DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cecil (US 2016/0019678).
With regards to claim 1, 16 and 18, Cecil discloses medical imaging systems for real-time image enhancement for X-ray images [0002], comprising:
interface circuitry (FIG. 4; [0036]; real-time image enhancement system 120)([0033]; “The processing unit 404 can be a computing device and can include an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC).”);
machine readable instructions ([0036]; “The processing unit 404 executes one or more computer executable instructions originating from the system memory 406 and the memory devices 408 and 410. The term “computer readable medium” as used herein refers to a medium or media that participates in providing instructions to the processing unit 404 for execution.”) and
programmable circuitry ([0033][0034]; processing unit 404) to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to:
capture a radiographic image with a detector receiving a beam from a source ([0016]; “The emitted radiation passes through the subject 20 and is captured at a digital detector array 102.”); and
perform a localized digital correction to the radiographic image ([0013]; “… an X-ray imaging system is provided utilizing a separable kernel to apply image correction to an X-ray image.”) to generate a digital image with increased uniformity in sharpness compared to the radiographic image [0027]([0019]; “The concurrent application of a Gaussian smoothing filter with the Laplacian sharpening filter provides significant digital image enhancement...”)
With regards to claim 2, Cecil discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the localized digital correction includes local spatial filtering of the radiographic image. ([0019]; “The concurrent application of a Gaussian smoothing filter with the Laplacian sharpening filter provides significant digital image enhancement ... Lastly, this invention measures the units of deconvolution filter spatial extent in digital detector pixels.”)
With regards to claim 3, Cecil discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the localized digital correction is performed by applying an adaptive convolution kernel to the radiographic image. ([0018]; “…by using a separable convolution kernel, the image enhancement can be performed with a substantial reduction in calculation time, allowing for near-real time generation of the enhanced images.”)
With regards to claim 9, Cecil discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the adaptive convolution kernel is generated by selection from a set of local convolution kernels determined based on at least one of a position on an area of the detector (Cecil; [0018][0024]).
With regards to claim 10, Cecil discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein a first local convolution kernel is used for sharpening a first portion of the radiographic image that corresponds to a first region on a surface of the detector and a second local convolution kernel is used for sharpening a second portion of the radiographic image that corresponds to a second region on the surface of the detector, the first region different from the second region. [0019][0024][0028]
With regards to claim 11, Cecil discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to store the digital image and transmit the digital image to an external system. [0034]
With regards to claim 12, Cecil discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the radiographic image is a two-dimensional X-ray image. ([0016]; “The digital detector array 102 captures a two-dimensional digital image…”)
With regards to claim 14, Cecil discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the programable circuitry is to measure a point spread function value at a specific location on the detector of the apparatus, the point spread function value used in calibrating a set of local convolution kernels. [0026][0029]
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil (US 2016/0019678), and further in view of King et al. (US 2012/0114212) hereinafter known as King.
With regards to claim 4 and 16, Cecil do not disclose the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the adaptive convolution kernel is generated using an adaptive convolution kernel function that generates non-stationary convolution kernels to be applied to areas of the radiographic image.
In the same field of endeavor, King discloses an image reconstruction method (Abstract). King teaches of an incremental scheme for computing projections of a spatially varying detector by incorporating shift-invariant blurring. The incremental scheme optionally further incorporates shift-variant blurring in a convolution operation with a nonstationary kernel [0032]. King further teaches that the nonstationary kernel is introduced by convolution so that the final backprojection image content has shift variant blurring [0041]. Finally, the reference teaches that for shift-variant blurring,”… the amount of blurring varies with the lateral position across the detector face 40, 42 ... Sources of shift variance in the blurring can result from the use of fan-beam or cone-beam collimators, a fan-beam or cone-beam x-ray source in the case of transmission CT, variance in the spatial localization precision of PET detectors across the detector face, and so forth.” [0025].
In view of King, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cecil’s apparatus with the method of constructing/utilizing a convolution kernel function that can generate non-stationary convolution kernels to be applied to an radiographic image. The motivation is to compensate for shift-variant blurring in a radiographic images wherein the blurring is from the use of radiographic imagers such X-ray computed tomography (CT) that produces tomographic images.
With regards to claim 5, Cecil, in view of King, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the adaptive convolution kernel function generates coefficient values for the non-stationary convolution kernels to be applied to the radiographic image based on a coordinate location on a surface of the detector. (King; [0028][0031][0032][0033])
With regards to claim 6, Cecil, in view of King, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the adaptive convolution kernel function generates coefficient values for the non-stationary convolution kernels to be applied to the radiographic image based on an angle between the source and a coordinate location on a surface of the detector. (King; [0025][0028]; FIG. 2)
With regards to claim 7, Cecil, in view of King, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the adaptive convolution kernel function generates coefficient values based on a current tomographic angle of a tomographic imaging tube (King; [0024][0025]) relative to a normal of a plane of the detector (King; [0033][0037]; FIG. 2).
With regards to claim 8, Cecil, in view of King, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the adaptive convolution kernel function generates coefficient values for the non-stationary convolution kernels to be applied to the radiographic image based on dose. (King; [0003])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15, 17 and 19-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 13, Cecil do not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the radiographic image is a three-dimensional tomosynthesis image, and wherein the three-dimensional tomosynthesis image is obtained by computation from a set of two-dimensional X-ray images captured at different angles corresponding to a first revolution of the apparatus.
With regards to claim 15, Cecil do not specifically disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to average a first point spread function value at a first location on the detector and a second point spread function value at the first location on the detector to generate an average point spread function value, the average point spread function value used in calibrating the set of local convolution kernels.
With regards to claim 17, Cecil do not disclose the non-transitory machine readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions are to cause the programmable circuitry to calibrate the medical imaging device according to a modulation transfer function of the detector.
With regards to claim 19, Cecil do not disclose the method of claim 18, further including calibrating an imaging device by measuring to quantify a level of non-uniformity in blurring of radiographic images captured by the imaging device, the calibrating to occur before capturing the radiographic image.
With regards to claim 20, Cecil do not disclose the method of claim 18, further including calibrating an imaging device by determining a first local convolution kernel of a library of local convolution kernels by:
determining a plurality of detector locations;
taking a test image of the detector;
measuring a plurality of point-spread values associated with ones of the plurality of detector locations; and
storing the plurality of point-spread values corresponding to the plurality of detector locations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ratcliffe et al. (US 2023/0007835)
Yang et al. (US 12,198,300)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884