DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA the first inventor to file provisions.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, Line 2 the term “processing circuitry configured to” should be changed to “processing circuitry configured to:” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 1, Line 6 the term “and different from the first image,” should be changed to “and different from the first image;” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 1, Line 9 the term “estimate a confidence level of the first pixel value,” should be changed to “estimate a confidence level of the first pixel value;” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 1, Line 13 the term “estimate a confidence level of the second pixel value,” should be changed to “estimate a confidence level of the second pixel value;” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 15, Line 2 the term “processing circuitry configured to” should be changed to “processing circuitry configured to:” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 15, Line 6 the term “corresponding to the first region image,” should be changed to “corresponding to the first region image;” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 15, Line 9 the term “constituting the first region image,” should be changed to “constituting the first region image;” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 15, Line 13 the term “constituting the second region image,” should be changed to “constituting the second region image;” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 16, Line 2 the term “processing circuitry configured to” should be changed to “processing circuitry configured to:” for typographical/grammar issues.
In claim 16, Line 6 the term “different from the first image” should be changed to “different from the first image;” for typographical/grammar issues.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 15-16 recites limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language but do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “processing circuitry configured to……,” [Lines 1-2].
Claim 3; recites the limitation, “the processing circuitry estimates……,” [Line 2].
Claim 4; recites the limitation, “processing circuitry further calculates……,” [Line 2].
Claim 5; recites the limitation, “the processing circuitry corrects……,” [Line 2].
Claim 6; recites the limitation, “the processing circuitry further displays……,” [Line 2].
Claim 9; recites the limitation, “the processing circuitry changes……,” [Lines 3-4].
Claim 10; recites the limitation, “the processing circuitry changes……,” [Lines 3-4].
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “the processing circuitry changes……,” [Lines 3-4].
Claim 15; recites the limitation, “processing circuitry configured to……,” [Lines 1-2].
Claim 16; recites the limitation, “processing circuitry configured to……,” [Lines 1-2].
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(i) “processing circuitry….” has a structure associated with it of a combination of transistors, resistors, capacitors, and their interconnections.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(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.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 13-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1) hereafter referenced as Kawamura.
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura teaches an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]- Kawamura discloses the imaging apparatus 1 is an imaging apparatus for performing so-called one-shot energy subtraction that irradiates each of a first radiation detector 5 and a second radiation detector 6 with radiation, such as an X-ray, which has been emitted from a radiation source 3 and transmitted through a subject H, while changing energy.)
acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses the first radiation detector 5 acquires a first radiographic image G1 of the subject H obtained by low-energy radiation including so-called soft rays) and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses further, the second radiation detector 6 acquires a second radiographic image G2 of the subject H obtained by high-energy radiation excluding soft rays.),
on the basis of a first pixel value constituting the first region image and a first reference value, estimate a confidence level of the first pixel value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0051]- Kawamura discloses a pixel value G1(x, y) of each pixel of the first radiographic image G1 which is the low-energy image and a pixel value G2(x, y) of each pixel of the second radiographic image G2 which is the high-energy image are represented by the following Expressions (3) and (4) using the thickness ts(x, y) of the soft part, the thickness tb(x, y) of the bone part, and the attenuation coefficients μls(x, y), μhs(x, y), μlb(x,y), and μhb(x, y) at the corresponding pixel position, respectively.),
on the basis of a second pixel value constituting the second region image and a second reference value different from the first reference value, estimate a confidence level of the second pixel value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0051]- Kawamura discloses a pixel value G1(x, y) of each pixel of the first radiographic image G1 which is the low-energy image and a pixel value G2(x, y) of each pixel of the second radiographic image G2 which is the high-energy image are represented by the following Expressions (3) and (4) using the thickness ts(x, y) of the soft part, the thickness tb(x, y) of the bone part, and the attenuation coefficients μls(x, y), μhs(x, y), μlb(x,y), and μhb(x, y) at the corresponding pixel position, respectively.),
and acquire a confidence level of a subtraction value between the first pixel value and the second pixel value on the basis of the confidence level of the first pixel value and the confidence level of the second pixel value (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0065]- Kawamura discloses the weighting coefficients for performing the subtraction process are derived from the derived attenuation coefficients, and the weighting subtraction process is performed on the basis of the derived weighting coefficients to remove unnecessary structures in the derived soft part image Gs and bone part image Gb with higher accuracy.).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura further teaches wherein a pixel value of a first pixel constituting the first region image is the first pixel value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses the first radiation detector 5 acquires a first radiographic image G1 of the subject H obtained by low-energy radiation including so-called soft rays),
a pixel value of a second pixel constituting the second region image is the second pixel value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses further, the second radiation detector 6 acquires a second radiographic image G2 of the subject H obtained by high-energy radiation excluding soft rays.),
and the first pixel and the second pixel are pixels at corresponding positions (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0048]- Kawamura discloses here, in this embodiment, the subtraction unit 37 performs the subtraction process of performing weighting subtraction between the corresponding pixels of the first and second radiographic images G1 and G2, using the weighting coefficient derived by the weighting coefficient derivation unit 36 as described below.).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura teaches The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura further teaches wherein the processing circuitry estimates the confidence level of the first pixel value on the basis of a standard pixel value of a first target region in the first image including the first region image, the first pixel value, and the first reference value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0051]- Kawamura discloses a pixel value G1(x, y) of each pixel of the first radiographic image G1 which is the low-energy image and a pixel value G2(x, y) of each pixel of the second radiographic image G2 which is the high-energy image are represented by the following Expressions (3) and (4) using the thickness ts(x, y) of the soft part, the thickness tb(x, y) of the bone part, and the attenuation coefficients μls(x, y), μhs(x, y), μlb(x,y), and μhb(x, y) at the corresponding pixel position, respectively.),
or estimates the confidence level of the second pixel value on the basis of a standard pixel value of a second target region in the second image including the second region image, the second pixel value, and the second reference value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0051]- Kawamura discloses a pixel value G1(x, y) of each pixel of the first radiographic image G1 which is the low-energy image and a pixel value G2(x, y) of each pixel of the second radiographic image G2 which is the high-energy image are represented by the following Expressions (3) and (4) using the thickness ts(x, y) of the soft part, the thickness tb(x, y) of the bone part, and the attenuation coefficients μls(x, y), μhs(x, y), μlb(x,y), and μhb(x, y) at the corresponding pixel position, respectively.).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura further teaches wherein the processing circuitry further calculates subtraction data generated from the subtraction value, on the basis of the first image, the second image, and the confidence level of the subtraction value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0039]- Kawamura discloses the subtraction process of performing weighting subtraction using the weighting coefficient between the corresponding pixels of the first and second radiographic images G1 and G2 to derive a bone part image obtained by extracting the bone part of the subject H and a soft part image obtained by extracting the soft part of the subject H.).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, Kawamura further teaches wherein the processing circuitry further displays the subtraction data on a display in correspondence with the confidence level of the subtraction value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0039]- Kawamura discloses then, the process ends. In addition, instead of or in addition to storing the soft part image Gs and the bone part image Gb, the soft part image Gs and the bone part image Gb may be displayed on the display unit 8.).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura teaches an image processing method comprising (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0018]- Kawamura discloses according to the present disclosure, there is provided an image processing method comprising: acquiring two radiographic images based on radiation which has different energy distributions and has been transmitted through a subject including a soft part and a bone part):
acquiring a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses the first radiation detector 5 acquires a first radiographic image G1 of the subject H obtained by low-energy radiation including so-called soft rays) and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses further, the second radiation detector 6 acquires a second radiographic image G2 of the subject H obtained by high-energy radiation excluding soft rays.);
on the basis of a first pixel value constituting the first region image and a first reference value, estimating a confidence level of the first pixel value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0051]- Kawamura discloses a pixel value G1(x, y) of each pixel of the first radiographic image G1 which is the low-energy image and a pixel value G2(x, y) of each pixel of the second radiographic image G2 which is the high-energy image are represented by the following Expressions (3) and (4) using the thickness ts(x, y) of the soft part, the thickness tb(x, y) of the bone part, and the attenuation coefficients μls(x, y), μhs(x, y), μlb(x,y), and μhb(x, y) at the corresponding pixel position, respectively.);
on the basis of a second pixel value constituting the second region image and a second reference value different from the first reference value, estimating a confidence level of the second pixel value (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0051]- Kawamura discloses a pixel value G1(x, y) of each pixel of the first radiographic image G1 which is the low-energy image and a pixel value G2(x, y) of each pixel of the second radiographic image G2 which is the high-energy image are represented by the following Expressions (3) and (4) using the thickness ts(x, y) of the soft part, the thickness tb(x, y) of the bone part, and the attenuation coefficients μls(x, y), μhs(x, y), μlb(x,y), and μhb(x, y) at the corresponding pixel position, respectively.);
and acquiring a confidence level of a subtraction value between the first pixel value and the second pixel value on the basis of the confidence level of the first pixel value and the confidence level of the second pixel value (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0065]- Kawamura discloses the weighting coefficients for performing the subtraction process are derived from the derived attenuation coefficients, and the weighting subtraction process is performed on the basis of the derived weighting coefficients to remove unnecessary structures in the derived soft part image Gs and bone part image Gb with higher accuracy.).
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura teaches the image processing method according to claim 13 Kawamura further teaches a computer program causing a computer to perform the image processing method according to claim 13 (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0019]- Kawamura discloses a program that causes a computer to perform the image processing method according to the present disclosure may be provided.).
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 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 of this title, 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 5, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1) hereafter referenced as Kawamura in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 20090016485 A1) hereafter referenced as Nakanishi.
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry corrects the confidence level of the subtraction value according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs.
However, Nakanishi explicitly teaches wherein the processing circuitry corrects the confidence level of the subtraction value according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035]- Nakanishi discloses cone beam artifact noticeably appears in a sagittal section image of the backbone (spinal column) of the subject. The backbone has vertebrae and intervertebral disks alternately arrayed along the body axis (Z-axis). Further in Fig. 6, paragraph [0062]- Nakanishi discloses the weighting processing unit 39 performs weighting with the distribution of weights changing in accordance with positions in the Z direction for extracted cone beam artifact components.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Nakanishi wherein the processing circuitry corrects the confidence level of the subtraction value according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein the processing circuitry corrects the confidence level of the subtraction value according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve beam artifact reduction, since both Kawamura and Nakanishi are both systems that subtract radiographic images. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Nakanishi’s system provides a way to improve image quality by improving beam artifact reduction. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Nakanishi et al. (US 20090016485 A1) Paragraph [0069].
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the first image and the second image are images imaged by an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus.
However, Nakanishi explicitly teaches wherein the first image and the second image are images imaged by an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus (In fig. 1, Paragraph [0033]- Nakanishi discloses the control unit 31 performs scanning using cone beam X-rays by controlling the respective constituent elements of the X-ray CT apparatus 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Nakanishi wherein the first image and the second image are images imaged by an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein the first image and the second image are images imaged by an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve beam artifact reduction, since both Kawamura and Nakanishi are both systems that subtract radiographic images. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Nakanishi’s system provides a way to improve image quality by improving beam artifact reduction. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Nakanishi et al. (US 20090016485 A1) Paragraph [0069].
Regarding claim 16, Kawamura teaches an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]- Kawamura discloses the imaging apparatus 1 is an imaging apparatus for performing so-called one-shot energy subtraction that irradiates each of a first radiation detector 5 and a second radiation detector 6 with radiation, such as an X-ray, which has been emitted from a radiation source 3 and transmitted through a subject H, while changing energy.):
acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses the first radiation detector 5 acquires a first radiographic image G1 of the subject H obtained by low-energy radiation including so-called soft rays) and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses further, the second radiation detector 6 acquires a second radiographic image G2 of the subject H obtained by high-energy radiation excluding soft rays.),
Although Kawamura explicitly teaches acquire a confidence level of a subtraction value between a first pixel value constituting the first region image and a second pixel value constituting the second region image (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0065]- Kawamura discloses the weighting coefficients for performing the subtraction process are derived from the derived attenuation coefficients, and the weighting subtraction process is performed on the basis of the derived weighting coefficients to remove unnecessary structures in the derived soft part image Gs and bone part image Gb with higher accuracy.). Kawamura fails to explicitly teach Kawamura fails to explicitly teach acquire a confidence level of a subtraction value between a first pixel value constituting the first region image and a second pixel value constituting the second region image according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs.
However, Nakanishi explicitly teaches acquire a confidence level of a subtraction value between a first pixel value constituting the first region image and a second pixel value constituting the second region image according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035]- Nakanishi discloses cone beam artifact noticeably appears in a sagittal section image of the backbone (spinal column) of the subject. The backbone has vertebrae and intervertebral disks alternately arrayed along the body axis (Z-axis). Further in Fig. 6, paragraph [0062]- Nakanishi discloses the weighting processing unit 39 performs weighting with the distribution of weights changing in accordance with positions in the Z direction for extracted cone beam artifact components.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Nakanishi acquire a confidence level of a subtraction value between a first pixel value constituting the first region image and a second pixel value constituting the second region image according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein acquire a confidence level of a subtraction value between a first pixel value constituting the first region image and a second pixel value constituting the second region image according to a vertebral level or an intervertebral foramen level to which the first region image belongs.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve beam artifact reduction, since both Kawamura and Nakanishi are both systems that subtract radiographic images. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Nakanishi’s system provides a way to improve image quality by improving beam artifact reduction. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Nakanishi et al. (US 20090016485 A1) Paragraph [0069].
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1) hereafter referenced as Kawamura in view of Koizumi et al. (US 20210321856 A1) hereafter referenced as Koizumi and Taguchi et al. (US 20160000396 A1) hereafter referenced as Taguchi.
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the first reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a lesion occurring in a first target region in the first image.
However, Koizumi explicitly teaches wherein the first reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a lesion occurring in a first target region in the first image (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0076]- Koizumi discloses which indicates the intensity of lesion of the living tissue in each image, from the plurality of images of the living tissue obtained by the electronic scope 100.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Koizumi wherein the first reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a lesion occurring in a first target region in the first image.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein the first reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a lesion occurring in a first target region in the first image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve accuracy of evaluating tissue, since both Kawamura and Koizumi are both systems that image and evaluate tissue regions. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Koizumi’s system provides a way to increase accuracy of evaluating the tissue. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Koizumi et al. (US 20210321856 A1) Paragraph [0035].
Kawamura in view of Koizumi fails to explicitly teach and the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs.
However, Taguchi explicitly teaches and the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0118]- Taguchi discloses the subtraction image at the rightmost of FIG. 8 includes a beam hardening artifact B3 having a CT value acquired by subtracting the CT value of the tissue O1 included in the first image from the CT value (luminance value) of the beam hardening artifact B2 included in the second image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura in view of Koizumi of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Koizumi and the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein and the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve accuracy of image diagnosis, since both Kawamura and Taguchi are both systems that image and evaluate tissue regions and perform image subtraction. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Taguchi’s system provides a way to increase accuracy of image diagnosis. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Taguchi et al. (US 20160000396 A1) Paragraph [0167].
Regarding claim 15, Kawamura teaches an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]- Kawamura discloses the imaging apparatus 1 is an imaging apparatus for performing so-called one-shot energy subtraction that irradiates each of a first radiation detector 5 and a second radiation detector 6 with radiation, such as an X-ray, which has been emitted from a radiation source 3 and transmitted through a subject H, while changing energy.)
acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses the first radiation detector 5 acquires a first radiographic image G1 of the subject H obtained by low-energy radiation including so-called soft rays) and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0031]- Kawamura discloses further, the second radiation detector 6 acquires a second radiographic image G2 of the subject H obtained by high-energy radiation excluding soft rays.),
and calculate a confidence level of a subtraction value between the first pixel value and the second pixel value on the basis of the lesion degree and the noise degree (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0065]- Kawamura discloses the weighting coefficients for performing the subtraction process are derived from the derived attenuation coefficients, and the weighting subtraction process is performed on the basis of the derived weighting coefficients to remove unnecessary structures in the derived soft part image Gs and bone part image Gb with higher accuracy.).
Kawamura fails to explicitly teach estimate a lesion degree of the first region image by using a first inference device on the basis of a first pixel value constituting the first region image.
However, Koizumi explicitly teaches estimate a lesion degree of the first region image by using a first inference device on the basis of a first pixel value constituting the first region image (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0076]- Koizumi discloses Koizumi discloses which indicates the intensity of lesion of the living tissue in each image, from the plurality of images of the living tissue obtained by the electronic scope 100.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image with the teachings of Koizumi estimate a lesion degree of the first region image by using a first inference device on the basis of a first pixel value constituting the first region image.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein estimate a lesion degree of the first region image by using a first inference device on the basis of a first pixel value constituting the first region image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve accuracy of evaluating tissue, since both Kawamura and Koizumi are both systems that image and evaluate tissue regions. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Koizumi’s system provides a way to increase accuracy of evaluating the tissue. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Koizumi et al. (US 20210321856 A1) Paragraph [0035].
Kawamura in view of Koizumi fails to explicitly teach the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs.
However, Taguchi explicitly teaches the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0118]- Taguchi discloses the subtraction image at the rightmost of FIG. 8 includes a beam hardening artifact B3 having a CT value acquired by subtracting the CT value of the tissue O1 included in the first image from the CT value (luminance value) of the beam hardening artifact B2 included in the second image.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura in view of Koizumi having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image with the teachings of Taguchi the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein the second reference value is a value determined by a representative pixel value of a site in which a beam hardening artifact occurs.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve accuracy of image diagnosis, since both Kawamura and Taguchi are both systems that image and evaluate tissue regions and perform image subtraction. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Taguchi’s system provides a way to increase accuracy of image diagnosis. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Taguchi et al. (US 20160000396 A1) Paragraph [0167].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1) hereafter referenced as Kawamura in view of Nabatame et al. (US 20130089176 A1) hereafter referenced as Nabatame.
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura fails to explicitly teach wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a threshold value of the first pixel value regarded as the first target region according to a position in a body axis direction.
However, Nabatame explicitly teaches wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a threshold value of the first pixel value regarded as the first target region according to a position in a body axis direction (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0063]- Nabatame discloses if the body thickness of the patient O at an area z in a body axis direction on the couch top 29 is 300 mm, the threshold-by-area determining unit 53 determines an exposure dose threshold Th of the patient at the area z on the couch top 29, as Th_C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Nabatame wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a threshold value of the first pixel value regarded as the first target region according to a position in a body axis direction.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a threshold value of the first pixel value regarded as the first target region according to a position in a body axis direction.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve X-ray quality, since both Kawamura and Nabatame are both systems that subtract radiographic images. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Nabatame’s system provides a way to improve x-ray process by reducing excess dosage. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Nabatame et al. (US 20130089176 A1) Paragraph [0003].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1) hereafter referenced as Kawamura in view of Marchesotti et al. (US 20080137944 A1) hereafter referenced as Marchesotti.
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura fails to explicitly teach wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a size of a spatial filtering kernel according to a size of a neighborhood circularity of a spatial filtering target.
However, Marchesotti explicitly teaches wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a size of a spatial filtering kernel according to a size of a neighborhood circularity of a spatial filtering target (Table 1, Paragraph [0105]- Marchesotti discloses the size of the structuring element (i.e., the kernel, which is the most important part of the filter) represents the parameter to be set. The aspect ratio s is a way to characterize the input signal. The structuring element size (SELS) in pixels may be determined dynamically depending on the circularity measure c, as shown in Table 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Marchesotti wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a size of a spatial filtering kernel according to a size of a neighborhood circularity of a spatial filtering target.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a size of a spatial filtering kernel according to a size of a neighborhood circularity of a spatial filtering target.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to improve quality of image correction, since both Kawamura and Marchesotti are both systems that perform image correction to parts of the body. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Marchesotti’s system provides a way to improve image quality by improving image correction. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Marchesotti et al. (US 20080137944 A1) Paragraph [0135].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1) hereafter referenced as Kawamura in view of Lee et al. (US 20190066296 A1) hereafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Kawamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the second image is an image taken at a different time from the first image.
However, Lee explicitly teaches wherein the second image is an image taken at a different time from the first image (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0059]- Lee discloses from among a first image and second image which are generated by photographing the same object at different times, performs an image registration to register the first image based on the second image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Kawamura of having an image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to acquire a first image including a first region image in which a common subject is imaged and a second image including a second region image corresponding to the first region image and different from the first image with the teachings of Lee wherein the second image is an image taken at a different time from the first image.
Wherein having Kawamura’s system for subtracting radiographic images wherein the second image is an image taken at a different time from the first image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to easily compare images, since both Kawamura and Lee are both systems that perform image comparison. Wherein Kawamura’s system wherein improved the accuracy of energy subtraction, while Lee’s system provides a way to improve comparison between images. Please see Kawamura et al. (US 20220175333 A1), Paragraph [0008] and Lee et al. (US 20190066296 A1) Paragraph [0118].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 along with their dependent claims respectively, are therefrom objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim, claims 1, respectively but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior arts fail to explicitly teach, wherein when a first target region is extracted from the first image including the first region image, the processing circuitry changes a size of a spatial filtering kernel according to a distance between a spatial filtering target and a neighboring cross-hole, as claimed in claim 9.
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered
pertinent to applicant`s disclosure.
Ogata et al. (US 20120308119 A1)- A parallax detection unit generates a parallax map indicating a parallax of each pixel of an image formed by right and left images and generates a reliability map indicating reliability of the parallax. A depth information estimation unit generates a depth information map indicating the depth of a subject on the image based on the right and left images. A depth parallax conversion unit converts the depth information map into a pseudo-parallax map using a conversion equation used to convert depth information to parallax information. A parallax synthesis unit synthesizes the parallax map and the pseudo-parallax map to generate a corrected parallax map based on the reliability map. The present technology is applicable to an image processing apparatus.....................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Shimodaira et al. (US 20090208050 A1)- There is provided a defect detection apparatus capable of highly accurately detecting a defect of a size not larger than a size desired by the user, in which the size setting device sets the defect size, the reduction ratio setting device sets an image reduction ratio based on the set defect size, the image reduction device generates a reduced image obtained by reducing the original multi-valued image, the filter processing device performs filter processing on the reduced image for removing a defect in the reduced image, the image enlarging device generates an enlarged image obtained by enlarging the reduced image, subjected to the filter processing, at an image enlargement ratio corresponding to the reciprocal of the image reduction ratio, and the difference calculating device generates a difference image obtained by performing a calculation of a difference between the original multi-valued image and the enlarged image.......................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Wilson et al. (US 20190350538 A1)- Embodiments discussed herein facilitate system-independent quantitative perfusion measurements. One example embodiment is a method, comprising: accessing 4D (Four Dimensional) perfusion imaging data of a tissue, where the 4D perfusion imaging data comprises a plurality of 3D (Three Dimensional) stacks of perfusion imaging data over time; performing at least one of artifact reduction or post-processing on the 4D perfusion image data to generate processed 4D perfusion image data; computing one or more quantitative perfusion parameters for the tissue based at least in part on the processed 4D perfusion image data; and outputting a visual representation of the one or more quantitative perfusion parameters.....................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Gledhill et al. (US 20200203122 A1)- A focused ion beam (FIB) is used to mill beam spots into a substrate at a variety of ion beam column settings to form a set of training images that are used to train a convolutional neural network. After the neural network is trained, an ion beam can be adjusted by obtaining spot image which is processed with the neural network. The neural network can provide a magnitude and direction of defocus, aperture position, lens adjustments, or other ion beam or ion beam column settings. In some cases, adjustments are not made by the neural network, but serve to indicate that the ion beam and associated ion column continue to operate stably, and additional adjustment is not required......................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIUS C.G. ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5987. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5pm (EST).
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571)272-9752. 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.
/LUCIUS CAMERON GREEN ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights