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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 03/03/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 - 24 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the rejection and references below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann et al. (US 2015/0078525 A1) in view of Ermes (US 2010/0172472 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Hofmann teaches an X-ray detector including a first detector module having a first detection region arranged in a first detection plane and a second detector module having a second detection region arranged in a second detection plane adjacent to the first detection region. Hofmann teaches that manipulation means orient the first and second detection planes so that normals to the respective surfaces intersect within a reference region, preferably at or near the radiation source/focal spot, thereby placing the detector modules in nonparallel planes directed toward the radiation source (Hofmann, Abstract; Fig. 1; Fig. 2A; [0007]-[0014], [0027]-[0032]).
Hofmann therefore teaches the claimed first and second radiation detectors, each having a planar radiation-receiving surface, wherein the planar surfaces are not parallel. Hofmann also teaches that the detector curvature/orientation is adjustable by manipulation means to accommodate different focus-detector distances (Hofmann, [0027]-[0033]; Figs. 3A-6D).
Hofmann does not expressly teach using the nonparallel first/second detector modules to capture first and second portion images at a plurality of positions and stitch those images.
Ermes teaches acquiring a first image of an object, rotating the radiation detector around the radiation source, acquiring a second image of the same object, and joining/stitching the first and second images to form an enlarged image field of view (Ermes, Abstract; Figs. 2B, 3A-3B; [0014]-[0025], [0029]-[0034]).
In view of the utility, in order to extend the effective image field of view while preserving known acquisition geometry and reducing stitching distortion, it would have been obvious to modify Hofmann's nonparallel, source-focused multi-module detector with Ermes's rotating-detector image-stitching workflow, as taught by Ermes [0015]-[0017], [0024]-[0031].
With regard to claims 2 and 16, Hofmann modified teaches the claimed invention according to claim 1 and further recites that a relative position of the first radiation detector with respect to the second radiation detector remains the same. Hofmann teaches adjacent detector modules 32a-32g connected and supported as a detector arrangement, with the detector modules arranged along a circular arc and oriented relative to each other by manipulation means (Hofmann, Figs. 2A-3A; [0030]-[0035]).
With regard to claims 3 and 17, Hofmann modified teaches the claimed invention according to claim 1 and further recites that the first and second radiation detectors are configured to move relative to the radiation source by rotating about a first axis relative to the radiation source [0027].
Ermes expressly teaches rotating the radiation detector around the radiation source between the first and second acquisitions (Ermes, Abstract; Fig. 2B; [0014]-[0021], [0046]). Ermes also teaches that the detector may be fixed to a rotatable gantry and rotated in a circular manner around the radiation source (Ermes, [0019]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to use that known rotating-detector acquisition in the Hofmann detector arrangement in order to extend the effective image field of view while preserving known acquisition geometry and reducing stitching distortion.
With regard to claim 11, Hofmann teaches detector modules having a plurality of sensors or pixels and describes the modules as multi-line detectors having pixels in multiple directions (Hofmann, [0031]-[0032]; Fig. 2B). Hofmann therefore teaches the claimed pixel arrays.
With regard to claim 12, Hofmann teaches detector modules having a rectangular detection area and depicts rectangular detector modules in the detector arrangement (Hofmann, [0032]; Figs. 1, 2A-2B, 5A-6D). Thus, the rectangular detector shape would have been taught or at least an obvious module shape for the Hofmann detector modules used in the combined system.
With regard to claim 15, Claim 15 is the method counterpart to claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann in view of Ermes and further in view of Star-Lack et al. (US 2009/0283682 A1).
With regard to claims 7 and 21, Hofmann modified teaches the base image sensor/stitching combination as discussed for claim 1. To the extent the combination does not expressly teach translation of the detector arrangement, Star-Lack teaches an imaging system in which detector assemblies may be moved by a positioning system in a direction perpendicular to the beam, including axial movement along the Z-axis, to align the detector assembly with the region of interest for image acquisition (Fig. 1; Fig. 10; [0029]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to add Star-Lack's known detector-translation positioning to the Hofmann-Ermes detector arrangement to align the detector field with a desired region of interest and increase acquisition flexibility (Star-Lack, [0039]-[0041]).
With regard to claims 8 and 22, Hofmann modified teaches the base image sensor/stitching combination as discussed for claims 1 and 7, but fail to expressly disclose that the first direction is parallel to the planar surface of the first radiation detector and the planar surface of the second radiation detector.
Star-Lack teaches axial detector movement along the Z-axis for detector assemblies, and its figures show flat detector assemblies extending along the axial direction, such that the axial translation direction is parallel to the detector plane/surface (Figs. 1, 10; [0029], [0039]-[0041]).
In view of the utility, to increase acquisition flexibility, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill int the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hofmann's to include the teaching such as that taught by Star-Lack's.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann in view of Ermes and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2014/0314196 A1).
With regard to claim 14, Hofmann and Ermes teach the image sensor/stitching combination for claim 1 as discussed above. To the extent Hofmann and Ermes do not expressly place the claimed image sensor in a computed tomography system, Zou teaches a medical imaging system including computed tomography, a frame/bore, an X-ray tube/radiation source, detector arrays/segments, a data acquisition system, and a processor for generating CT images from projection data (Zou, Abstract; Figs. 2-3; [0022]-[0029], [0036]-[0044]).
Zou further teaches tilted detector segments/detecting surfaces in CT imaging (Zou, Figs. 4-18; [0045]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious to use the Hofmann-Ermes detector/stitching arrangement in a CT system as taught by Zou to obtain CT projection data while benefiting from tilted/nonparallel detector geometry and increased effective coverage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 6, 9, 10, 13, 18-20, 23 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claims 4 and 18, These claims require the first rotation axis to be parallel to the planar surfaces of both the first and second radiation detectors. The present Hofmann-Ermes combination teaches nonparallel detector planes and detector rotation/stitching, but the present record does not clearly identify, with strong pin-cites, a rotation axis that is parallel to both nonparallel detector surfaces as claimed.
With regard to claims 5 and 19, These claims require further rotation about a second axis different from the first axis. The present record has general rotation/positioning teachings, but this shortened rejection does not rely on a clean teaching of the claimed two-axis rotation of the first and second detector pair relative to the radiation source.
With regard to claims 6 and 20, These claims require the radiation source to be on the first axis. The present record does not provide a clean, non-speculative citation showing the claimed radiation source on the same first axis used for the claimed detector-pair rotation.
With regard to claims 9 and 23, These claims require a translation direction parallel to the first detector surface but not parallel to the second detector surface. Although Hofmann teaches nonparallel surfaces, the present record does not cleanly show the specific translation-direction relationship recited by these claims.
With regard to claims 10 and 24, These claims require further translation along a second direction different from the first direction. The cited art teaches detector positioning and axial movement, but this shortened draft does not rely on a clean two-translation-direction teaching for the claimed detector pair.
With regard to claim 13, This claim requires the first radiation detector to be hexagonal. The present record does not identify a strong prior-art teaching of a hexagonal radiation detector shape in the relied-upon combination. A shape/design-choice rejection may be possible only with better evidence or a stronger articulated reason, but it is not included here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights