DETAILED ACTION
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the response filed for the current application that is submitted on 07/30/2026. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following documents submitted and has made the following comments below.
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 07/30/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a PCT/US2022/047929 . Priority to US PRO 63/272,603 with a priority date of 10/27/2021 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been retrieved.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 04/26/2024, 06/16/2025, 08/04/2025, and 03/25/2026 have been considered and placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-38 are pending in this application.
Claims 2, 9, 20, and 28 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11 ,19, 21-27, 29-30 and 38 are rejected
Claims 12-18 and 31-37 are objected to.
Applicant Arguments:
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant/s state/s “claims 1-38 are amended, thereby rendering this rejection moot. In any event, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is acknowledged, at which time the appropriateness of a double patenting rejection can be more appropriately considered.” (See Remarks Pg 13 paragraph 3) therefore the non-statutory double patenting rejection should be withdrawn.
In regards to the argument on Argument 2, Applicant/s state/s “Applicant respectfully asserts that Schmidtlein does not qualify as prior art because the subject matter disclosed in Schmidtlein was obtained directly from the joint inventors of the instant application, and is therefore not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(l)(A). See Declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.130(a).” (See Remarks Pg 14 paragraph 4) therefore the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection should be withdrawn.
In regards to Argument 3, Applicant/s state/s “In particular, the cited references fail to teach or suggest applying a planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model to a plurality of planar scintigraphy images including (1) an anterior planar scintigraphy image and (2) a posterior planar scintigraphy image, in which the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model is based on a two-view SP ECT model. The subject matter was previously recited in part in now-canceled claim 9.” (See Remarks Pg 16 paragraph 1) therefore the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection should be withdrawn.
In regards to Argument 4, Applicant/s state/s “At no point does Chen ever contemplate a two-view SPECT model, never mind a scintigraphy image reconstruction model that is based on such a two-view SPECT model. Not to mention, Chen does not envision the application of such a scintigraphy image reconstruction model with a two-view SPECT model to the anterior or posterior view. Chen thus fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lin and Bresler.” (See Remarks Pg 16, paragraph 2) therefore the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection should be withdrawn.
In regards to Argument 5, Applicant/s state/s “Chen teach or suggest the above-identified elements of claims 1 or 19, so as to detract from the patentability of the claims. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2, 9-11, 20, 27-30, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.” (See Remarks Pg 17, paragraph 2) therefore the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Responses:
In response to Argument 1, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the amended claims 1 and 19 pertaining to the non-statutory double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims, the non-statutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn due to amendments, however examiner reserves the right to pursue the double patenting rejection if allowable subject matter is identified to fall within the scope of the claims identified in the non-statutory double patenting rejection.
In response to Argument 2, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/30/2026, and Declaration filed 07/30/2026 with respect to the amended claims 1 and 19 pertaining to the U.S.C 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the filed declaration, the U.S.C 102 rejection is withdrawn.
In response to Argument 3, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Lin (Lin, Yizun, et al. "A Krasnoselskii-Mann algorithm with an improved EM preconditioner for PET image reconstruction." IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38.9 (2019): 2114-2126) in view of Bresler (US Patent Publication US 2015/0287223 A1, hereafter referred to as Bresler) in further view of Chen et al (US Patent Publication US 2020/0094074 A1, hereafter referred to as Chen).
10. The Examiner finds that Lin and Bresler teach on the amended claim language. Lin teaches a processor coupled with memory in the form of an intel processor and RAM memory in Section III A. Lin also teaches the plurality of planar scintigraphy images used in a planar scintigraphy reconstruction model to produce a corrected image in the Abstract and Section 2. Bresler teaches the constraints and terms for the reconstruction model in ¶0035, ¶0048, ¶0113, ¶0033, ¶0090 and ¶0032. Applicant argues “the cited references fail to teach or suggest applying a planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model to a plurality of planar scintigraphy images including (1) an anterior planar scintigraphy image and (2) a posterior planar scintigraphy image, in which the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model is based on a two-view SP ECT model. The subject matter was previously recited in part in now-canceled claim 9”; however, the Examiner interprets that Lin and Bresler teaches the main concept of plurality of planar scintigraphy images used in a planar scintigraphy reconstruction model using specific constraints and terms to produce a corrected image, the additional details of the functions of the main concepts as stated above by the applicant in the amendments is taught by Chen in the details of the rejection below. The Examiner will maintain prior art Lin and Bresler and details of the rejection are below.
In response to Argument 4, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Lin (Lin, Yizun, et al. "A Krasnoselskii-Mann algorithm with an improved EM preconditioner for PET image reconstruction." IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38.9 (2019): 2114-2126) in view of Bresler (US Patent Publication US 2015/0287223 A1, hereafter referred to as Bresler) in further view of Chen et al (US Patent Publication US 2020/0094074 A1, hereafter referred to as Chen).
The Examiner finds that Chen teaches on the amended claim language. Chen teaches an anterior planar scintigraphy image or a posterior planar scintigraphy image in the form of an MR image with an A/P view in ¶0007. Chen also teaches a SPECT model being used for application of the method in ¶0029. Further Chen details that there are multiple views acquired in ¶0011. Applicant argues “At no point does Chen ever contemplate a two-view SPECT model, never mind a scintigraphy image reconstruction model that is based on such a two-view SPECT model. Not to mention, Chen does not envision the application of such a scintigraphy image reconstruction model with a two-view SPECT model to the anterior or posterior view. Chen thus fails to remedy the deficiencies of Lin and Bresler”; however, we determine claim scope not solely on the basis of claim language, but also on giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”). The Examiner interprets that under broadest reasonable interpretation “two view” has no special definition in the claims, and therefore can be interpreted as an anterior and posterior view used, as taught by Chen. Therefore, the Examiner interprets that Lin and Bresler teaches the main concept of plurality of planar scintigraphy images used in a planar scintigraphy reconstruction model using specific constraints and terms to produce a corrected image, the additional details of the functions of the main concepts as stated above by the applicant in the amendments is taught by Chen in the details of the rejection below. The Examiner will maintain prior art Lin, Bresler, and Chen and details of the rejection are below.
In response to Argument 5, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 and 19 and their dependent claims 2, 9-11, 20, 27-30, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Lin (Lin, Yizun, et al. "A Krasnoselskii-Mann algorithm with an improved EM preconditioner for PET image reconstruction." IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38.9 (2019): 2114-2126) in view of Bresler (US Patent Publication US 2015/0287223 A1, hereafter referred to as Bresler) in further view of Chen et al (US Patent Publication US 2020/0094074 A1, hereafter referred to as Chen).
Claim Interpretation
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.
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 1 recite “at least one of ” then listing “at least one of transmitting the CPSI to a computing device or displaying the CPSI on a display screen.”. Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Claim 19 recite “at least one of ” then listing “at least one of transmitting the CPSI to a computing device or displaying the CPSI on a display screen.”. Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 19, 21-27, 29-30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Lin (Lin, Yizun, et al. "A Krasnoselskii-Mann algorithm with an improved EM preconditioner for PET image reconstruction." IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38.9 (2019): 2114-2126) in view of Bresler (US Patent Publication US 2015/0287223 A1, hereafter referred to as Bresler) in further view of Chen et al (US Patent Publication US 2020/0094074 A1, hereafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors, coupled with memory (Lin, Section III, A, discloses a laptop with Intel processor, and various memories for storing computer programs), configured to:
obtain, a plurality of planar scintigraphy images of a subject, wherein the plurality of planar scintigraphy images contain image artifacts caused by one or more physical processes (Lin abstract, Introduction, and section IIA disclose including obtaining/inputting PET (positron emission tomography) images which are within the BRI of planar scintigraphy images of a subject that contain artifacts per the instant specification)
wherein the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin Abstract, Section 2 discloses the plurality of planar scintigraphy images note that the restoration model is iterative on plural images until convergence)
apply a planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model to the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphy patient image corrected for attenuation),
the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphy patient image corrected for attenuation)
generate, based on applying the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation) to the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin Abstract, Section 2 discloses the plurality of planar scintigraphy images note that the restoration model is iterative on plural images until convergence), a corrected planar scintigraphy image (CPSI) corrected for the image artifacts (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation); and
present, the CPSI for evaluation of a condition of the subject, wherein presenting the CPSI comprises at least one of transmitting the CPSI to a computing device or displaying the CPSI on a display screen (Lin Section 1 discloses which PET imagery is used for diagnosis, therapy and response assessment of various tracer’s biodistribution in the imagery).
Lin does not explicitly disclose the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model comprising a first non-negativity constraint and a second non-negativity constraint, a first regularization term, a second regularization term, a coupling term, and a fidelity term.
Bresler is in the same field of image analysis of medical images for reconstruction. Further, Bresler teaches the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model comprising a first non-negativity constraint and a second non-negativity constraint (Bresler ¶0035, ¶0048, ¶00113 and ¶0131 discloses multiple (P1 or P2) positive constraints on the model function), a first regularization term, a second regularization term, (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms) a coupling term (Bresler ¶0048 discloses a norm penalty that sums the magnitudes of the entries of matrix B, which the specification details that the coupling term can be a KL norm), and a fidelity term (Bresler ¶0032 discloses a data fidelity term).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lin by incorporating the multiple regularization terms and multiple nonnegativity constraints to create a more robust reconstruction model as taught by Bresler; to make an invention that can automatically determine the reconstruction model of the images; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need for numerous techniques have been proposed to reduce the amount of data required for accurate reconstruction, with the aim of enabling much higher clinical throughput, or accurately capturing time varying phenomena such as motion, changes in concentration, flow, etc., or avoiding artifacts due to such phenomena as disclosed by Bresler in ¶0006.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The combination of Lin and Bressler does not explicitly disclose an anterior planar scintigraphy image or a posterior planar scintigraphy image is based on a two-view single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) physical model.
Chen is in the same field of image analysis of medical images for reconstruction. Further, Chen teaches comprise an anterior planar scintigraphy image and a posterior planar scintigraphy image (Chen ¶0007 disclose MR imagining typically include an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view) is based on a two-view single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) physical model (Chen ¶0007, ¶0029 discloses a spect system based on including an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lin in view of Bresler by incorporating the multiple image views for the SPECT model for practical application in patient treatment as taught by Chen; to make an invention that can automatically determine the reconstruction model based on multiple clinical views; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to have improved systems and methods to assist with managing signal-to-noise ratio and, in CT imaging, its relation to dose prescription/control.as disclosed by Chen in ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more physical processes comprise gamma ray attenuation, gamma ray collimator penetration, or gamma ray scatter (Lin Section 2 A and Section 3A disclose PET images employ gamma ray detectors to detect images and artifacts include gamma ray collimator penetration and scatter). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein obtaining the plurality of planar scintigraphy images comprises using a plurality of gamma ray detectors to generate the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin Section 2A and abstract disclose PET images employ gamma ray detectors to detect images, the plurality of planar scintigraphy images note that the restoration model is iterative on plural images until convergence). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first regularization term (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms) corresponds to a total variation regularization for controlling noise (Lin Abstract, Introduction, Section 2A, and Section 3b, discloses including total variation regularized model and total variation (TV) penalty and higher order total variation (HOTV)). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second regularization term (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms)corresponds to a total variation regularization for controlling noise (Lin Abstract, Introduction, Section 2A, and Section 3b, discloses including total variation regularized model and total variation (TV) penalty and higher order total variation (HOTV)). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model comprises a minimization operation (Lin Abstract and Section 2A discloses HOTV Regularized PET Image Reconstruction Model and Section III, table 1 which includes a minimization operation based on non-negativity (and smooth) constraint term, regularization term and a KL fidelity term) based on the first regularization term, the second regularization term (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms), the fidelity term (Bresler ¶0032 discloses a data fidelity term), the coupling term (Bresler ¶0048 discloses a norm penalty that sums the magnitudes of the entries of matrix B, which the specification details that the coupling term can be a KL norm), the first non-negativity constraint, and the second non-negativity constraint (Bresler ¶0035, ¶0048, ¶00113 and ¶0131 discloses multiple (P1 or P2) positive constraints on the model function). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the minimization operation is based on a divergence norm, a coupling parameter (/3 ), a first regularization parameter (;\.1), and a second regularization parameter (;\.2). (Lin Section 2A discloses a minimization of fidelity term and applying regularization terms to avoid over-fitting. As to divergence norm see “The two functions ϕ1, ϕ2 are defined by the l1-norm for the anisotropic TV or the l2-norm for the isotropic TV, and thus they are convex. Here B1 ∈ Rm1×d , B2 ∈ Rm2×d are the first-order and second order difference matrices, respectively, and λ1, λ2 ∈ R+ are the corresponding regularization parameters”). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the two-view SPECT model comprises an anterior view and a posterior view (Chen ¶0007 disclose MR imagining typically include an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein generating the CPSI (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation) comprises: estimating an anterior/posterior (A/P) projection (Chen ¶0009, ¶0038 discloses 2D projection image data of different views) of activity bio-distribution (Lin, Section I in which PET imagery is used for response assessment of various tracer’s biodistribution in the imagery) using the two-view SPECT model as a constraint (Chen ¶0007, ¶0029 discloses a spect system based on including an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view). See rationale for Claim 1, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Lin teaches a method (Lin Abstract discloses the method) comprising:
obtaining, by one or more processors (Lin, Section III, A, discloses a laptop with Intel processor, and various memories for storing computer programs), a plurality of planar scintigraphy images of a subject, wherein the plurality of planar scintigraphy images contain image artifacts caused by one or more physical processes (Lin abstract, Introduction, and section IIA disclose including obtaining/inputting PET (positron emission tomography) images which are within the BRI of planar scintigraphy images of a subject that contain artifacts per the instant specification) wherein the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin Abstract, Section 2 discloses the plurality of planar scintigraphy images note that the restoration model is iterative on plural images until convergence)
applying, by the one of more processors (Lin, Section III, A, discloses a laptop with Intel processor, and various memories for storing computer programs), a planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model to the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation)
the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation)
generate, based on applying the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation) to the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin Abstract, Section 2 discloses the plurality of planar scintigraphy images note that the restoration model is iterative on plural images until convergence), a corrected planar scintigraphy image (CPSI) corrected for the image artifacts (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation);
and
presenting, by the one or more processors (Lin, Section III, A, discloses a laptop with Intel processor, and various memories for storing computer programs), the CPSI for evaluation of a condition of the subject, wherein presenting the CPSI comprises at least one of transmitting the CPSI to a computing device or displaying the CPSI on a display screen(Lin Section 1 discloses which PET imagery is used for diagnosis, therapy and response assessment of various tracer’s biodistribution in the imagery).
Lin does not explicitly disclose the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model comprising a first non-negativity constraint, a second non-negativity constraint, a first regularization term, a second regularization term, a coupling term and a fidelity term.
Bresler is in the same field of image analysis of medical images for reconstruction. Further, Bresler teaches the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model comprising a first non-negativity constraint, a second non-negativity constraint (Bresler ¶0035, ¶0048, ¶00113 and ¶0131 discloses multiple (P1 or P2) positive constraints on the model function), a first regularization term, a second regularization term, (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms) a coupling term (Bresler ¶0048 discloses a norm penalty that sums the magnitudes of the entries of matrix B, which the specification details that the coupling term can be a KL norm), and a fidelity term (Bresler ¶0032 discloses a data fidelity term).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lin by incorporating the multiple regularization terms and multiple nonnegativity constraints to create a more robust reconstruction model as taught by Bresler; to make an invention that can automatically determine the reconstruction model of the images; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need for numerous techniques have been proposed to reduce the amount of data required for accurate reconstruction, with the aim of enabling much higher clinical throughput, or accurately capturing time varying phenomena such as motion, changes in concentration, flow, etc., or avoiding artifacts due to such phenomena as disclosed by Bresler in ¶0006.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The combination of Lin and Bressler does not explicitly disclose comprise an anterior planar scintigraphy image and a posterior planar scintigraphy image, and is based on a two-view single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) physical model.
Chen is in the same field of image analysis of medical images for reconstruction. Further, Chen teaches comprise an anterior planar scintigraphy image and a posterior planar scintigraphy image (Chen ¶0007 disclose MR imagining typically include an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view) and is based on a two-view single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) physical model (Chen ¶0007, ¶0029 discloses a spect system based on including an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lin in view of Bresler by incorporating the multiple image views for the SPECT model for practical application in patient treatment as taught by Chen; to make an invention that can automatically determine the reconstruction model based on multiple clinical views; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to have improved systems and methods to assist with managing signal-to-noise ratio and, in CT imaging, its relation to dose prescription/control.as disclosed by Chen in ¶0008.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 21, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the one or more physical processes comprise gamma ray attenuation, gamma ray collimator penetration, or gamma ray scatter (Lin Section 2 A and Section 3A disclose PET images employ gamma ray detectors to detect images and artifacts include gamma ray collimator penetration and scatter). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 22, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, wherein obtaining the plurality of planar scintigraphy images comprises using a plurality of gamma ray detectors to generate the plurality of planar scintigraphy images (Lin Section 2A and abstract disclose PET images employ gamma ray detectors to detect images, the plurality of planar scintigraphy images note that the restoration model is iterative on plural images until convergence). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 23, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the first regularization term (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms) corresponds to a total variation regularization for controlling noise (Lin Abstract, Introduction, Section 2A, and Section 3b, discloses including total variation regularized model and total variation (TV) penalty and higher order total variation (HOTV)). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 24, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the second regularization term (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms)corresponds to a total variation regularization for controlling noise (Lin Abstract, Introduction, Section 2A, and Section 3b, discloses including total variation regularized model and total variation (TV) penalty and higher order total variation (HOTV)). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 25, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches The method of claim 19, wherein the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model comprises a minimization operation (Lin Abstract and Section 2A discloses HOTV Regularized PET Image Reconstruction Model and Section III, table 1 which includes a minimization operation based on non-negativity (and smooth) constraint term, regularization term and a KL fidelity term) based on the first regularization term, the second regularization term (Bresler ¶0033, ¶0090 discloses a regularization parameter that is transformed based on the learning regularizer, which under BRI can be interpreted as multiple regularization terms), the fidelity term (Bresler ¶0032 discloses a data fidelity term), the coupling term (Bresler ¶0048 discloses a norm penalty that sums the magnitudes of the entries of matrix B, which the specification details that the coupling term can be a KL norm), the first non-negativity constraint, and the second non-negativity constraint (Bresler ¶0035, ¶0048, ¶00113 and ¶0131 discloses multiple (P1 or P2) positive constraints on the model function). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 26, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the minimization operation is based on a divergence norm, a coupling parameter (/3 ), a first regularization parameter (;\.1), and a second regularization parameter (;\.2).(Lin Section 2A discloses a minimization of fidelity term and applying regularization terms to avoid over-fitting. As to divergence norm see “The two functions ϕ1, ϕ2 are defined by the l1-norm for the anisotropic TV or the l2-norm for the isotropic TV, and thus they are convex. Here B1 ∈ Rm1×d , B2 ∈ Rm2×d are the first-order and second order difference matrices, respectively, and λ1, λ2 ∈ R+ are the corresponding regularization parameters”). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 27, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, comprising:
determining, according to the generated CPSI (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation), a dosage of radiation administered to the subject that minimizes a risk of toxicity to non-cancerous tissue, while optimizing treatment for cancerous tissue (Chen ¶0051, ¶0053, ¶0060, ¶0072 discloses providing accurate radiation dose estimates that can inform scanning parameter prescription and, thus, overcome limitations of automatic exposure control schemes in diagnostic CT). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 29, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the two-view SPECT model comprises an anterior view and a posterior view (Chen ¶0007 disclose MR imagining typically include an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 30, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, wherein generating the CPSI (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation) comprises:
estimating an anterior/posterior (A/P) projection (Chen ¶0009, ¶0038 discloses 2D projection image data of different views) of activity bio-distribution (Lin, Section I in which PET imagery is used for response assessment of various tracer’s biodistribution in the imagery) using the two-view SPECT physical model as a constraint (Chen ¶0007, ¶0029 discloses a spect system based on including an anterior/ posterior (A/P) view and a lateral view). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Regarding Claim 38, Lin in view of Bresler in further view of Chen teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising using the CPSI (Lin abstract, discloses a reconstruction-based method to recover a single corrected planar scintigraphic patient image corrected for attenuation) to evaluate the condition of the subject (Chen ¶0073 discloses accurate patient geometry and cross-sectional attenuation distribution estimations from the radiograph localizers acquired prior to the actual CT scan, the method provides a new way to conceptualize radiation dose and image quality prescription for diagnostic MDCT). See rationale for Claim 19, its parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-18, and 31-37 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Although Lin, Bresler, and Chen disclose regularization terms none of the prior art discloses or fairly suggests wherein two-view SPECT physical model is reformulated, including coupling term imposes an equivalence constraint, the planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model is discretized, and to apply the discretized planar scintigraphy image reconstruction model using a fixed point algorithm with higher order total variation regularization (HOTV).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent US-10448909-B2 to Wieczorek et al. discloses a method to provide an x-ray image and a corresponding nuclear image of a region of interest
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am- 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/RACHEL L ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights