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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment submitted on 04/04/2024 has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on 04/04/2024
Claims 1–20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 04/04/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 and 10/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is:
“a data receiver” in claim(s) 15
“a first converter” in claim(s) 15
“a second converter” in claim(s) 15
“a controller” in claim(s) 15
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim(s) 15: ‘a data receiver’ corresponds to FIG. 3 – element 320. “The data receiver 320 can receive X-ray image data from the image acquisition device 100 through the communication interface unit 310.”, Applicant Specification ¶ [0049].
Claim(s) 15: ‘a first converter’ corresponds to FIG. 3 – element 330. “The first converter 330 can convert X-ray image data received through the data receiver 320, that is, raw image data.”, Applicant Specification ¶ [0050].
Claim(s) 15: ‘a first converter’ corresponds to FIG. 3 – element 350. “The second converter 350 can inversely transform the frequency domain image data from which artifacts have been removed in the data processor 340.”, Applicant Specification ¶ [0052].
Claim(s) 15: ‘a controller’ corresponds to FIG. 3 – element 360. “The controller 360 can control the overall operation of the processor 160.”, Applicant Specification ¶ [0053].
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "by the ruler" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the peak is on the ruler, close to the ruler or far away from the ruler. For the sake of examination the Examiner is interpreting the by the ruler as being close to the ruler.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 recite(s) a method, device and method respectively. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1, 15 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1, 15 and 20 are directed to a method, device and method
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1, 15 and 20 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1: the limitations recite:
obtaining an X-ray image (data gathering);
converting the obtained X-ray image into a frequency domain (mathematical calculation);
detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information;
determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map (mathematical concept and calculation);
converting the filtered X-ray image in the frequency domain into a spatial domain (mathematical calculation); and
providing a domain converted X-ray image in the spatial domain (insignificant post-solution).
Regarding independent claim(s) 15: the limitations recite:
a data receiver configured to obtain an X-ray image (data gathering);
a first converter configured to convert the obtained X-ray image into a frequency domain (mathematical calculation);
a data processor configured to detect peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain, select a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information, determine whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generate a peak map (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind), and filter the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map (mathematical concept and calculation);
a second converter configured to convert the filtered X-ray image in the frequency domain into a spatial domain (mathematical calculation); and
a controller configured to control-the a domain converted X-ray image in the spatial domain to be provided (insignificant post-solution).
Regarding independent claim(s) 20: the limitations recite:
converting an X-ray image into a frequency domain (mathematical calculation);
detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map (mathematical concept and calculation); and
excluding a grid artifact from the peak map (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978).
As such, a person could mentally observe the frequencies and determine the peak based on being higher than surrounding frequencies and the shape. Generate a mental map of the peaks and remove them from the frequency graph. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 15 and 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 15 and 20 discloses an a method, device and method, which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 1, 15 and 20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1, 15 and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2–10 and 16–19: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The claim(s) are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 11–14: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The claim(s) are mathematical concepts and calculations
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazici et al. (US 6333990 B1, hereafter, "Yazici") in view of Foos et al. (US 20110033101 A1, hereafter, "Foos").
Regarding claim 1, Yazici teaches an image processing method (See Yazici, [Abstract], A method for removing "grid line artifacts" from x-ray images without changing the diagnostic quality of the x-ray image is presented), comprising:
obtaining an X-ray image (See Yazici, [Col. 2, ln. 48-49], The attenuation measurements from all detectors 130 are acquired separately to produce an x-ray image);
converting the obtained X-ray image into a frequency domain (See Yazici, [Col. 3, ln. 50-54], Next, "grid line artifacts" are removed from the x-ray 50 image, as identified by the method of step 216. This is accomplished by converting the x-ray image to the Fourier domain where frequency components representing the x-ray image are generated, as illustrated by graph 370 in FIG. 7);
[detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain;
selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information;
determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map;
filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map];
converting the filtered X-ray image in the frequency domain into a spatial domain (See Yazici, [Col. 4, ln. 3-6], The x-ray image is then restored to a human readable format, as identified by the method of step 218 of FIG. 2. This is accomplished by conducting an inverse Fourier transform on the frequency components); and
providing a domain converted X-ray image in the spatial domain (See Yazici, [Col. 4, ln. 3-6], The x-ray image is then restored to a human readable format, as identified by the method of step 218 of FIG. 2. This is accomplished by conducting an inverse Fourier transform on the frequency components).
However, Yacizi fail(s) to teach detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain; selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information; determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map; filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map.
Foos, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain (See Foos, ¶ [0055], After all the pre-processing is completed, a search for all the local peaks greater than a predetermined magnitude in the spectra is conducted for the purpose of skipping peaks at very low frequency. A number of parameters related to the characteristics of the peaks are therefore calculated. These characteristics can include peak location (frequency), peak magnitude, half width of full maximum, total energy, grid orientation, and so on. Note: Examiner is interpreting the peak shape information as the characteristics);
selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information (See Foos, ¶ [0055], After all the pre-processing is completed, a search for all the local peaks greater than a predetermined magnitude in the spectra is conducted for the purpose of skipping peaks at very low frequency. A number of parameters related to the characteristics of the peaks are therefore calculated. These characteristics can include peak location (frequency), peak magnitude, half width of full maximum, total energy, grid orientation, and so on. These candidate peaks are sorted based on their energy, and only a predetermined number of peaks with higher energies in each power spectra are passed to the next step for analysis);
determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map (See Foos, ¶ [0056], Step S88 of the grid detection process in FIG. 3 involves the calculation of figures-of-merit (FOMs) for each peak, wherein the most likely grid frequencies are recognized. In one embodiment, calculation and use of FOM values. ¶ [0063], Grid attribute data 62 can include values of grid frequency and height ratio information, for example. An adaptive filtering step S94 then processes the image data as described earlier. A grid suppression step S98 then performs the suppression of grid artifacts using adaptive suppression or other method. ¶ [0064], Grid suppression in step S98 generally uses a notch filter, appropriately selected for the grid spacing and height ratio calculated for the grid. Note: The grid attributes are calculated by the peaks and filter is based on the grid attributes. The examiner is interpreting the filter as the peak map);
filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map (See Foos, ¶ [0063], Grid attribute data 62 can include values of grid frequency and height ratio information, for example. An adaptive filtering step S94 then processes the image data as described earlier. A grid suppression step S98 then performs the suppression of grid artifacts using adaptive suppression or other method. ¶ [0064], Grid suppression in step S98 generally uses a notch filter, appropriately selected for the grid spacing and height ratio calculated for the grid. Note: Examiner is interpreting the filter as the peak map as the filter is mask for the frequency).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference to detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain; selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information; determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map; filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map based on the method of Foos’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove and suppress grid artifacts (See Foos, ¶ [0010–0016]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foos with Yacizi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to the claim 15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. Furthermore, Yacizi teaches an image processing device, comprising: a data receiver configured (See Yacizi, [Col. 1, ln. 57–58], A method for removing "grid line artifacts" from x-ray images in an x-ray radiography imaging system is presented).
Regarding claim 20, Yazici teaches An image processing method, comprising:(See Yazici, [Abstract], A method for removing "grid line artifacts" from x-ray images without changing the diagnostic quality of the x-ray image is presented), comprising:
converting an X-ray image into a frequency domain (See Yazici, [Col. 3, ln. 50-54], Next, "grid line artifacts" are removed from the x-ray 50 image, as identified by the method of step 216. This is accomplished by converting the x-ray image to the Fourier domain where frequency components representing the x-ray image are generated, as illustrated by graph 370 in FIG. 7);
[detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain;
selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information;
determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map;
filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map; and
excluding a grid artifact from the peak map].
However, Yacizi fail(s) to teach detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain; selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information; determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map; filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map; and excluding a grid artifact from the peak map.
Foos, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain (See Foos, ¶ [0055], After all the pre-processing is completed, a search for all the local peaks greater than a predetermined magnitude in the spectra is conducted for the purpose of skipping peaks at very low frequency. A number of parameters related to the characteristics of the peaks are therefore calculated. These characteristics can include peak location (frequency), peak magnitude, half width of full maximum, total energy, grid orientation, and so on. Note: Examiner is interpreting the peak shape information as the characteristics);
selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information (See Foos, ¶ [0055], After all the pre-processing is completed, a search for all the local peaks greater than a predetermined magnitude in the spectra is conducted for the purpose of skipping peaks at very low frequency. A number of parameters related to the characteristics of the peaks are therefore calculated. These characteristics can include peak location (frequency), peak magnitude, half width of full maximum, total energy, grid orientation, and so on. These candidate peaks are sorted based on their energy, and only a predetermined number of peaks with higher energies in each power spectra are passed to the next step for analysis);
determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map (See Foos, ¶ [0063], Grid attribute data 62 can include values of grid frequency and height ratio information, for example. An adaptive filtering step S94 then processes the image data as described earlier. A grid suppression step S98 then performs the suppression of grid artifacts using adaptive suppression or other method. ¶ [0064], Grid suppression in step S98 generally uses a notch filter, appropriately selected for the grid spacing and height ratio calculated for the grid. Note: Examiner is interpreting the filter as the peak map);
filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map (See Foos, ¶ [0063], Grid attribute data 62 can include values of grid frequency and height ratio information, for example. An adaptive filtering step S94 then processes the image data as described earlier. A grid suppression step S98 then performs the suppression of grid artifacts using adaptive suppression or other method. ¶ [0064], Grid suppression in step S98 generally uses a notch filter, appropriately selected for the grid spacing and height ratio calculated for the grid. Note: Examiner is interpreting the filter as the peak map as the filter is mask for the frequency).
excluding a grid artifact from the peak map (See Foos, ¶ [0055], After all the pre-processing is completed, a search for all the local peaks greater than a predetermined magnitude in the spectra is conducted for the purpose of skipping peaks at very low frequency. A number of parameters related to the characteristics of the peaks are therefore calculated. These characteristics can include peak location (frequency), peak magnitude, half width of full maximum, total energy, grid orientation, and so on. These candidate peaks are sorted based on their energy, and only a predetermined number of peaks with higher energies in each power spectra are passed to the next step for analysis. Note: Some peaks are excluded that don’t meet a certain magnitude and are excluded from the filter)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference to detecting peak shape information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain; selecting a peak candidate region based on the detected peak shape information; determining whether each selected peak candidate region is a grid peak and generating a peak map; filtering the converted X-ray image based on the generated peak map; and excluding a grid artifact from the peak map based on the method of Foos’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove and suppress grid artifacts (See Foos, ¶ [0010–0016]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foos with Yacizi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazici et al. (US 6333990 B1, hereafter, "Yazici") in view of Foos et al. (US 20110033101 A1, hereafter, "Foos") further in view of Barski et al. (US 6269176 B1, hereafter, "Barski").
Regarding claim 2, Yacizi in view of Foos teaches The image processing method according to claim 1, [wherein regions including peaks exceeding predefined shapes and sizes based on the detected peak shape information are excluded from the peak candidate region].
However, Yacizi and Foos fail(s) to teach wherein regions including peaks exceeding predefined shapes and sizes based on the detected peak shape information are excluded from the peak candidate region;
Barski, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein regions including peaks exceeding predefined shapes and sizes based on the detected peak shape information are excluded from the peak candidate region (See Barski, [Col. 7, ln. 42-50], The fourth step of the grid detection process involves the calculation of figures-of-merit (FOMs) for each peak and the most likely grid frequencies are recognized. These FOMs include fom_ecohr ,fom_freq and fom_tot, etc. The parameter fom_ecohr is a measure of energy coherence, which is define as the energy per unit frequency, i.e. fom_eochr =
k
x
e
n
e
r
g
y
h
w
f
m
. [Col. 7, ln. 52-56], where hwfm is the half width of full maximum (HWFM) of the peak, and k is a normalization factor to limit fom_echhr within the range between 0 and 1. This measure is used to encourage grid lines having better defined (narrow and strong) peaks in the power spectra. Note: the peaks that are not narrow and strong are being interpreted as exceeding a size and shape and are not encouraged (excluded) based on the equation calculation and aren't FOM (valid peaks)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference to wherein regions including peaks exceeding predefined shapes and sizes based on the detected peak shape information are excluded from the peak candidate region based on the method of Barski’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to determine valid and acceptable peaks (See Barski, ¶ [0002–0006]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barski with Yacizi and Foos to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to the claim 16, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 3–5, 17 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazici et al. (US 6333990 B1, hereafter, "Yazici") in view of Foos et al. (US 20110033101 A1, hereafter, "Foos") further in view of Barski et al. (US 6269176 B1, hereafter, "Barski") and further in view of Kawamura (US 20180068468 A1, hereafter, "Kawamura").
Regarding claim 3, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski teaches the image processing method of claim 2, [further comprising detecting peak direction information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain].
However, Yacizi, Foos and Barski fail(s) to teach further comprising detecting peak direction information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain.
Kawamura, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: further comprising detecting peak direction information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain (See Kawamura, ¶ [0045], As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the frequency spectrum in each direction has a peak in a frequency corresponding to an original cycle structure of a grid. The first frequency analysis unit 32 detects peak frequencies of frequency spectra in the x-direction and the y-direction as a first frequency component (f1x, f1y) with respect to the first radiation image G1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference to further comprising detecting peak direction information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain based on the method of Kawamura’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove grid artefacts and reduce the occurrence of grid artefacts (See Kawamura, ¶ [0002–0008]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kawamura with Yacizi, Foos and Barski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski and further in view of Kawamura teaches the image processing method of claim 3, [wherein the determination of whether there is the grid peak is performed based on the peak direction information].
However, Yacizi, Foos and Barski fail(s) to teach further comprising detecting peak direction information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain.
Kawamura, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: further comprising detecting peak direction information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain (See Kawamura, ¶ [0045], As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the frequency spectrum in each direction has a peak in a frequency corresponding to an original cycle structure of a grid. The first frequency analysis unit 32 detects peak frequencies of frequency spectra in the x-direction and the y-direction as a first frequency component (f1x, f1y) with respect to the first radiation image G1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference to further comprising detecting peak direction information from the converted X-ray image in the frequency domain based on the method of Kawamura’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove grid artefacts and reduce the occurrence of grid artefacts (See Kawamura, ¶ [0002–0008]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kawamura with Yacizi, Foos and Barski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski and further in view of Kawamura teaches The image processing method of claim 4, wherein the peak direction information includes direction information on a grid artifact and direction information by a ruler.
However, Yacizi, Foos and Barski fail(s) to teach wherein the peak direction information includes direction information on a grid artifact and direction information by a ruler.
Kawamura, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the peak direction information includes direction information on a grid artifact and direction information by a ruler (See Kawamura, ¶ [0045], As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the frequency spectrum in each direction has a peak in a frequency corresponding to an original cycle structure of a grid. The first frequency analysis unit 32 detects peak frequencies of frequency spectra in the x-direction and the y-direction as a first frequency component (f1x, f1y) with respect to the first radiation image G1. Note: Examiner is interpreting the ruler as the x and y axis).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference wherein the peak direction information includes direction information on a grid artifact and direction information by a ruler based on the method of Kawamura’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove grid artefacts and reduce the occurrence of grid artefacts (See Kawamura, ¶ [0002–0008]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kawamura with Yacizi, Foos and Barski to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to the claim 17, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to the claim 18, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazici et al. (US 6333990 B1, hereafter, "Yazici") in view of Foos et al. (US 20110033101 A1, hereafter, "Foos") further in view of Barski et al. (US 6269176 B1, hereafter, "Barski") further in view of Kawamura (US 20180068468 A1, hereafter, "Kawamura") and further in view of Ochiai et al. (US 20170324885 A1, hereafter, "Ochiai").
Regarding claim 6, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski and further in view of Kawamura teaches the image processing method of claim 5, wherein, based on the peak direction information, [when a peak by the ruler is detected, the peak by the ruler is excluded from the peak map].
However, Yacizi, Foos, Barski, and Kawamura fail(s) to teach when a peak by the ruler is detected, the peak by the ruler is excluded from the peak map.
Ochiai, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: when a peak by the ruler is detected, the peak by the ruler is excluded from the peak map (See Ochiai, ¶ [0093], In the present embodiment, all the grid points (excluding the grid point whose position coordinate is the maximum value along each axis). Note: Examiner is interpreting excluding maximum points on the axis as excluding peaks by the ruler).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference when a peak by the ruler is detected, the peak by the ruler is excluded from the peak map based on the method of Ochiai’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to ignore certain peaks on the axis (See Ochiai, ¶ [0002–0006]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ochiai with Yacizi, Foos, Barski and Kawamura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski further in view of Kawamura and further in view of Ochiai teaches the image processing method of claim 6, [wherein the determination of whether there is the grid peak is performed based on analysis of at least one of a peak location, peak intensity, and peak shape information].
However, Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai fail(s) to teach wherein the determination of whether there is the grid peak is performed based on analysis of at least one of a peak location, peak intensity, and peak shape information.
Foos, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the determination of whether there is the grid peak is performed based on analysis of at least one of a peak location, peak intensity, and peak shape information (See Foos, ¶ [0055], After all the pre-processing is completed, a search for all the local peaks greater than a predetermined magnitude in the spectra is conducted for the purpose of skipping peaks at very low frequency. A number of parameters related to the characteristics of the peaks are therefore calculated. These characteristics can include peak location (frequency), peak magnitude, half width of full maximum, total energy, grid orientation, and so on. These candidate peaks are sorted based on their energy, and only a predetermined number of peaks with higher energies in each power spectra are passed to the next step for analysis).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference wherein the determination of whether there is the grid peak is performed based on analysis of at least one of a peak location, peak intensity, and peak shape information based on the method of Foos’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove and suppress grid artifacts (See Foos, ¶ [0010–0016]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foos with Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski further in view of Kawamura and further in view of Ochiai teaches the image processing method of claim 7, [wherein a shape of the peak is not determined to be the grid peak when an elongation rate is calculated, and when the calculated elongation rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value].
However, Yacizi, Foos, Kawamura and Ochiai fail(s) to teach wherein a shape of the peak is not determined to be the grid peak when an elongation rate is calculated, and when the calculated elongation rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value.
Barski, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein a shape of the peak is not determined to be the grid peak when an elongation rate is calculated, and when the calculated elongation rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value (See Barski, [Col. 7, ln. 42-47, ln. 52-53, ln. 63-64], The fourth step of the grid detection process involves the calculation of figures-of-merit (FOMs) for each peak and the most likely grid frequencies are recognized. These FOMs include fom_ecohr ,fom_freq and fom_tot, etc. The parameter fom_ecohr is a measure of energy coherence, which is define as the energy per unit frequency, ..., where hwfm is the half width of full maximum (HWFM) of the peak, where maximum_frequency is the maximum frequency of the power spectrum. Note: Examiner is interpreting the Half width of the full maximum as the elongation rate as it represents the shape of the peak).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference wherein a shape of the peak is not determined to be the grid peak when an elongation rate is calculated, and when the calculated elongation rate is greater than or equal to a threshold value based on the method of Barski’s reference. The suggestion/motivation to apply custom filters based on an image by image basis (See Barski, [Col. 2, ln. 28–57]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barski with Yacizi, Foos, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski further in view of Kawamura and further in view of Ochiai teaches the image processing method of claim 7, [wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a kernel size is determined based on the peak shape information of a grid, and a filter type is determined according to the determined kernel size].
However, Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai fail(s) to teach wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a kernel size is determined based on the peak shape information of a grid, and a filter type is determined according to the determined kernel size.
Foos, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a kernel size is determined based on the peak shape information of a grid, and a filter type is determined according to the determined kernel size (See Foos, ¶ [0054], One advantageous way of doing this is to use a morphological opening filter with a circular kernel. The size of the circular kernel should be several times larger than the widest peak width in order to minimize the error of energy calculation. For both Gaussian smoothing and morphological operations, mirroring of the data points at the two ends of the 1-D spectra is used, since the spectra themselves are periodic).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a kernel size is determined based on the peak shape information of a grid, and a filter type is determined according to the determined kernel size based on the method of Foos’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove and suppress grid artifacts (See Foos, ¶ [0010–0016]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foos with Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski further in view of Kawamura and further in view of Ochiai teaches the image processing method of claim 10, [wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, the kernel size and filter type for each peak are determined].
However, Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai fail(s) to teach wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, the kernel size and filter type for each peak are determined.
Foos, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, the kernel size and filter type for each peak are determined (See Foos, ¶ [0061], A third factor for the suppression algorithm is the design of the blurring kernels. The kernel needs to be small enough to facilitate fast processing and minimize the blurring of important structures in the image, and large enough to cover the grid line shadow. Therefore, in the preferred embodiment, the strategy for processing is to design appropriate blur kernels (such as a bank of kernels to be applied adaptively) as a function of pixel size, grid energy, grid frequency and the related span of grid frequencies (the half-width of the full maximum peak)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, the kernel size and filter type for each peak are determined based on the method of Foos’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove and suppress grid artifacts (See Foos, ¶ [0010–0016]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foos with Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski further in view of Kawamura and further in view of Ochiai teaches the image processing method of claim 10, [wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a filtering strength increases closer to a high-frequency region and the filtering strength decreases closer to a low-frequency region].
However, Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai fail(s) to teach wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a filtering strength increases closer to a high-frequency region and the filtering strength decreases closer to a low-frequency region.
Foos, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a filtering strength increases closer to a high-frequency region and the filtering strength decreases closer to a low-frequency region (See Foos, ¶ [0054], To reduce noise, a one dimensional Gaussian convolution kernel is applied for spectrum smoothing. For robust peak detection and peak energy calculation, the low-frequency background needs to be identified and subtracted from the smoothed spectra. One advantageous way of doing this is to use a morphological opening filter with a circular kernel. The size of the circular kernel should be several times larger than the widest peak width in order to minimize the error of energy calculation. For both Gaussian smoothing and morphological operations, mirroring of the data points at the two ends of the 1-D spectra is used, since the spectra themselves are periodic. Note: the Gaussian convolution kernel is used to remove high frequency noise and the circular kernel is used to filter out low frequency).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference wherein, in the filtering of the converted X-ray image, a filtering strength increases closer to a high-frequency region and the filtering strength decreases closer to a low-frequency region based on the method of Foos’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove and suppress grid artifacts (See Foos, ¶ [0010–0016]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foos with Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to the claim 19, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazici et al. (US 6333990 B1, hereafter, "Yazici") in view of Foos et al. (US 20110033101 A1, hereafter, "Foos") further in view of Barski et al. (US 6269176 B1, hereafter, "Barski") further in view of Kawamura (US 20180068468 A1, hereafter, "Kawamura") further in view of Ochiai et al. (US 20170324885 A1, hereafter, "Ochiai") and further in view of Naito (US 20170140203 A1, hereafter, "Naito").
Regarding claim 8, Yacizi in view of Foos further in view of Barski further in view of Kawamura and further in view of Ochiai teaches the image processing method of claim 7, [wherein a position of a peak indicates a frequency at which the peak is located in the frequency domain, and the closer the peak is to predetermined frequency, the more weight is given to determine the peak as the grid peak].
However, Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai fail(s) to teach wherein a position of a peak indicates a frequency at which the peak is located in the frequency domain, and the closer the peak is to predetermined frequency, the more weight is given to determine the peak as the grid peak.
Foos, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein a position of a peak indicates a frequency at which the peak is located in the frequency domain (See Foos, ¶ [0055], After all the pre-processing is completed, a search for all the local peaks greater than a predetermined magnitude in the spectra is conducted for the purpose of skipping peaks at very low frequency. A number of parameters related to the characteristics of the peaks are therefore calculated. These characteristics can include peak location (frequency), peak magnitude, half width of full maximum, total energy, grid orientation, and so on. These candidate peaks are sorted based on their energy, and only a predetermined number of peaks with higher energies in each power spectra are passed to the next step for analysis).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference wherein a position of a peak indicates a frequency at which the peak is located in the frequency domain based on the method of Foos’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately remove and suppress grid artifacts (See Foos, ¶ [0010–0016]).
However, Yacizi, Foos, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai fail(s) to teach the closer the peak is to predetermined frequency, the more weight is given to determine the peak as the grid peak.
Naito, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: the closer the peak is to predetermined frequency, the more weight is given to determine the peak as the grid peak (See Naito, ¶ [0018], comprise a harmonic frequency calculating means for calculating the frequency of at least one harmonic which is generated based on the grid density and the Nyquist frequency of the radiation image, and the judging means may compare the frequency of the peaks within the frequency spectrum and the frequency of the at least one harmonic, and judge the quality of the grid based on the presence or the absence of a peak at a frequency different from the frequency of the harmonic. Note: Examiner is interpreting the comparing the peaks to determine the quality and weighing the peaks).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yacizi’s reference the closer the peak is to predetermined frequency, the more weight is given to determine the peak as the grid peak based on the method of Naito’s reference. The suggestion/motivation accurately detect the grids (See Naito, ¶ [0002–0007]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Foos and Naito with Yacizi, Barski, Kawamura and Ochiai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11 and 12 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 and provided the 101 rejection is overcome.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 contain subject matter that is not disclosed or made obvious in the cited art.
In regard to claim 11, when considering claim 11 as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“The image processing method of claim 10, wherein the filtering of the converted X-ray image is performed using n Gaussian notch filters (where n is a natural number of 2 or more) when the determined kernel size based on the peak shape information of the grid is greater than or equal to a threshold”.
In regard to claim 12, when considering claim 12 as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“The image processing method of claim 10, wherein the filtering of the converted X-ray image is performed using a single Gaussian notch filter when the determined kernel size based on the peak shape information of the grid is less than a threshold”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imai (US 20140363071 A1) teaches a first frequency analysis unit performs frequency analysis on a reference radiographic image of plural radiographic images obtained by tomosynthesis imaging using a grid, and obtains a frequency characteristic of a periodic pattern caused by the grid and a frequency analysis result. A second frequency analysis unit performs, based on the frequency analysis result, limited frequency analysis on a radiographic image or images other than the reference radiographic image, and obtains a frequency characteristic of the periodic pattern about the radiographic image or images. A suppression unit performs, based on the frequency characteristic, processing for suppressing the periodic pattern in all of the radiographic images.
Hasegawa (US 20140050300 A1) teaches an X-ray apparatus includes a pixel-extracting section for extracting pixels determined in advance in each line of an image containing a grid moire pattern, a FFT processing section for performing one-dimensional FFT to the extracted pixels, a peak-frequency detecting section for detecting a peak frequency from a frequency characteristic for each line having undergone FTT, a frequency-characteristic preparing section for preparing a frequency characteristic for extracting the grid moire pattern in accordance with the detected peak-frequency, an inverse FFT processing section for performing inverse FFT to the frequency characteristic prepared by the frequency-characteristic preparing section, and an FIR filtering section for performing FIR filtering on the image with use of a value calculated by the inverse FFT processing section as an FIR filter coefficient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION J SATCHER whose telephone number is (703)756-5849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm, Friday 5:30 am - 9:30 am PST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/DION J SATCHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676