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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-15 are drawn to a method, claims 17-18 are drawn to a system, and claims 19-20 are drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a method for setting protocol parameters, comprising:
1) obtaining a current setting value of a target protocol parameter in a scanning protocol to be verified, the current setting value being set by a user through a terminal device;
2) determining a statistical distribution situation of historical setting values of the target protocol parameter and a relative position of the current setting value in the statistical distribution situation; and
3) generating prompt information relating to parameter setting based on the relative position.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) obtaining a current setting value of a target protocol parameter in a scanning protocol to be verified, the current setting value being set by a user through a terminal device, 2) determining a statistical distribution situation of historical setting values of the target protocol parameter and a relative position of the current setting value in the statistical distribution situation, and 3) generating prompt information relating to parameter setting based on the relative position. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to determine and convey correct settings/parameters for a device.
Claim 1 also recites, in part, performing the step of 2) determining a statistical distribution situation of historical setting values of the target protocol parameter and a relative position of the current setting value in the statistical distribution situation. This step corresponds to Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 17 recites a system for setting protocol parameters, comprising a) a processing device and b) a display device, wherein:
the display device is configured to 4) display a current setting value of a target protocol parameter on c) a graphical user interface,
the processing device is configured to 5) obtain the current setting value, 6) perform a reasonableness verification on the current setting value to generate a parameter verification result, and 7) determine prompt information relating to parameter setting based on the parameter verification result, and
the display device is further configured to 8) display the prompt information on the graphical user interface, wherein the prompt information indicates that the current setting value of the target protocol parameter needs to be adjusted.
Claim 17 recites, in part, performing the steps of 4) display a current setting value of a target protocol parameter, 5) obtain the current setting value, 6) perform a reasonableness verification on the current setting value to generate a parameter verification result, 7) determine prompt information relating to parameter setting based on the parameter verification result, and 8) display the prompt information, wherein the prompt information indicates that the current setting value of the target protocol parameter needs to be adjusted. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to determine and convey correct settings/parameters for a device.
Claim 19 recites a system for setting protocol parameters, comprising:
d) at least one storage device storing a set of instructions; and
e) at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including:
9) in response to user operations on c) a graphical user interface of a terminal device, selecting a scanning protocol and a current setting value of a target protocol parameter of the scanning protocol;
10) obtaining and displaying a parameter value distribution chart corresponding to the scanning protocol on the graphical user interface, the parameter value distribution chart having an annotation that indicates a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart; and
11) generating a target scanning protocol in response to user adjustment instructions on the graphical user interface with respect to the current setting value.
Claim 19 recites, in part, performing the steps of 9) in response to user operations, selecting a scanning protocol and a current setting value of a target protocol parameter of the scanning protocol, 10) obtaining and displaying a parameter value distribution chart corresponding to the scanning protocol, the parameter value distribution chart having an annotation that indicates a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart, and 11) generating a target scanning protocol in response to user adjustment instructions with respect to the current setting value. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to determine and convey correct settings/parameters for a device.
Going forward, the above abstract concepts will be considered as a singular abstract idea for further analysis.
Depending claims 2-16, 18, and 20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 17, and 19, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-16, 18, and 20 all add functional steps to the abstract idea, while claims 5, 15, 18, and 20 include additional elements which are recited below. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 7-8 and 12 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 17, and 19 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a processing device, b) a display device, c) a graphical user interface, d) at least one storage device storing a set of instructions, e) at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations, f) a terminal device (from claims 5 and 15), and g) a scanning device (and it’s scanning functions from claims 18 and 20) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) a processing device, b) a display device, c) a graphical user interface, d) at least one storage device storing a set of instructions, and e) at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, for a lack of description of anything but what may be considered as generic components for these additional elements, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the f) terminal device and g) scanning device in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of f) amounts to mere data gathering and recitation of g) amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) a processing device, b) a display device, c) a graphical user interface, d) at least one storage device storing a set of instructions, e) at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations, f) a terminal device, and g) a scanning device to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity and certain mathematical steps. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates prompt information utilizing a) a processing device, b) a display device, c) a graphical user interface, d) at least one storage device storing a set of instructions, and e) at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Lastly, the f) terminal device and g) scanning device in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives data from the terminal device, and transmits the data to a scanning device over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2012/0213326 to Walker et al.
As per claim 1, Walker et al. teaches a method for setting protocol parameters, comprising:
--obtaining a current setting value of a target protocol parameter in a scanning protocol to be verified, (see: 902 of FIG. 9 and paragraph [0085] where there is reception of scan parameters (current settings of a target protocol parameter in a protocol to be verified)) the current setting value being set by a user through a terminal device; (see: claim 29 and paragraphs [0009] and [0085] where there is at least one scan parameter (current setting) of a scan protocol set by a user using an input device. Also see: 406 of FIG. 4 where there is selection of current scan protocols)
--determining a statistical distribution situation of historical setting values of the target protocol parameter and a relative position of the current setting value in the statistical distribution situation; (see: 414 of FIG. 4 and 908 & 912 of FIG. 9 where there is a determination of parameters that do not satisfy the policy. The term statistical distribution situation is broad and can apply to using historical policy data as indicated in paragraph [0038]. There is also a determination of a relative position between the policy and the current parameters) and
--generating prompt information relating to parameter setting based on the relative position (see: 912 of FIG. 9 where there is presentation of optimized replacement parameters based on the relative position of the current parameters with respect to the policy).
As per claim 2, Walker et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Walker et al. further teaches wherein the generating prompt information relating to parameter setting based on the relative position includes:
--performing a reasonableness verification on the current setting value of the target protocol parameter based on the relative position to obtain a parameter verification result, (see: 414 of FIG. 4 and 908 & 912 of FIG. 9 where there is a determination of parameters that do not satisfy the policy. The reasonableness verification applies to using historical policy data as indicated in paragraph [0038]. There is also a determination of a relative position between the policy and the current parameters) the parameter verification result indicating whether the current setting value is reasonable; (see: paragraph [0031] where there is a parameter verification result of displaying parameters in need of suggested changes, while other, reasonable parameters as not shown as needing changes) and
--in response to determining that the parameter verification result indicates that the current setting value is unreasonable, generating the prompt information, the prompt information including a reference parameter value of the target protocol parameter (see: paragraph [0033] where there is a notification needing to accept/reject a recommended scan parameter value. The prompt information here is displayed as a notification and it indicates the current setting value needs to be adjusted to the recommended parameter value).
As per claim 4, Walker et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Walker et al. further teaches wherein the determining a statistical distribution situation of historical setting values of the target protocol parameter includes:
--determining, based on a protocol database, a reference value range of the target protocol parameter as the statistical distribution situation, (see: 414 of FIG. 4 and 908 & 912 of FIG. 9 where there is a determination of parameters that do not satisfy the policy. The term statistical distribution situation is broad and can apply to using historical policy data as indicated in paragraph [0038]. There is also a determination of a relative position between the policy and the current parameters. There is a determination of a reference range here in the form of a policy which has reference parameters) wherein the protocol database stores reference value ranges for a plurality of protocol parameters of different types of reference scanning protocols (see: paragraph [0036] where there is a policy bank which stores the reference ranges for parameters in the form of policies).
As per claim 17, Walker et al. teaches a system for setting protocol parameters, comprising a processing device and a display device, wherein:
--the display device is configured to display a current setting value of a target protocol parameter on a graphical user interface, (see: paragraphs [0040] and [0063] where there is a display of current parameters and the suggested parameters)
--the processing device is configured to obtain the current setting value, (see: 902 of FIG. 9 and paragraph [0085] where there is reception (obtaining) of scan parameters (current settings of a target protocol parameter in a protocol to be verified)) perform a reasonableness verification on the current setting value to generate a parameter verification result, (see: 414 of FIG. 4 and 908 & 912 of FIG. 9 where there is a determination of parameters that do not satisfy the policy. The reasonableness verification applies to using historical policy data as indicated in paragraph [0038]. There is also a determination of a relative position between the policy and the current parameters) and determine prompt information relating to parameter setting based on the parameter verification result, (see: 912 of FIG. 9 where there is presentation of optimized replacement parameters based on the relative position of the current parameters with respect to the policy) and
--the display device is further configured to display the prompt information on the graphical user interface, (see: paragraph [0063] where there is a display of the suggested parameters on a graphical user interface) wherein the prompt information indicates that the current setting value of the target protocol parameter needs to be adjusted (see: paragraph [0033] where there is a notification needing to accept/reject a recommended scan parameter value. The prompt information here is displayed as a notification and it indicates the current setting value needs to be adjusted to the recommended parameter value).
As per claim 18, Walker et al. teaches the system of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Walker et al. further teaches a scanning device, (see: paragraph [0045] where there is a scanner) wherein:
--the display device is further configured to display a selected scanning protocol group on the graphical user interface before displaying the current setting value on the graphical user interface, (see: 504 of FIG. 5 where there is display of a group of protocols before displaying the current protocol) the selected scanning protocol group including one or more selected scanning protocols; (see: 504 of FIG. 5 where there is a group of protocols with one or more scanning protocols)
--the processing device is further configured to:
--determine whether the selected scanning protocol group matches a current scanning scene; (see: 514 of FIG. 5 where there is a determination if the selected protocol group matches the scene (policy))
--in response to determining that the selected scanning protocol group does not match the current scanning scene, generate navigation information indicating suggestions for modifying the selected scanning protocol group; (see: 514 and 516 of FIG. 5 where in response to a determination that there is no match (no satisfaction of the policy) there is generation of navigation information indicating suggestions/recommendation to modify the protocol) and
--generate a target protocol group matching the current scanning scene in response to user adjustment operations on the graphical user interface; (see: 516 and 518 of FIG. 5 where there is generation of a matching suggestion and finalization of selection) and
--the scanning device is configured to execute the target protocol group under the control of the processing device to scan a scanning object (see: 502 of FIG. 5 where there is execution of the protocol by the scanning device. The scanning device here is capable to execute various protocols to scan an object).
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0213326 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2020/0037919 to Kuang et al.
As per claim 3, Walker et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Walker et al. may not further, specifically teach wherein the determining a statistical distribution situation of historical setting values of the target protocol parameter includes:
--determining target historical scanning protocols corresponding to the scanning protocol;
--for each of the target historical scanning protocols, determining a quality assessment result of a scanning image corresponding to the target historical scanning protocol;
--selecting reference scanning protocols whose quality assessment results satisfy preset requirements from the target historical scanning protocols; and
--determining the statistical distribution situation based on the historical setting values of the target protocol parameter in the reference scanning protocols.
Kuang et al. teaches:
--determining target historical scanning protocols corresponding to the scanning protocol; (see: paragraphs [0015] and [0074] where there is a determination of previous protocols (parameters) corresponding to the scanning protocol (current parameters))
--for each of the target historical scanning protocols, determining a quality assessment result of a scanning image corresponding to the target historical scanning protocol; (see: paragraph [0040] where there is a determination of a quality assessment result of if the sequence is the same sequence)
--selecting reference scanning protocols whose quality assessment results satisfy preset requirements from the target historical scanning protocols; (see: paragraph [0015] and [0023] where there is selection of historical parameters/protocols whose quality assessment results (the sequence which defines if these are the same parameter) satisfy the protocols) and
--determining the statistical distribution situation based on the historical setting values of the target protocol parameter in the reference scanning protocols (see: paragraphs [0015], [0023], and [0059] where the statistical situation here includes an index (parameter value distribution chart) based on historical values).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to determine target historical scanning protocols corresponding to the scanning protocol, for each of the target historical scanning protocols, determining a quality assessment result of a scanning image corresponding to the target historical scanning protocol, select reference scanning protocols whose quality assessment results satisfy preset requirements from the target historical scanning protocols, and determining the statistical distribution situation based on the historical setting values of the target protocol parameter in the reference scanning protocols as taught by Kuang et al. in the method as taught by Walker et al. with the motivation(s) of improving efficiency of parameter adjustment (see: paragraph [0033] of Kuang et al.).
As per claim 7, Walker et al. teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Walker et al. may not further, specifically teach wherein the statistical distribution situation includes a parameter value distribution chart,
--the prompting information includes the parameter value distribution chart with an annotation, the annotation indicating a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart.
Kuang et al. teaches:
--wherein the statistical distribution situation includes a parameter value distribution chart, (see: paragraphs [0015], [0023], and [0059] where the statistical situation here includes an index (parameter value distribution chart)).
--the prompting information includes the parameter value distribution chart with an annotation, the annotation indicating a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart (see: paragraphs [0015], [0023], and [0059] where the prompting information here includes an index (parameter value distribution chart) and this index has annotations indicating relative positions of the current parameters on a chart).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the statistical distribution situation includes a parameter value distribution chart, the prompting information includes the parameter value distribution chart with an annotation, the annotation indicating a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart as taught by Kuang et al. in the method as taught by Walker et al. with the motivation(s) of improving efficiency of parameter adjustment (see: paragraph [0033] of Kuang et al.).
As per claim 19, Walker et al. teaches a system for setting protocol parameters, comprising:
--at least one storage device storing a set of instructions; (see: paragraph [0009] where there are instructions stored in a medium (storage device)) and
--at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations (see: paragraph [0026] where there is a processor and instructions which are executed by the processor) including:
--in response to user operations on a graphical user interface of a terminal device, selecting a scanning protocol and a current setting value of a target protocol parameter of the scanning protocol; (see: 902 of FIG. 9 where there is reception of user provided scan parameters. In response to a user’s input on a terminal, a scanning protocol (policy) and current setting value (user provided scan parameters) of a target parameter of the scanning protocol) and
--generating a target scanning protocol in response to user adjustment instructions on the graphical user interface with respect to the current setting value (see: 520 of FIG. 5 where there is employment of the protocol to scan a patient after there is finalization of the scan parameters selection. The finalization and creation of the scanning protocol is generation of a target scanning protocol. This is in response to user adjustment instructions of to accept/rejection suggestions on a display).
Walker et al. may not further, specifically teach:
--obtaining and displaying a parameter value distribution chart corresponding to the scanning protocol on the graphical user interface, the parameter value distribution chart having an annotation that indicates a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart.
Kuang et al. teaches:
--obtaining and displaying a parameter value distribution chart corresponding to the scanning protocol on the graphical user interface, (see: paragraphs [0015], [0023], and [0059] where an index (parameter value distribution chart) is being obtained and displayed) the parameter value distribution chart having an annotation that indicates a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart (see: paragraphs [0015], [0023], and [0059] where the index (parameter value distribution chart) indicates relative positions of the current parameters).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to obtain and display a parameter value distribution chart corresponding to the scanning protocol on the graphical user interface, the parameter value distribution chart having an annotation that indicates a relative position of the current setting value in the parameter value distribution chart as taught by Kuang et al. in the system as taught by Walker et al. with the motivation(s) of improving efficiency of parameter adjustment (see: paragraph [0033] of Kuang et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0213326 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2020/0037919 to Kuang et al. as applied to claim 7, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0209755 to Mishra et al.
As per claim 8, Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the parameter value distribution chart includes one of a bar chart, a sector chart, a dashboard chart, and a rectangular chart;
--different numerical bars in the bar chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter;
--different regions of the sector chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter;
--different regions of the dashboard chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter, and the dashboard chart includes a pointer as the annotation; and
--different regions in the rectangular graph indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter.
Mishra et al. teaches:
--wherein the parameter value distribution chart includes one of a bar chart, a sector chart, a dashboard chart, and a rectangular chart; (see: FIG. 7 where there is a bar chart as a parameter value distribution chart)
--different numerical bars in the bar chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter; (see: FIG. 7 where there are different numerical bars in a chart to indicate frequency of use of different values)
--different regions of the sector chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter;
--different regions of the dashboard chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter, and the dashboard chart includes a pointer as the annotation; and
--different regions in the rectangular graph indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter.
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious have to wherein the parameter value distribution chart includes one of a bar chart, a sector chart, a dashboard chart, and a rectangular chart, different numerical bars in the bar chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter, different regions of the sector chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter, different regions of the dashboard chart indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter, and the dashboard chart includes a pointer as the annotation, and different regions in the rectangular graph indicate the frequency of use of different value ranges of the target protocol parameter as taught by Kuang et al. in the system as taught by Walker et al. with the motivation(s) of depicting the information (see: paragraph [0120] of Mishra et al.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0213326 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2020/0037919 to Kuang et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0192619 to Sun.
As per claim 15, Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the scanning protocol includes a plurality of protocol parameters, and the method further includes:
--inputting current setting values of the protocol parameters in the scanning protocol into an image quality prediction model to obtain an image quality prediction result corresponding to the current setting values;
--determining whether the image quality prediction result satisfies preset requirements; and
--in response to determining that the image quality prediction result does not satisfy the preset requirements, receiving modified setting values of the protocol parameters input by the user through the terminal device until an image quality prediction result corresponding to the modified setting values satisfies the preset requirements.
Sun teaches:
--wherein the scanning protocol includes a plurality of protocol parameters, and the method further includes:
--inputting current setting values of the protocol parameters in the scanning protocol into an image quality prediction model to obtain an image quality prediction result corresponding to the current setting values; (see: paragraph [0106] where there is inputting of parameters into a simulation model (image quality prediction model) to obtain an image quality prediction result of a predicted output)
--determining whether the image quality prediction result satisfies preset requirements; (see: paragraph [0106] where the predicted output (image quality prediction) is compared with a desired output based on a cost function (preset requirements)) and
--in response to determining that the image quality prediction result does not satisfy the preset requirements, receiving modified setting values of the protocol parameters input by the user through the terminal device until an image quality prediction result corresponding to the modified setting values satisfies the preset requirements (see: paragraph [0106] where in response to a desired output not being reached, the parameters are adjusted/modified in order for the cost function to be satisfied).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the scanning protocol includes a plurality of protocol parameters, and the method further includes: inputting current setting values of the protocol parameters in the scanning protocol into an image quality prediction model to obtain an image quality prediction result corresponding to the current setting values, determining whether the image quality prediction result satisfies preset requirements, and in response to determining that the image quality prediction result does not satisfy the preset requirements, receiving modified setting values of the protocol parameters input by the user through the terminal device until an image quality prediction result corresponding to the modified setting values satisfies the preset requirements as taught by Sun in the method as taught by Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving the efficiency and accuracy of parameter determination (see: paragraph [0042] of Sun).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0213326 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2020/0037919 to Kuang et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2012/0213326 to Mohamed Sheikh Kathi et al.
As per claim 16, Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 2, see discussion of claim 2. Walker et al. further teaches wherein the reference parameter value is determined by:
--obtaining profile information of a scanning object; (see: paragraph [0028] where the parameter values for a protocol are selected based on the type of scan and previous scans. The profile information of the type of scan is being received here in order for this selection to be made) and
--determining the reference parameter value of the target protocol parameter by inputting the profile information and the statistical distribution situation of the historical setting values of the target protocol parameter into a parameter recommendation model, (see: paragraph [0028] where the parameter values for a protocol are selected based on the type of scan and previous scans. The reference parameter (parameter values) are being determined here by inputting previous scan information (statistical distribution situation) and profile information (type of scan) into the protocol selector model 202).
Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--the parameter recommendation model being a trained machine learning model.
Mohamed Sheikh Kathi teaches:
--the parameter recommendation model being a trained machine learning model (see: paragraph [0035] where there is training of a model).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have the parameter recommendation model being a trained machine learning model as taught by Mohamed Sheikh Kathi in the method as taught by Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of learning from a large number of inputs (see: paragraph [0035] of Mohamed Sheikh Kathi).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0213326 to Walker et al. in view of U.S. 2020/0037919 to Kuang et al. as applied to claim 19, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0361854 to Maccio et al.
As per claim 20, Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination teaches the system of claim 19, see discussion of claim 19. Kuang et al. teaches wherein the protocol database is configured to store parameter value distribution charts corresponding to the scanning protocol (see: paragraphs [0071] – [0072] where there is storage of the reference value and standard value of each performance index (distribution charts)).
The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise:
--sending the target scanning protocol or a combination of the target scanning protocol and a target image to a cloud server for verification, wherein the target image is obtained via a scanning device by performing a scan on a scanning object according to the target scanning protocol, and the cloud server stores an ecosystem database; and
--in response to that the cloud server completes the verification of the target scanning protocol, updating a protocol database by adding the target scanning protocol to the protocol database.
Maccio teaches:
--sending the target scanning protocol or a combination of the target scanning protocol and a target image to a cloud server for verification, (see: paragraph [0189] where data is being sent to a cloud system for validation. The data being that of the target scanning protocol was already taught in the base references, and claims from which this claim depends on) wherein the target image is obtained via a scanning device by performing a scan on a scanning object according to the target scanning protocol, (this does not need to be met as the previous limitation indicates optionality of having an image or not having an image) and the cloud server stores an ecosystem database; (see: paragraph [0211] where there is a processing server (ecosystem database)) and
--in response to that the cloud server completes the verification of the target scanning protocol, updating a protocol database by adding the target scanning protocol to the protocol database (see: paragraph [0189] where the server system can operate like a blockchain, which would mean that the data is added to the database after validation. The data being that of the target scanning protocol was already taught in the base references, and claims from which this claim depends on).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to send the target scanning protocol or a combination of the target scanning protocol and a target image to a cloud server for verification, wherein the target image is obtained via a scanning device by performing a scan on a scanning object according to the target scanning protocol, and the cloud server stores an ecosystem database and in response to that the cloud server completes the verification of the target scanning protocol, updating a protocol database by adding the target scanning protocol to the protocol database as taught by Maccio et al. in the system as taught by Walker et al. and Kuang et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of validating the data (see: paragraph [0189] of Maccio et al.).
No Art Rejections
Claims 5-6 and 9-14 do not have art rejections in view of any combination of references which could be used to reject these claims being unreasonable to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights