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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2022 and 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0076] “…which also maintains the integrity of the information corresponding to the physical that has been captured by the input sensors.” should read “…which also maintains the integrity of the information corresponding to the physical data that has been captured by the input sensors.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 15-17, 21, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrmann (WIPO/PCT 2013/093684 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Herrmann teaches a method for processing sensor signals that are representative of energy incident at a sensor or a system of sensors (abstract, “the present invention relates to an x-ray detector comprising a sensor unit (200, 300) for detecting incident x-ray radiation comprising number of sensor elements (230, 311-314)”),
the method comprising implementing across one or more processors (claim 13, “A processor for use in an x-ray device having an x-ray detector comprising a sensor unit (200, 300) for detecting incident x-ray radiation comprising a number of sensor elements (230, 311-314)…”), the steps of:
receiving an output signal from a sensor; determining based on the received output signal, a first output value; (abstract; “…a counting channel (240) per sensor element generated in response to the incident x-ray radiation since a beginning of a measurement interval, an integrating channel (250) per sensor element for obtaining an integrating channel (250) per sensor element for obtaining an integration signal representing the total energy of radiation detected since the beginning of the measurement interval…”);
determining a second response function associated with the sensor (lines 7-10 on page 8);
determining a third output value based on the second output and a spectral response function associated with the sensor (claim 3, “…modeling x-ray beams incident on said saturated sensor elements from the object model and the spectrum of the x-ray beams in front of the object…”);
and implementing a processing step based on the determined third output value (claim 1, “…a processing unit (260) for estimating, from the integration signals of the sensor elements (321), count signals of sensor elements (311, 312) whose counting channel has been saturated during the measurement interval…”; claim 14). Note that Herrmann does not explicitly disclose the provision of first, second, and third output values and the calculations thereof. However, these are just basic mathematical concepts and can be easily derived from the disclosures of Herrmann.
Regarding claim 2, Herrmann teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the determined second output value is representative of a quantum of discrete units of energy incident on the first sensor; or the determined third output value is representative of energy incident at the first sensor (page 9, lines 15-20, lines 30-33, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Herrmann teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises any of a data processing step, a data presentation step, a data display step, or a step of comparing, consolidating, reconciling or compositing the third output value with any one or more other output values that have been determined based on output signal(s) received from the first sensor or from one or more other sensor(s) (page 9, lines 15-20, lines 30-33, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 7, Herrmann teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising implementing across the one or more processors, the steps of: receiving a second output signal from a second sensor; determining based on the received second output signal, a fourth output value; determining a fifth output value based on the fourth output value and a second intensity response function associated with the second sensor; and determining a sixth output value based on the fifth output value and a second spectral response function associated with the second sensor; wherein the processing step is implemented based on the determined third output value and the determined sixth output value (page 5, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 15, which is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Therefore, the rejection analysis of claim 1 equally applies here. Additionally, Herrmann teaches a system for processing sensor signals that are representative of energy incident at a sensor or a system of sensors, the system comprising: at least a first sensor; and at least one processor, wherein said at least one processor is configured to: receive in a first output signal from the first sensor; determine based on the received first output signal, a first output value; determine a second output value based on the first output value and a first intensity response function associated with the first sensor; determine a third output value based on the second output value and a first spectral response function associated with the first sensor; and implement a processing step based on the determined third output value (Fig. 6, Fig. 1, system 10).
Regarding claim 16, Herrmann teaches the system as claimed in claim 15, wherein: the determined second output value is representative of a quantum of discrete units of energy incident on the first sensor; or the determined third output value is representative of energy incident at the first sensor (page 9, lines 15-20, lines 30-33, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 17, Herrmann teaches the system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises any of a data processing step, a data presentation step, a data display step, or a step of comparing, consolidating, reconciling or compositing the third output value with any one or more other output values that have been determined based on output signal(s) received from the first sensor or from one or more other sensor(s) (summary of invention, page 2, lines 10-22).
Regarding claim 21, Herrmann teaches the system as claimed in claim 15, further comprising: at least a second sensor wherein the least one processor is further configured to: receive a second output signal from the [[a]] second sensor; determine based on the received second output signal, a fourth output value; determine a fifth output value based on the fourth output value and a second intensity response function associated with the second sensor; and determine a sixth output value based on the fifth output value and a second spectral response function associated with the second sensor; and wherein the processing step is implemented based on the determined third output value and the determined sixth output value (page 5, lines 6-25).
Regarding claim 29, which is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Therefore, the rejection analysis of claim 1 equally applies here. Additionally, Herrmann teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer code for implementing a method of processing sensor signals that are representative of energy incident at a sensor or a system of sensors, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer usable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, the computer readable program code comprising instructions for implementing within a processor based computing system, the steps of: receiving a first an output signal from a first sensor; determining based on the received first output signal, a first output value; determining a second output value based on the first output value and an intensity response function associated with the first sensor; determining a third output value based on the second output value and a first spectral response function associated with the first sensor; and implementing a processing step based on the determined third output value (summary of invention, page 2, lines 9-11; page 3, lines 10-17; page 18, lines 28-31).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Steffanson (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0073931 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 4 and 18, Herrmann shows the method of claim 1 and system of claim 15, features of the claimed invention, except for the first sensor as an image sensor that corresponds to the pixel values that represents different PhotoQuantity and EnergyQuantity values calculated by applying an intensity response function. However, Herrmann fails to teach the following limitation as further recited: the determined first output value based on the output signal received from the image sensor comprises a pixel value P(i) corresponding to a pixel I within an output image received from the image sensor; the determined second output value is a PhotoQuantity value Q(i) corresponding to pixel i, wherein said PhotoQuantity value Q() is determined by applying an intensity response function F that is associated with the image sensor to the pixel value P(i); and the determined third output value is an EnergyQuantity value E(i) that represents energy incident at pixel i, wherein said EnergyQuantity value E(i) is determined by applying a spectral response function G that is associated with the image sensor to the PhotoQuantity value Q(i).
Steffanson teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first sensor is an image sensor; the determined first output value based on the output signal received from the image sensor comprises a pixel value P(i) corresponding to a pixel i within an output image received from the image sensor; the determined second output value is a PhotoQuantity value Q(i) corresponding to pixel i, wherein said PhotoQuantity value Q() is determined by applying an intensity response function F that is associated with the image sensor to the pixel value P(i); and the determined third output value is an EnergyQuantity value E(i) that represents energy incident at pixel i, wherein said EnergyQuantity value E(i) is determined by applying a spectral response function G that is associated with the image sensor to the PhotoQuantity value Q(i) (Steffanson [0032]: the sensor is part of a high pixel-density pixel sensor array; [0057]: the micromechanical pixel requires geometric proportions, [0063]: the light sensor captures the change of the reflected light rays and this signal is processed into a pixel bit value representing the incident radiation intensity). Incorporating the precise light intensity values in the form of a calculated pixel bit value taught by Steffanson with photon-based spectral CT systems of Herrmann for more accurate energy counting information will significantly improve the safety of human objects and devices applied for medical imaging purposes and more. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor technology art at the time of the invention to modify the method processing sensor signals as disclosed by Herrmann, with the PhotoQuantity value and EnergyQuantity value calculations as taught by Steffanson.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
424
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Herrmann teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on a display device (Herrmann page 17, lines 13-15). However, Herrmann fails to teach representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on a display device. Steffanson teaches how to calculate the EnergeyQuantity value E(i) through geometric means (Steffanson [0032]: the sensor is part of a high pixel-density pixel sensor array; [0057]: the micromechanical pixel requires geometric proportions, [0063]: the light sensor captures the change of the reflected light rays and this signal is processed into a pixel bit value representing the incident radiation intensity). Modifying the display device of Herrmann with the calculations of Steffanson to accurately measure the sensor signal intensity levels would prove essential to quantifying the energy displayed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method processing sensor signals and calculations of Steffanson to include the display device of Hermann.
Regarding claim 19, Herrmann in the combination further teaches the system as claimed in claim 18, wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on a display device. (Herrmann page 17, lines 13-15). Thus, the combined teachings of Herrmann and Steffanson would have rendered obvious the method processing sensor signals and calculations on the display device as claimed.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Steffanson as applied to claims 1-5, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Schiller (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0259135 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Herrmann and Steffanson as a whole fails to teach the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on the display device comprises: identifying a bit depth associated with the display device; identifying a range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the identified bit depth; quantizing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) to generate a discrete color value within the range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the bit depth associated with the display; and rendering the generated discrete color value on the display device.
Schiller teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on the display device comprises: identifying a bit depth associated with the display device; identifying a range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the identified bit depth; quantizing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) to generate a discrete color value within the range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the bit depth associated with the display; and rendering the generated discrete color value on the display device (Schiller Abstract, Fig. 4, [0017]-[0018]). Furthermore, Herrmann does not address converting the EnergyQuanity value to a bit depth associated with the display device through identifying a range of discrete color values capable of being represented. Combining the display device of Herrmann with the color filter mosaic optical system of Schiller would remedy these deficiencies by allowing the display of a more sophisticated light filtering system by color information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the display device of Herrmann to include the color filter mosaic optical system of Schiller. The motivation factor for incorporating the teaching of Schiller into the combination of Herrmann and Steffanson is as follow:
PNG
media_image4.png
144
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Schiller in the combination teaches the system as claimed in claim 18, wherein representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on the display device comprises: identifying a bit depth associated with the display device; identifying a range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the identified bit depth; quantizing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) to generate a discrete color value within the range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the bit depth associated with the display; and rendering the generated discrete color value on the display device (Schiller Abstract, Fig. 4, [0017]-[0018]). Furthermore, Herrmann does not address converting the EnergyQuanity value to a bit depth associated with the display device through identifying a range of discrete color values capable of being represented. Combining the display device of Herrmann with the color filter mosaic optical system of Schiller would also remedy these deficiencies by allowing the display of a more sophisticated light filtering system by color information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the display device of Herrmann to include the color filter mosaic optical system of Schiller. The motivation factor for incorporating the teaching of Schiller into the combination of Herrmann and Steffanson is as follow:
PNG
media_image4.png
144
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 December 17, 2025
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668