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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the application filed on 8/5/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 14-16 are pending. Claims 2, 5, 10 and 13 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see the page(s) 9-10 from applicant's remarks, filed on 8/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-12 and 14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 112 (a) and (b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “generating a neutralized image” should be “generating the neutralized image.”
In claim 1, line 15, “by reflecting imaging characteristics in the training raw data” should be “by reflecting the imaging characteristics in the training raw data.”
In claim 1, line 21, “for the medical image upon receiving” should be “for the medical image for the processing upon receiving” to maintain consistency with the terminology used throughout the claim.
In claim 1, line 29, “output a neutralized image of the medical image” should be “output the neutralized image of the medical image.”
In claim 9, line 6, “generate a neutralized image” should be “generate the neutralized image.”
In claim 9, line 16-17, “by reflecting imaging characteristics in the training raw data” should be “by reflecting the imaging characteristics in the training raw data.”
In claim 9, line 21-22, “for the medical image upon receiving” should be “for the medical image for the processing upon receiving” to maintain consistency with the terminology used throughout the claim.
In claim 9, line 30, “output a neutralized image of the medical image” should be “output the neutralized image of the medical image.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added limitation, “obtaining the reconstruction image by reconstructing the characteristic-reflected raw data to reflect the imaging characteristics” in claim 1 and 9 is not supported by specification.
In the specification, paragraphs [61] and [69] describe “reconstruction image reconstructed from the raw data.” However, the disclosure is silent regarding reconstructing the "characteristic-reflected raw data" to obtain the reconstruction image. The specification distinguishes the "raw data" (which corresponds to the "training raw data acquired from a patient" in claim 1) from the "characteristic-reflected raw data."
The newly added limitation, “training the imitation deep learning model by pairing the characteristic-reflected raw data and the reconstruction image to output a neutralized image of the medical image for the processing upon inputting the raw data of the medical image for the processing to the imitation deep learning model” in claim 1 and 9 is not supported by specification.
Paragraph [69] states that “the imitation deep learning model 400 may be trained with a pair of the raw data image and a reconstruction image reconstructed from the raw data” and paragraph [66] notes that “the plurality of inverse-transformation deep learning models 300 may … output the raw data images for the received images.” The specification never describes training the imitation deep learning model using the "characteristic-reflected raw data" paired with the reconstruction image. Because the "raw data image" (which corresponds to the "raw data of the medical image" in Claim 1) is a distinct entity from the "characteristic-reflected raw data," the specification lacks a clear disclosure of the claimed pairing configuration.
The newly added limitation, “obtaining the reconstruction image by reconstructing the characteristic-reflected raw data to reflect the imaging characteristics” in claim 4 is not supported by specification.
In the specification, paragraphs [61] and [69] describe “reconstruction image reconstructed from the raw data.” However, the disclosure is silent regarding reconstructing the "characteristic-reflected raw data" to obtain the reconstruction image. The specification distinguishes the "raw data" (which corresponds to the "training raw data acquired from the patient" in claim 4) from the "characteristic-reflected raw data."
The newly added limitation, “training the inverse-transformation deep learning model by pairing the characteristic-reflected raw data and the reconstruction image to output the raw data of the medical image for the processing upon inputting the medical image for the processing to the inverse-transformation deep learning model” in claim 4 is not supported by specification.
Paragraph [61] states that “the inverse-transformation deep learning model 300 may be trained with a pair of the raw data image and a reconstruction image reconstructed from the raw data” and paragraph [66] notes that “the plurality of inverse-transformation deep learning models 300 may … output the raw data images for the received images.” The specification never describes training the inverse-transformation deep learning model using the "characteristic-reflected raw data" paired with the reconstruction image. Because the "raw data image" (which corresponds to the "raw data of the medical image" in Claim 1) is a distinct entity from the "characteristic-reflected raw data," the specification lacks a clear disclosure of the claimed pairing configuration.
With respect to claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4, are applicable.
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, 4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 14-16 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 “training the imitation deep learning model by pairing the characteristic-reflected raw data and the reconstruction image to output a neutralized image of the medical image.” The claim does not clearly define the roles of the characteristic-reflected raw data and the reconstruction image in the training. Because the reconstruction image is itself generated from the characteristic-reflected raw data, it is unclear what is accomplished by pairing the two in training the limitation deep learning model or how the pairing causes the model to output the neutralized image.
With respect to claim 9, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable.
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 DANIEL C. CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan S. Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/DANIEL C CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights