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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, in line 2, --- IQ --- should be inserted after “first”.
In claim 8, in line 2, --- at --- should be inserted before “least”.
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 8-9 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 8 recites the limitation "the current image" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites that “the decision…is not to acquire the new image if the corresponding image is found, and the second IQ score is larger than the first IQ score and/or wherein the second IQ score is larger than a pre-defined minimal IQ score…”. It is unclear as to whether the “pre-defined minimal IQ score” is referring to the same “predetermined IQ score” set forth in the second to last line of claim 1, or referring to a different predefined/predetermined IQ score. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the former. As such, it further appears that the above limitations of claim 9 are repetitive as claim 1 recites similer/same limitations in the last 4 lines of claim 1, thereby rendering the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether Applicant is attempting to claim that these limitations are to be performed 2x or whether Applicant was attempting to refer to the same limitations as set forth in claim 1 and thus not appearing to further clearly limit claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US Pub No. 2008/0130972) in view of Annangi et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0174496).
With regards to claims 1, 9, 12 and 16, Miller et al. disclose a computer-implemented method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system for medical imaging support, comprising:
an input interface for receiving an input image of a patient acquired by an imaging apparatus (paragraphs [0047], [0057], referring to obtaining temporally sequential images of a patient or image data instead including data from an archive site or data storage facility; paragraphs [0027]-[0028], [0031], referring to the processing subsystem which serves as an input interface for receiving an input image of the patient; Figures 1-4, note that the “input image” may be interpreted as corresponding to one of the images acquired during step 102 in Figure 4, or, alternatively, interpreted as one of the previously acquired images in the previously acquired image data set in step 104 of Figure 4); and
an imaging triaging module configured to attempt retrieving from an image database (i.e. archive site or data storage facility) of prior assessed images a corresponding image (i.e. one or more images associated with previous examinations [which, under the alternative interpretation of the input image above, corresponds to a previously acquired image that is different than the one interpreted as corresponding to the ”input image”) that corresponds to the input image, the corresponding image being a prior image of the patient or of a similar patient acquired at a first imaging parameter (i.e. imaging parameter associated with the previous examination), and the imaging triaging module to provide a decision whether to acquire at a second imaging parameter a new image of the patient by the imaging apparatus (i.e. decision of proceeding from step 108 to step 118 in Figure 4, wherein image data associated with the current examination session may be acquired based on settings that may be different from the retrieved imaging parameters associated with at least one previously acquired image data set), the second imaging parameter being different from the first imaging parameter such that more images are not taken than is medically necessary and radiation dosage exposure to the patient is reduced (paragraphs [0058]-[0059], referring to one or more images associated with previous examinations corresponding to the same patient (12) may be restored (step 104) from an archive site or data storage facility, wherein the imaging parameters associated with the previous examination may be stored in the DICOM header corresponding to a previously acquired image data set, wherein a check may be carried out to verify if the retrieved imaging parameters are to be duplicated for the current examination session [further note that a corresponding image (i.e. one of the images associated with previous examinations) is thus indeed found]; paragraph [0065, referring to the decision step (108), wherein if it is not elected to use the retrieved imaging parameters for the current examination session, image data associated with the current examination may be acquired, at step 118, based on settings that may be different from the retrieved imaging parameters; paragraph [0020], referring to other types of imaging systems, such as ultrasound or X-ray imaging system, are also contemplated in conjunction with the present technique; paragraph [0068], referring to the efficiency of the procedure being greatly improved as undesirable variations due to dissimilar imaging conditions is substantially reduced, thereby resulting in increasing diagnostic confidence and treatment accuracy, and thus allowing for more images to not be taken than is medically necessary and radiation dosage exposure [associated with X-ray imaging] to the patient correspondingly being reduced; Figures 1-4).
However, Miller et al. do not specifically disclose that the input image is previously assessed by an image quality assessment module and awarded a first image quality (IQ) score, wherein the decision of whether to acquire the new image at the second imaging parameter is based on the first IQ score and a second IQ score of the corresponding image, wherein the new image is not acquired when the second IQ score is larger than the first IQ score or when the second IQ score is larger than a predetermined IQ score.
Annangi et al. disclose methods and systems for sequentially selecting scan parameter values for ultrasound imaging, wherein the problem of image acquisition parameter optimization is addressed via a feedback system based on an automated image quality measurement algorithm that is configured to automatically identify the acquisition parameters that will generate the best possible image for the anatomy being imaged (Abstract; paragraph [0015]). A plurality of images are acquired, wherein each image of the plurality of images is acquired at a different parameter value (paragraph [0050]; Figure 5). A parameter-specific quality metric is determined for each image of the plurality of images, wherein the parameter-specific quality metric changes as the value of the scan parameter changes (paragraph [0051]; Figure 5). An image of the plurality of images is identified and selected where the image is the image of the plurality of images having the highest first quality metric, wherein one or more ultrasound images are acquired at the selected value for the scan parameter (paragraphs [0052], [0057]; Figure 5; note that modifying Miller et al. in view of this teaching would result in having the images of Miller et al. (i.e. input image and corresponding image) to be associated with respective image quality metrics/scores (i.e. first IQ score and second IQ score), wherein if the second IQ score associated with the “corresponding image” is larger than the first IQ score of the “input image” (i.e. the second IQ score is the highest quality metric), then an image is acquired using the “first imaging parameter”, and therefore it follows that the claimed “new image” acquired at a second imaging parameter different from the first imaging parameter is not acquired).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the input image of Miller et al. be previously assessed by an image quality assessment module and awarded a first image quality (IQ) score, wherein the decision of whether to acquire the new image at the second imaging parameter of Miller et al. is based on the first IQ score and a second IQ score of the corresponding image, wherein the new image is not acquired when the second IQ score is larger than the first IQ score or when the second IQ score is larger than a predetermined IQ score, as taught by Annangi et al., in order to automatically identify the acquisition parameters that will generate the best possible image for the anatomy being imaged (Abstract; paragraph [0015]).
With regards to claim 2, Miller et al. disclose that the system comprises a visualizer component (i.e. display module (26)) to indicate i) whether the corresponding image has been found, and/or ii) the second IQ score of the corresponding image, if found, and/or iii) an indication of the decision by the imaging triaging module (paragraph [0024], [0038], claim 21, referring to the display module displaying the images, which will indicate that the corresponding image has been found and provide an indication of the decision). Annangi et al. further teach this limitation (paragraph [0058], referring to displaying the acquired images, quality metrics and selected parameter settings, thereby providing an indication that the corresponding image has been found, an indication of the second IQ score and an indication of the decision).
With regards to claim 3, Miller et al. disclose that the visualizer is configured to visualize, on a display device, the corresponding image (paragraph [0024], [0038], claim 21, referring to the display module displaying the images). Annangi et al. further disclose the above limitation (paragraph [0058], referring to displaying the acquired images, quality metrics and selected parameter settings).
With regards to claim 4, Miller et al. disclose that the system comprises a user interface (30) configured to receive a user request for the imaging apparatus to acquire the new image (paragraph [0041], referring to the imaging parameter may be set and/or changed by a clinician using the user interface (30), and therefore the user can request, via changing the imaging parameters, to acquire the new image; Figures 1-2).
With regards to claim 5, Annangi et al. disclose that if no such corresponding image can be found, or if the second IQ score of the corresponding image does not exceed the first score, the triaging module is configured to decide that such a new image is to be acquired, and to i) issue a control signal to the imaging apparatus to effect a re-acquisition of the new image of the patient or ii) indicate to the user of the imaging apparatus a recommendation to acquire the new image as a substitute of the input image (paragraphs [0050]-[0052], [0057], referring to identifying an image having the highest first quality metric and setting the corresponding parameter value as a selected value for the scan parameter and acquiring the images at the selected value, wherein if in the modified above combined references the second IQ score/metric of the corresponding image does not exceed the first score (i.e. the first score or another score is the highest score/metric), then a “new image” (i.e. image acquired at a second imaging parameter different from the first imaging parameter) is acquired; Figure 5).
With regards to claim 6, Miller et al. disclose that the imaging triaging module is configured to attempt to retrieve the corresponding image having an acquisition time that is within a predefined prior time interval (paragraph [0041], referring to the images being obtained after a “certain time interval” past injection of a contrast agent).
With regards to claim 7, Miller et al. disclose that the predefined prior time interval is dependent on a patient status and/or an imaging protocol (paragraph [0041], referring to the images being obtained after a “certain time interval” past injection of a contrast agent, and thus the predefined prior time interval (i.e. “certain time interval”) is dependent on an imaging protocol (i.e. contrast imaging protocol)).
With regards to claim 8, Miller et al. disclose that the retrieved corresponding image has a region of interest least overlapping with the region of interest in the current image (paragraph [0061], referring to the previously acquired image data being representative of a region of interest and subsequently image data representative of the same region of interest may be acquired during the current examination session, and therefore the region of interests in the corresponding image (i.e. one of the previously acquired images) overlaps with the region of interest in the current image).
With regards to claim 10, Annangi et al. disclose that the first and/or second IQ score is localizable in the respective image as one or more image portions that contributed more to the respective score than other one or more image portions (paragraph [0025], referring to the basis of the image quality being associated with “visibility of certain anatomical features” and/or speckling, and thus the image quality is localizable in one or more image portions (i.e. “certain anatomical features” region or speckling regions) as image portion(s) that contributed more to the score than other image portions (i.e. image portions other than the portions corresponding to the “certain anatomical features” or specking regions); Figures 3-4).
With regards to claim 11, Annangi et al. disclose that the decision by the module is further based on a clinical indication with respect to a current image and/or the prior image (paragraph [0025], referring to the image quality factor being dependent upon the visibility of certain anatomical features, which corresponds to a clinical indication).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Miller and Annangi have been introduced to teach the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US Pub No. 2010/0305441) disclose that comparing a first image quality metric and a second image quality metric to determine whether a maximized image quality metric has been reached, wherein an object is imaged using an ultrasound signal having the optimum parameters corresponding to the maximized image quality metric (Abstract; paragraph [0022]; Figure 2).
Hartkens et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0122256) disclose a technique for performing a feedback-based quality assessment for a medical image acquired by a medical imaging device, wherein a level of image quality is determined for the acquired medical image using an assessment component configured to assess image quality levels based on feedback of physicians collected for previously acquired medical images and wherein reference images are stored in association with a set of acquisition parameters which has been used to acquire the respective reference image (Abstract; paragraph [0029]; Figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798