DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application
with application number EP 24156011.9 dated 02/06/2024. Copies of certified
papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been retrieved.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/20/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The 4-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erath ("Deep learning-based forward and cross-scatter correction in dual-source CT" - Published 2020) in view of Haerer et al. (US 7,860,208 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Erath teaches “A (Erath page 3 left hand column paragraph 2 "we proposed a first method for the correction of cross-scatter artifacts"), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving computed tomography measurement data with sets of measurement values, wherein each set of measurement values corresponds to a respective detector element readout and includes measurement values for at least two different x-ray spectra (Erath page 1 left hand column paragraph 2 "The two tubes can also be operated at different tube voltages, allowing the advantages of dual-energy scans. Dual-energy CT has different post-processing applications that are helpful in abdominal and pelvic trauma");
at least one of determining or receiving an error estimate for each set of measurement values (Erath page 8 left hand column paragraph 4 "
I
s
c
a
t
t
e
r
,
D
S
E
is the scatter estimation by the neural network scatter and
I
s
c
a
t
t
e
r
,
M
C
is our scatter signal obtained by the Monte Carlo simulation. Depending on the output of the network the scatter term in the optimization function refers to forward or cross-scattered radiation");
defining a replacement reference value for each set of measurement values (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 3 "To evaluate the influence of the scatter correction, the scatter corrected projections are used to reconstruct the images with the extended parallel backprojection (EPBP) algorithm");
applying a function that maps measurement values to corrected values, wherein for each respective measurement value, a respective corrected value is between the respective measurement value and the replacement reference value for the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 2 "To avoid obtaining zero or negative intensities a relative clipping of the corrected intensity
I
c
o
r
r
to 1% of
I
t
o
t
a
l
is carried out: [See equation 10]"), and
PNG
media_image1.png
67
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Erath Equation 10
a distance of the respective corrected value to each respective measurement value depends on the error estimate such that for larger errors the respective corrected value is closer to or at the replacement reference value for the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value, and for smaller errors the respective corrected value is closer to or at the respective measurement value (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 2 "To avoid obtaining zero or negative intensities a relative clipping of the corrected intensity
I
c
o
r
r
to 1% of
I
t
o
t
a
l
is carried out: [See equation 10]"); and
reconstructing computed tomography image data based on the corrected values (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 3 "To evaluate the influence of the scatter correction, the scatter corrected projections are used to reconstruct the images with the extended parallel back projection (EPBP) algorithm").
However, Erath is not relied on to teach “computer-implemented method”.
Haerer teaches “computer-implemented method (Haerer column 10 lines 26-30 "the invention also encompassed dedicated computers in which an image processing of projective and tomographic exposures occurs, wherein the computer has a memory with program code which in operation executes the method described above")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a method for reducing artifacts in spectral CT data as taught by Erath to have the method be computer-implemented as taught by Haerer, because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Erath with
the Haerer disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 as there is a
reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the replacement reference value for the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value is in an order of magnitude of the measurement values of the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 2 "To avoid obtaining zero or negative intensities a relative clipping of the corrected intensity
I
c
o
r
r
to 1% of
I
t
o
t
a
l
is carried out: [See equation 10]").”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the replacement reference value for the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value is defined to be one of the measurement values in the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 2 "To avoid obtaining zero or negative intensities a relative clipping of the corrected intensity
I
c
o
r
r
to 1% of
I
t
o
t
a
l
is carried out: [See equation 10]").”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the error estimate (Erath page 1 left hand column paragraph 3 "Cross-scatter increases the negative effect of scatter and can lead to artifacts such as cupping artifacts, dark streaks, and reduction of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the images") is based on determining an error of data that is erroneous due to scattered radiation (Erath page 8 left hand column paragraph 4 "
I
s
c
a
t
t
e
r
,
D
S
E
is the scatter estimation by the neural network scatter and
I
s
c
a
t
t
e
r
,
M
C
is our scatter signal obtained by the Monte Carlo simulation. Depending on the output of the network the scatter term in the optimization function refers to forward or cross-scattered radiation").”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 6, wherein the error estimate is determined based on a ratio of an estimated scatter signal to a total signal strength of the measurement values of the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value (Erath page 8 left hand column paragraph 2 "The scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) is defined as the proportion of scattered X-rays intensity to primary X-rays intensity").”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the error estimate is determined based on data errors in a low signal domain, such that a high error is assumed for low detector signals (Erath page 4 left hand column paragraph 3 "As low tube voltages lead to higher SPR the scatter correction gets more sensitive to errors in the scatter estimation, most of the simulation and training is done at 80 kV. Being able to correct scatter artifacts for low tube voltages and therefore to correct images with a high SPR, these algorithms can easily be transferred to higher tube voltages").”
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the function that maps the measurement values to the corrected values is a monotonic function (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 2 "To avoid obtaining zero or negative intensities a relative clipping of the corrected intensity
I
c
o
r
r
to 1% of
I
t
o
t
a
l
is carried out: [See equation 10]").”
Regarding claim 10 (similarly claim 18), the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the mapping is defined according to at least two different error ranges of the error estimate, such that for each error range a different partial mapping function is applied (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 2 "To avoid obtaining zero or negative intensities a relative clipping of the corrected intensity
I
c
o
r
r
to 1% of
I
t
o
t
a
l
is carried out: [See equation 10]").”
Claim 12 recites a method with steps corresponding to the method with steps
recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of method
claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Erath and Haerer
references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “acquiring measurement data by performing a spectral computed tomography scan (Erath page 1 left hand column paragraph 2 "The two tubes can also be operated at different tube voltages, allowing the advantages of dual-energy scans. Dual-energy CT has different post-processing applications that are helpful in abdominal and pelvic trauma"); and
performing the computer-implemented method (Haerer column 10 lines 26-30 "the invention also encompassed dedicated computers in which an image processing of projective and tomographic exposures occurs, wherein the computer has a memory with program code which in operation executes the method described above").”
Claim 13 recites a computer readable medium including computer executable instructions corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of the computer readable medium of claim 13 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of the method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Erath and Haerer presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the computer-implemented method (Haerer column 10 lines 26-30 "the invention also encompassed dedicated computers in which an image processing of projective and tomographic exposures occurs, wherein the computer has a memory with program code which in operation executes the method described above").”
Claim 14 recites a system with methods corresponding to the method with steps
recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of method
claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Erath and Haerer
references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “A computed tomography system comprising a processing unit configured to carry out the computer-implemented method (Haerer column 10 lines 26-30 "the invention also encompassed dedicated computers in which an image processing of projective and tomographic exposures occurs, wherein the computer has a memory with program code which in operation executes the method described above")”.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 7, wherein the ratio is a maximum ratio between the estimated scatter signal and the total signal strength (Erath page 8 left hand column paragraph 2 "The scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR) is defined as the proportion of scattered X-rays intensity to primary X-rays intensity").”
Claim 20 recites a system with methods corresponding to the method with steps
recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of method
claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Erath and Haerer
references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches “a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to
cause the computed-tomography system to (Haerer column 10 lines 26-30 "the invention also encompassed dedicated computers in which an image processing of projective and tomographic exposures occurs, wherein the computer has a memory with program code which in operation executes the method described above")”.
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erath and Haerer, in view of Baek et al. (KR20180058062A - translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 3 (similarly claim 16), the combination of Erath and Haerer teaches the method of clam 1. However, the combination of Erath and Haerer is not relied on to teach “wherein the replacement reference value for the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value is defined such that the replacement reference value is a linear combination of the measurement values of the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value”.
Baek teaches “wherein the replacement reference value for the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value is defined such that the replacement reference value is a linear combination of the measurement values of the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value (Baek paragraph [0017] "The final corrected image output determination step is characterized by including a residual error value calculation step that calculates a residual error value which is the value obtained by subtracting an image data value from a calculated linear combination value").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a method for reducing artifacts in spectral CT data as taught by Erath and Haerer to include a linear combination for estimating error as taught by Baek.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that there is a need in
the field of medical imaging to reduce artifacts without introducing new artifacts, "However, interpolation or approximation methods that consider only distances in sinogram space without utilizing the principles of the sinogram have the problem of generating new artifacts" as noted by the Baek disclosure in paragraph 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Erath and Haerer with the Baek disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Erath, Haerer, and Baek teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 3, wherein at least one of coefficients of the linear combination are the same within each mapped set, or a sum of the coefficients of the linear combination is 1 or substantially 1 (Baek paragraph [0017] "The final corrected image output determination step is characterized by including a residual error value calculation step that calculates a residual error value which is the value obtained by subtracting an image data value from a calculated linear combination value").”
PNG
media_image2.png
472
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baek paragraph 11-16
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Erath, Haerer, and Baek references presented in the rejection of claim 3, applies to claim 4. Finally, the method recited in claim 4 is met by Erath, Haerer, and Baek.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Erath, Haerer, and Baek teaches “The computer-implemented method according to claim 4, wherein the replacement reference value for the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value is defined to be one of the measurement values of the set of measurement values including the respective measurement value (Erath page 8 right hand column paragraph 2 "To avoid obtaining zero or negative intensities a relative clipping of the corrected intensity
I
c
o
r
r
to 1% of
I
t
o
t
a
l
is carried out: [See equation 10]").”
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claim 11 and 19 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim, but would be allowable if: (i) rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 (similarly claim 19) recites “low error”, “medium error”, and “high error”. While the claims appear to be relative terminology, however paragraph 51 of the specification states that the error ranges are defined as low, medium, high in comparison to threshold values. Therefore, the specification paragraph 51 provides sufficient details to not render the claims as indefinite.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Publication 20220165003 A1 to Schmidt et al discloses a system and method for estimating and correcting error caused by artifacts in dual energy CTs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 PST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662 /AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights