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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is filed in response to the communication filed on 05/06/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/06/2026 on pages 7-13, under REMARKS with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2015/0296193 A1. Further, under REMARKS with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 1 applicants on page 9 states that:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to point to the primary reference of record WO 2016/044465 A1 to MANDELKERN, particularly paragraph [00160], which states “Step S304 also can include the computer system 106 performing further automated image enhancements such as, for example, image sharpening, brightness optimization, and/or contrast optimization, on each reconstructed (and deblurred, where deblurring is performed) image slice in a known manner” and is substantially similar to linear mixing as it is described in the instant application. The instant application at paragraph [0004] of the summary states regarding linear mixing “The enhanced input image is linearly mixed with the sharpened input image using a control coefficient to obtain an output image, and the output image is provided to a display of a user, in various embodiments”. In both cases an enhanced input image is further enhanced based on an image feature by an automated enhancement tool combining the input image and the enchantment to produce a further enhanced output image in the case of the examples provided the enhanced image feature comprising sharpness of the produced image for user use/display. See full rejections to the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2016/044465 A1 to MANDELKERN et al. (hereinafter “MANDELKERN”) in view of US 2015/0296193 A1 to COTE et al (hereinafter “COTE”).
As per claim 1, MANDELKERN discloses a method, comprising: receiving an input medical image (a computing system and method of operation to enhance/improve x-ray image quality and in order to perform this process receives an input of x-ray images; abstract; figs 1A, 2B-4, 6-7, 17A-C, 27A-D and 28; paragraphs [0237], [0248-0251], [0265]); and producing an output medical image by linearly mixing the noise filtrated image and the contrast enhanced image with the sharpened image (the computing system is adapted to perform the enhancements on the selected x-ray image slices and is further adapted to output the enhanced x-ray images to a display component of the computer at step 1720 of fig 17A, and further the enhancements applied are applied in a similar way to linear mixing see paragraph [00160] of MANDELKERN at step S304 and optimizes/auto enhances the image slice as desired by the user in a similar manner to the linear mixing definition provided in the instant application paragraph [0004] summary, in which both take an enhanced input image and further optimize said image in the examples provided using the sharpness feature and producing an output image which is further enhanced based on user desires; fig 17A; paragraphs [0107], [0121], [00160], [0192]). MANDELKERN fails to disclose producing a noise filtrated image by applying recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image; producing a contrast enhanced image by applying recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image; producing a sharpened image by applying recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image.
COTE discloses producing a noise filtrated image by applying recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image (the excess noise is filtered out using a Gaussian noise filter when needed to reduce overall image noise; paragraphs [0705], [0900-0906], [0915]); producing a contrast enhanced image by applying recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image (the filter as stated in paragraph 0705 would be set to be applied recursively and produce a contrast enhancement when applied to the medical images of MANDELKERN; fig 183; paragraphs [0255], [0705], [0928-0929], [0967-0968]); producing a sharpened image by applying recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image (this would result after application of the filter set to be applied recursively would produce an image with a sharpness enhancement as seen in fig 184; fig 183-184; paragraphs [0255], [0705], [0910-0911], [0928-0929]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANDELKERN to have producing a contrast enhanced image by applying recursive contrast enhancement, recursive sharpness enhancement, and noise filtration of the COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to produce an image from the input medical image of MANDELKERN to produce a sharpness/contrast enhanced medical image as suggested and shown in fig 184, and paragraph [0911] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As per claim 2, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the method of claim 1. Modified MANDELKERN further discloses wherein receiving the input medical image comprises receiving an X-ray image (the system using an x-ray device which is operably connected to the computing system acquires input x-ray images; fig 17A; paragraphs [0105-0108], [0154], [0192]), and producing the output medical image comprises producing an enhanced X-ray image (the system is adapted to output enhanced x-ray images to a computer display; figs 6-7, and 17A; paragraphs [0107], [0121], [0192]).
As per claim 3, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the method of claim 2. wherein receiving the input medical image comprises receiving a sequence of computer tomography images (the input medical images are received and collected via a tomography system to receive tomography images; paragraphs [00190-00192], [00236]), and producing the output medical image comprises producing an enhanced image for each image of the sequence of computer tomography images (the tomography images undergo the same processing steps as the x-ray images and produce an enhanced tomography medical image using the same filtering and enhancement steps; abstract; fig 17A; paragraphs [00190-00192], [00236]).
As per claim 4, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the method of claim 2. wherein receiving the X-ray image comprises receiving an X-ray dental image (the system using an x-ray device which is operably connected to the computing system acquires input x-ray images which are dental images as seen in figs provided; figs 6-7 and 17A; paragraphs [0105-0108], [0154], [0192]), and producing the enhanced X-ray image comprises producing an enhanced X-ray dental image (the system is adapted to output enhanced x-ray dental images to a computer display; figs 6-7, and 17A; paragraphs [0107], [0121], [0192]).
As per claim 5, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the method of claim 1. further comprising performing the applications of the recursive noise filtration and the recursive contrast enhancement in parallel with performing the application of the recursive sharpness enhancement (the described processes for enhancing features such as assigning a focus factor to an image slice are run in parallel by the computer performing the enhancement steps; paragraph [00169]).
As per claim 6, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the method of claim 1. wherein linearly mixing the noise filtrated image and the contrast enhanced image with the sharpened image comprises applying weighting coefficients to the noise filtrated image, the contrast enhanced image, and the sharpened image, the weighting coefficients determined based on requirements for the output medical image (the image enhancement model is adjustable based on operators set values and includes the ability to adjust sensitivity of the variance and gradient kernel operators to edges, and the width of the detected edges on the variance and gradient images, can be adjusted by tuning the parameters of the operators acting as weighted coefficients to effect the output of the enhanced input x-ray image; fig 17B; paragraphs [0198], [0204], [00313]).
As per claim 12, MANDELKERN discloses an apparatus for enhancing medical images, the apparatus comprising a processor configured to: receive an input medical image (a computing system which comprises a memory and processor and performs a method of operation to enhance/improve x-ray image quality and in order to perform this process receives an input of x-ray images; abstract; figs 1A, 2B-4, 6-7, 17A-C, 27A-D and 28; paragraphs [0012], [0237], [0248-0251], [0265]); and linearly mix the noise filtrated image and the contrast enhanced image with the sharpened image to produce an output medical image (the computing system is adapted to perform the enhancements on the selected x-ray image slices and is further adapted to output the enhanced x-ray images to a display component of the computer at step 1720 of fig 17A, and further the enhancements applied are applied in a similar way to linear mixing see paragraph [00160] of MANDELKERN at step S304 and optimizes/auto enhances the image slice as desired by the user in a similar manner to the linear mixing definition provided in the instant application paragraph [0004] summary, in which both take an enhanced input image and further optimize said image in the examples provided using the sharpness feature and producing an output image which is further enhanced based on user desires; fig 17A; paragraphs [0107], [0121], [00160], [0192]). MANDELKERN fails to disclose apply recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image to produce a noise filtrated image; apply recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image to produce a contrast enhanced image; apply recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image to produce a sharpened image.
COTE discloses apply recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image to produce a noise filtrated image (the excess noise is filtered out using a Gaussian noise filter when needed to reduce overall image noise; paragraphs [0705], [0900-0906], [0915]); apply recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image to produce a contrast enhanced image (the filter applied which increases contrast and increases sharpness produces image 184 which is contrast and sharpness enhanced; fig 183; paragraphs [0255], [0705], [0928-0929], [0967-0968]); apply recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image to produce a sharpened image (this would result after application of the filter set to be applied recursively would produce an image with a sharpness enhancement as seen in fig 184; fig 183-184; paragraphs [0255], [0705], [0910-0911], [0928-0929]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANDELKERN to have apply recursive contrast enhancement, recursive sharpness enhancement, and noise filtration to the received input medical image of COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to produce an image from the input medical image of MANDELKERN to produce a sharpness/contrast enhanced medical image as suggested and shown in fig 184, and paragraph [0911] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
As per claim 16, MANDELKERN discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions, which when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform a method comprising (a computing system which comprises a memory and processor and performs a method of operation to enhance/improve x-ray image quality and in order to perform this process receives an input of x-ray images; abstract; figs 1A, 2B-4, 6-7, 17A-C, 27A-D and 28; paragraphs [0012], [0237], [0248-0251], [0265]): receiving an input medical image (the system receives an input of x-ray images; abstract; figs 1A, 2B-4, 6-7, 17A-C, 27A-D and 28; paragraphs [0237], [0248-0251], [0265]); and producing an output medical image by linearly mixing the noise filtrated image and the contrast enhanced image with the sharpened image (the computing system is adapted to perform the enhancements on the selected x-ray image slices and is further adapted to output the enhanced x-ray images to a display component of the computer at step 1720 of fig 17A, and further the enhancements applied are applied in a similar way to linear mixing see paragraph [00160] of MANDELKERN at step S304 and optimizes/auto enhances the image slice as desired by the user in a similar manner to the linear mixing definition provided in the instant application paragraph [0004] summary; fig 17A; paragraphs [0107], [0121], [00160], [0192]). MANDELKERN fails to disclose producing a noise filtrated image by applying recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image; producing a contrast enhanced image by applying recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image; producing a sharpened image by applying recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image.
COTE discloses producing a noise filtrated image by applying recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image (the excess noise is filtered out using a Gaussian noise filter when needed to reduce overall image noise; paragraphs [0705], [0900-0906], [0915]); producing a contrast enhanced image by applying recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image (the filter applied which increases contrast and increases sharpness produces image of fig 184 which is contrast and sharpness enhanced; fig 183-184; paragraphs [0255], [0705], [0928-0929], [0967-0968]); producing a sharpened image by applying recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image (this would result after application of the filter set to be applied recursively would produce an image with a sharpness enhancement as seen in fig 184; fig 183-184; paragraphs [0255], [0705], [0910-0911], [0928-0929]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANDELKERN to have apply recursive contrast enhancement, recursive sharpness enhancement, and noise filtration to the received input medical image of COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to produce an image from the input medical image of MANDELKERN to produce a sharpness/contrast enhanced medical image as suggested and shown in fig 184, and paragraph [0911] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claims 7, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2016/044465 A1 to MANDELKERN et al. (hereinafter “MANDELKERN”) in view of US 2015/0296193 A1 to COTE et al (hereinafter “COTE”) in view of US 2019/0378329 A1 to KIELY (hereinafter “KIELY”).
As per claim 7, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the method of claim 1. MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration (RLA-WF) based on a sliding window calculated following a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme.
KIELY discloses wherein applying the recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration (RLA-WF) based on a sliding window calculated following a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme (the computing system adapted to provide optimal x-ray image parameters includes a wiener filter used to reduce noise in the x-ray images and would be easily applied recursively by applying it iteratively at the noise filtration steps of MANDELKERN; paragraphs [0174-0178]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANDELKERN to have applying the recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration of KIELY reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to reduce noise by employing specifically a wiener filter on the x-ray images as suggested by paragraph [0175] of KIELY. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine KIELY with MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As per claim 13, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the apparatus of claim 12. MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to apply Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration (RLA-WF) to the received input medical image to produce the noise filtrated image based on a sliding window calculated following a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme.
KIELY discloses wherein the processor is configured to apply Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration (RLA-WF) to the received input medical image to produce the noise filtrated image based on a sliding window calculated following a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme (the computing system adapted to provide optimal x-ray image parameters includes a wiener filter used to reduce noise in the x-ray images and would be easily applied recursively by applying it iteratively at the noise filtration steps of MANDELKERN; paragraphs [0174-0178]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANDELKERN to have apply Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration to the received input medical image to produce the noise filtrated image of KIELY reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to reduce noise by employing specifically a wiener filter on the x-ray images as suggested by paragraph [0175] of KIELY. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine KIELY with MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
As per claim 17, MANDELKERN in view of COTE discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16. MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration (RLA-WF) based on a sliding window calculated following a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme.
KIELY discloses wherein applying the recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration (RLA-WF) based on a sliding window calculated following a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme (the computing system adapted to provide optimal x-ray image parameters includes a wiener filter used to reduce noise in the x-ray images and would be easily applied recursively by applying it iteratively at the noise filtration steps of MANDELKERN; paragraphs [0174-0178]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MANDELKERN to have applying the recursive noise filtration to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Locally-Adaptive Wiener Filtration of KIELY reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to reduce noise by employing specifically a wiener filter on the x-ray images as suggested by paragraph [0175] of KIELY. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine KIELY with MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Claims 8-11, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO 2016/044465 A1 to MANDELKERN et al. (hereinafter “MANDELKERN”) in view of US 2015/0296193 A1 to COTE et al (hereinafter “COTE”) in view of US 2019/0378329 A1 to KIELY (hereinafter “KIELY”) in view of US 2024/0185425 A1 to ZHOU et al (hereinafter “ZHOU”).
As per claim 8, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY discloses the method of claim 7. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (RSW-CLAHE) using a Truncation Threshold Surface (TTS) and the sliding window.
ZHOU discloses wherein applying the recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (RSW-CLAHE) using a Truncation Threshold Surface (TTS) and the sliding window (during contrast reconstruction of the x-ray images the computing system applies a contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization “cLAHE” which would be applied recursively by applying it to the steps of MANDELKERN, and is compared to a grey level threshold which can have variations in weight and are applied as different threshold values based on the weight applied; paragraphs [0126], [0194-0199]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have applying the recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization of ZHOU reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide contrast filtering via a specific contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization filter of paragraph [0199] of ZHOU. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ZHOU with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
As per claim 9, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY in view of ZHOU discloses the method of claim 8. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose comprising producing a truncation threshold by calculating the TTS to determine an individual threshold for trimming of the local histogram in the sliding window around the current pixel.
ZHOU discloses comprising producing a truncation threshold by calculating the TTS to determine an individual threshold for trimming of the local histogram in the sliding window around the current pixel (based on the provided weighted value the threshold adjusts on a sliding scale related to the weight applied to the parameter value, and refers to the variation between two or more of the thresholds such as T0 , T1 , T2 , T3, etc.., wherein the nonlinear applied enhancements include histogram equalization (which involves reduction which is synonyms with trimming) and allows for the histogram if double peaks are seen to segment (trim) the initial image; paragraphs [0106], [0118], [0126], [0199]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have a truncation threshold by calculating the TTS to determine an individual threshold for trimming of the local histogram of ZHOU reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide histogram data in order to make decisions on enhancing the initial image as suggested at paragraph [0118] of ZHOU. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ZHOU with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
As per claim 10, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY in view of ZHOU discloses the method of claim 8. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme.
COTE discloses wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme (the computing system is adapted to apply an unsharp masking step and this step would be applied iteratively (recursively) if used in the steps of MANDELKERN and would result in x-ray image enhancement by sharpening the images edges, and improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image and utilizes a 2-d lookup table; paragraph [0898-0901], [0917], [0931]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window of COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an unsharp mask which results in improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image as suggested by paragraph [0917] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
As per claim 11, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY in view of ZHOU discloses the method of claim 8. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by 1-dimensional (1D) recursive scheme based on double scanning of the input medical image.
COTE discloses wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by 1-dimensional (lD) recursive scheme based on double scanning of the input medical image (the computing system is adapted to apply an unsharp masking step and this step would be applied iteratively (recursively) if used in the steps of MANDELKERN and would result in x-ray image enhancement by sharpening the images edges, and improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image and utilizes a 1-d motion table lookup table which comprises 237 entries; paragraphs [0591-0594], [0898-0901], [0917]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking of COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an unsharp mask which results in improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image as suggested by paragraph [0917] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As per claim 14, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY discloses the apparatus of claim 13. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to apply Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (RSW-CLAHE) to the received input medical image to produce the contrast enhanced image using a Truncation Threshold Surface (TTS) and the sliding window.
ZHOU discloses wherein the processor is configured to apply Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (RSW-CLAHE) to the received input medical image to produce the contrast enhanced image using a Truncation Threshold Surface (TTS) and the sliding window (during contrast reconstruction of the x-ray images the computing system applies a contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization “cLAHE” which would be applied recursively by applying it to the steps of MANDELKERN, and is compared to a grey level threshold which can have variations in weight and are applied as different threshold values based on the weight applied; paragraphs [0126], [0194-0199]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have to apply Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization to the received input medical image of ZHOU reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide contrast filtering via a specific contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization filter of paragraph [0199] of ZHOU. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ZHOU with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
As per claim 15, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY in view of ZHOU discloses the apparatus of claim 14. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to apply Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme or a 1-dimensional (1D) recursive scheme, the 1D recursive scheme based on double scanning of the input medical image.
COTE discloses wherein the processor is configured to apply Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme or a 1-dimensional (1D) recursive scheme, the 1D recursive scheme based on double scanning of the input medical image (the computing system is adapted to apply an unsharp masking step and this step would be applied iteratively (recursively) if used in the steps of MANDELKERN and would result in x-ray image enhancement by sharpening the images edges, and improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image and utilizes a 1-d motion table lookup table which comprises 237 entries; paragraphs [0591-0594], [0898-0901], [0917]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have ability to apply Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking of COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an unsharp mask which results in improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image as suggested by paragraph [0917] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
As per claim 18, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (RSW-CLAHE) using a Truncation Threshold Surface (TTS) and the sliding window.
ZHOU discloses wherein applying the recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (RSW-CLAHE) using a Truncation Threshold Surface (TTS) and the sliding window (during contrast reconstruction of the x-ray images the computing system applies a contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization “cLAHE” which would be applied recursively by applying it to the steps of MANDELKERN, and is compared to a grey level threshold which can have variations in weight and are applied as different threshold values based on the weight applied; paragraphs [0126], [0194-0199]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have applying the recursive contrast enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Recursive Sliding Window Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization of ZHOU reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide contrast filtering via a specific contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization filter of paragraph [0199] of ZHOU. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ZHOU with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
As per claim 19, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY in view of ZHOU discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme.
COTE discloses wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by a 2-dimensional (2D) recursive scheme (the computing system is adapted to apply an unsharp masking step and this step would be applied iteratively (recursively) if used in the steps of MANDELKERN and would result in x-ray image enhancement by sharpening the images edges, and improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image and utilizes a 2-d lookup table; paragraph [0898-0901], [0917], [0931]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking of COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an unsharp mask which results in improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image as suggested by paragraph [0917] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
As per claim 20, MANDELKERN in view of COTE in view of KIELY in view of ZHOU discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18. Modified MANDELKERN fails to disclose wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by 1-dimensional (ID) recursive scheme based on double scanning of the input medical image.
COTE discloses wherein applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking (FRA-UM) using the sliding window to obtain the sharpened image by 1-dimensional (ID) recursive scheme based on double scanning of the input medical image (the computing system is adapted to apply an unsharp masking step and this step would be applied iteratively (recursively) if used in the steps of MANDELKERN and would result in x-ray image enhancement by sharpening the images edges, and improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image and utilizes a 1-d motion table lookup table which comprises 237 entries; paragraphs [0591-0594], [0898-0901], [0917]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify MANDELKERN to have applying the recursive sharpness enhancement to the received input medical image comprises applying Fast Recursive Adaptive Unsharp Masking of COTE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an unsharp mask which results in improving the enhancement of textures and edges while also reducing noise in the output image as suggested by paragraph [0917] of COTE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine COTE with modified MANDELKERN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in 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 for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references 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. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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.
/Devin Dhooge/
USPTO Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/Jonathan S Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights