disclosed herein can be used to achieve ultra-resolution”), wherein the low resolution CT image and the ultra-high resolution CT image are each acquired by CT scanning of a same subject (Su, [0083], “FIG. 5 is a diagram 500 illustrating the generation of training image sets, which can be used during the DL model training 108 to generate the trained NN model 110 within the DLA 106 of FIG. 1, according to example embodiments. Referring to FIG. 5, each training image set includes an LR image 510 used as a convolution layers input image 532 (e.g., corresponding to the training input data 104), and a plurality of HR residual sub-images 518 used as a set of convolution layers target output images 536”, the low resolution image and the high resolution image has the same subject in the images as shown in Fig. 5). Li and Su are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of super resolution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Li to incorporate the teachings of Su wherein the deep learning network model is trained using clinical computed tomography (CT) image data pairs, each data pair comprising a low resolution CT image and a corresponding ultra-high resolution CT image, wherein the low resolution CT image and the ultra-high resolution CT image are each acquired by CT scanning of a same subject. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to efficiently perform UR processing with significant visual perception improvements that can be achieved in real-time with acceptable energy consumption by the UR processing (Su, [0048]). Claim 2 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 1 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the GAN-based framework comprises a first branch for improving a resolution of a medical image (Ma, Fig. 2, SR Branch), and a second branch for generating a predicted gradient map (Ma, Fig. 2, Gradient Branch). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 2 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 2 is met by Li and Ma. Claim 3 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the predicted gradient map is used to guide the training of the first branch (Ma, Fig. 2, “outputs gradient information to guide the SR process by a fusion block in turn”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 3 is met by Li and Ma. Claim 4 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 3 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the predicted gradient map is concatenated with a feature map of the first branch and is supplied to a residual block (Ma, Fig. 2, Fusion Block, Section 3.2.1, “we feed the feature maps produced by the next-to-last layer of gradient branch to the SR branch”, Section 3.2.2, “We fuse the structure information by a fusion block which fuses the features from two branches together. Specifically, we concatenate the two features and then use another RRDB block and convolutional layer to reconstruct the final SR features.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 4 is met by Li and Ma. Claim 5 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the second branch uses a pixel-wise loss in a training process (Ma, Section 3.3, “we design two terms of loss to penalize the difference in the gradient maps (GM) of the SR and HR images. One is based on the pixelwise loss”. The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 5 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 5 is met by Li and Ma. Claim 6 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the first branch uses a combination of pixel-wise loss (Ma, Section 3.3, “Among these, β I SR, β GM SR and β GM GB are the weights of the pixel losses for SR images, gradient maps of SR images and SR gradient maps respectively. γ I SR and γ GM SR are the weights of the adversarial losses for SR image and their gradient maps.”) and a GAN loss in a training process (Ma, Section 3.3, “Among these, β I SR, β GM SR and β GM GB are the weights of the pixel losses for SR images, gradient maps of SR images and SR gradient maps respectively. γ I SR and γ GM SR are the weights of the adversarial losses for SR image and their gradient maps.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 6 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 6 is met by Li and Ma. Claim 7 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the second branch incorporates one or more intermediate feature maps generated by the first branch (Ma, Section 3.2.1, “As shown in Figure 2, the gradient branch incorporates several intermediate-level representations from the SR branch.”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 7 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 7 is met by Li and Ma. Claim 9 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the deep learning network model (Li, [0095], “the target processing model may include a neural network model, such as a convolutional neural network (CNN) model (e.g., a full CNN model, V-net model, a U-net model, an AlexNet model, an Oxford Visual Geometry Group (VGG) model, a ResNet model), a generative adversarial network (GAN) model, or the like, or any combination thereof”) is trained by selecting training image patch pairs from the clinical CT image data pairs (Su, [0011], “the neural network model is trained with a plurality of training image sets. Each training image set of the plurality of training image sets includes an LR image corresponding to a training image and a plurality of HR residual sub-images corresponding to the training image and configured as a target output of the neural network model”, [0047], “Techniques disclosed herein can be used to achieve ultra-resolution”) according to one or more empirical thresholds of at least one of a peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) or a structural similarity (SSIM) to reduce spatial misalignment between the low resolution CT image and the corresponding ultra-high resolution CT image of each data pair (Su, [0044], “the term “ultra-resolution” (or UR) includes the image resolution enhancement techniques of the SR (i.e., improving the resolution of video frames together with PSNR and SSIM), but also reduces the noise level, removes blocking artifacts commonly caused by video compression, and enhances local contrast (which functionalities are not present in SR)”. The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Su references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 9 is met by Li and Su. Claim 10 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), where an input to the second branch includes a gradient map of the medical image acquired in (a) (Ma, Fig. 2, the input for the gradient branch is the gradient map of the low-resolution image, Li discloses that the low-resolution original image is a medical image). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 10 is met by Li and Ma. Claim 11 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 1 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”), wherein the deep learning network model is trained using a loss function comprising a combination of at least pixel-wise loss, adversarial loss, and perceptual loss (Ma, Section 4.1, “the initialize the generator with the parameters of a pre-trained PSNR-oriented model. The pixelwise loss, perceptual loss, adversarial loss and gradient loss are used as the optimizing objectives”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 11 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 11 is met by Li and Ma. Claims 12-18, and 20 are rejected for similar reasons as those described in claims 1-7, and 9. The additional elements in Claims 12-18, and 20 (Li, Santerre, Ma, and Su) discloses includes: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (Li, [0008], “The non-transitory computer readable medium may include at least one set of instructions for image processing”) that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Li, [0008], “When executed by one or more processors of a computing device, the at least one set of instructions may cause the computing device to perform a method”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li, Santerre, Ma and Su references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claims 12-18, and 20 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the medium recited in Claims 12-18, and 20 is met by Li, Santerre, Ma and Su. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su in further view of Mu et al., “Integration of gradient guidance and edge enhancement into super-resolution for small object detection in aerial images” (April, 2021), hereinafter referred to as Mu. Claim 8 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 7 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”). The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su does not explicitly disclose wherein the first branch comprises a set of residual blocks and the one or more intermediate feature maps are generated by one or more residual blocks selected from the set of residual blocks. However, Mu teaches wherein the first branch comprises a set of residual blocks (MU, Fig. 2, SR branch has a set of RRRDB blocks, Section 3.3, “This branch constitutes two parts. The first part is a regular SR network which is similar to the generator of ESRGAN. Compared to ESRGAN, we replace the RRDB with the proposed residual-in-residual residual dense block (RRRDB). The RRDB has a residual-in-residual structure with dense blocks in the main path, as presented in Figure 3(a). We add an additional level of residual learning inside the dense blocks, as presented in Figure 3(b), to augment the network capacity without increasing its complexity.”), and the one or more intermediate feature maps are generated by one or more residual blocks selected from the set of residual blocks (Mu, Section 3.3, “Since we use 23 RRRDB blocks in the SR branch, we use the feature from the 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th blocks into the gradient branch to enhance the GM. The second part of the SR branch fuses the feature of GM. We fuse the structure information by matrix multiplication. Finally, we use two convolutional layers to reconstruct the final ISR features, as shown in Figure 2.”). PNG media_image2.png 374 1190 media_image2.png Greyscale Li, Ma, and Mu are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of super resolution using GAN. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Li and Ma to incorporate the teachings of Mu wherein the first branch comprises a set of residual blocks and the one or more intermediate feature maps are generated by one or more residual blocks selected from the set of residual blocks. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to augment the network capacity without increasing its complexity (Mu, Section 3.3). Claim 9 The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su disclose a computer-implemented method of claim 2 (Li, Fig. 5, [0098], “the target resolution level may be an ultra-high resolution level which is higher than the current resolution level of the image. The ultra-high resolution level may be higher than a preset resolution level threshold, or the ultra-high resolution level may be higher than the current resolution level multiplied by a certain multiple”) The combination of Li in view of Santerre in view of Ma in further view of Su does not explicitly disclose wherein the first branch comprises a first set of residual blocks and wherein the second branch comprises a second set of residual blocks. However, Mu teaches wherein the first branch comprises a first set of residual blocks (Mu, Fig. 2, SR branch has its own set of RRRDB blocks, Section 4.1, “we use 23 RRRDB blocks for the SR branch, 3 RRRDB blocks for the edge-enhanced branch, and 4 RRRDB blocks for the gradient branch”) and wherein the second branch comprises a second set of residual blocks (Mu, Fig. 2, GRadient branch has its own set of RRRDB blocks, Section 4.1, “we use 23 RRRDB blocks for the SR branch, 3 RRRDB blocks for the edge-enhanced branch, and 4 RRRDB blocks for the gradient branch”). Li, Ma, and Mu are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of super resolution using GAN. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Li and Ma to incorporate the teachings of Mu wherein the first branch comprises a first set of residual blocks and wherein the second branch comprises a second set of residual blocks. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to augment the network capacity without increasing its complexity (Mu, Section 3.3). Claims 19 are rejected for similar reasons as those described in claims 8-9. The additional elements in Claims 19 (Li, Santerre, Ma, Su and Mu) discloses includes: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (Li, [0008], “The non-transitory computer readable medium may include at least one set of instructions for image processing”) that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Li, [0008], “When executed by one or more processors of a computing device, the at least one set of instructions may cause the computing device to perform a method”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Li, Santerre, Ma, Su and Mu references presented in the rejection of Claims 8, apply to Claim 19 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the medium recited in Claim 19 is met by Li, Santerre, Ma, Su and Mu. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISE G ALFONSO whose telephone number is (571)272-1360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30. 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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. /DENISE G ALFONSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2662 /AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662