CTNF 18/882,753 CTNF 97617 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 6 and 7 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 6 recites the limitation "the corresponding projection images" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of a plurality of projection images that correspond to anything in the previous limitations. There is only mention that there are projection images, as is presented in independent claim 1. Claim 6 does not introduce said images to be correspondent to anything. It is unclear what causes correspondence for the projection images, or if the projections images mentioned in claim 6 are meant to be a new instance of projection images separate from those in claim 1. The limitation "the corresponding projection images" in claim 6 will be read as "corresponding projection images". Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, for the reasons as follows: In re to claim 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which falls within one of the four statutory categories. Claim 1 recites: An image processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor that is configured to: acquire projection images obtained by imaging a subject with radiation at a plurality of angles; reconstruct a plurality of tomographic images from the acquired projection images; detect a structure of interest from the plurality of reconstructed tomographic images; derive a region of the projection image corresponding to the detected structure of interest; and determine, by using the derived region of the projection image, whether or not the tomographic image from which the structure of interest is detected is a tomographic image corresponding to a focal plane of the structure of interest. The limitations of claim 1, as drafted, are considered to fall under the category of an abstract concept. For example, an individual may image a biological subject, such as by using mammography. They may then observe the resultant images in order to determine the presence of a biological structure of some kind (like a cancerous growth). The individual may determine an area the structure comprises within the image using their mind, and they may also determine (based on the look) of the images how they correspond to a focal plane. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Additionally, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element “…one processor…” The additional element does not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the additional element does not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106). Furthermore, the additional element does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. A processor may be implemented by a generic computer that performs functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional. It is a computer element which performs generic computer functions/computations. Thus, this element does not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106). Similarly, claims 11 and 12 (which recite similar limitations) are rejected for the same reasons. Similarly claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as provided above, due to reciting similar limitations as the apparatus that performs executes the non-transitory storage medium of 11 and the method of claim 12. Dependent claims Claims 2-4 (dependent on claim 1) disclose further details regarding the generation of image data with regard to the independent claim. They do not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate into a practical application. As such, they are a part of the abstract idea. Claims 5-7 and 9 (dependent on claim 1) discloses the operations performed for the sake of making detections/region determinations. They do not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate into a practical application. As such, they are a part of the abstract idea. Claim 8 (dependent on claim 6) further discloses the determination of image correspondence to the focal plane and the correspondence with a similarity according to a maximum value. It does not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor does it integrate into a practical application (as these determinations are not described in a way that goes beyond the linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment). Claim 10 (dependent on claim 1) discloses the imaging operation as being performed by a mammography apparatus. It does not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor does it integrate into a practical application. It only introduces the application of some form of mammogram machine to acquire the images. Tomosynthesis using a Mammogram machine to acquire images at different angles is understood to be routine and conventional within the art. As such, it is a part of the abstract idea. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 8 recites the limitations: “… determine, for each type of the structure of interest, that the tomographic image at a height at which the corresponding similarity has a maximum value, among the tomographic images from which the structure of interest is detected and which are at heights, is the tomographic image corresponding to the focal plane. ” It is understood (according to the structure of the sentence) to mean that the apparatus is determining that the image at a height corresponding to a maximum value similarity corresponds to the focal plane. As well as stating that this is done for each type of structure of interest from among the tomographic images from which the structure of interest is detected (each of these images having a respective height). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Morita (US publication 20210166443 A1; hereinafter “Morita”) . In re to claim 1, Morita teaches wherein: an image processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor (computer; Fig. 1 shows that the system is operated using a computer, which is further corroborated by [0076] (which denotes the imaging apparatus using the CPU)) that is configured to: acquire projection images obtained by imaging a subject with radiation at a plurality of angles (Figs. 1-2 show the imaging component of the system, with Fig. 1 specifically, showing the capture of image data at multiple angles (see also [0067], which discloses the capture of image data using tomosynthesis via a radiation source)) ; reconstruct a plurality of tomographic images from the acquired projection images ([0078] discloses the reconstruction of tomographic images of acquired projection images) ; detect a structure of interest from the plurality of reconstructed tomographic images ([0084]-[0085] discloses the detection of feature points to detect point-like structures in the plurality of tomographic images. Thus, it is understood that the point-like structures are understood as detected structures of interest) ; derive a region of the projection image corresponding to the detected structure of interest ([0093] lines 1-8 discloses the derivation of a region of interest that corresponds to the feature point, and thus the structure of interest (corresponding to the claims)) ; and determine, by using the derived region of the projection image, whether or not the tomographic image from which the structure of interest is detected is a tomographic image corresponding to a focal plane of the structure of interest ([0139] discloses that the system uses a focal plane discrimination unit that determines correspondence of the focal plane and the structure of interest (correspondent to the claims) by virtue of the determination of the feature points being detected on a focal plane. Additionally, while this is a unit that is of the sixth embodiment, said embodiment is a modification of the first embodiment to include the focal plane discrimination unit) . In re to claim 2 [dependent on claim 1], Morita teaches wherein: the at least one processor is configured to: generate a synthesized two-dimensional image from the plurality of tomographic images ([0091] discloses the generation of a tomographic plane projection image (GTi) using image data from the plurality of tomographic images. Further, it is understood that the GTi is a two-dimensional image, as suggested by Fig. 9, which shows the layering of two-dimensional plane projection images) by using a result of determination ([0142] discloses that the generation of GTi data is done with respect to the discrimination performed by the focal plane discrimination unit) . In re to claim 4 [dependent on claim 1], Morita teaches wherein: the at least one processor is configured to: perform display of linking a synthesized two-dimensional image generated from the plurality of tomographic images and the corresponding tomographic image by using a result of determination ([0131] discloses the display of a synthesized composite two-dimensional image alongside a corrected tomographic image. Additionally, as the corrected tomographic image is generated by correcting position shift, it is understood that the corrected tomographic image is the result of the focal point determination from the discrimination performed by the focal plane discrimination unit. See also [0146], which denotes derivation of the position shift amount is done according to the discriminated focal plane) . In re to claim 5 [dependent on claim 1], Morita teaches wherein: the at least one processor is configured to: detect the structure of interest by using at least one of a machine learning model ([0149] line 26- 34 discloses the focal plane discrimination may be performed using a machine learned discriminator) or pattern matching using a template image of the target structure of interest. In re to claim 6 [dependent on claim 1], Morita teaches wherein: the at least one processor is configured to: perform the determination by using a similarity between the regions of the corresponding projection images ([0095] discloses the use of a normalized cross correlation (understood as a similarity) between regions of interest to perform registration. Further, [0143] discloses that the focal plane discrimination unit derives a correspondence point according to the registration of the region of interest, which is further used to perform focal plane determinations according to [0144] lines 1-8 (due to the correspondence point’s use in determinations by the focal plane discrimination unit). Thus, the projected images that have had focal plane determinations performed (and are used for correspondence point determination) are understood as the corresponding projection images) . In re to claim 7 [dependent on claim 6], Morita teaches wherein: the similarity is a correlation value between the regions of the corresponding projection images ([0095] discloses the use of a normalized cross correlation (understood as a similarity) between regions of interest to perform registration) . In re to claim 9 [dependent on claim 1], Morita teaches wherein: the structure of interest is at least one of a tumor, a spicula, or a calcification ([0084] discloses that the point-like structures may be calcification) . In re to claim 10 [dependent on claim 1], Morita teaches wherein: A radiography system comprising: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1; and a mammography apparatus that acquires projection images to be used by the image processing apparatus (Figs. 1-2 show the mammography6 machine that images a breast (M, as described in [0078]). See also [0067] discloses that the system is a mammography imaging apparatus) . As to claim 11, it is the non-transitory storage medium that is performed by the apparatus of claim 1. As such, it recites similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as provided. As to claim 12, it is the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. As such, it recites similar limitations to claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as provided . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita in view of Ruth et al. (applicant provided US publication 20090123052 A1; hereinafter “Ruth”) . In re to claim 3 [dependent on claim 1], Morita teaches wherein: reconstruction of image data based on a result of determination to produce a resultant image data from the tomographic images (Fig. 29 shows that the generation of a resultant corrected tomographic image to be displayed based on the discrimination of the focal plane. See also in [0083] that the correction of image data is done for the plurality of tomographic images in order to correct for body movement). Morita does not explicitly teach wherein: the at least one processor is configured to: generate a slab image from the plurality of tomographic images . However, in the same similar field of endeavor, Ruth teaches wherein: the at least one processor is configured to: generate a slab image from the plurality of tomographic images ([0042] discloses the generation of 3D display images from tomosynthesis reconstructed images, a 3D display image being understood as a slab image) . Ruth, like Morita, discloses a tomosynthesis system that performs mammogram operations and produces tomographic images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morita, to generate a 3D image, as taught by Ruth. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to provide a 3D representation of 3D data to better visualize imaged subject matter (see Morita [0083], which shows an interest in the generation of information that denotes the three-dimensional characteristics of data in tomographic images, thus showing an interest in conveying the 2D data’s 3D qualities). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, but would otherwise be allowable over the art of record 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 for claim 8. The claimed features of claim 8 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record. Marito discloses a system that performs tomosynthesis and outputs tomographic image data in relation to structures of interest, and also discloses the focal plane determination. It further shows that the tomographic images have “heights” associated with them, as is shown in Figs. 8-9, which indicate a z-axis. However, there is no explicit mention that the determination of correspondence of a similarity of a maximum value to a focal plane. Nor does it explicitly disclose a determination operation for a plurality of structure types, let alone doing a determination for each type of structure. Zhang et al.(WO publication 2024223029 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) discloses a system that performs classification of biologic structures, per [0105]. It further indicates applicability to tomosynthesis image data via the leveraging of ultrasound data via being fed back for reconstruction according to [058]. However, it does not indicate that there is a determination of correspondence to the focal plane with respect to the type of structure of interest. Funk et al. (US publication 20140177785 A1; hereinafter “Funk”) discloses an X-ray imaging apparatus that considers maximum likelihood values when generated reconstructed three-dimensional image data (as shown in [0041]). It further indicates applicability in tomosynthesis operations. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein to perform a correspondence determination (with regard to the focal plane) for each of a multitude of types of structures of interest. Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 8’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M COOMBER whose telephone number is (571)270-0950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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. /KEVIN M COOMBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663 /GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 2 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 3 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 4 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 6 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 7 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 8 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 9 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 10 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 11 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/882,753 Page 12 Art Unit: 2663
Prosecution Insights