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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recite “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3, 4, 5-6, and 6 recite “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3 and 4 recite “the subdomains” which Examiner suggests amending to “the plurality of subdomains” in order to provide consistency in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “wherein the tomographic image at is reconstructed” which Examiner suggests amending to “wherein the tomographic image is reconstructed” (deleting “at”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1, 2, and 2-3 recite “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3, 4, 7, 7-8, and 8 recite “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 7 recites “dividing image domain” which Examiner suggests amending to “dividing an image domain”. Line 11 recites “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2, 3, 4-5, and 5 recite “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4 and 5 recite “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4-5, 5, 6, 9, 9-10, and 10 recite “the motion of the subdomain” which Examiner suggests amending to “the motion of the subdomain of the plurality of subdomains” in order to ensure clarity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “PACT system, a C system, or an MRI system” which Examiner suggests amending to “photoacoustic computed tomography (PACT) system, a computed tomography (CT) system, or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the subdomain motion of the simulated signal that most closely matches a detected signal" in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a subdomain motion of a simulated signal or a simulated signal that most closely matches a detected signal. Examiner suggests amending to “a subdomain motion of a simulated signal that most closely matches a detected signal” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the subdomain motion of the simulated signal that most closely matches a detected signal" in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a subdomain motion of a simulated signal or a simulated signal that most closely matches a detected signal. Examiner suggests amending to “a subdomain motion of a simulated signal that most closely matches a detected signal” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (US 2016/0300370).
With regards to claim 15, Yoo et al. discloses a system comprising:
a tomographic imaging device comprising one or more sensor arrays (Para. 0069 lines 1-4, 0080 lines 1-5, 0088 lines 1-4, "tomography system" "x-ray detector");
one or more processors in electrical communication with the tomographic imaging device (Para. 0086 lines 1-4, 0102 lines 1-6, 0103 lines 1-4, "processor"); and
one or more processor-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (Para. 0107 lines 1-9, 0263 lines 1-8, "memory" "instructions"), cause performance of:
(a) dividing image domain into a plurality of subdomains (Para. 0138 lines 1-2, 0140 lines 9-12, "divide");
(b) reconstructing a tomographic image (Para. 0130 lines 1-19, 0131 lines 1-4, 0132 lines 1-10, "tomography image");
(c) estimating a motion of a subdomain of the plurality of subdomains along a first axis (Para. 0138 lines 2-4, 0140 lines 1-4 and 9-12, 0141 lines 1-7, Fig. 8B "motion" "first information"); and
(d) reconstructing a first motion-corrected image using the motion of the subdomain along the first axis (Para. 0155 lines 1-3, 0156 lines 1-3, "correction").
With regards to claim 18, Yoo et al. discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processor-readable media stores additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of: (e) repeating (c) for each sensor array location of a plurality of sensor array locations (Para. 0138 lines 2-4, 0140 lines 1-4 and 9-12, 0141 lines 1-7, "motion" "first image" "second image").
With regards to claim 19, Yoo et al. discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the one or more processor-readable media stores additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of: (f) repeating (e) for each subdomain of the plurality of subdomains (Para. 0138 lines 2-4, 0140 lines 1-4 and 9-12, 0141 lines 1-7, Fig. 8B "motion" "plurality of areas").
With regards to claim 22, Yoo et al. discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more sensor arrays comprises at least one of an ultrasonic transducer, an X-ray radiation sensor, or a magnetic resonance sensor (Para. 0080 lines 1-5, 0088 lines 1-4, "x-ray detector").
With regards to claim 23, Yoo et al. discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more sensor arrays are part of a PACT system, a CT system, or an MRI system (Para. 0069 lines 1-4, 0080 lines 1-5, 0088 lines 1-4, "CT system").
With regards to claims 1 and 12, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 15 and 22, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 15 and 22 are equally applicable to claims 1 and 12, respectively.
With regards to claim 5, Yoo et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: (e) performing (c) for each sensor array location of a plurality of sensor array locations (Para. 0138 lines 2-4, 0140 lines 1-4 and 9-12, 0141 lines 1-7, "motion" "first image" "second image").
With regards to claim 6, Yoo et al. discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising: (f) performing (e) for each subdomain of the plurality of subdomains (Para. 0138 lines 2-4, 0140 lines 1-4 and 9-12, 0141 lines 1-7, Fig. 8B "motion" "plurality of areas").
With regards to claim 8, Yoo et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: acquiring a detected signal from one or more sensor arrays of a tomographic imaging system (Para. 0069 lines 1-4, 0080 lines 1-5, 0088 lines 1-4, 0098 lines 1-4, 0099 lines 1-12, "tomography system" "x-ray detector").
With regards to claim 9, Yoo et al. discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the tomographic image at is reconstructed using the detected signal and an initial system matrix (Para. 0109 lines 1-12, 0130 lines 1-19, 0131 lines 1-4, 0132 lines 1-10, "tomography image").
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2016/0300370) in view of Lin et al. (High-speed three-dimensional photoacoustic computed tomography for preclinical research and clinical translation).
With regards to claim 13, Yoo et al. discloses the method of claim 8.
Yoo et al. discloses where the tomographic imaging system may include all tomography apparatuses (Para. 0069 lines 1-4, "all tomography apparatuses") but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more sensor arrays comprises an ultrasonic transducer array.
However, Lin et al. discloses the concept of using a tomographic imaging system with one or more sensor arrays comprising an ultrasonic transducer array (Page 2: Col. 2: Para. 3 lines 1-13, "arc-shaped ultrasonic transducer arrays") in order to obtain tomographic images with better image quality (Abstract lines 4-6, Page 2: Col. 1: Para. 2 lines 1-10, "high imaging speed" "image quality"). Thus, Yoo et al. would be modified to instead, use a tomographic imaging system with one or more sensor arrays comprising an ultrasonic transducer array, where a tomographic image is still produced.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of using a tomographic imaging system with one or more sensor arrays comprising an ultrasonic transducer array as taught by Lin et al. into the method of Yoo et al. The motivation for this would be to obtain tomographic images with better image quality.
With regards to claim 14, Yoo et al. discloses the method of claim 8.
Yoo et al. discloses where the tomographic imaging system may include all tomography apparatuses (Para. 0069 lines 1-4, "all tomography apparatuses") but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more sensor arrays comprises a plurality of ultrasonic arc transducer arrays.
However, Lin et al. discloses the concept of using a tomographic imaging system with one or more sensor arrays comprising a plurality of ultrasonic arc transducer arrays (Page 2: Col. 2: Para. 3 lines 1-13, "four arc-shaped ultrasonic transducer arrays") in order to obtain tomographic images with better image quality (Abstract lines 4-6, Page 2: Col. 1: Para. 2 lines 1-10, "high imaging speed" "image quality"). Thus, Yoo et al. would be modified to instead, use a tomographic imaging system with one or more sensor arrays comprising a plurality of ultrasonic arc transducer arrays, where a tomographic image is still produced.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of using a tomographic imaging system with one or more sensor arrays comprising a plurality of ultrasonic arc transducer arrays as taught by Lin et al. into the method of Yoo et al. The motivation for this would be to obtain tomographic images with better image quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 17, 20, and 21 are 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.
With regards to claim 3, Yoo et al. (US 2016/0300370) discloses estimating a motion of a subdomain of the plurality of subdomains along a first axis, however, there is no mention of a simulated signal and where (c) comprises minimizing a difference between a detected signal and a simulated signal based on the motion of the subdomain along the first axis.
With regards to claims 4 and 17, Yoo et al. (US 2016/0300370) discloses estimating a motion of a subdomain of the plurality of subdomains along a first axis, however, there is no specific mention of also estimating a motion of the subdomain along a second axis and estimating a motion of the subdomain along a third axis, wherein the first motion-corrected image is determined also using the motion of the subdomain along the second axis and the motion of the subdomain along the third axis.
With regards to claims 7, 10, and 11, they are dependent on claim 4.
With regards to claims 20 and 21, they are dependent on claim 17.
Claims 2 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 2 and 16, Yoo et al. (US 2016/0300370) discloses estimating a motion of a subdomain of the plurality of subdomains along a first axis, however, there is no mention of a simulated signal and where (c) comprises determining a plurality of simulated signals with different subdomain motions along the first axis and where the motion along the first axis is estimated to be a subdomain motion of a simulated signal that most closely matches a detected signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights