DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 recites “a first reconstructed image generated, based on the pixel value group” which Examiner suggests amending to “a first reconstructed image generated based on the pixel value group” (deleting “,”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 9 recites “a first reconstructed image generated, based on the pixel value group” which Examiner suggests amending to “a first reconstructed image generated based on the pixel value group” (deleting “,”). 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 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14-19 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 1 recites the limitations "the pixel value group corresponding to the coordinate group”" in Lines 18-19 and “the artifacts” in Line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a pixel value group corresponding to the coordinate group, a coordinate group (only a sparse sampling coordinate group and a sparse learning sampling coordinate group are disclosed), and artifacts (only an artifact and reduced artifacts are disclosed). Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a pixel value group corresponding to a coordinate group” and “artifacts” (deleting “the”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the sampling coordinate group" in Line 3 and “the pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group” in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a sampling coordinate group (only sparse sampling coordinate group, sparse learning sampling coordinate group, and coordinate group) and a pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group. Examiner suggests amending to "a sampling coordinate group" and “a pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the reconstructed image" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which reconstructed image is being referred to, the first reconstructed image, the second reconstructed image, or the learning reconstructed image. Examiner suggests amending to “the second reconstructed image” or clarifying which reconstructed image is being referred to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the artifact occurrence degrees" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of artifact occurrence degrees (plural), only an artifact occurrence degree (singular). Examiner suggests amending to “artifact occurrence degrees” (deleting “the”) and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claims 4 and 7 depend on claim 3 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the pixel value group corresponding to the coordinate group”" in Lines 18-19, “the artifacts” in Line 20, and “the sampling coordinate group” in Lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a pixel value group corresponding to the coordinate group, a coordinate group (only a sparse sampling coordinate group and a sparse learning sampling coordinate group are disclosed), artifacts (only an artifact and reduced artifacts are disclosed), and a sampling coordinate group (only a sparse sampling coordinate group, a sparse learning sampling coordinate group, and a coordinate group are disclosed). Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a pixel value group corresponding to a coordinate group”, “artifacts” (deleting “the”), and “a sampling coordinate group”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group” in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group. Examiner suggests amending to “a pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group” and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pixel value group in accordance with the sampling coordinate group for alignment" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a pixel value group in accordance with the sampling coordinate group for alignment. Examiner suggests amending to “a pixel value group in accordance with the sampling coordinate group for alignment” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the pixel value group corresponding to the coordinate group”" in Lines 17-18 and “the artifacts” in Line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a pixel value group corresponding to the coordinate group, a coordinate group (only a sparse sampling coordinate group and a sparse learning sampling coordinate group are disclosed), and artifacts (only an artifact and reduced artifacts are disclosed). Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a pixel value group corresponding to a coordinate group” and “artifacts” (deleting “the”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the sampling coordinate group" in Line 3 and “the pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group” in Lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a sampling coordinate group (only sparse sampling coordinate group, sparse learning sampling coordinate group, and coordinate group) and a pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group. Examiner suggests amending to "a sampling coordinate group" and “a pixel value group in accordance with the additional sampling coordinate group”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reconstructed image" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which reconstructed image is being referred to, the first reconstructed image, the second reconstructed image, or the learning reconstructed image. Examiner suggests amending to “the second reconstructed image” or clarifying which reconstructed image is being referred to.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the artifact occurrence degrees" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of artifact occurrence degrees (plural), only an artifact occurrence degree (singular). Examiner suggests amending to “artifact occurrence degrees” (deleting “the”) and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claims 15, 18, and 19 depend on claim 14 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 19 recites “an artifact correction program”, thus constituting a program per se. Computer programs, per se, are not in one of the statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106. Thus, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With regards to claims 1, 8, and 12, Xu et al. (US 2018/0374245) discloses acquiring a pixel value group, generating a reconstructed image with reduced artifacts by assigning the pixel value group to a correction engine, where the correction engine is trained with training data including images having an artifact generated and images in which the artifacts are reduced, however, there is no mention of the training data including a sparse learning sampling coordinate group including coordinate data of a plurality of sampling points set for a sample. Tsuyuki (US 2020/0219252) discloses training a correction engine with training data including images having an artifact added or images in which the artifacts are reduced, however, there is no mention of the training data including a sparse learning sampling coordinate group including coordinate data of a plurality of sampling points set for a sample. Liu (US 2019/0005686) discloses processing training data by smoothing a first image to reduce an artifact, however, there is no mention of training data including a sparse learning sampling coordinate group including coordinate data of a plurality of sampling points set for a sample. Rowley Grant et al. (US 2019/0147588) discloses medical image data including a plurality of pixel values and coordinate data and training data including annotated artifacts in sample medical images and sample medical images without an artifact, however, there is no mention of the training data specifically including coordinate data of a plurality of sampling points set for a sample. Sommer et al. (EP 3 477 583) discloses providing positions of corrected motion artifacts, however, there is no mention of a learning data set to train the correction engine including coordinate data of a plurality of sampling points set for a sample. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
Claims 3-7, 10, 11, and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 3-7, they are dependent on claim 1.
With regards to claims 10 and 11, they are dependent on claim 8.
With regards to claims 14-18, they are dependent on claim 12.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 19, it depends on claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672