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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 03/07/2026 which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13, 15 and 19-20 have been amended. No
claim has been newly added. Claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 8th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments regarding dependent claims for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claims are not allowable.
Claim 1:
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Kunze determines the reconstruction region based on the ROI, while the amended claim 1 first determines the initial range and then determines the target region based on the initial range.”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in claim 1, these limitations are taught by the combination of Maltz in view of Kunze as cited in the rejection below. In particular, and in addition to the citations in claim 1 below, examiner would like to note that you can have a target region determined, which would be within the initial range (irrespective of order), but even then applicant’s disclosure paragraph 38 mentions “It is to be expressly understood, the operations of the flowcharts may be implemented not in order. Conversely, the operations may be implemented in inverted order, or simultaneously” meaning that a specific order of execution is not required nor is this order expressed in the claim language itself.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “However "the initial range" , "the projection image"or "the artifact region" in amended claim 1 is a localization based on the first reconstruction image.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 13:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, such that “The projecting the first reconstruction image of claim 13 and projecting k-space data of Shinoda are completely different”, Shinoda is clearly not relied upon solely by itself for projecting the first reconstruction image, thus, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that “The purpose of the reconstruction image in
Shinoda is completely different from the technical purpose of the maximum density projection image in amended claim 13… In contrast, the MIP technology of amended claim 13 is used to… The technical processes (the data object, the processing order, and the final goal) of Maltz, Kunze, and Shinoda are fundamentally different” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, (“The technical goals of Shinoda and amended claim 13 are completely different, and those skilled in the art have no motivation to combine Shinoda and amended claim 13… lacks obviousness”) the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Shinoda teaches to be able to determine a temporal phase useful for a diagnosis process, by similarly applying the abovementioned method to situations where another site or another organ is imaged (Shinoda, paragraph 129). This would add efficiency and versatility by enabling the invention to image numerous and different organs.
Claim 20:
In response to applicant's argument that “reconstruction in Kunze only uses the
original projection image, does not involve "the processed projection images", and has
no purpose of "determining specific substances"… Foland and claim 10 have completely different functions” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that “In Foland, "the old ROI" is not removed, but rather removed from the current display object”, examiner respectfully disagrees because this still means removed (if something is removed from display, then it is removed by definition) and with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Foland still reads on the claim language of being removed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, such that “In Foland, and there is no "processing of the projection image"”, Foland is clearly not relied upon solely by itself for processing of the projection image, thus, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claims 3 and 15:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, such that “Komizo does not involve "the first reconstruction image" or any 3D reconstruction image. Komizo only processes "two-dimensional images… Komizo also does not involve "the maximum density projection image"…”, Komizo is clearly not relied upon solely by itself for the reconstruction image and/or maximum density projection image (Shinoda is clearly pointed to in the rejection for maximum density projection image), thus, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “”The index value" of amended claim 3 is the mapping of 3D spatial position") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that “(3) "The binarized image" of amended claim 3 is generated based on… In contrast, "the binarization conversion" in Komizo …is based on…; the amended claim 3 is 3D to 2D reverse positioning… In contrast, "the image data editing into the predetermined format" in Komizo (Komizo, lines 61-64 of column 6) is "combining…; Komizo is the portable information terminal device …In contrast, the present invention is CT/TOMO image reconstruction in the field of medical imaging…; In addition, the core objective of Komizo is… In contrast, the core objective of amended claim 3 is…”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, and in response to applicant’s arguments that “Those skilled in the art have no motivation to apply binarization techniques used for document processing to medical image reconstruction, and such techniques would not bring any technical benefits.”, examiner respectfully disagrees since Komizo mentions to ensure an enhanced image signal (Komizo, claim 2). This would be done by binarizing the image and simplifying it to make important details stand out more clearly which would bring the technical benefit of a better image leading to a more visually appealing invention.
Claim 11:
In response to applicant's argument that “the purpose of Pan is to…”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, such that “while Pan does not perform any interpolation on the projection image,…”, Pan is clearly not relied upon solely by itself for the projection image (rather Pan shows interpolation on ROI which would be on the projection image from the combination of references); also, that “Pan's interpolation is only used to "initialize ROIvoxel values", not to generate "the interpolated projection image"”, but examiner notes that the referred to generation would occur when viewed in combination; thus, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s arguments that “(4) The final 3D image in Pan is the result of a single multi-resolution iterative reconstruction (Pan, paragraph 0130). It simultaneously determines the high- resolution ROI and the low-resolution non-ROI regions through a single iteration of
optimization, without the step-by-step generation logic of "the second reconstruction
images" and "the third reconstruction images". In contrast, "the 3D image" of the present invention requires "fusion of multiple reconstruction images and the original projection image"”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Pan, refining reconstructed image in fig. 14, step 880 indicates there are second and third reconstructed images (further refined ones).
Claims 4 and 16:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, such that “binarization process of Inazumi directly performs brightness filtering on the raw two-dimensional image, and has no connection with "the maximum density projection images"”, Kunze would have connection with maximum density projection images (rejection doesn’t rely solely on Inazumi for the feature) as stated in the rejection below, thus one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that “The technical logic and purpose of Inazumi and the present invention are completely different.” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, and in response to the applicant’s arguments that “Those skilled in the art have no motivation to cross multiple unrelated fields and forcibly combine industrial marker
binarization technology into medical image reconstruction”, examiner disagrees since the fields are related due to image processing and Inazumi mentions so accuracy from the captured image is changed according to the luminance selected as the predetermined threshold value when this binarization process is performed (Inazumi, paragraph 566). This would make the invention more adaptable and accurate for different scenarios leading to increased performance under difference luminance values, all of which acts as a motivation.
Claims 5 and 17:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Firstly, "the relative gradient image" in the present invention is an image generated based on the maximum density projection image, reflecting the rate of change of pixel density”… "The gradient threshold based binarization" in the present invention filters out regions (high-attenuation material edges) whose density change rate meets the requirements by setting the gradient threshold””) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments that “”The highest density pixel" in Komizo”…has no technical connection to Shinoda's maximum density projection image”, examiner respectfully disagrees since it is a density pixel in Komizo thus must be from the projection density image such as that of Shinoda when viewed in combination.
Claims 6 and 18:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, such that “which is a directly captured 2D image, not "the maximum density projection image", and without any 3D reconstruction or projection process”, when viewed in combination, the directly captured 2D image would be the maximum density projection image from Shinoda, thus one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s arguments that “in Inazumi is the brightness difference threshold between the marker and the background in the industrial scene… used only to distinguish industrial markers from the component background, and unrelated to "the gradient threshold" or "the relative gradient image".”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Inazumi, paragraph 565 teaches "converts the captured image into a 256 gradation grayscale image"; gradation here itself refers to change in intensity which is the defining characteristic of gradient thus this would be a gradient image.
Claims 7 and 19:
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Komizo lacks any technology related to "indexed images"… involves grayscale conversion of document images and does not disclose the concept or function of "the indexed images"”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, indexes sum as disclosed in Komizo, col. 7, lines 15-17 and cited in claim 3 below indicates index images.
In response to applicant’s arguments that “"The initial range (reconstructed region)" in Kunze is a preset three-dimensional spatial range, not based on "pixel clusters"”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as explained in the rejection below initial range is based on voxels, which in Inazumi correspond to pixel clusters.
Claim 9:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, and in response to the applicant’s arguments that “The technical logic of Kunze and Inazumi is completely inconsistent.”, examiner disagrees since the fields are related due to image processing and Inazumi mentions so accuracy from the captured image is changed according to the luminance selected as the predetermined threshold value when this binarization process is performed (Inazumi, paragraph 566). This would make the invention more adaptable and accurate for different scenarios leading to increased performance under difference luminance values, all of which acts as a motivation and ensures consistency.
Claim 8:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In contrast, "the index image" of the present invention is a specific image used in medical imaging to mark voxel relationships”; “not "the numerical range of index values".”; and “"the labeled voxels" of the present invention are association markers for specific voxels in medical 3D reconstruction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, such that “present invention and Honjo are completely different. Furthermore, Honjo's index value is unrelated to "pixel clusters", and Honjo's segmented region is a preset analysis unit, not a
“connected region formed by…”, the segments would be a connected region of pixels from Inazumi when viewed in combination and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claims 1- 13 and 15-20 have been withdrawn.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALTZ (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0020140), hereinafter referenced as Maltz, in view of Kunze (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0250820), hereinafter referenced as Kunze.
Regarding claim 1, Maltz teaches a system, comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions (fig. 1 (system) reference 150 shows storage device and paragraph 4 teaches "storage medium including a set of instruction"); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, (fig. 1, reference 140 teaches processing device and paragraph 4 teaches "at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium"); wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor causes the system to perform operations including: (claim 1 teaches "executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including:"); obtaining one or more projection images of an object and a first reconstruction image (paragraph 13 teaches "method for computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction is provided. The method may include obtaining a plurality of projection images of a subject... reconstructing a CT image of the subject"); this shows projection images and reconstruction of such; wherein the first reconstruction image is generated by reconstructing the one or more projection images based on a reconstruction algorithm, (paragraph 13 teaches “determining attenuation information of the plurality of projection images. The method may further include reconstructing a CT image of the subject by simultaneously solving correction coefficients of the plurality of projection images such that a difference between estimated attenuation information of the plurality of projection images and the attenuation information of the plurality of projection images is minimized”); solving correction coefficients for reconstruction shows the projection images are reconstructed using a reconstruction algorithm; and the one or more projection images of the object includes at least one of projection data or images obtained by scanning the object (paragraph 13 teaches scan data acquired by a CT scanner);
However, Maltz fails to teach, for each of the one or more projection images, determining an initial range of an artifact region on the projection image by processing the first reconstruction image, the artifact region including a calcification point, a calcification region or a metal implant;
determining, within the initial range, a target region of the artifact region on the projection image; and generating a three-dimensional (3D) image of the object based at least on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images.
However, Kunze teaches for each of the one or more projection images, determining an initial range of an artifact region on the projection image by processing the first reconstruction image, (Kunze, fig. 2, paragraph 41 teaches “thus, a metal object 8 is located inside the region of interest 7, each projection image will show the metal object 8” and paragraph 42 teaches "a reconstruction region 10 is defined such that all possible objects in the reconstruction region 10, which is larger than the region of interest 7, are imaged in at least a minimum number of the projection geometries used"); reconstruction region is the initial range of a target region/region of interest(ROI) on the projection image as also shown in fig. 2 by reference 10 and reference 7 (which contains artifact region shown by reference 8 thus acts as initial range of artifact region as well), also, it is for the reconstruction (final 3d reconstruction below) thus based on the first reconstruction from Maltz (also, occurs by processing the first reconstruction image since Kunze, paragraph 43 mentions “Using the so-defined reconstruction region 10, the intermediate data set is reconstructed”); the artifact region including a calcification point, a calcification region or a metal implant (Kunze, paragraph 41 teaches “thus, a metal object 8 is located inside the region of interest 7, each projection image will show the metal object 8”); this shows metal implant; determining, within the initial range, a target region of the artifact region on the projection image (Kunze, fig. 2 shows initial range/reconstruction range 10 having a target region/ROI 7 in it which has metal object/region 8 in it); this means target region/ROI 7 (of metal object 8 / artifact region) is determined to be within the initial range/reconstruction range 10; and generating a three-dimensional (3D) image of the object based at least on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images (Kunze, paragraph 36 teaches "a three-dimensional x-ray image of the region of interest is to be reconstructed from the projection images"); this shows 3D image of object/subject(from Maltz) reconstructed using projection images and ROI/target region of metal object 8 (artifact region). Kunze is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of projection of images, ranges and regions of interest. Therefore, 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 Maltz's invention with the ROI techniques of Kunze to improve the quality of the resulting x-ray image (Kunze, paragraph 36). This means better user experience.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltz in view of Kunze and SHINODA (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0005240), hereinafter referenced as Shinoda.
Regarding claim 13, Maltz teaches A method for image reconstruction, (abstract teaches method for reconstruction); the method being implemented on a computing device including at least one processor and at least one storage device, the method comprising: (fig. 1, reference 140 teaches processing device and paragraph 4 teaches "at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium"); obtaining one or more projection images of an object and a first reconstruction image corresponding to the one or more projection images (paragraph 13 teaches "method for computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction is provided. The method may include obtaining a plurality of projection images of a subject... reconstructing a CT image of the subject"); this shows projection images and reconstruction of such;
However, Maltz fails to teach, for each of the one or more projection images, determining an initial range of an artifact region on the projection image based on the first reconstruction image, the artifact region including a calcification point, a calcification region or a metal implant;
determining, within the initial range, a target region of the artifact region on the projection image; and generating a three-dimensional (3D) image of the object based at least on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images.
However, Kunze teaches for each of the one or more projection images, determining an initial range of an artifact region on the projection image based on the first reconstruction image, (Kunze, fig. 2, paragraph 41 teaches “thus, a metal object 8 is located inside the region of interest 7, each projection image will show the metal object 8” and paragraph 42 teaches "a reconstruction region 10 is defined such that all possible objects in the reconstruction region 10, which is larger than the region of interest 7, are imaged in at least a minimum number of the projection geometries used"); reconstruction region is the initial range of a target region/region of interest(ROI) on the projection image as also shown in fig. 2 by reference 10 and reference 7 (which contains artifact region shown by reference 8 thus acts as initial range of artifact region as well), also, it is for the reconstruction (final 3d reconstruction below) thus based on the first reconstruction from Maltz (also, occurs by processing the first reconstruction image since Kunze, paragraph 43 mentions “Using the so-defined reconstruction region 10, the intermediate data set is reconstructed”); the artifact region including a calcification point, a calcification region or a metal implant (Kunze, paragraph 41 teaches “thus, a metal object 8 is located inside the region of interest 7, each projection image will show the metal object 8”); this shows metal implant; determining, within the initial range, a target region of the artifact region on the projection image (Kunze, fig. 2 shows initial range/reconstruction range 10 having a target region/ROI 7 in it which has metal object/region 8 in it); this means target region/ROI 7 (of metal object 8 / artifact region) is determined to be within the initial range/reconstruction range 10; and generating a three-dimensional (3D) image of the object based at least on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images (Kunze, paragraph 36 teaches "a three-dimensional x-ray image of the region of interest is to be reconstructed from the projection images"); this shows 3D image of object/subject(from Maltz) reconstructed using projection images and ROI/target region of metal object 8 (artifact region). Kunze is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of projection of images, ranges and regions of interest. Therefore, 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 Maltz's invention with the ROI techniques of Kunze to improve the quality of the resulting x-ray image (Kunze, paragraph 36). This means better user experience.
However, the combination of Matlz and Kunze fails to teach wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the first reconstruction image includes: generating a maximum density projection image of the first reconstruction image by performing, along a predetermined direction, a maximum density projection on the first reconstruction image; determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the maximum density projection image.
However, Shinoda teaches wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the first reconstruction image includes: generating a maximum density projection image of the first reconstruction image by performing, along a predetermined direction, a maximum density projection on the first reconstruction image (Shinoda, paragraph 128 teaches "first generating function 16a may generate, as a simple reconstruction image, a Maximum Intensity Projection (MIP) image obtained by performing an MIP process on the k-space data in the thickness direction of the imaged region"); this shows MIP image of reconstruction and is done by performing MIP on reconstruction (since first generating function 16a also generates and reconstructs) in a predetermined/thickness direction, also, maximum intensity projection is the same as maximum density projection because higher density appears in higher intensity areas; determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the maximum density projection image (Shinoda, paragraph 128 teaches "first generating function 16a may generate a plurality of MIP images by dividing the imaged region into a plurality of ranges in the thickness region and further generating an MIP image for each of the divided ranges"); MIP generated (and further generate MIP image for each divided range) by dividing imaged region into ranges shows the determining of initial range of target region (including artifact region) based on MIP/maximum density projection image. Shinoda is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of maximum intensity/density projection images generated a specific way. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz and Kunze with the maximum intensity/density projection techniques of Shinoda to be able to determine a temporal phase useful for a diagnosis process, by similarly applying the abovementioned method to situations where another site or another organ is imaged (Shinoda, paragraph 129). This would add efficiency and versatility.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltz in view of Kunze and Foland et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0323436), hereinafter referenced as Foland.
Regarding claim 20, Maltz teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, direct the at least one processor to perform a method, the method comprising: (fig. 1, reference 140 teaches processing device and paragraph 4 teaches "at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium", paragraph 14 teaches “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions may be provided. When accessed by at least one processor of a system, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may cause the system to perform a method.”); obtaining one or more projection images of an object and a first reconstruction image corresponding to the one or more projection images (paragraph 13 teaches "method for computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction is provided. The method may include obtaining a plurality of projection images of a subject... reconstructing a CT image of the subject"); this shows projection images and reconstruction of such;
However, Maltz fails to teach, for each of the one or more projection images, determining an initial range of an artifact region on the projection image based on the first reconstruction image, the artifact region including a calcification point, a calcification region or a metal implant;
determining, within the initial range, a target region of the artifact region on the projection image; and generating a three-dimensional (3D) image of the object based at least on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images.
However, Kunze teaches for each of the one or more projection images, determining an initial range of an artifact region on the projection image based on the first reconstruction image, (Kunze, fig. 2, paragraph 41 teaches “thus, a metal object 8 is located inside the region of interest 7, each projection image will show the metal object 8” and paragraph 42 teaches "a reconstruction region 10 is defined such that all possible objects in the reconstruction region 10, which is larger than the region of interest 7, are imaged in at least a minimum number of the projection geometries used"); reconstruction region is the initial range of a target region/region of interest(ROI) on the projection image as also shown in fig. 2 by reference 10 and reference 7 (which contains artifact region shown by reference 8 thus acts as initial range of artifact region as well), also, it is for the reconstruction (final 3d reconstruction below) thus based on the first reconstruction from Maltz (also, occurs by processing the first reconstruction image since Kunze, paragraph 43 mentions “Using the so-defined reconstruction region 10, the intermediate data set is reconstructed”); the artifact region including a calcification point, a calcification region or a metal implant (Kunze, paragraph 41 teaches “thus, a metal object 8 is located inside the region of interest 7, each projection image will show the metal object 8”); this shows metal implant; determining, within the initial range, a target region of the artifact region on the projection image (Kunze, fig. 2 shows initial range/reconstruction range 10 having a target region/ROI 7 in it which has metal object/region 8 in it); this means target region/ROI 7 (of metal object 8 / artifact region) is determined to be within the initial range/reconstruction range 10; and generating a three-dimensional (3D) image of the object based at least on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images (Kunze, paragraph 36 teaches "a three-dimensional x-ray image of the region of interest is to be reconstructed from the projection images"); this shows 3D image of object/subject(from Maltz) reconstructed using projection images and ROI/target region of metal object 8 (artifact region) and generating the 3D image of the object based on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images and at least one of the one or more processed projection images or the one or more projection images. (Kunze, paragraph 36 teaches "a three-dimensional x-ray image of the region of interest is to be reconstructed from the projection images"); this shows 3D image of object/subject(from Maltz) reconstructed using projection images and ROI/target region (includes artifact region) which correspond to projection images since they are a region of the projection image(s). Kunze is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of projection of images, ranges and regions of interest. Therefore, 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 Maltz's invention with the ROI techniques of Kunze to improve the quality of the resulting x-ray image (Kunze, paragraph 36). This means better user experience.
However, the combination of Matlz and Kunze fails to teach including: obtaining one or more processed projection images by removing the target region of the artifact region from the one or more projection images, respectively;
However, Foland teaches including: obtaining one or more processed projection images by removing the target region of the artifact region from the one or more projection images, respectively (Foland, paragraph 66 teaches "user can use the moveable elements 735g, 735h to select a dimension of the ROI. For example, the user can use a pointing device in the one or more projection images to drag the moveable GUI line elements 735g, 735h to change a dimension of the ROI to create a new ROI"); changing dimension to create new ROI means old ROI is removed and new one is created and this occurs by processing projection picture(s). Foland is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of ROI being modified/removed. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz and Kunze with the ROI removal techniques of Foland for improved visibility (Foland, paragraph 61) and produce and render images of improved quality and resolution to facilitate identification of and examination of objects included therein (Foland, paragraph 32). This would be done by adding a customizable region of interest that can be removed also leading to increased user engagement.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matlz and Kunze as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Shinoda.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Matlz and Kunze fails to teach wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image by processing the first reconstruction image includes: generating a maximum density projection image of the first reconstruction image by performing, along a predetermined direction, a maximum density projection on the first reconstruction image; and determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the maximum density projection image.
However, Shinoda teaches wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image by processing the first reconstruction image includes: generating a maximum density projection image of the first reconstruction image by performing, along a predetermined direction, a maximum density projection on the first reconstruction image (Shinoda, paragraph 128 teaches "first generating function 16a may generate, as a simple reconstruction image, a Maximum Intensity Projection (MIP) image obtained by performing an MIP process on the k-space data in the thickness direction of the imaged region"); this shows MIP image of reconstruction and is done by performing MIP on reconstruction (since first generating function 16a also generates and reconstructs) in a predetermined/thickness direction, also, maximum intensity projection is the same as maximum density projection because higher density appears in higher intensity areas; and determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the maximum density projection image (Shinoda, paragraph 128 teaches "first generating function 16a may generate a plurality of MIP images by dividing the imaged region into a plurality of ranges in the thickness region and further generating an MIP image for each of the divided ranges"); MIP generated (and further generate MIP image for each divided range) by dividing imaged region into ranges shows the determining of initial range of target region based on MIP/maximum density projection image. Shinoda is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of maximum intensity/density projection images generated a specific way. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz and Kunze with the maximum intensity/density projection techniques of Shinoda to be able to determine a temporal phase useful for a diagnosis process, by similarly applying the abovementioned method to situations where another site or another organ is imaged (Shinoda, paragraph 129). This would add efficiency and versatility.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matlz and Kunze as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foland et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0323436), hereinafter referenced as Foland.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Matlz and Kunze teaches and the generating the 3D image of the object based at least on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images includes generating the 3D image of the object based on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images and one or more processed projection images or the one or more projection images (Kunze, paragraph 36 teaches "a three-dimensional x-ray image of the region of interest is to be reconstructed from the projection images"); this shows 3D image of object/subject(from Maltz) reconstructed using projection images and ROI/target region (includes artifact region from the combination of claim 1) which correspond to projection images since they are a region of the projection image(s).
However, the combination of Matlz and Kunze fails to teach wherein the operations further include processing the projection image by removing the target region of the artifact region from the projection image,
However, Foland teaches wherein the operations further include processing the projection image by removing the target region of the artifact region from the projection image, (Foland, paragraph 66 teaches "user can use the moveable elements 735g, 735h to select a dimension of the ROI. For example, the user can use a pointing device in the one or more projection images to drag the moveable GUI line elements 735g, 735h to change a dimension of the ROI to create a new ROI"); changing dimension to create new ROI means old ROI is removed (of the artifact region from the combination of claim 1) and new one is created and this occurs by processing projection picture(s). Foland is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of ROI being modified/removed. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz and Kunze with the ROI removal techniques of Foland for improved visibility (Foland, paragraph 61) and produce and render images of improved quality and resolution to facilitate identification of and examination of objects included therein (Foland, paragraph 32). This would be done by adding a customizable region of interest that can be removed also leading to increased user engagement.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matlz and Kunze as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernard et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0165840), hereinafter referenced as Bernard.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Matlz and Kunze fails to teach wherein the one or more projection images are obtained by a digital breast tomosynthesis device.
However, Bernard teaches wherein the one or more projection images are obtained by a digital breast tomosynthesis device (Bernard, claim 1 teaches "receiving a plurality of tomosynthesis projection", fig. 2 teaches digital breast tomography projection images and fig. 1 teaches device for such); this shows the projection images by a digital breast tomosynthesis device. Bernard is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of digital breast tomosynthesis. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz and Kunze with the digital breast tomosynthesis techniques of Bernard to improve uniformity of the tissue matrix which improves imaging (Bernard, paragraph 16). This would be done by using the specific type of device for the specific task.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matlz, Kunze, and Shinoda as applied to claim 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Komizo (U.S. Patent No. 5,663,552), hereinafter referenced as Komizo.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matlz, Kunzeand Shinoda fails to teach wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the maximum density projection image includes: generating an index image of the maximum density projection image in the predetermined direction based on the first reconstruction image, the index image including index values, the index values indicating positions, on the first reconstruction image, of pixels on the maximum density projection image; generating a binarized image based on the maximum density projection image; and determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the binarized image and the index image.
However, Komizo teaches wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the maximum density projection image includes: generating an index image of the maximum density projection image in the predetermined direction based on the first reconstruction image, (Komizo, col. 7, lines 15-17 teach "while scanning the window whenever the sum of indexes representative of the color density of pixels"); indexes representing color density of pixels shows index image and this would be for the maximum density projection/MIP image (because regarding density) from Shinoda which is in the predetermined direction and based on first reconstruction image; the index image including index values, the index values indicating positions, on the first reconstruction image, of pixels on the maximum density projection image (Komizo, col. 7, lines 14-16 teach "the position of the highest-density pixel in a window of n.times.n pixels while scanning the window whenever the sum of indexes"); this shows indexes in index image would represent positions as values of pixels with highest/maximum density and also would be for the reconstruction image from Maltz since that is also composed of pixels which have positions here; generating a binarized image based on the maximum density projection image (Komizo, col. 7, lines 10-13 teach "performing binary conversion by changing a threshold of the binary conversion in accordance with random digits. CAPIX is a binary conversion method"); binary conversion shows binarized image would be generated and when viewed in combination it would be based on the MIP/maximum density projection image of Shinoda; and determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the binarized image and the index image (Komizo, col. 6, lines 61-64 teach "image data held in the image frame memory 107 is controlled by the control circuit 106 so that the image data is edited together with the other necessary information into a predetermined format"); since image data is turned into a predetermined format here and later into CAPIX binary and index images as described above, that means the initial range determination (and image data thereof) from Kunze would be based on the binarized image and index image. Komizo is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of binarized image and indexes in an image. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz and Kunze with the binarized techniques of Komizo to ensure an enhanced image signal (Komizo, claim 2). This would be done by binarizing the image and simplifying it to make important details stand out more clearly.
Regarding claim 15, the method claim 15 recites similar limitations as system claim 3, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matlz, Kunze and Foland as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0076101), hereinafter referenced as Pan.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Matlz, Kunze and Foland fails to teach wherein the generating the 3D image of the object based on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images and the at least one of the one or more processed projection images or the one or more projection images includes: determining a second reconstruction image by reconstructing target regions of the artifact region corresponding to the one or more projection images; for each of the one or more processed projection images, interpolating a region on the processed projection image corresponding to the target region of the artifact region; determining a third reconstruction image by reconstructing one or more interpolated projection images; and the generating the 3D image of the object based on the second reconstruction image and the third reconstruction image or the one or more projection images.
However, Pan teaches wherein the generating the 3D image of the object based on the target region of the artifact region on each of the one or more projection images and the at least one of the one or more processed projection images or the one or more projection images includes: determining a second reconstruction image by reconstructing target regions of the artifact region corresponding to the one or more projection images (Pan, fig. 14, step 850 teaches "refine reconstructed image to achieve multiresolution image with high-resolution in the ROI"); this (refined reconstruction image) is the second reconstruction image because it happens after the first reconstruction image in step 810 and it is for achieving high resolution in the Roi (includes artifact region from combination of claim 1), thus done by reconstructing the target regions corresponding to the projection image(s); for each of the one or more processed projection images, interpolating a region on the processed projection image corresponding to the target region of the artifact region (Pan, paragraph 129 teaches "the image inside of the image-domain ROI 842 is initialized by upsampling the seed image and/or interpolating in step 850 to obtain the initial voxel values for the high-resolution image ƒ.sub.H); this shows interpolation of a region (which is in a processed projection image) corresponding to target region/ROI (includes artifact region from combination of claim 1); determining a third reconstruction image by reconstructing one or more interpolated projection images (Pan, fig. 14 step 880 for reconstruction occurs again after 'No' occurs in step 895); since in step 850 interpolation occurs, the reconstructed image after a second iteration in step 880 (second iteration is after going to 'no' in step 895) would be the third reconstructed image and is the interpolation image/region from the previous step 850 being reconstructed; and the generating the 3D image of the object based on the second reconstruction image and the third reconstruction image or the one or more projection images (Pan, fig. 14 step 810 teaches obtaining projection data and step 895 teaches criteria satisfied leading to finished method); this shows the 3D generated image of object based on projection images in Kunze from above and would also be based on the second and third reconstructions since finish of method happens after such. Pan is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of interpolating and multiple reconstruction images determined. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz, Kunze and Foland with the interpolating and multiple reconstruction techniques of Pan so when more than one ROI is designated in the full FOV, the improved resolution within the ROIs can be achieved serially or in parallel (Pan, paragraph 38). This means better quality ROIs and improved processing capabilities.
Claim(s) 4-7, 9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, and Komizo as applied to claims 3 and 15 above, and further in view of Inazumi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0109856), hereinafter referenced as Inazumi.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, and Komizo fails to teach wherein the generating the binarized image based on the maximum density projection image includes: generating the binarized image based on a grayscale threshold and the maximum density projection image.
However, Inazumi teaches wherein the generating the binarized image based on the maximum density projection image includes: generating the binarized image based on a grayscale threshold and the maximum density projection image (Inazumi, paragraph 565 teaches "binarization process is a process for converting a grayscale image into a binarized image by converting a color of a pixel having luminance of a predetermined threshold value or greater on a grayscale image into white and converting a pixel having luminance of less than the aforementioned threshold value into black"); this shows binarized image by converting color of pixel with threshold greater than a value on grayscale and since it's of pixel having luminance value it would also be based on the MIP/maximum density of Kunze. Inazumi is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of binarized image based on a grayscale threshold. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, and Komizo with the grayscale threshold techniques of Inazumi so accuracy from the captured image is changed according to the luminance selected as the predetermined threshold value when this binarization process is performed (Inazumi, paragraph 566). This would make the invention more adaptable and accurate for different scenarios.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, Komizo and Inazumi teaches wherein the generating the binarized image based on the maximum density projection image includes: generating a relative gradient image of the maximum density projection image (Komizo, col. 7, lines 12-15 teach "binary conversion method for expressing gradations... highest-density pixel"); gradation shows relative gradient image and is of highest density pixel (maximum density projection image from Shinoda); and generating the binarized image based on a gradient threshold and the relative gradient image (Komizo, col. 7, lines 12-15 teach "binary conversion method for expressing gradations by redistributing black pixels from the position of the highest-density pixel"); the binarized image is based on gradient threshold/black pixels and relative gradation/gradient image. The same motivations used in claim 4 apply here in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, Komizo and Inazumi teaches wherein the generating the binarized image based on the gradient threshold and the relative gradient image includes: generating an initial binarized image based on a grayscale threshold and the maximum density projection image (Kunze paragraph 11 teaches "three-dimensional binary metal mask, in which a voxel shows metal when the metal value is larger than a threshold value and no metal in all other cases, is determined. Second binary metal masks are determined for each projection image by forward projecting the three-dimensional binary metal mask using the respective projection geometries." And Inazumi, paragraph 565 teaches "binarization process is a process for converting a grayscale image into a binarized image by converting a color of a pixel having luminance of a predetermined threshold value or greater on a grayscale image into white and converting a pixel having luminance of less than the aforementioned threshold value into black" and fig. 52 reference G2 shows initial binarized image); this shows binarized image by converting color of pixel with threshold greater than a value on grayscale and since it's of pixel having luminance value it would also be based on the MIP/maximum density of Kunze; and generating the binarized image by updating the initial binarized image based on the gradient threshold and the relative gradient image (Inazumi, paragraph 574 teaches "cannot detect figure center markers of all of the markers Mks1 to Mks64 from the binarized image G2 obtained by binarizing the captured image G1 based on the luminance that is not appropriate for detecting the marker", paragraph 575 teaches "binarizes the captured image G1 illustrated in FIG. 51 based on the luminance appropriate for detecting the marker. As illustrated in FIG. 54, in a binarized image G3 obtained by binarizing the captured image G1" and fig. G3 shows an updated binarized image); this is updated binarized image because it bases itself on appropriate luminance for detecting markers as compared to the previous binarized image and when viewed in combination this would be based on gradient threshold and relative gradient image from Komizo as explained above since the binarized image is based on such. The same motivations used in claim 4 apply here in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, Komizo and Inazumi teaches wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the binarized image and the index image includes: obtaining one or more pixel clusters corresponding to the artifact region based on the binarized image through region growth (Inazumi, paragraph 589 teaches "a case where pixels having the same color as the color of the aforementioned pixel exist around eight pixels with the pixel selected from the aforementioned captured image exists, the area detection portion 253 regards these pixels as pixels included in one connected partial area."); this shows same pixel colors clustered based on growing region of colors in the binarized image, and the target/artifact region (and pixels thereof) would be from Kunze above thus corresponding to such; for each of the one or more pixel clusters, obtaining labeled voxels by labeling voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the pixel cluster based on the pixel cluster and the index image (Inazumi, paragraph 473 teaches "the marker detecting process portion 152 performs labeling for differentiating each of the detected aforementioned partial area"); as aforementioned the partial area is pixels clustered and since Maltz paragraph 26 mentions " term “pixel” and “voxel” in the present disclosure are used interchangeably to refer to an element in an image", this means the pixel clusters correspond to voxels and thus the pixel clusters being labeled would mean voxels being labeled and can be after index image of Komizo thus based on such; and determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the labeled voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the one or more pixel clusters (Kunze, paragraph 11 teaches "three-dimensional intermediate data set of a reconstruction region that is larger than the region of interest is reconstructed by determining, for each voxel of the intermediate data set, as a metal value, the number of first binary metal masks showing metal in a pixel associated with a ray crossing the voxel"); this shows reconstruction region/initial range being based on voxels which would correspond to pixel clusters from Inazumi, and since ROI is reconstructed so is the artifact region within it. The same motivations used in claim 4 apply here in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, Komizo and Inazumi teaches wherein the determining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image based on the voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the one or more pixel clusters includes: obtaining the initial range of the artifact region on the projection image by projecting the voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the one or more pixel clusters on the projection image along an incident direction of rays associated with the obtaining of the projection image (Kunze, paragraph 11 teaches "three-dimensional intermediate data set of a reconstruction region that is larger than the region of interest is reconstructed by determining, for each voxel of the intermediate data set, as a metal value, the number of first binary metal masks showing metal in a pixel associated with a ray crossing the voxel"); this shows reconstruction region/initial range of target region/roi (includes artifact region from combination of claim 1) on projection image being obtained by projecting voxels associated with pixels (thus pixel clusters of Inazumi) along a ray which would have an incident direction. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, the method claim 16 recites similar limitations as system claim 4, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the method claim 17 recites similar limitations as system claim 5, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the method claim 18 recites similar limitations as system claim 6, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the method claim 19 recites similar limitations as system claim 7, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, Komizo, and Inazumi and as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Honjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0025492), hereinafter referenced as Honjo.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, Komizo, and Inazumi fails to teach wherein for each of the one or more pixel clusters, the labeling the voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the pixel cluster based on the pixel cluster and the index image includes: performing a histogram statistic on the index values in the index image corresponding to pixels in the pixel cluster; obtaining an index value range corresponding to the pixels of the pixel cluster based on the histogram statistic; and labeling the voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the pixel cluster based on the index value range.
However, Honjo teaches wherein for each of the one or more pixel clusters, the labeling the voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the pixel cluster based on the pixel cluster and the index image includes: performing a histogram statistic on the index values in the index image corresponding to pixels in the pixel cluster (Honjo, paragraph 132 teaches "the index value calculating function 161 generates a histogram for each of the segmented regions. For example, the index value calculating function 161 generates the histogram by plotting levels of firmness of the pixels included in each of the segmented regions"); this shows histogram statistic on index values and segmented region is same as partial area thus including pixels in pixel cluster; obtaining an index value range corresponding to the pixels of the pixel cluster based on the histogram statistic (Honjo, paragraph 60 teaches "determine a measurement region on the basis of the index value. For example, the determining function 162 determines the measurement region on the basis of a comparison between the index value of each of the plurality of sub-regions and a threshold value."); index value of each of sub-regions shows an index value range, since this is for sub-regions it would be corresponding to pixels of the pixel cluster and this is based on histogram since index value calculating function generates histogram for each of the segmented region from above; and labeling the voxels in the first reconstruction image corresponding to the pixel cluster based on the index value range (Honjo, paragraph 63 teaches "generates an SD map on the basis of the result of the comparison between the index value (the variance values) and the threshold value. In the present example, the SD map is information in which the result of the comparison between the variance of each of the segmented regions and the threshold value is indicated in a corresponding position within the raw data. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the segmented regions of which the variance is equal to or larger than the threshold value are indicated with “white dots”, whereas the segmented regions of which the variance is smaller than the threshold value are indicated with “black dots”"); variance values here shows the range since above described range is due to comparing and variance, thus the labeling for differentiation in Inazumi (for pixels and voxels corresponding to pixel clusters as explained above) would be for this variance in and based on index value range. Honjo is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of histogram for index values calculation in medical images. Therefore, 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 the combination of Matlz, Kunze, Shinoda, Komizo, and Inazumi with the histogram techniques of Honjo so other medical image diagnosis apparatuses besides the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 1 are also applicable, such as X-ray diagnosis apparatuses, X-ray CT apparatuses, MRI apparatuses... (Honjo, paragraph 145). This means increased versatility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights