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 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, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10772580 (hereinafter “Rong”) in view of US20240074723 (hereinafter “Nabatame”).
Regarding claim 1, Rong teaches an image reconstruction system, comprising (see figure 3, SPECT System 10 which reconstructs an image of the patient [col 1 lines 53-59]) :
a non-transitory memory device for storing computer readable program code (see figure 3 and col 10 lines 4-12, see memory 14 which stores instructions);
and a processor device in communication with the non-transitory memory device, the processor device being operative with the computer readable program code to perform steps including (see figure 3 and col 10 lines 6-12, processor 12 which executes the instructions stored in the memory)
receiving projection data representing emissions detected from a subject (see paragraph col 2 lines 59-64 and col 4 lines 43-45, the system acquires projection data representing the detected emissions from a patient),
formatting the projection data into energy-resolved data (see paragraph col 2 line 64 through col 3 line 4 and col 6 lines 45-50, the separating of projection data or emissions into separate energy windows with specific energy ranges [interpreted as energy-resolved data]),
determining (see col 5 lines 5-19 and 32-43, the use of the forward projector [inherently represents a collection of coefficients which gives the weigh or contribution] emissions at different energy ranges [energy-resolved data], Rong does not explicitly teach determining contribution coefficients a secondary reference will provide obviousness), and
reconstructing an image of the subject (see col 2 lines 54-57, reconstruction including the projection operator or forward operator [interpreted as the contribution coefficients], Rong does not explicitly teach contribution coefficients a secondary reference will provide obviousness)
Rong does not explicitly teach determining contribution coefficients and reconstructing an image of the subject using the contribution coefficient.
Nabatame teaches determining contribution coefficients of one or more components of the emissions based on the energy-resolved data (see paragraph 0043, the weight coefficient which is set based on the counting result [with the higher weight coefficient indicating a larger counting result, the counting result being based on the number of photons that passed through the subject] in each energy range [energy-resolved data] and used to vary the influence of the count result on the image data) and
reconstructing an image of the subject using the contribution coefficients (see paragraph 0053, image generation with use of image generation conditions which includes the weight coefficient of each energy range).
Rong and Nabatame are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of tomographic image generation based on emissions at multiple energy ranges.
Before the effective filling data of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rong and Nabatame for determining contribution coefficients and using them to aid in image reconstructions. The motivation for doing so would have been to vary the influence rate of the counting result on the CT image data.
Regarding claim 2, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 1. Rong teaches the emissions have a continuous energy spectrum (see paragraph col 2 lines 59-62, the emissions have a continuous energy spectrum).
Regarding claim 3, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 2. Rong teaches the emissions are detected from bremsstrahlung radiation (see col 2 lines 59-62, the emissions are bremsstrahlung photons [interpreted as bremsstrahlung radiation]).
Regarding claim 4, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 1. Rong teaches the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code to format the projection data into the energy-resolved data by framing the projection data into multiple non-overlapping energy windows (see col 6 lines 29-34 and lines 45-50, the use of selecting ranges on the continuous energy spectrum that do not overlap for projection data from multiple windows).
Regarding claim 6, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 4. Rong nor Nabatame explicitly disclose at least one of the non-overlapping energy windows is represented by an image size of 64 pixels by 64 pixels. However, it would be a matter of design choice not affecting the overall scope and intention of the invention as to the size of the window. Thus, it would be obvious to set the window size to 64x64 pixels.
Regarding claim 8, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 1. Rong teaches the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code to determine (see col 4 lines 57-63, the use of non-negative least squares in the reconstruction method with a projection operator [representing a collection coefficient]).
Rong does not explicitly teach determining contribution coefficients.
Nabatame teaches determining contribution coefficients of one or more components of the emissions (see paragraph 0043, the weight coefficient which is set based on the counting result in each energy range [energy-resolved data] and used to vary the influence of the count result on the image data).
Regarding claim 9, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 1. Rong teaches the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code to determine (see col 4 lines 57-63, the use of Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization in the reconstruction method with a projection operator [representing a collection coefficient]).
Rong does not explicitly teach determining contribution coefficients.
Nabatame teaches determining contribution coefficients of one or more components of the emissions (see paragraph 0043, the weight coefficient which is set based on the counting result in each energy range [energy-resolved data] and used to vary the influence of the count result on the image data).
Regarding claim 10, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 1. Rong teaches the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code to reconstruct the image of the subject based on the (see col 7 lines 48-55, the window represents primary and scattered photons, the window is uses for the forward projector [see col 5 lines 5-19 and 32-43] which see used for reconstruction [col 2 lines 54-57]).
Rong does not explicitly teach reconstructing an image of the subject based on the contribution coefficient.
Nabatame teaches reconstructing an image of the subject based on the contribution coefficients (see paragraph 0053, image generation with use of image generation conditions which includes the weight coefficient of each energy range).
Claims 13 and 20 are analogous method to system of claim 1, thus claims 13 and 20 are analyzed and rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 14 is analogous method to system of claim 4, thus claim 14 is analyzed and rejected similarly to claim 4.
Claims 16-17 are analogous method to system of claims 8-9, respectively, thus claims 16-17 are analyzed and rejected similarly to claims 8-9.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong in view of Nabatame in view of US20250182881 (hereinafter “Tsukagoshi”).
Regarding claim 5, Rong and Nabatame teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 4.
Rong nor Nabatame teach at least one of the non-overlapping energy windows corresponds to an energy band of 5 keV.
Tsukagoshi teaches at least one of the non-overlapping energy windows corresponds to an energy band of 5 keV (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0052, pattern 2 bin number 2 and 3 show range of 61-65 keV and 66-70 keV [width of 5 keV and the bins do not overlap]).
Rong, Nabatame, and Tsukagoshi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of tomographic image generation based on emissions at multiple energy ranges.
Before the effective filling data of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tsukagoshi, Rong and Nabatame for have an energy window of width 5 keV. The motivation for doing so would have been to specify the energy range of bin and for use when energy bin ranges are uneven (Tsukagoshi, paragraphs 0050 and 0052).
Claim 15 is analogous method to system of claim 5, thus claim 15 is analyzed and rejected similarly to claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong in view of Nabatame in view of US20200134885 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 7, Rong and Nabatame teach the image reconstruction system of claim 4.
Rong teaches the multiple non-overlapping energy windows comprise (see col 6 lines 29-34 and col 5 lines 10-19 lines 45-50, the use of selecting ranges on the continuous energy spectrum that do not overlap for projection data from ith multiple windows [Rong teaches plurality of overlapping windows but does not explicitly teach 20 or more windows, an additional reference will show obviousness).
Rong nor Nabatame explicitly teach 20 or more energy windows.
Yang teaches 20 or more energy windows (see 0105, each bin corresponds to an energy range, the energy spectrum may be divided into 20 bins [windows]).
Yang, Rong and Nabatame are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of tomographic image generation based on emissions at multiple energy ranges.
Before the effective filling data of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yang, Rong and Nabatame the plurality of energy windows including 20 or more windows. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for different weighting to be applied to the different bins (Yang, paragraph 0105-0106).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong in view of Nabatame in view of US20130343673 (hereinafter “Pal”).
Regarding claim 11, Rong and Nabatame teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 1.
Rong teaches the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code (see figure 3 and col 10 lines 6-12, processor 12 which executes the instructions stored in the memory)
Rong nor Nabatame teaches further convert the contribution coefficients to weighted scaling factors representing primary and subject scatter components and reconstruct the image of the subject using the weighted scaling factors.
Pal teaches convert the contribution coefficients to weighted scaling factors representing primary and subject scatter components and reconstruct the image of the subject using the weighted scaling factors (see figure 1 and paragraph 0039, determining a scaling factor from a coefficient map [generated from the initial image (initial image the x-rays are passed through the subject and this processes inherently means the image will include primary and subject scatter components which are used for the coefficients map and scaling factor), paragraph 0041], the scaling factor is applied to the gradient to reconstruct the image [0044]. The coefficient map includes voxel size [Figure 2] which determines spatial resolution which can be interpreted as contribution coefficients in imaging as it provides how much a voxel contributes to the image [or the weight of the voxel in the image]).
Rong, Nabatame, and Pal are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of tomographic image generation based on emissions with the use of weighting of scaling.
Before the effective filling data of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pal, Rong, and Nabatame to convert the contribution coefficient of Nabatame to the weight scaling factors of Pal. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency of incorporation (Pal, paragraph 0050).
Claim 19 is analogous method to system of claim 11, thus claim 19 is analyzed and rejected similarly to claim 11.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong in view of Nabatame in view of US 20180252657 (hereinafter “Persson”).
Regarding claim 18, Rong and Nabatame teaches the method of claim 13.
Rong nor Nabatame teach determining the contribution coefficients comprises performing a conjugate gradient method.
Persson teaches determining the contribution coefficients comprises performing a conjugate gradient method (see paragraph 0147, the use of conjugate gradient method as an iterative optimization method for use of minimization of the coefficient line integrals [0125, the coefficient line integrals are a line integral of linear attenuation coefficients or a set of coefficients that contain necessary information or image representation, interpreted as contribution coefficients]).
Rong, Nabatame, and Persson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of tomographic image generation based on emissions of differing energy levels.
Before the effective filling data of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Persson, Rong and Nabatame for the use of the conjugate gradient method. The motivation for doing so would have been to iteratively optimize the coefficients (Persson, paragraph 0147).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R. HAUK whose telephone number is (571)272-5966. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/EMILY ROSE HAUK/
Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669