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 .
In the response to this Office Action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species IV: Figure 20 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the basis that Species I-VI are not patentable distinct species, e.g., as they share a common core inventive concept and require substantially overlapping search and examination, and no serious burden exists. This is not found persuasive because upon closer review, all species all species above are different computer-implemented methods for generating energy transformation models for different material classes and will require different algorithms and steps wherein different energy images are segmented to generate masks of material classes, at least one material class in the mask is segmented to generate masks of material sub-classes, a joint distribution is generated for each material sub-class of the material class, a curve is fit to each distribution, generating an energy transformation model for each of the material sub-classes, an output image at the target energy is generated for each of the material sub-classes, an output image at the target energy is generated based on the output of the operation, the identified one or more contrast phases and one or more corresponding transformation models etc. for the various implementations, embodiments, and examples disclosed. Even though one or more elements recited in the claims of Species VI are similar to one or more elements recited in the claims of Species I-III and V-VI, the additional elements of the other species will create a serious burden for the Examiner and will require a different field of search involving searching different classes/sub-classes, electronic resources, and employing different search strategies or search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 15-16 recite a “computer readable medium encoded with computer executable instructions”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer readable medium”, as variations of the term “computer readable medium“ are not necessarily considered to limit a media claim to non-transitory embodiments because many disclosures conflate storage media and signals, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to “computer readable medium”, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I01 by adding the limitation "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" to the claim. Cf. Animals -Patentability, 1 077 0ff. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0071535 A1 to Abrol et al. (hereinafter "Abrol").
Regarding Claim 8, Abrol teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining an image acquired at a first energy in a single energy CT imaging examination (Claim 9; Fig. 7; Para. 90-96 of Abrol; 702 can include receiving, by a device (e.g., 112) operatively coupled to a processor, a medical image (e.g., 104) having an intensity distribution corresponding to a first medical scanning domain (e.g., 106)… the first medical scanning domain can be a low electrical energy level); segmenting the image into a plurality of different material classes (Figs. 4-7; Para. 81-96 of Abrol; segmentation component 402 can electronically execute the segmentation model 404 on the medical image 104, which can cause the segmentation model 404 to identify a region-of-interest 406 that is depicted within the medical image 104… the region-of-interest 406 can be any suitable portion (e.g., any suitable subset of pixels/voxels) of the medical image 104, that is deemed and/or considered to be medically important for purposes of diagnosis/prognosis… the region-of-interest 406 can include the anatomical structure that is depicted in the medical image 104 and can exclude background portions of the medical image 104); and generating an output image at a target energy for at least one of the material classes based on an energy transformation model corresponding to the at least one of the material classes, the first energy, and the target energy (Figs. 4-7; Para. 81-96 of Abrol; act 712 can include executing, by the device (e.g., 114), a domain-transformation model (e.g., 202) on the medical image, thereby yielding a predicted image (e.g., 204) that has an intensity distribution corresponding to a second medical scanning domain (e.g., 206). As an example, if the first medical scanning domain is a low electrical energy level (e.g., 70 kVp), then the second medical scanning domain can be a high electrical energy level (e.g., 120 kVp)).
Regarding Claim 15, Abrol teaches a computer readable medium encoded with computer executable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor (Fig. 1; Claim 1; Para. 62 of Abrol; learning-based domain transformation system 102 can comprise a processor 108 (e.g., computer processing unit, microprocessor) and a computer-readable memory 110 that is operably and/or operatively and/or communicatively connected/coupled to the processor 108. The computer-readable memory 110 can store computer-executable instructions), causes the at least one processor to: obtain an image acquired at a first energy in a single energy CT imaging examination (Figs. 4-7; Para. 81-96 of Abrol; act 702 can include receiving, by a device (e.g., 112) operatively coupled to a processor, a medical image (e.g., 104) having an intensity distribution corresponding to a first medical scanning domain (e.g., 106)… the first medical scanning domain can be a low electrical energy level); segment the image into at least two material classes (Figs. 4-7; Para. 81-96 of Abrol; segmentation component 402 can electronically execute the segmentation model 404 on the medical image 104, which can cause the segmentation model 404 to identify a region-of-interest 406 that is depicted within the medical image 104… the region-of-interest 406 can be any suitable portion (e.g., any suitable subset of pixels/voxels) of the medical image 104, that is deemed and/or considered to be medically important for purposes of diagnosis/prognosis… the region-of-interest 406 can include the anatomical structure that is depicted in the medical image 104 and can exclude background portions of the medical image 104); and generate an output image at a target energy for at least one of the two material classes based on an energy transformation model corresponding to the at least one of the two material classes (Figs. 4-7; Para. 81-96 of Abrol; Figs. 4-7; Para. 81-96 of Abrol; act 712 can include executing, by the device (e.g., 114), a domain-transformation model (e.g., 202) on the medical image, thereby yielding a predicted image (e.g., 204) that has an intensity distribution corresponding to a second medical scanning domain (e.g., 206). As an example, if the first medical scanning domain is a low electrical energy level (e.g., 70 kVp), then the second medical scanning domain can be a high electrical energy level (e.g., 120 kVp)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant’s claims presented on 04/02/2026 constitute the basis for the reasons of allowance as the current prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed features of claim 1 structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims. Examiner notes that the current invention as disclosed in the independent claims is allowed in its entirety. Each and every limitation working together in concert realizes the current claimed invention’s novelty. No single limitation alone accomplishes the allowability of the inventive independent claim(s), rather each and every limitation of the claim(s) and their disclosed relationships are integral.
None of the references, either singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest a computed tomography imaging system, comprising: an X-ray source configured to emit X-ray radiation that traverses a subject being imaged; an X-ray controller configured to control an energy applied to the X-ray source; an X-ray radiation sensitive detector array disposed opposite the X-ray source, and configured to detect X-ray radiation traversing the subject, generating signals indicative of the detected X-ray radiation; a reconstructor configured to reconstruct an image based on the signals, wherein the image includes at least two material classes and corresponds to the applied energy; and an operator console with at least one processor configured to execute a target energy-image module to generate an output image at a target energy based on the reconstructed image, the applied energy, the target energy, and material class specific energy transformation models, including a different energy transformation model for each of the at least two material classes.
Claims 14 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.
None of the references, either singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the target energy includes a first target energy for a first material class of the two or more material classes and a second target energy for a second material class of the two or more material classes, and further comprising: generating first pixels for the first material class in the output image based on a first energy transformation model corresponding to the first material class; and generating second pixels for the second material class in the output image based on a second energy transformation model corresponding to the second material class.
Claims 16 would be potentially allowable if rewritten in independent form, after addressing the 101 afore-mentioned rejection, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK SARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9887. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABHISHEK SARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights