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
This communication is a Final office action in merits. Claim 11 is new, claims 1-11, after amendment, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites: The medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: perform first image processing to a first region of the input medical image data to generate first processed data, and perform second image processing to a second region of the first processed data to generate the output medical image data, the second region corresponds to a region circumscribing pixels to be used in computation of the second image processing when pixels in the output medical image data are obtained through the second image processing, and the first region corresponds to a region circumscribing pixels to be used in computation of the first image processing when pixels in the second region of the first processed data are obtained through the first image processing.
Examiner fails to find sufficient support from original specification for functions and features recited in claim 11.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0035338 A1, Zhou et al. (hereinafter Zhou) in view of US 2015/0145966 A1, Krieger et al. (hereinafter Krieger).
As to claim 1, Zhou discloses a medical image processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to: obtain input medical image data having a larger image region than output medical image data as a result of image processing (Fig 7; pars 0015, 0050-0052, 0054-0056),
determine, in the input medical image data, a region that is smaller than the image region of the input medical image data and that circumscribes pixels to be used in computation of the image processing when pixels of the output medical image data are obtained through the image processing applied to the input medical image data (pars 0078-0079, 0085, 0089, focusing on a region of input image associated with distortion correction and/or quality enhancement; Figs 11, 20-21; pars 0005-0006, 0011, 0015, perform image quality enhancement on the region needed; pars 0055, 0071, 0074, correct distortion),
perform the image processing to the determined region in the input medical image data (Figs 11, 20-21; pars 0005-0006, 0011, 0015, perform image quality enhancement on the region needed; pars 0055, 0071, 0074, correct distortion), and output the output medical image data resulting from the image processing performed (Figs 7, 9, 13, 20; pars 0015, 0051-0058, output image after image enhancement).
Zhou does not expressly disclose the relative size of the region in input image with respect to any other region in the input image or the image as a whole, an ordinary skill in the art, however, would understand that the region that requires attention or region of interest is usually a portion of the input image and therefore smaller than the input image.
Nevertheless, Krieger, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches region of interest with specific shape and size in the input image being processed to correct distortion as well as circumscribes pixels to be used in computation of the image processing when pixels of the output medical image data are obtained through the image processing applied to the input medical image data (Fig 11, indicating a region (including pixels) circumscribed by another region being determined/identified being processed and output; pars 0015, 0048-0049-0051, 0057, 0059).
Therefore, consider Zhou and Krieger’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Krieger’s teachings in Zhou’s apparatus to only focus on processing particular region that requires distortion correction or quality enhancement in the input image to reduce unnecessary processing burden.
As to claim 2, Zhou as modified discloses the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image processing includes at least one of an image-quality enhancement process for enhancing image quality of the input medical image data (Zhou: Figs 11, 20-21; pars 0005-0006, 0011, 0015, 0017-0018, 0076, image enhancement or improvement) and a distortion correction process for correcting image distortion in the input medical image data (Zhou: Fig 5; pars 0054, 0066-0067, distortion correction).
As to claim 3, Zhou as modified discloses the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the region according to a parameter defining the image processing or a user input (Zhou: pars 0003, 0134; Krieger: pars 0037, 0048, restricted region based on parameter settings).
As to claim 8, Zhou as modified discloses the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain mask data of a sensitivity map used in generation of the input medical image data (Zhou: Fig 13; pars 0010-0012, 0081-0082, 0089-0090, 0100-0113, 0115, the mask being utilized to form the region), and determine the region based on the input medical image data having the mask data applied thereto (Zhou: pars 0082, 0089-0090, 0120-0121, the region being structured/determined correlated to the mask).
As to claim 9, it recites an MRI apparatus performing functions of apparatus claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein. It is noted that Zhou as modified also teaches a fast Fourier Transform (FFT) being applied to the input image (Zhou: Fig 20; pars 0050, 0124).
As to claim 10, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Krieger and further in view of US 2008/0183071 A1, Strommer et al. (hereinafter Strommer).
As to claim 4, Zhou as modified discloses the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in the image processing including the distortion correction process (Zhou: Fig 5; pars 0054, 0066-0067, distortion correction), and the region that is to affect the image quality of the output medical image data when the distortion correction process is applied to the input medical image data (pars ) but does not expressly teach the parameter defining the image processing is a lookup table showing image distortion in the input medical image data with respect to the image region of the output medical image data), and the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, as a region to be subject to the distortion correction process, with reference to the lookup table.
Strommer, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches the parameter defining the image processing is a lookup table showing image distortion in the input medical image data with respect to the image region of the output medical image data (pars 0026, 0087-0091, look-up table being used for correlate correction to a look-up table), and the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, as a region to be subject to the distortion correction process, with reference to the lookup table, the region that is to affect the image quality of the output medical image data when the distortion correction process is applied to the input medical image data (pars 0026, 0087-0091).
Therefore, consider Zhou as modified and Strommer’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Strommer’s teachings to associate or correlate ROI settings and rotation correction to a look-up table for efficient implementation.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Krieger and further in view of US 2021/0390694 A1, Mao et al. (hereinafter Mao).
As to claim 5, Zhou as modified discloses the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein in the image processing including the image-quality enhancement process (Zhou: Figs 11, 20-21; pars 0005-0006, 0011, 0015, 0017-0018, 0076, image enhancement or improvement), the region that is to affect the image quality of the output medical image data when the image-quality enhancement process is applied to the input medical image data (Zhou: Figs 11, 20-21; pars 0005-0006, 0011, 0015, 0017-0018, 0076).
Zhou as modified does not expressly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, as a region to be subject to the image-quality enhancement process, based on the kernel size and the region to be subject to the distortion correction process.
Mao, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches the parameter defining the image processing is a kernel size to be used in the image-quality enhancement process (pars 0085, 0088, 0149, the parameter may include a count of convolution kernels, a size of the kernel, etc.), and the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, as a region to be subject to the image-quality enhancement process, based on the kernel size and the region to be subject to the distortion correction process (pars 0085, 0088, 0149).
Therefore, consider Zhou as modified and Mao’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Mao’s teachings in Zhou as modified’s apparatus to utilize CNN kernel to model in order correct the image distortion and enhance image quality.
As to claim 6, Zhou as modified discloses the medical image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the image-quality enhancement process includes at least one of a noise reduction process for reducing noise in the input medical image data and an artifact reduction process for reducing artifacts in the input medical image data (Zhou: pars 0054, 0070, 0133, noise reduction or denoise image; Figs 13-14; pars 0010-0011, 0013, 0032-0033, 0054, 0065, CT metal artifacts reduction).
As to claim 11, see 35 USC 112(a) rejection, claim limitations are not weighted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Additional citations and rejections have been provided to address amended features recited in claims 1, 9-10. See merit rejection above for details.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Prior art of record (Zhou, Krieger, Strommer, and Mao) neither discloses alone not teaches in combination functions and features recited in claim 7.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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 on 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 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.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights