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 Objections
Claim 2 – 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 1 – 2, limitation "wherein reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises" should read "wherein said reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises".
Claim 3 line 1 – 2, limitation "wherein reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises" should read "wherein said reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises".
Claim 4 line 1 – 2, limitation "wherein dynamically updating by the PET/MR scanner the reference frame throughout the PET/MR scan comprises" should read "wherein said dynamically updating by the PET/MR scanner the reference frame throughout the PET/MR scan comprises".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 – 4 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 1 recites the limitation "most recent co-registered images" in line 7 – 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
First, there is only one co-registering step previously introduced in line 4 – 5. No additional limitation describes that such co-registering step is a repeated or iterative step. Second, the above co-registering step is performed with frame, there is no “images” limitation introduced in the above co-registering step. It is also unclear the scope of the above limitation, since there is no introduction of any “image” or repeating of co-registering step.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable images/frames.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "from previously reconstructed frames" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
There is only one frame reconstructed in line 4, and there is no additional limitation regarding the repeating or iteration of reconstruction steps to generate plurality of frames. It is also unclear the scope of the above “frames”, since the lacking of knowledge of the origin of such “frames”.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable images/frames.
Claim 2 recites limitations “Tz and Tx” in line 3 and “Ty, Rx, Ry, and Rz” in line 5. Without additional annotation, it is unclear the meaning of the above limitations. In addition, the above terms/symbols are not well-defined unique terms or abbreviations commonly used in the art. It is unclear the above terms/symbols are referring to which parameters or values.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable parameters/values.
Claim 3 recites limitation “dividing the frame and the reference frame with a sagittal plane in two equal sections” in line 3 – 4, and limitation "co-registering the two equal sections" in line 5.
First, regarding the dividing step, it is unclear the dividing is performed on each of the frame and reference frame, or it is performed to generate one section of the frame to be equal to another section of the reference frame.
Second, as known in the art, the co-registering is usually performed between two different frames/images with same imaged subject. However, the limitation "co-registering the two equal sections" in line 5 seems to describe co-registering two different imaged subjects. It is unclear how such co-registering is performed if the two equal sections are divided from same frame/image but containing two different subjects.
Thus, the above limitations render claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitations are interpreted as any reasonable co-registering step with any reasonable subjects.
Therefore, claim 1 – 3 and corresponding dependent claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 114299183 A; published on 04/08/2022) (hereinafter "Li").
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for combined PET/MR imaging ("FIG. 2 is an exemplary flowchart of a medical image processing method according to some embodiments of the present specification." [0033]; "… positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (PET-MRI) systems …" [0021]), the method comprising:
performing a PET/MR scan ("Step 210, acquiring multi-frame scan data of the scanned object." [0034]; "For example, dynamic PET images or static PET images are acquired with a PET scanner." [0036]) using a PET/MR scanner ("The imaging system may include a multimodal imaging system. Multimodal imaging systems may include … positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging (PET-MRI) systems …" [0021]), wherein performing the PET/MR scan comprises:
a) reconstructing by the PET/MR scanner a frame ("For example, dynamic PET images or static PET images are acquired with a PET scanner." [0036]; "… for the multi-frame target scan data after registration processing, image reconstruction can also be performed to obtain a static PET image or a dynamic PET image." [0062]) and co-registering the frame with a reference frame ("... the second model may obtain a deformation field 640 corresponding to the PET frame image based on the PET frame image and the reference frame, respectively ... the PET frame image may be corrected or registered based on the deformation field 640 to obtain a corrected or registered PET frame image 660." [0086]); and
b) dynamically updating by the PET/MR scanner the reference frame throughout the PET/MR scan ("… and the first model can output the reference frame 440." [0071]; see Fig.4 and Fig.6) by incorporating most recently co-registered images from previously reconstructed frames (see 112b rejection; "... the initial first model 450 may be supervised training based on the first training samples 460 to obtain the first model 430; wherein the first training samples 460 include a plurality of first training sample sets 470, each first The training sample set 470 may include a sample comparison image 470-1 and multiple frames of first sample scan data 470-2." [0074]; considering the comparison image, the sample set is a set of co-registered images).
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Feng et al. (US 2020/0211237 A1; published on 07/02/2020) (hereinafter "Feng").
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except wherein reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises: a) initially estimating Tz and Tx by co-registering a current frame to the reference frame; and b) subsequently estimating Ty, Rx, Ry, and Rz.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feng teaches wherein reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises:
a) initially estimating Tz and Tx ("In step 1210, the translation information based on the expectation information may be obtained. As used herein, the term “translation information” may refer to a translational motion of a subject along the x axis, the y axis, and/or the z axis. For example, a translational motion of the subject's center of mass along the x axis, the y axis, and/or the z axis may be obtained and may be defined as U(n), V (n), and W(n), respectively." [0148]) by co-registering a current frame to the reference frame ("In step 1105, a similarity between the reference image or the reference histogram and other images or histograms may be assessed." [0132]); and
b) subsequently estimating Ty, Rx, Ry, and Rz ("In step 1212, the rotation information based on the expectation information may be obtained. As used herein, the term “rotation information” may refer to the rotation angles of the subject around the x axis, the y axis, and/or the z axis. For example, rotation angles of the subject centered at the center of mass around the x axis, the y axis, and/or the z axis may be obtained and may be defined as α(n), β(n), and γ(n), respectively." [0150]; the Ty is determined in step 1210).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the deformation field as taught by Li with the detailed rigid motion matrix determination as taught by Feng. Doing so would make it possible that "the gated ECT data may be corrected and motion related data may be removed or compensated before image reconstruction" (see Feng; [0082]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Alam et al., (Challenges and Solutions in Multimodal Medical Image Subregion Detection and Registration; published online on 08/02/2018) (hereinafter "Alam").
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, except wherein reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises: a) dividing the frame and the reference frame with a sagittal plane in two equal sections, and b) independently co-registering the two equal sections.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Alam teaches wherein reconstructing the frame and co-registering the frame comprises: a) dividing the frame and the reference frame with a sagittal plane in two equal sections, and b) independently co-registering the two equal sections ("In subregion-based registration, medical images are first segmented into regions of interest (ROIs), and then registration is performed on one or more subregions." Page 25).
Alam teaches a fundamental concept of subregion-based registration, which encouraging the dividing of frame into subregions which includes two equal sections. Without further limitations, such dividing would be an obvious matter of design choice, especially when there are two different regions of interest on each of the half frame.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image registration as taught by Li with the subregion-based registration as taught by Alam. Such "registration provide more accuracy and efficiency because registration is restricted to specific regions within the image" (see Alam; Page 25).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Godenschweger et al. (Motion correction in MRI of the brain; published on 02/11/2016) (hereinafter "Godenschweger").
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Li further teaches wherein dynamically updating by the PET/MR scanner the reference frame throughout the PET/MR scan comprises estimating a motion transfer function from short PET frames live on the PET/MR scanner ("… the medical image processing system 100 may acquire multiple CT/MR images 610 through an image acquisition device and PET frame images 630 … the second model may obtain a deformation field 640 corresponding to the PET frame image based on the PET frame image and the reference frame, respectively." [0086]).
Li fails to explicitly teach using the motion transfer function in an MRI sequence to update gradient waveforms and correct for patient motion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Godenschweger teaches using the motion transfer function in an MRI sequence to update gradient waveforms and correct for patient motion ("Prospective correction techniques perform a real-time update of the image acquisition. The goal of prospective motion correction (PMC) is to keep the acquisition field of view (FoV) constant relative to the moving object. This implies that the FoV can be adapted to the object pose by changing the gradient encoding and system RF settings." Page R44 - 45 "During the scan, the motion data is acquired and the latest motion pose is used to apply the required translation and rotation by adjusting the gradients and frequencies." Page R45).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the deformation field as motion transfer function as taught by Li in the prospective motion correction (PMC) as taught by Godenschweger. Doing so would make it possible to provide "a flexible tool that can be implemented into all MR sequences provided the MR system is capable of dynamic updates during the sequence run-time", because "PMC has been demonstrated to be efficient in the prevention of motion artefacts originating from displacements between acquisition steps as well as sequence specific motion effects such as signal dropouts due to dephasing or misalignment of the encoding direction for diffusion or flow measurements" (see Godenschweger; Page R47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2019/0101655 A1; published on 04/04/2019) teach a method of PET image reconstruction using reference phase frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Anne M. Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/CHAO SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797