Patent Application 17825650 - INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD MEDICAL IMAGE - Rejection

Patent Application 17825650 - INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD MEDICAL IMAGE

Title: INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, MEDICAL IMAGE DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING METAL ARTIFACT IMAGES

Application Information

• Invention Title: INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, MEDICAL IMAGE DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING METAL ARTIFACT IMAGES
• Application Number: 17825650
• Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-05-26T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-05-26T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 378
• National Sub-Class: 004000
• Examiner Employee Number: 88558
• Art Unit: 2884
• Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0036609🔗

Office Action Text

    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 § 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.

Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuppala et al. (2022/0036609).
Regarding claim 1, Vuppala discloses a method of processing an x-ray image, comprising: obtaining first lower-radiation dose three-dimensional image data during a first scan of a patient: and detecting, using a trained neural network, a presence of an artifact in the first lower- radiation dose three-dimensional image data. (Vuppala, [0025])
Regarding the subject matter added via amendment previously found in claim 5, Vuppala further discloses obtaining second higher-radiation dose three-dimensional image data during a second scan of the patient; and applying artifact correction to the second higher-radiation dose three-dimensional image data if the trained neural network detects the presence of the artifact. (Vuppala, [0073], [0076])
Vuppala does not explicitly disclose omitting the artifact correction step in the event the trained neural network does not detect the presence of an artifact.
However this step is obvious as the omission of an undesired step when its function is not desired.  See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A).  In this case, if the trained neural network does not detect an artifact, the artifact correction procedure for the image data is unnecessary and therefore obvious to omit.
Regarding claim 2, Vuppala further discloses the artifact is a metal artifact. (Vuppala, [0064])
Regarding claim 3, Vuppala further discloses the trained neural network is a trained binary classification neural network trained to detect the presence of the artifact. (Vuppala, [0063])
Regarding claim 4, Vuppala further discloses the trained neural network is a trained classification neural network trained to detect a presence of plural artifacts of different materials. (Vuppala, [0064])
	Claims 9-13 and 18 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-5, as they have the same substantive limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Vuppala further discloses an x-ray transmitter and an x-ray detector for acquiring the first lower-radiation close three-dimensional image data during the first scan of a patient. (Vuppala [0009], [0010])
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuppala.
	Regarding claims 6-8 and 14-16, each of half-scan, full-scan, and sparse reconstructions are well-known in the art of CT reconstructions, and applying the artifact detection technique of Vuppala to conventional CT reconstruction techniques would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to detect artifacts therein.
Response to Arguments
	Applicant argues that Vuppala does not disclose omitting the artifact correction step where the artifact is not present.  If an artifact is not present, no correction is necessary.  Omission of the unnecessary is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Dave Porta can be reached at 571-272-2444. 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.





/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884