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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Processor for Spectral Computed Tomography Data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claims 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1and dependents 2-13 are drafted as apparatus claims, but are defined in terms of steps that are actually performed (i.e. present tense actions). An apparatus is understood to be a thing that exists at a point in time and not, for example, a process that happens over time. It is unclear from the claim what parts comprise this apparatus or if this is largely intended use. It has been treated as though the processor is coupled to a memory storing instructions that when executed cause the processor to [perform the recited function].
Each of claims 1 and 14-15 recite “wherein the processor outputs a first image generated on the basis of the data to a display destination”, where there is no prior recitation or introduction of which data that the first image is generated based on and renders the claims indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “the histogram in which a portion … is displayed in an emphasized manner.”
Emphasized is a term of relative degree and it is not clear how much it actually affects the portion of the histogram being displayed. It is understood to correspond to Fig. 20 and [0102], where the example is a different color, but “emphasized manner or the like” does not give a clear definition. It has been treated as different color (to include e.g. shading which would be a different color).
Claims 11-12 recite “and displays the first image on the screen” and it is not clear which image is the first image. The original first image or the first reconstructed image.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
2. Claims 1, 6, 9-12, and 14-15as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20230105799 A1: Akihiko Nishide et al., (herein after “Nishide”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, A data processing apparatus that processes data of a plurality of slices acquired by a spectral CT device (Nishide, §Abstract: “acquiring a three-dimensional medical image obtained by capturing an inside of a body of the subject using at least one of X-ray CT, X-ray cone beam CT, MRI-CT, and an ultrasonic diagnostic device”, where CT imaging devices acquire images in slices of the target object.), the data processing apparatus comprising:
a processor (Nishide, P[0032]: “a processor”), wherein the processor
outputs a first image generated on the basis of the data to a display destination (Nishide, P[0024]: “FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an aspect of an integrated image display screen.”), receives setting of a region that is an analysis target, on the first image output to the display destination (Nishide, P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed.”),
analyzes a second image of the plurality of slices generated on the basis of the data to generate statistical information indicating a distribution of a material in the region for each slice (Nishide, P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed. The effective atomic number and the like are attribute information added to each pixel of the three-dimensional medical image. Thus, the pixel of the three-dimensional medical image can be specified based on the coordinate in the coordinate system of the three-dimensional medical image specified as described above, and the effective atomic number and the like added to the pixel can be extracted and displayed.”), where the second image is the next image from the plurality of images acquired, see P[0032]: “The information processing device 6 that has acquired the endoscopic images transmitted from the endoscope device 10 performs various types of information processing based on these endoscopic images”, in combination with P[0056]: “The type of the examination is, for example, an endoscopic examination, an X-ray CT examination, or an MRI-CT examination, and examination result images (an endoscopic image, an X-ray CT image, and an MRI-CT image) captured by the respective examination devices are generated as results of these examinations.” , and
outputs the statistical information to the display destination (Nishide, P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed. The effective atomic number and the like are attribute information added to each pixel of the three-dimensional medical image. Thus, the pixel of the three-dimensional medical image can be specified based on the coordinate in the coordinate system of the three-dimensional medical image specified as described above, and the effective atomic number and the like added to the pixel can be extracted and displayed.”).
Claims 14 and 15 recite features nearly identical to those recited in claim 1. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the second image is an effective atomic number image (Nishide, P[0112]: “In a case where the X-ray CT device or the cone beam CT device is used to capture the three-dimensional medical image, for example, dual energy CT (DECT) imaging may be performed to obtain an image in which a composition (body composition) of each pixel of the three-dimensional medical image can be identified by the effective atomic number (effective-Z).”), and
the processor analyzes the effective atomic number image of the plurality of slices generated on the basis of the data to generate statistical information indicating a distribution of an effective atomic number in the region for each slice (Nishide, P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed. The effective atomic number and the like are attribute information added to each pixel of the three-dimensional medical image. Thus, the pixel of the three-dimensional medical image can be specified based on the coordinate in the coordinate system of the three-dimensional medical image specified as described above, and the effective atomic number and the like added to the pixel can be extracted and displayed.”), where the second image is the next image from the plurality of effective atomic number images acquired, see P[0032]: “The information processing device 6 that has acquired the endoscopic images transmitted from the endoscope device 10 performs various types of information processing based on these endoscopic images”, in combination with P[0056]: “The type of the examination is, for example, an endoscopic examination, an X-ray CT examination, or an MRI-CT examination, and examination result images (an endoscopic image, an X-ray CT image, and an MRI-CT image) captured by the respective examination devices are generated as results of these examinations.”.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first image is an effective atomic number image (the plurality of slices generated from CT and combined to generate a 3D image are provided by Nishide, and see Fig. 6 of Nishide which discloses the plurality of slices being effective atomic number images according to Nishide, P[0112]: “In a case where the X-ray CT device or the cone beam CT device is used to capture the three-dimensional medical image, for example, dual energy CT (DECT) imaging may be performed to obtain an image in which a composition (body composition) of each pixel of the three-dimensional medical image can be identified by the effective atomic number (effective-Z).”, and
the processor outputs the effective atomic number image generated on the basis of the data to the display destination (Nishide, P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed.”), and
receives setting of the region on the effective atomic number image output to the display destination (Nishide, P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed.”).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the processor receives setting of a range of the second image that is the analysis target, and analyzes the second image within the set range to generate the statistical information is disclosed by Nishide in P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed. The effective atomic number and the like are attribute information added to each pixel of the three-dimensional medical image. Thus, the pixel of the three-dimensional medical image can be specified based on the coordinate in the coordinate system of the three-dimensional medical image specified as described above, and the effective atomic number and the like added to the pixel can be extracted and displayed.”, where the range for analyzing the target is the range of pixels selected within the ROI and displayed.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, wherein the processor outputs a screen for setting conditions for reconstruction in a case where the reconstruction is performed by changing the conditions, to the display destination, and displays the first image on the screen describes a user interacting with any portion of a process in relation to guiding imaging and reconstructing an image via a user interface, where Nishide discloses in P[0041]: “A display device I/F 26 is an interface for connecting the processor 20 for an endoscope and the display device 50. An input device I/F 27 is an interface for connecting the processor 20 for an endoscope and an input device such as the keyboard 15.”, and in P[0050]: “processing performed based on an execution command or an event input from the input unit 8.”, for P[0098]: “processing of reconstructing a plurality of axial images of cross sections”.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, wherein the processor outputs a screen for setting conditions for imaging and reconstruction to the display destination, and displays the first image on the screen describes a user interacting with any portion of a process in relation to guiding imaging and reconstructing an image via a user interface, where Nishide discloses in P[0041]: “A display device I/F 26 is an interface for connecting the processor 20 for an endoscope and the display device 50. An input device I/F 27 is an interface for connecting the processor 20 for an endoscope and an input device such as the keyboard 15.”, and in P[0050]: “processing performed based on an execution command or an event input from the input unit 8.”, for P[0098]: “processing of reconstructing a plurality of axial images of cross sections”.
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.
3. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide in view of US 20210118193 A1: Sota Torii et al., (herein after “Torii”).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood,
wherein the second image is a material discrimination image (the plurality of slices generated from CT and combined to generate a 3D image are provided by Nishide, and see Fig. 6 of Nishide which discloses the plurality of slices being material discrimination images.), and
the processor analyzes the material discrimination image of the plurality of slices generated on the basis of the data to generate statistical information indicating a distribution of a density, where Nishide discloses the processing of the plurality of slices and generates and displays pixel-wise statistical data relating to the effective atomic number of the materials, where the images are acquired using CT, which relies on the attenuation coefficient, μ, where the attenuation coefficient of a material is directly and linearly proportional to the electron density and both are in direct correlation to the effective atomic number. Fig. 6 of Nishide shows slices of CT data which show the attenuation coefficients of each region, where the attenuation coefficient indicates a distribution of density; However, the attenuation coefficient is not explicitly a “density value”.
Even though Nishide does not explicitly disclose utilizing a density value to indicate a distribution of densities within slices of CT images, Torii discloses generate statistical information indicating a distribution of a density value of the material in the region in P[0042]: “The material identification images include an effective atomic number image indicating the distribution of effective atomic numbers, as well as a surface density image indicating the distribution of surface densities, with respect to a plurality of materials included in the subject.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishide to utilize a density value for indicating material distribution within an image, as taught by Torii, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of improving the accuracy of material discrimination and reconstruction.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first image is a material discrimination image (the plurality of slices generated from CT and combined to generate a 3D image are provided by Nishide, and see Fig. 6 of Nishide which discloses the plurality of slices being material discrimination images.), and the processor
outputs the material discrimination image generated on the basis of the data to the display destination (Nishide, P[0024]: “FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an aspect of an integrated image display screen.”), and
receives setting of the region on the material discrimination image output to the display destination (Nishide, P[P0148]: “In the region for displaying information on a selected region of interest (ROI), an effective atomic number (effective-Z) of the intracorporeal site (pixel) in the selected region of interest (ROI) or information regarding a body composition such as fat or lactic acid may be displayed.”).
4. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nishide and Torii in view of “Effective Atomic Number Accuracy for Kidney Stone Characterization using Spectral CT” by M. Joshi et al., (herein after “Joshi”).
Regarding claim 3, where the combination of Nishide and Torri provides generating a histogram for analysis from Torii in P[0108]: “Based on histogram analysis …”, and a density value from Torii in P[0042]: “The material identification images include an effective atomic number image indicating the distribution of effective atomic numbers, as well as a surface density image indicating the distribution of surface densities, with respect to a plurality of materials included in the subject.” The combination of Nishide and Torii does not explicitly disclose that the histogram represents an area of each density value. That is, the combination of Nishide and Torii does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor generates a histogram indicating an area of each density value in the region for each slice, as the statistical information.
However, Joshi discloses wherein the processor generates a histogram indicating an area of each density value in the region for each slice, as the statistical information in Fig. 7, where it shows a histogram showing the distribution of the effective atomic number in a typical abdominal slice shown in Fig. 6 of Joshi, where Torii provides, from the above rejection of claim 2, incorporating a density image and utilizing the density values directly instead of a value linearly proportional to the density value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Nishide and Torii to provide a histogram showing areas indicative of density value distribution, as taught by Joshi, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of providing more information for analysis to improve the output of the final model.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the processor receives setting of a range of the density value to be displayed in the histogram, and generates the histogram within the set range of the density value where the setting of a range of the density value is provided to the processor by the range of density values detected which are then utilized for generating the histogram, therefore the range of density values to be generated in the histogram is set in relation to the lowest and highest density value detected in the analysis. See Joshi in Fig. 7, where it shows a histogram showing the distribution of the effective atomic number in a typical abdominal slice shown in Fig. 6 of Joshi, where Torii provides, from the above rejection of claim 2, incorporating a density image and utilizing the density values directly instead of a value linearly proportional to the density value.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide in view of “Effective Atomic Number Accuracy for Kidney Stone Characterization using Spectral CT” by M. Joshi et al., (herein after “Joshi”).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the processor generates a histogram indicating a count number of each effective atomic number in the region for each slice, as the statistical information, where Nishide generates a histogram for analysis, but does not explicitly disclose generating a histogram indicating a count number of each effective atomic number.
However, Joshi explicitly discloses wherein the processor generates a histogram indicating a count number of each effective atomic number in the region for each slice, as the statistical information in Fig. 7: “Histogram showing distribution of effective atomic number, Zeff, in a typical abdominal scan”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishide to provide a histogram showing areas indicative of density value distribution, as taught by Joshi, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of providing more information for analysis to improve the output of the final model.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide in view of “An improved physics model for multi-material identification in photon counting CT” by Xu Dong et al., (herein after “Dong”).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the spectral CT device is a photon counting CT device, Nishide discloses utilizing various CT methods including X-ray CT, X-ray cone beam CT, MRI-CT, but does not explicitly disclose utilizing a photon counting CT (PCCT) device for acquiring image data. However, Dong discloses utilizing a PCCT device for medical imaging in the §Abstract: “Photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) with energy discrimination capabilities hold great potentials to improve the limitations of the conventional CT, including better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), improved contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), lower radiation dose, and most importantly, simultaneous multiple material identification.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishide to utilize PCCT over older, traditional CT, as taught by Dong, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of improving the limitations of conventional CT, including better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), improved contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), lower radiation dose, and most importantly, simultaneous multiple material identification.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to TY M BEATTY whose telephone number is (703) 756-5370. The examiner can normally
be reached Mon-Fri: 8AM-4PM 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,
Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272 - 3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this
application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional
questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)
or 571-272-1000.
/TY MITCHELL BEATTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights