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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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 at line 3 “learning”. Claim 1 further recites at line 6 “learning”. Claim 1 also recites at line 8 “first learning”. Claim 1 recites at line 10 “the learning”. It is unclear as to which of the above recital of “learning” at lines 3 and 6 and “first learning” at line 8, the recital of “the learning” in line 10 refers to??. Amendments/Clarification are required. Claim 2-10 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites at line 3 “the learning”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites at line 3 “learning”. Claim 1 further recites at line 6 “learning”. Claim 1 also recites at line 8 “first learning”. Claim 1 recites at line 10 “the learning”. It is unclear as to which of the above recital of “the learning” at lines 3 in claim 3 refers to??. Amendments/Clarification are required.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites at line 1 “second learning”. Claim 5 recites at line 3 “the learning”. Claim 5 depends from claim 3 which recites at line 3 “the learning” and further depending from claim 1. Claim 1 recites at line 3 “learning”. Claim 1 further recites at line 6 “learning”. Claim 1 also recites at line 8 “first learning”. Claim 1 recites at line 10 “the learning”. It is unclear as to which of the above recital of “learning” at lines 3 and 6, “first learning” at line 8, second learning at line 1 in claim 5, the recital of “the learning” in line 3 of claim 5 refers to??. Amendments/Clarification are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ratio of the lesion" and “the ratio of the normal data” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN et al., (US20210225491) hereafter JIN (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are disclosed/shown in multiple figures/embodiments).
1. Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, JIN discloses a medical image conversion method (figs 1-2, 4-7, 10C-10D and 12 and paras 0036, 0056 shows and discloses a method ) in which an artificial intelligence (AI) learning part performs conversion between medical images of different domains while performing learning, the medical image conversion (figs 2, 4, 7 and paras 0087-0090 in which an artificial intelligence (AI) learning part that performs conversion between medical images of different domains while performing learning) method comprising:
receiving, by the Al learning part, a first medical image (fig 5 and fig 7 (s710) shows and discloses receiving, by the Al learning part, a first medical image rCT, meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a first image are not required by the current claim);
generating, by the Al learning part, a second medical image from the first medical image by learning, the domain of the second medical image being different from the domain of the first medical image (figs 5, 7 (s720) shows and discloses MRI Generator G which converts the rCT (i.e first image) to the second image cMRI (i.e generating the second image of a different domain than the domain of the first one), see para 0093 for the explanation); and
first learning, wherein if the first medical image is one of a pair of paired data (figs 1, 10C and 10D shows paired data real paired CT/MRI) and figs 5, 7 shows the first image rCT first medical image), the Al learning part compares a difference between the second medical image and another of the pair of paired data and performs the learning to reduce the difference (figs 5, 7 shows the difference s750, s780 between the second image cMRI and another (i.e rMRI as seen in fig 5 feeding in to the discriminator MD) of the pair of the paired data (i.e rCT and rMRI) and to reduce minimize the difference (i.e loss as seen in figs 5 and fig 7(s790), also see paras 0112-0116 for the explanation). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figs/embodiments in JIN are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved and accurate image quality system/method at paras 0123-0124.
2. Regarding claim 2, JIN discloses the medical image conversion method of claim 1, wherein the paired data comprise images belonging to a pair of different domains of a same region of a same patient or images belonging to a pair of different domains of same regions of different patients (figs 1, 10C-10D and paras 0066 shows and discloses wherein the paired data comprise images belonging to a pair of different domains of a same region of a same patient or images belonging to a pair of different domains of same regions of different patients).
3. Regarding claim 3, JIN discloses the medical image conversion method of claim 1, comprising, after generating the second medical image, regenerating, by the Al learning part, a third medical image from the second medical image by the learning, the domain of the third medical image being different from the domain of the second medical image (fig 4 (240) and paras 0032, 0086 shows and discloses regenerating, by the Al learning part, a third medical image from the second medical image by the learning, the domain of the third medical image (243) being different from the domain of the second medical image (242), examiner notes that due to the converting module, the domain would change i.e the first image is CT, the second image after conversion would be MRI and the third image converted from the second (i.e MRI) would be CT (i.e third image) which is different from the second medical image domain meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of the domains are not required by the current claim).
4. The medical image conversion method of claim 3, wherein the first medical image and the third medical image belong to a same domain (fig 4 (240) and paras 0032, 0086 shows and discloses regenerating, by the Al learning part, a third medical image from the second medical image by the learning, the domain of the third medical image (243) being different from the domain of the second medical image (242), examiner notes that due to the converting module, the domain would change i.e the first image is CT, the second image after conversion would be MRI and the third image converted from the second (i.e MRI) would be CT (i.e third image) which is different from the second medical image domain meeting the claim limitations wherein the first medical image and the third medical image belong to a same domain (CT), examiner notes that the specifics of the domains are not required by the current claim).
5. Regarding claim 5 as best understood by the examiner, JIN discloses the medical image conversion method of claim 3. JIN discloses comprising second learning, wherein the AI learning part compares a difference between the first medical image and the (figs 5, 7 shows the difference s750, s780 between the second image cMRI and another (i.e rMRI as seen in fig 5 feeding in to the discriminator MD) of the pair of the paired data (i.e rCT and rMRI) and to reduce minimize the difference (i.e loss as seen in figs 5 and fig 7(s790), also see paras 0112-0116 for the explanation). JIN also shows the different conversion of the images i.e the first, second, third and fourth conversion of the image modules. JIN however do not recite in exact claim language compares a difference between the first medical image and the third medical image and performs the learning to reduce the difference. Examiner notes that from the above teachings of JIN comparing the difference between the second and the first image and reducing (i.e minimizing) the difference, comparing a difference between the first medical image and the third medical image and performs the learning to reduce the difference as claimed in claim 5 would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art. The rationales supporting the rejection would be rationales B,E and F. See MPEP 2141 III.
6. Regarding claim 7, JIN discloses the medical image conversion method of claim 1, wherein the first medical image comprises lesion data and normal data (figs 1, 5 para 0011, shows the first medical image with the lesion (i.e cerebral hemorrhage) and the normal data).
7. Claim 10 is a corresponding computer readable recording medium claim of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. JIN discloses computer readable recording medium in paras 0149-0151.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN in view of NIU, Tian-ye et al., (CN112037167A) hereafter NIU.
8. Regarding claim 8, JIN discloses the medical image conversion method of claim 7. JIN shows and discloses medical images with lesion and normal image data in figs 1-2, 5-6 and 10C-10D. Jin is silent and however fails to disclose further comprising, if the lesion data is smaller than the normal data, amplifying the lesion data.
NIU shows and discloses further comprising, if the lesion data is smaller than the normal data, amplifying the lesion data (Page 3 under the Description of the pictures Fig 2 is a CT image of tumor (i.e lesion) and the surrounding normal image and (a) is a CT image of the Tumor (i.e lesion) and (b) is the local amplified drawing (i.e the lesion image amplified) meeting the claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made NIU and JIN are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a process/system that accurately determines the influence of the target area (i.e determining the lesion) and reduce the medical cost (page 2 contents of the invention). Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of NIU in the method of JIN to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights