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
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1: line 2, “positron emission tomography (PET)”.
Claim 2: line 1, “wherein constructing [[a]]the target single frame image”.
line 6, “signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)”.
Claim 5: line 2, “standard uptake value (SUV)”.
Claim 10: line 2, “standard uptake value (SUV) value, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)”.
Claim 11: line 2, “positron emission tomography (PET)”.
Claim 12: line 6, “signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)”.
Claim 15: line 3, “standard uptake value (SUV)”.
Appropriate correction is needed.
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.
Claims 5 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 5 & 15: “normalizing the SUV value to obtain a normalized SUV value”. It is unclear what is meant by normalizing the SUV value to obtain a normalized SUV value. The phrase is redundant. SUV values are already normalized. As such, it’s unclear what this step of normalization is intended to achieve/refer to/correct. It is unclear if this is a second step of normalization such as taking the normalized SUV value and applying an additional normalization or not. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an additional normalization. Clarity is needed.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13, 17, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al (US 20200352537 A1).
Claim 1: Bai discloses, A medical image generation method, comprising: (¶Abstract, ¶0006-0009, Claim 1)
obtaining a PET dynamic image of a target part of a scanned object; (FIG. 1-2, ¶0028-0029, Claim 1, Claim 19, Bai discloses imaging a patient (scanned object) over a scheduled dynamic acquisition time and reconstructing one or more frames of the emitting imaging data which corresponds to obtaining a PET dynamic image.)
performing quality analysis on the PET dynamic image to determine a first single frame image that meets quality enhancement requirements, the first single frame image corresponding to an initial single frame duration; (¶0043-0044, Claim 10-11, ¶0021-0022, ¶0035, ¶0039, Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Bai teaches reconstructing an initially acquired portion of the emission imaging data to generate an initial image (first single frame image). Bai performs a quality analysis on this initial image by determining a count or count rate per unit volume for the initial image to evaluate if it has a sufficient count rate (i.e. quality enhancement requirements). The initial image corresponds to an initial portion of the acquisition which is the first 1-10 seconds of the scan which constitutes as the initial signal frame duration)
obtaining a second set of scanning data corresponding to a first single frame duration of the PET dynamic image when a count of coincidence events corresponding to the first single frame image is less than a count threshold, wherein the first single frame duration is obtained by extending the initial single frame duration; and (¶Abstract, ¶0006, ¶0030, ¶0032, ¶0035-0036, ¶0040, Claim 1 & 13, The tracking of the count of “coincident 511 keV detection events” (i.e., count of coincident events) during the initial portion of the acquisition. If the initially actual count rate is lower than expected or less than the assumed count rate (i.e., less than a threshold), the system dynamically adjustment the acquisition time upward, as known in the art. ¶0035, “For example, if the scheduled acquisition time is 5 minutes, the initial count rate may be the average count rate over the first 1-10 seconds of this scheduled 5 min acquisition time. If, for example, the measured initial count rate is lower than expected, then the acquisition time may be adjusted upward, e.g. to 6 min by way of non-limiting illustrative example.”, which constitutes an increased acquisition time of the first single frame duration obtained by extending the initial single frame duration. The data collected in the buffer over this adjusted, extended time period corresponds to the second set of scanning data.)
constructing a target single frame image of the target part based on the second set of scanning data, the count of coincidence events corresponding to the second set of scanning data being greater than or equal to the count threshold. (¶Abstract, ¶0006-0008, Claim 1, ¶0021, ¶0025, ¶0031, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0045-0046, Bai teaches reconstructing the emission imaging data acquired over the adjusted acquisition time to generate the final reconstructed image (i.e., the target single frame image). The extended acquisition time is calculated and adjusted to ensure that the total detected counts reach the target total counts (i.e., greater than or equal to the count threshold), to achieve the desired image quality.)
Claim 3: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Bai discloses: further comprising: determining the count threshold based on body parameters of the scanned object. (¶0019, ¶0025-0026)
Claim 4: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 3, Bai discloses: wherein determining the count threshold based on the body parameters of the scanned object comprising: (¶0019, ¶0025-0026)
obtaining a pre-stored correspondence and the body parameters, the correspondence comprising a correspondence between the body parameters and the count threshold; and (¶0049-0052)
determining the count threshold based on the body parameters and the correspondence. (¶0049-0052)
Claim 7: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Bai discloses: further comprising:
obtaining a corresponding scanning protocol (¶0019, ¶0053) corresponding to the target part, (¶0019, ¶0053) and locating the target part, (¶0019, ¶0025-0026, ¶0049, ¶0053) in response to obtaining a scanning instruction for the target part; (¶0051-0053), and
performing a PET dynamic scan on the target part according to the scanning protocol. (¶0008, Claim 19, ¶0019, ¶0021-0022, ¶0030-0031, ¶0052)
Claim 9: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Bai discloses: wherein obtaining the PET dynamic image of the target part of the scanned object comprising: (¶0008-0009, Claim 19)
determining the target part of the scanned object; (¶0019, ¶0025-0026, ¶0049, ¶0053)
performing a PET dynamic scan on the target part to obtain a PET image sequence of the target part; and (¶0008-0009, Claim 19, ¶0021-0022, ¶0030)
processing the PET image sequence through an image reconstruction algorithm to obtain the PET dynamic image. (¶0008-0009, Claim 1, Claim 19, ¶0030, ¶0038)
Claim 10: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Bai discloses: wherein the quality enhancement requirements comprise one or more of the following: a SNR being less than a set value (¶0019-0020, ¶0031-0032, ¶0035).
Claim 11: Bai discloses, An electronic device comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, performs a medical image generation method which comprises: (¶Abstract, ¶0006-0009, Claim 1)
obtaining a PET dynamic image of a target part of a scanned object; (FIG. 1-2, ¶0028-0029, Claim 1, Claim 19, Bai discloses imaging a patient (scanned object) over a scheduled dynamic acquisition time and reconstructing one or more frames of the emitting imaging data which corresponds to obtaining a PET dynamic image.
performing quality analysis on the PET dynamic image to determine a first single frame image that meets quality enhancement requirements, the first single frame image corresponding to an initial single frame duration; (¶0043-0044, Claim 10-11, ¶0021-0022, ¶0035, ¶0039, Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Bai teaches reconstructing an initially acquired portion of the emission imaging data to generate an initial image (first single frame image). Bai performs a quality analysis on this initial image by determining a count or count rate per unit volume for the initial image to evaluate if it has a sufficient count rate (i.e. quality enhancement requirements). The initial image corresponds to an initial portion of the acquisition which is the first 1-10 seconds of the scan which constitutes as the initial signal frame duration)
obtaining a second set of scanning data corresponding to a first single frame duration of the PET dynamic image when a count of coincidence events corresponding to the first single frame image is less than a count threshold, wherein the first single frame duration is obtained by extending the initial single frame duration; and (¶Abstract, ¶0006, ¶0030, ¶0032, ¶0035-0036, ¶0040, Claim 1 & 13, The tracking of the count of “coincident 511 keV detection events” (i.e., count of coincident events) during the initial portion of the acquisition. If the initially actual count rate is lower than expected or less than the assumed count rate (i.e., less than a threshold), the system dynamically adjustment the acquisition time upward, as known in the art. ¶0035, “For example, if the scheduled acquisition time is 5 minutes, the initial count rate may be the average count rate over the first 1-10 seconds of this scheduled 5 min acquisition time. If, for example, the measured initial count rate is lower than expected, then the acquisition time may be adjusted upward, e.g. to 6 min by way of non-limiting illustrative example.”, which constitutes an increased acquisition time of the first single frame duration obtained by extending the initial single frame duration. The data collected in the buffer over this adjusted, extended time period corresponds to the second set of scanning data.)
constructing a target single frame image of the target part based on the second set of scanning data, the count of coincidence events corresponding to the second set of scanning data being greater than or equal to the count threshold. (¶Abstract, ¶0006-0008, Claim 1, ¶0021, ¶0025, ¶0031, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0041, ¶0045-0046, Bai teaches reconstructing the emission imaging data acquired over the adjusted acquisition time to generate the final reconstructed image (i.e., the target single frame image). The extended acquisition time is calculated and adjusted to ensure that the total detected counts reach the target total counts (i.e., greater than or equal to the count threshold), to achieve the desired image quality.)
Claim 13: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Bai discloses: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: determining the count threshold based on body parameters of the scanned object. (¶0019, ¶0025-0026)
Claim 14: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 13, Bai discloses: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: (¶0019, ¶0025-0026)
obtaining a pre-stored correspondence and the body parameters, the correspondence comprising a correspondence between the body parameters and the count threshold; and (¶0049-0052)
determining the count threshold based on the body parameters and the correspondence. (¶0049-0052)
Claim 17: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Bai discloses: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: obtaining a corresponding scanning protocol (¶0019, ¶0053) corresponding to the target part, (¶0019, ¶0053) and locating the target part, (¶0019, ¶0025-0026, ¶0049, ¶0053) in response to obtaining a scanning instruction for the target part; (¶0051-0053) and
performing a PET dynamic scan on the target part according to the scanning protocol. (¶0008, Claim 19, ¶0019, ¶0021-0022, ¶0030-0031, ¶0052)
Claim 19: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Bai discloses: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: (¶0008-0009, Claim 19)
determining the target part of the scanned object; (¶0019, ¶0025-0026, ¶0049, ¶0053)
performing a PET dynamic scan on the target part to obtain a PET image sequence of the target part; and (¶0008-0009, Claim 19, ¶0021-0022, ¶0030)
processing the PET image sequence through an image reconstruction algorithm to obtain the PET dynamic image (¶0019-0020, ¶0031-0032, ¶0035).
Claim 20: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Bai discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a medical image generation method of claim 1. (¶Abstract, ¶0006-0009, Claim 1)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 2 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al (US20200352537A1), as applied to claim 1 & 11, respectively, in further view of Vija et al (US 20100308817 A1).
Claim 2: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Bai fails to disclose: wherein constructing a target single frame image of the target part based on the second set of scanning data comprising: determining an intermediate single frame image of the target part based on the second set of scanning data;
obtaining a third set of scanning data corresponding to a second single frame duration when a SNR of the intermediate single frame image is less than a SNR threshold, wherein the second single frame duration is obtained by extending the first single frame duration; and
constructing the target single frame image based on the third set of scanning data, a SNR corresponding to the target single frame image being greater than the SNR threshold.
However, Vija in the context of medical image quality control systems discloses, wherein constructing a target single frame image of the target part based on the second set of scanning data comprising: determining an intermediate single frame image of the target part based on the second set of scanning data; (¶Abstract, ¶0035, ¶0040-0041, FIG. 3)
obtaining a third set of scanning data corresponding to a second single frame duration when a SNR of the intermediate single frame image is less than a SNR threshold, wherein the second single frame duration is obtained by extending the first single frame duration; and (¶0015-0016, ¶0042-0045)
constructing the target single frame image based on the third set of scanning data, a SNR corresponding to the target single frame image being greater than the SNR threshold. (¶0015-0016, ¶0042-0045)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target single frame image of Bai to incorporate the teachings of Vija. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as for optimization processing of the minimum acquisition time for improving the FSNR, as suggested by Vija, ¶0043.
Claim 12: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Bai fails to disclose: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: determining an intermediate single frame image of the target part based on the second set of scanning data; (¶Abstract, ¶0035, ¶0040-0041, FIG. 3)
obtaining a third set of scanning data corresponding to a second single frame duration when a SNR of the intermediate single frame image is less than a SNR threshold, wherein the second single frame duration is obtained by extending the first single frame duration; and (¶0015-0016, ¶0042-0045)
constructing the target single frame image based on the third set of scanning data, a SNR corresponding to the target single frame image being greater than the SNR threshold. (¶0015-0016, ¶0042-0045)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target single frame image of Bai to incorporate the teachings of Vija. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as for optimization processing of the minimum acquisition time for improving the FSNR, as suggested by Vija, ¶0043.
Claims 8 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al (US 20200352537 A1) in view of Vija et al (US 20100308817 A1), as applied to claim 2 & 12, respectively, in further view of Xu et al (CN 113081018 A).
Claim 8: Modified Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Bai fails to disclose: further comprising: outputting prompt information for prompting a user to determine whether to adjust a scanning duration; and adjusting the scanning duration based on the second single frame duration when trigger information for adjusting the scanning duration is obtained.
However, Xu in the context of PET medical imaging systems discloses: further comprising: outputting prompt information for prompting a user to determine whether to adjust a scanning duration; (¶Abstract, ¶0044, ¶0013, ¶0049-0050, ¶0058-0060) and adjusting the scanning duration based on the second single frame duration when trigger information for adjusting the scanning duration is obtained (¶0042, ¶0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of modified Bai to further incorporate the teachings of Xu. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the scanning efficiency as suggested by Xu, ¶0055.
Claim 18: Modified Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 12, Bai fails to disclose: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: outputting prompt information for prompting a user to determine whether to adjust a scanning duration; and adjusting the scanning duration based on the second single frame duration when trigger information for adjusting the scanning duration is obtained.
However, Xu in the context of PET medical imaging systems discloses: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: outputting prompt information for prompting a user to determine whether to adjust a scanning duration; (¶Abstract, ¶0044, ¶0013, ¶0049-0050, ¶0058-0060) and adjusting the scanning duration based on the second single frame duration when trigger information for adjusting the scanning duration is obtained (¶0042, ¶0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of modified Bai to further incorporate the teachings of Xu. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the scanning efficiency as suggested by Xu, ¶0055.
Claims 5-6 & 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al (US 20200352537 A1), as applied to claim 1 & 11, respectively, in further view of Voronenko et al (US 20240104767 A1).
Claim 5: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Bai fails to disclose further comprising: determining an SUV value of the target single frame image;
normalizing the SUV value to obtain a normalized SUV value of the target single frame image; and
determining a lesion condition of the target part based on the normalized SUV value.
However, Voronenko in the context of automatic target tracking and evaluation for radiotherapy discloses, further comprising: determining an SUV value of the target single frame image; (¶0008, ¶0012, ¶0019, ¶0100)
normalizing the SUV value to obtain a normalized SUV value of the target single frame image; and (¶0019, ¶0074, ¶0095)
determining a lesion condition of the target part based on the normalized SUV value. (¶Abstract, ¶0058, ¶0072, ¶0079, ¶0128, under the broadest reasonable interpretation a lesion condition is interpreted as accessing the physiological status. Voronenko uses the normalized SUV metric to evaluate whether the tumor has the appropriate biological properties to proceed with treatment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of Bai such that it futher incorporates the teachings of Voronenko. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the identifying of the location of a target region, especially in the context of treating metastatic disease, as suggested by Voronenko, ¶0004.
Claim 6: Modified Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Bai fails to disclose: wherein determining the lesion condition of the target part based on the normalized SUV value comprising:
obtaining a normalized SUV value corresponding to a reference lesion condition; comparing the normalized SUV value of the target single frame image with the normalized SUV value corresponding to the reference lesion condition to obtain a comparison result; and
determining the lesion condition of the target part based on the comparison result.
However, Voronenko as relied upon above discloses: wherein determining the lesion condition of the target part based on the normalized SUV value comprising: obtaining a normalized SUV value corresponding to a reference lesion condition; (¶0019, claim 88, ¶0058, ¶0072, ¶0079)
comparing the normalized SUV value of the target single frame image with the normalized SUV value corresponding to the reference lesion condition to obtain a comparison result; and (¶0019, Claim 88, ¶0127)
determining the lesion condition of the target part based on the comparison result. (¶0058, ¶0062, ¶0066, ¶0072, ¶0127)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of modified Bai such that it futher incorporates the teachings of Voronenko. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the identifying of the location of a target region, especially in the context of treating metastatic disease, as suggested by Voronenko, ¶0004.
Claim 15: Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Bai fails to disclose wherein the medical image generation method further comprises:
determining an SUV value of the target single frame image;
normalizing the SUV value to obtain a normalized SUV value of the target single frame image; and
determining a lesion condition of the target part based on the normalized SUV value.
However, Voronenko in the context of automatic target tracking and evaluation for radiotherapy discloses, wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: determining an SUV value of the target single frame image; (¶0008, ¶0012, ¶0019, ¶0100)
normalizing the SUV value to obtain a normalized SUV value of the target single frame image; and (¶0019, ¶0074, ¶0095)
determining a lesion condition of the target part based on the normalized SUV value. (¶Abstract, ¶0058, ¶0072, ¶0079, ¶0128, under the broadest reasonable interpretation a lesion condition is interpreted as accessing the physiological status. Voronenko uses the normalized SUV metric to evaluate whether the tumor has the appropriate biological properties to proceed with treatment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of Bai such that it futher incorporates the teachings of Voronenko. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the identifying of the location of a target region, especially in the context of treating metastatic disease, as suggested by Voronenko, ¶0004.
Claim 16: Modified Bai discloses all the elements above in claim 15, Bai fails to disclose: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: obtaining a normalized SUV value corresponding to a reference lesion condition;
comparing the normalized SUV value of the target single frame image with the normalized SUV value corresponding to the reference lesion condition to obtain a comparison result; and
determining the lesion condition of the target part based on the comparison result.
However, Voronenko as relied upon above discloses: wherein the medical image generation method further comprises: obtaining a normalized SUV value corresponding to a reference lesion condition; (¶0019, claim 88, ¶0058, ¶0072, ¶0079)
comparing the normalized SUV value of the target single frame image with the normalized SUV value corresponding to the reference lesion condition to obtain a comparison result; and (¶0019, Claim 88, ¶0127)
determining the lesion condition of the target part based on the comparison result. (¶0058, ¶0062, ¶0066, ¶0072, ¶0127)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of modified Bai such that it futher incorporates the teachings of Voronenko. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the identifying of the location of a target region, especially in the context of treating metastatic disease, as suggested by Voronenko, ¶0004.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights