DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 14-15, and 18 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaftan et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0356754) in view of Declerck et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0290680) further in view of Smith et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0226475).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Kaftan teaches an image processing method, comprising: obtaining a phantom image (phantom data) and a normalization standard (reference RC curve) [Para. 15 “The procedure is based on minimizing the differences in activity concentration recovery coefficients (RCs) calculated from a filtered version of the phantom data reconstructed with the “preferred” protocol and a reference RC curve”; and Para. 16]; performing a first processing (filtered version) on the phantom image [Para. 15 “The procedure is based on minimizing the differences in activity concentration recovery coefficients (RCs) calculated from a filtered version of the phantom data reconstructed with the “preferred” protocol and a reference RC curve]; generating a recovery coefficient (recovery coefficients) of a processed phantom image (phantom data) generated by the first processing (filtered version) [Para. 15 “The procedure is based on minimizing the differences in activity concentration recovery coefficients (RCs) calculated from a filtered version of the phantom data reconstructed with the “preferred” protocol and a reference RC curve”].
Kaftan teaches a procedure based on minimizing the differences in activity concentration recovery coefficients (RCs) calculated from a filtered version of the phantom data [para. 15].
However, Kaftan doesn’t explicitly teach determining whether the recovery coefficient satisfies the normalization standard.
Declerck teaches determining whether the recovery coefficient satisfies the normalization standard (standard bounds) [Para. 56 “A filter size (filter 112) is selected that when applied to the phantom image from the given protocol produces measured SBR within the standard bounds 110, as shown in graph 114.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kaftan’s comparison of recovery coefficient to the normalization standard by incorporating Declerck’s normalization standard (standard bounds) as an acceptance envelope for deciding whether the compared recovery coefficient (recovery coefficients) satisfies the standard. This modification improves Kaftan to prevent acceptance of a filter whose recovery coefficient remains outside the normalized standard.
Kaftan teaches obtaining a target processing parameter (filter size), wherein the target processing parameter is a processing parameter of the first processing (filtered version) when the recovery coefficient satisfies the normalization standard [Para. 15 “The procedure relies on a phantom calibration step whereby an optimal filter size, which aligns data reconstructed using the “preferred” protocol to a “reference” reconstruction protocol, is estimated. The procedure is based on minimizing the differences in activity concentration recovery coefficients (RCs) calculated from a filtered version of the phantom data reconstructed with the “preferred” protocol and a reference RC curve”].
However, Kaftan doesn’t explicitly teach the remaining claim limitation.
Declerck teaches in response to determining that the recovery coefficient satisfies (recovery coefficients) the normalization standard (standard bounds), obtaining a target processing parameter (filter size), when the recovery coefficient satisfies (recovery coefficients) the normalization standard (standard bounds) [Para. 7 “The so called "Netherlands Protocol" (Boellaard et al., 2008, The Netherlands protocol for standardization and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials, Eur J Nuc Med Mol Imaging. 35 (12) 2320-2333) provides a very prescriptive protocol with a specific set of reconstruction parameters for one scanner from each of the main manufacturers, along with upper and lower bounds for the recovery coefficients expected with a modified NEMA Image Quality phantom.” And Para. 56 “A filter size (filter 112) is selected that when applied to the phantom image from the given protocol produces measured SBR within the standard bounds 110, as shown in graph 114”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kaftan’s selection of the target processing parameter (filter size) for the first processing (filtered version) by incorporating Declerck’s bounds-conditioned filter-selection logic so that the target processing parameters (filter size) is obtained only when the recovery coefficient falls within the normalization standard applied to Kaftan’s normalization standard (reference RC curves). This modification improves Kaftan by tying selection and later use of the target processing parameter to verified standard compliance rather than merely the closest alignment, thereby avoiding application of an out of standard filter to clinical PET data.
Kaftan also teaches determining an image processing result (value of a variable) by processing an image to be processed (clinical PET data) based on the target processing parameter (filter size) [Para. 15 “The procedure relies on a phantom calibration step whereby an optimal filter size, which aligns data reconstructed using the “preferred” protocol to a “reference” reconstruction protocol, is estimated”; “The filter that best aligns the RCs can then be used to align clinical PET data acquired using the “preferred” protocol to the “reference” protocol”. Para. 16 “comparing the obtained reference image data of the reference object to standard reference image data for the reference object, and modifying the obtained reference image data to reduce an error between the obtained reference image data and the standard reference image data; and (b) obtaining subject image data from a scan of a subject using the medical imaging protocol, modifying the subject image data based on the modified reference image data, and obtaining from the modified subject image data a value of a variable for display with unmodified subject image data”].
Kaftan in view of Declerck doesn’t explicitly teach obtaining the target processing parameter from a preset configuration file by matching a reference matching parameter corresponding to the phantom image and a parameter to be matched corresponding to an image to be processed.
However, Smith teaches obtaining the target processing parameter (process setting) from a preset configuration file (lookup table) by matching (addressing) a reference matching parameter (mean density) corresponding to the phantom image (image of a breast or a phantom) and a parameter to be matched (mean density) corresponding to an image to be processed (initial image) [Para. 19 and 21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kaftan’s calibration method, as applied with Declerk’s SUV normalization method, by incorporating Smith’s teaching of obtaining (obtained) a target processing parameter (process setting) from a preset configuration file (lookup table) by matching (addressing ) a reference matching parameter (mean density) for an image to be processed (initial image). This modification automates selection of the process setting, reducing manual selection error and adapting processing to the image’s measured density.
Regarding claim 11, Kaftan teaches wherein the normalization standard includes a reference standard, the image processing result includes a normalized standard uptake value (SUVref) [Para. 15 and 63]; and the determining an image processing result by processing an image to be processed based on the target processing parameter (filter size) includes: determining the target processing parameter based on the phantom image (phantom data) and the reference standard (reference RC curve), wherein the target processing parameter is a normalization factor (filter size) [Para. 15]; and performing a second processing on the image to be processed (clinical PET data) using the normalization factor to determine the normalized standard uptake value [Para. 15 and 63].
Regarding claim 16, Kaftan teaches wherein the determining an image processing result by processing an image to be processed (visualization image) based on the target processing parameter (Gaussian filter size) includes: determining a normalized image (simulated reference image) by performing a second processing (filter applied) on the image to be processed based on the target processing parameter (Gaussian filter size) [Para. 50 “further sets of raw scan data 22 of the patient 10 need only be reconstructed 24 once, to provide a visualization image 26. The corresponding Gaussian filter size σ.sub.p may be retrieved from the record 40 and the corresponding filter 30 applied to the visualization image 26 to create a simulated reference image 32 suitable for quantification.”]; and determining the image processing result based on the normalized image, wherein the image processing result includes a normalized quantitative result (SUVref) [Para. 63].
Regarding claim 17, Kaftan teaches about recovery coefficient in para. 15.
However, Kaftan doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Declerck teaches in response to determining that the recovery coefficient does not satisfy the normalization standard [Para. 25]; adjusting a full width at half maxima of a Gaussian function corresponding to the recovery coefficient [Para. 25 “altering the amount of filtering”]; and updating the recovery coefficient based on the adjusted full width at half maxima until the updated recovery coefficient satisfies the normalization standard [Para. 56 “filter size” and “standard bounds”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kaftan’s revery coefficient recalculation using Declerck’s iterative standard bounds stopping rule so that the updated recovery coefficient is recalculated after each adjusted full width at half maxima until it satisfies the normalization standard. This medication improves Kaftan by defining when the adjustment process should stop and ensuring that the selected gaussian filter parameter is standards.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaftan et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0356754) in view of Declerck et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0290680) further in view of Smith et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0226475) further in view of Prenosil (“EARL compliance measurements on the biograph vision Quadra PET/CT system with a long axial field of view”).
Regarding claim 12, Kaftan in view of Declerck further in view of Smith doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Prenosil teaches wherein the reference standard includes an EARL V1.0 standard (current EARL 1 and EARL 2 standards), the normalization factor includes at least one of a first factor, a second factor, or a third factor [Page 1, and 3]; and
the determining the target processing parameter based on the phantom image and the reference standard includes [Page. 1 and 3]:
performing the first processing iteratively on the phantom image; determining the first factor and the second factor based on an expected value of a standard parameter in the EARL V1.0 standard, wherein the standard parameter in the EARL V1.0 standard includes a maximum recovery factor and an average recovery factor [Page. 1 and 3]; and
determining the third factor by a first preset manner based on the first factor and the second factor [Para. 2 and 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kaftan’s filter size calibration, as bounded and iterated by Declerck in view of Smith, using Prenosil’s EARL compliance value averaging to determine first and second normalization factors. This medication improves kaftan by making it’s PET SUV harmonization directly compliant with known ERAL recovery-coefficient standards.
Regarding claim 13, Kaftan in view of Declerck further in view of Smith doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Prenosil teaches wherein the first preset manner includes determining the third factor based on a maximum value of the first factor and the second factor (RCmax and RCmean) [Para. 1 and 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kaftan’s filter size calibration, as bounded and iterated by Declerck in view of Smith, using Prenosil’s EARL compliance value averaging to determine first and second normalization factors. This medication improves kaftan by making it’s PET SUV harmonization directly compliant with known ERAL recovery-coefficient standards.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
