DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “CT” should be spelled out for first time use. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-9 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 1.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a medical imaging method.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of totaling values of a plurality of pixel points of a pixel row corresponding to each scanning position in a direction of motion of the examination subject in the scout image [mathematical concept/mental process], to obtain a projection graph corresponding to the scout image [mental process]; determining one or more target points in the projection graph are directed to an abstract [Mental process]; “obtaining a target scanning region in the scout image on the basis of the one or more target points of the projection graph.” [Mental process. It could also be done by a person].
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The additional claim limitations acquiring a scout image of an examination subject is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. No.
Furthermore, the generic computer components or machine learning algorithm of the processor/memory recited as performing generic computer or machine learning functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The Examiner finds that Claims 2-9 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for analyzing Scout image using machine learning model.
Thus, claims 1-9 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0116337) in view of ARTYOMOV et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0254522 hereinafter ART).
Regarding claim 1, Toth teaches a medical imaging method (method for controlling an imaging system), characterized by comprising: acquiring a scout image of an examination subject [Para. 8 and 22 “In particular, at 62, a scout scan, which may be either a lateral or anterior/posterior (A/P) scout scan is performed as is known to generate a scout image, which is essentially an attenuation image.”]; totaling values corresponding to each scanning position (slice) in a direction of motion (z axis) of the examination subject (object) in the scout image, to obtain a projection graph (PA) corresponding to the scout image [Para. 4 “A scout image is a radiographic projection image of the object that is obtained with the x-ray tube at a fixed stationary position while the object is translated in the Z axis”; Para. 22 “The summation of the individual channel measurements is the PA 106. A set of the highest value measurements in the projection is referred to as a projection measure (PM) 104. The oval ratio is the x/y ratio of the effective ellipse. The x dimension for the oval ratio is determined using the equation for the area of an ellipse where the PA 106 is the ellipse area and the PM 104 is the y axis of the ellipse. Essentially, each slice from the scout scan performed by the CT scanner of the imaging system is a projection. The set of projections produce the scout image”]; determining one or more target points in the projection graph (PA) [Para. 24 “If a determination is made at 64 that the initial PA attenuation is between 160 and 400 (and the attenuation is substantially smooth or flat over that region), then at 68 the start location of the scan is identified as the table of the CT scanner and the beginning of the head is determined by locating the point in the scout scan where the PA attenuation is greater than a third threshold, in this example, where the PA attenuation is greater than 420”]; and obtaining a target scanning region (region to be scanned) in the scout image on the basis of the one or more target points of the projection graph (PA) [Para. 22 “In particular, at 62, a scout scan, which may be either a lateral or anterior/posterior (A/P) scout scan is performed as is known to generate a scout image, which is essentially an attenuation image”; 29 “If a determination is made at 84 that the point is within the scout scan, which identifies the location of the diaphragm, then at 86, based on this location and the PA attenuation at this point, the locations of other parts of the body may be identified, including, for example, the hips and other areas of interest.” and 32 “Different regions (e.g., the lungs) also can be automatically identified on the graphic Rx display to minimize the need for manual identification of the region to be scanned”].
However, Toth doesn’t explicitly teach totaling values of a plurality of pixel points of a pixel row corresponding to each scanning position in a direction of motion of the examination subject in the scout image.
ART teaches having a plurality of pixels points (plurality of the pixels) of a pixel row (row of pixels) [Para. 4 “In one example embodiment, a method includes determining at least one of integral column sums and integral row sums for pixels of an image and determining at least one of a column-wise sum of pixel values and a row-wise sum of pixel values associated with an area within the image based on at least one of the determined integral column sums and the determined integral row sums corresponding to a plurality of the pixels forming the area”; Para. 5 “For a second pixel in each row of pixels of the image, the determining the integral row sums includes determining a sum of the pixel value associated with the second pixel and any other pixel value associated with any other pixel in the corresponding row of pixels that precedes the second pixel”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth’s CT scout-scan anatomy determination process by using ART’s row wise image summation teaching to calculate Toth’s projection graph from the scout image pixel row formed by a plurality of pixel points, instead of relying only on detector-channel measurements for Toth’s protection graph calculation. This medication improves Toth by allowing the same landmark and scan region logic to operate directly on generated scout image data, thereby providing image domain automatic identification of the target scanning region.
Regarding claim 3, Toth teaches the obtaining a projection graph (PA) corresponding to the scout image includes using each scanning position (Slice) in the direction of motion (Z axis) of the examination subject (object) in the scout image as an abscissa value and using a total value of the values of the plurality of pixel points of the corresponding each scanning position as an ordinate value, to obtain the projection graph [Para. 4, and 22].
However, Toth doesn’t explicitly teach totaling values of a plurality of pixel points of a pixel row (row of pixels).
ART teaches having a plurality of pixels points (plurality of the pixels) of a pixel row (row of pixels) [Para. 4 “In one example embodiment, a method includes determining at least one of integral column sums and integral row sums for pixels of an image and determining at least one of a column-wise sum of pixel values and a row-wise sum of pixel values associated with an area within the image based on at least one of the determined integral column sums and the determined integral row sums corresponding to a plurality of the pixels forming the area”; Para. 5 “For a second pixel in each row of pixels of the image, the determining the integral row sums includes determining a sum of the pixel value associated with the second pixel and any other pixel value associated with any other pixel in the corresponding row of pixels that precedes the second pixel”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth’s CT scout-scan anatomy determination process by using ART’s row wise image summation teaching to calculate Toth’s projection graph from the scout image pixel row formed by a plurality of pixel points, instead of relying only on detector-channel measurements for Toth’s protection graph calculation. This medication improves Toth by allowing the same landmark and scan region logic to operate directly on generated scout image data, thereby providing image domain automatic identification of the target scanning region.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0116337) in view of ARTYOMOV et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0254522 hereinafter ART) further in view of Kopperdahl (Pub. No. US 2018/0228461).
Regarding claim 2, Toth in view of ART doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the value of each pixel point is a CT number.
Kopperdahl teaches value being CT number [Para. 59].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth in view of ART’s CT scout-scan anatomy determination process, by suing Kopperdahl’s teaching that CT image-pixel numerical values are CT numbers representative of X-ray attenuation as the value summed for each pixel point. This modification enables Toth to improve consistency between scout image intensity and CT anatomy localization.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0116337) in view of ARTYOMOV et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0254522 hereinafter ART) further in view of Albu et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0206618).
Regarding claim 4, Toth in view of ART doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Albu teaches performing flipping and/or filtering pre-processing (filtered vectors) on the projection graph [Para. 17]; and acquiring, in the pre-processed projection graph, one or more peaks (primary maximum and minimum peaks) on the vertical axis of the projection graph [Para. 16].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth in view of ART’s projection graph (PA) target point determination, by applying Albu’s teaching of determining primary maximum and minimum peaks (primary maximum and minimum pers) in projection vector gradients. This medication improves Toth by locating candidate anatomical transition points from extrema in the projection graph, thereby strengthening automatic scan region boundary detection.
Regarding claim 5, Toth in view of ART doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Albu teaches wherein the medical imaging method further includes: determining at least a portion of the obtained one or more peaks (primary maximum and minimum peaks) as the target point, the target point corresponding to a boundary of a target image region in the scout image [para. 16 and 28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth in view of ART’s projection graph (PA) target point determination, by applying Albu’s teaching of determining primary maximum and minimum peaks (primary maximum and minimum pers) in projection vector gradients. This medication improves Toth by locating candidate anatomical transition points from extrema in the projection graph, thereby strengthening automatic scan region boundary detection.
Regarding claim 6, Toth in view of ART doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Albu teaches wherein the one or more peaks (primary maximum and minimum peaks) correspond to a boundary (location of diaphragm) of a lead shield or a boundary of an abdominal diaphragm in the scout image [Para. 16 and 28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth in view of ART’s projection graph (PA) target point determination, by applying Albu’s teaching of determining primary maximum and minimum peaks (primary maximum and minimum pers) in projection vector gradients. This medication improves Toth by locating candidate anatomical transition points from extrema in the projection graph, thereby strengthening automatic scan region boundary detection.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0116337) in view of ARTYOMOV et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0254522 hereinafter ART) further in view of Feuerlein (Pub. No. US 2010/0249582).
Regarding claim 7, Toth teaches wherein the obtaining a target scanning region in the scout image on the basis of the one or more target points of the projection graph includes: obtaining, on the basis of the one or more target points of the projection graph (PA), an abscissa of the one or more target points in the projection graph [Para. 29, fig. 2 and corresponding description].
Toth in view of ART doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Feuerlein teaches mapping the obtained abscissa in the projection graph back to each scanning position (particular slice) in the direction of motion of the examination subject in the scout image [Para. 32, fig. 3 and corresponding description]; and determining a boundary of the target scanning region according to each scanning position, to obtain the target scanning region in the scout image [Para. 32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth in view of ART’s automatic identification of the target scanning region, by applying Feuerlein’s coordinate registration to determine scan region boundaries at corresponding scanning positions. This medication improves Toth by tying the target scanning region to CT acquisition coordinates, thereby enabling the selected region to be executed as scanner position defined imaging boundaries.
Regarding claim 8, Toth in view of ART doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Feuerlein teaches wherein the medical imaging method further includes: obtaining a monitoring slice image position (image slice) for CT angiography on the basis of the target scanning region [Para. 5, and 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth in view of ART’s automatic identification of the target scanning region, by applying Feuerlein’s coordinate registration to determine scan region boundaries at corresponding scanning positions. This medication improves Toth by tying the target scanning region to CT acquisition coordinates, thereby enabling the selected region to be executed as scanner position defined imaging boundaries.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0116337) in view of ARTYOMOV et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0254522 hereinafter ART) further in view of Zhou et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0205606).
Regarding claim 9, Toth in view of ART doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Zhou teaches using a neural network (DNN)to determine a key point corresponding to the position of a target region of interest in the target scanning region, and acquiring a monitoring slice image of the examination subject at the position of the key point [Para. 49 and 95]; and segmenting the monitoring slice image to obtain the target region of interest (target anatomical structure) [Para. 50, and 95].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toth in view of ART’s monitoring slice image by incorporating Zhou’s segmentation of the target region of interest in the acquired medical image. This medication improves Toth automatically extracting the target region of interest from the monitoring slice image, thereby supporting automated CTA monitoring and analysis.
Conclusion
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-7 PM..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights