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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-21 remain pending in the application, claims 4-5, 13, and 14 have been canceled, and claims 6-9 and 15 have been previously withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5, 10-12, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites, “determining a temporal course of a contrast agent concentration in the examination region based upon the raw X-ray data affected by contrast agent and the virtual baseline image”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation,
recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the
mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a
computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the
steps. The determining steps require using comparing multiple CT images that have been separated by material decomposition to determine the distribution and course of the contrast. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim recites the following additional elements of “generating a plurality of virtual native images by generating a virtual native image from each image of the plurality of images via material decomposition”, “generating a virtual baseline image as an average of the plurality of virtual native images, each of the plurality of virtual native images and the virtual baseline image showing images of the examination region without the contrast agent” “wherein the recording of the raw x-ray data results in a plurality of images acquired of an examination region at successive time instants”. Generating, recording and receiving a plurality of images is a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- this claim is part of the judicial exception as recited above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the multi-energy CT image acquisition is s carried out with a photon-counting X-ray detector.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. As a whole, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- this claim is part of the judicial exception as recited above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition”.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. As a whole, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 3 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites “wherein the virtual baseline image is determined as an averaged image based upon the plurality of respective virtual native images”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation,
recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the
mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a
computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the
steps. The determining steps require using the image data obtained from the virtual native images, and averaging the values within the data set, to determine the virtual baseline image. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program, directly loadable into a storage facility of a computed tomography system, including program sections to carry out the method of claim 1 when the computer program is executed in the computed tomography system, is recited and is therefore, a machine/device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- this claim is part of the judicial exception as recited above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program sections, readable in and executable by a computer unit, to carry out the method of claim 1 when the program sections are executed by the computer unit., is recited and is therefore, a machine/device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- this claim is part of the judicial exception as recited above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- this claim is part of the judicial exception as recited above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition”.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea. As a whole, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- a non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program, directly loadable into a storage facility of a computed tomography system, including program sections to carry out the method of claim 2 when the computer program is executed in the computed tomography system.
is recited and is therefore, a machine/device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- this claim is part of the judicial exception as recited above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 17,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program sections, readable in and executable by a computer unit, to carry out the method of claim 2 when the program sections are executed by the computer unit, is recited and is therefore, a machine/device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- this claim is part of the judicial exception as recited above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 18,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites “wherein the determining the temporal course of the contrast agent concentration in the examination region includes subtracting the virtual baseline image from raw X-ray data affected by the contrast agent”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation,
recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the
mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a
computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the
steps. The determining the temporal course step includes using a generic computer as a tool to subtract the virtual baseline image from raw X-ray data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 19,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites “wherein the material decomposition determines a proportion of the water and a proportion of contrast agent in the raw X-ray data.”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation,
recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the
mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a
computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the
steps. Calculating the proportion can be performed using a pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 20,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites “wherein each of the plurality of virtual native images is determined based upon the proportion of water of the material decomposition”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation,
recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the
mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a
computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the
steps. Calculating the proportion can be performed using a pen and paper, which can then be used as a part of the native images. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 20 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 21,
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes- A CT perfusion data determination method, is disclosed, and therefore, is a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites “wherein the material decomposition occurs in image data space”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation,
recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the
mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a
computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the
steps. Performing the material decomposition within the image space can be performed using a pen and paper or a generic computer. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No – The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 21 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al (US 20220254016 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”), Kakadaris et al (US 20080051660 A1, hereinafter “Kakadaris”), and Flohr et al. (US 20130034212 A1, hereinafter “Flohr”).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman teaches a CT perfusion data determination method, comprising:
recording raw X-ray data affected by contrast agent and generated by way of spectral or multi-energy CT image acquisition (contrast enhanced multi-energy CT scan [0029]), wherein a plurality of images have been acquired from an examination region at successive time instants ([0018] discloses recording images at two different/successive time instants at an examination region);
generating a plurality of virtual native images by generating a virtual native image from each image of the plurality of images via material decomposition ([0043] discloses material decomposition to form images, i.e. virtual native images, made of two separate materials);
generating a virtual baseline image…each of the plurality of virtual native images and the virtual baseline image showing images of the examination region without the contrast agent; and [0043] discloses using material decomposition to form separate images, which also forms Virtual Non-Contrast (VNC), i.e. virtual native image; multiple VNC images are formed, as disclosed in [0046]).
Hoffman, however, does not teach generating a virtual baseline image as an average of the plurality of virtual native images, and determining a temporal course of a contrast agent concentration in the examination region based upon the raw X-ray data affected by contrast agent and the virtual baseline image.
Kakadaris is considered analogous to the instant application as “Methods and apparatuses for medical imaging” is disclosed (title).
Kakadaris teaches generating a virtual baseline image as an average of the plurality of virtual native images, each of the plurality of virtual native images and the virtual baseline image showing images of the examination region without the contrast agent (averaging a pre-injection ROI images to obtain a pre-injection baseline of the non-contrast ROI [0187]-[0188]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Hoffman to include generating a virtual baseline image as an average of the plurality of virtual native images, each of the plurality of virtual native images and the virtual baseline image showing images of the examination region without the contrast agent, as taught by Kadaris. Doing so would allow to detect regions of contrast perfusion into a vessel wall, as suggested by Kadaris ([0178]).
The combined inventions still does not teach determining a temporal course of a contrast agent concentration in the examination region based upon the raw X-ray data affected by contrast agent and the virtual baseline image.
Flohr is considered analogous to the instant application as “Contrast agent-enhanced imaging during radiation therapy” is disclosed. Flohr teaches:
and determining a temporal course of a contrast agent concentration ([0056] administering the contrast agent, in the time range in which the irradiation usually takes place (generally a few minutes) [0056]; The administration of the contrast agent can be coordinated with the time instant of the irradiation session such that the contrast agent dispenses with its contrast-enhancing property for the duration of the irradiation session [0062]) in the examination region based upon the raw X-ray data affected by contrast agent ([0046]-[0047] and [0066]-[0077] disclose administering contrast agent and obtaining dual energy CT/CT imaging acquired at multiple energies) and the virtual baseline image ([0047] and [0069]) discloses deriving/calculating non-contrast images from the raw X-ray data from when contrast was administered; [0063] discloses that the contrast-enhanced x-ray images can be registered during the course of an irradiation, i.e. temporal course of the contrast agent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include determining a temporal course of a contrast agent concentration in the examination region based upon the raw X-ray data affected by contrast agent and the virtual baseline image, as taught by Flohr. Doing so would allow for the allow for the patient to no longer exposed to an additional radiation dose. The risk of the two recordings not being able to fuse precisely, i.e. by moving between the two recording time instances, is reduced, as suggested by Flohr ([0053]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hoffman further teaches a non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program, directly loadable into a storage facility of a computed tomography system, including program sections to carry out the method of claim 1 when the computer program is executed in the computed tomography system (software executable by the processor stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hoffman further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program sections, readable in and executable by a computer unit, to carry out the method of claim 1 when the program sections are executed by the computer unit (software executable by the processor stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium [0030]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above. Shin further teaches a non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program (software executable by the processor stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium [0030]), directly loadable into a storage facility of a computed tomography, including program sections to carry out the method of claim 2 when the computer program is executed in the computed tomography system (The system includes a display, a processor, software executable by the processor stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium. The software is configured to process a functional residual capacity contrast enhanced multi-energy CT scan [0032]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Shin teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above. Shin further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program sections, readable in and executable by a computer unit, to carry out the method of claim 2 when the program sections are executed by the computer unit (The system includes a display, a processor, software executable by the processor stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium [0032]).
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 20220254016 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”) in view of Kakadaris et al (US 20080051660 A1, hereinafter “Kakadaris”), Flohr et al. (US 20130034212 A1, hereinafter “Flohr”) and Kappler et al. (US 20140072098 A1, hereinafter "Kappler").
Regarding claim 2, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Shin, however, does not teach wherein the multi-energy CT image acquisition is carried out with a photon-counting X-ray detector.
Kappler is considered analogous to the instant application as “X-ray system and method to generate image data” is disclosed (title). Keppler teaches the multi-energy CT image acquisition (The x-ray source is an x-ray tube that preferably can be operated according to the dual energy or multi-energy principle[0009]) is carried out with a photon-counting X-ray detector (The monitor detector can have a number of photon-counting detector elements [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include, the multi-energy CT image acquisition is carried out with a photon-counting X-ray detector, as taught by Kappler. Doing so would allow to have advantage of a precise measurement of the x-ray photons emitted by the x-ray source and striking the detector surface of the monitor detector in the primary radiation direction, as suggested by Kappler ([0027]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hoffman, however, is silent regarding an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition.
Kappler, however, teaches an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition (The at least two energy thresholds are advantageously selected to be situated far from one another in the sense of a high energy separation and, for example, lie at energy levels that correspond to a voltage of 80 kV and 120 kV applied to the x-ray tube [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include, an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition, as taught by Kappler. Doing so would allow to have advantage of a precise measurement of the x-ray photons emitted by the x-ray source and striking the detector surface of the monitor detector in the primary radiation direction, as suggested by Kappler ([0027]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hoffman, however, is silent regarding an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition.
Kappler, however, teaches an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition (The at least two energy thresholds are advantageously selected to be situated far from one another in the sense of a high energy separation and, for example, lie at energy levels that correspond to a voltage of 80 kV and 120 kV applied to the x-ray tube [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include, an X-ray tube with 120 kV and low tube current is operated for CT image acquisition, as taught by Kappler. Doing so would allow to have advantage of a precise measurement of the x-ray photons emitted by the x-ray source and striking the detector surface of the monitor detector in the primary radiation direction, as suggested by Kappler ([0027]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 20220254016 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”) in view of Kakadaris et al (US 20080051660 A1, hereinafter “Kakadaris”), Flohr et al. (US 20130034212 A1, hereinafter “Flohr”) and Sakaguchi et al. (US 20130243301 A1, hereinafter "Sakaguchi").
Regarding claim 18, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hoffman, however, does not teach wherein the determining the temporal course of the contrast agent concentration in the examination region includes subtracting the virtual baseline image from raw X-ray data affected by the contrast agent.
Sakaguchi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Image-processing apparatus and x-ray diagnostic apparatus” is disclosed.
Sakaguchi teaches wherein the determining the temporal course of the contrast agent concentration in the examination region includes subtracting the virtual baseline image from raw X-ray data affected by the contrast agent ([0072] discloses subtract baseline frame from frames that include images that include contrast agent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include wherein the determining the temporal course of the contrast agent concentration in the examination region includes subtracting the virtual baseline image from raw X-ray data affected by the contrast agent, as taught by Sakaguchi. Doing so would allow for the observation value of the contrast material component as the estimation target can be accurately obtained, as suggested by Sakaguchi ([0073]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 20220254016 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”) in view of Kakadaris et al (US 20080051660 A1, hereinafter “Kakadaris”), Flohr et al. (US 20130034212 A1, hereinafter “Flohr”) and Li et al. (US 20190374183 A1, hereinafter "Li").
Regarding claim 19, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hoffman, however, does not teach wherein the material decomposition determines a proportion of water and a proportion of the contrast agent in the raw X-ray data.
Li is considered analogous to the instant application as “System and method for quantifying luminal stenosis using multi-energy computed tomography imaging” is disclosed (title).
Li teaches wherein the material decomposition determines a proportion of water and a proportion of the contrast agent in the raw X-ray data ([0046] discloses a material decomposition including water and iodine, i.e. contrast agent, from the image data, the ratio of the contrast agent is calculated within the image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include wherein the material decomposition determines a proportion of water and a proportion of the contrast agent in the raw X-ray data, as taught by Li. Doing so would allow for accurate and reproducible results, which are rather insensitive to different image acquisition parameters or conditions, as suggested by Li ([0009]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 19, as discussed above. Hoffman, however does not teach wherein each of the plurality of virtual native images is determined based upon the proportion of the water of the material decomposition.
Li, however, teaches wherein each of the plurality of virtual native images is determined based upon the proportion of water of the material decomposition ([0046] discloses a material decomposition including water and iodine, i.e. contrast agent, from the image data, the ratio of the contrast agent is calculated within the image, [0067] discloses producing images, i.e. virtual native images, based off material decomposition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include wherein each of the plurality of virtual native images is determined based upon the proportion of water of the material decomposition, as taught by Li. Doing so would allow for accurate and reproducible results, which are rather insensitive to different image acquisition parameters or conditions, as suggested by Li ([0009]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 20220254016 A1, hereinafter “Hoffman”) in view of Kakadaris et al (US 20080051660 A1, hereinafter “Kakadaris”), Flohr et al. (US 20130034212 A1, hereinafter “Flohr”) and Fan et al. (US 20190374174 A1, hereinafter “Fan”)
Regarding claim 21, modified Hoffman teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Hoffman, however, does not teach wherein the material decomposition occurs in image data space.
Fan is analogous to the instant application as “Computed tomography system and method configured to image at different energy levels and focal spot positions” us disclosed (title). Fan teaches the material decomposition occurs in image data space ([0093] and [0010] discloses material decomposition in the image space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Hoffman to include the material decomposition occurs in image data space, as taught by Fan. Doing so would allow for an improved overall image quality, as suggested by Fan ([0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 101 rejection, the applicant arguments on pages 7-9 that newly added amendments regarding “generating a plurality of virtual images…” and “generating a virtual baseline image…” do not recite a mental process. In response the examiner asserts that these newly added limitations recite a pre-extra solution activity of data gathering, see rejection above. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 1, applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the Hoffman does not teach the newly added limitation regarding “generating a virtual baseline image as an average of the plurality of virtual native images”. This argument is moot in view of new grounds of rejection which relies upon Kakadaris et al. (US 20080051660 A1), hereinafter “Kakadaris”, as outlined above. Accordingly, this argument is moot.
Applicant’s argument’s on page 11 regarding the 35 USC § 103 of the remaining claims that depend on claim 1, are premised upon the assertion that the claims are allowable due to dependency on claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NESHAT BASET whose telephone number is (571)272-5478. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-17:30 CST.
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 M. BUI-PHO can be reached on (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.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights