DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1,4,5,8,11,19 and 13,18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIEMKER et al. (WO 2019/110313 A1: Published: 13 June 2019) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Yamamoto et al. (Impact of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Pulmonary Ventilation Imaging-Based Functional Avoidance for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy) and Oraevsky et al. (US 2014/0039293 A1):
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIEMKER et al. (WO 2019/110313 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Yamamoto et al. (Impact of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Pulmonary Ventilation Imaging-Based Functional Avoidance for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy) and Oraevsky et al. (US 2014/0039293 A1) as applied in claims 1,4,5,8,11,19 and 13,18 and 20 above further in view of SHIMAMURA (JP 2019-030492 A) with machine translation:
Claim(s) 7,9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIEMKER et al. (WO 2019/110313 A1: Published: 13 June 2019) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Yamamoto et al. (Impact of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Pulmonary Ventilation Imaging-Based Functional Avoidance for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy) and Oraevsky et al. (US 2014/0039293 A1) as applied in claims 1,4,5,8,11,19 and 13,18 and 20 above further in view of ERHARD (US 2019/0114815 A1: Published: 18 Apr 2019):
PNG
media_image1.png
589
136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks are filed 3/20/2026. Claims 1,4-11,19 and 13,18 and 20 pending:
PNG
media_image1.png
589
136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026, REMARKS, pages 6-8: “Step 2A Prong One”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Step 2A Prong One
Applicants state in page 6, bullet “2.” that the claims --do not set forth any mathematical relationship1, formula, or calculation--.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 (reproduced below) has a mathematical relationship expressed in words as “a ratio of depth-normalized dark-field signals between the first lung segment and the second lung segment”:
PNG
media_image2.png
783
887
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicants state in page 7, bullet “3.” that none of the independent claims recite a mathematical formula2 or abstract mathematical relationship.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 claims a formula or equation written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this mathematical concepts grouping:
“determine, as the quantitative measure, a ratio of depth-normalized dark-field signals between the first lung segment and the second lung segment”:
“is using a textual replacement for the particular equation” in pages 12,13 of applicant’s disclosure:
Pages 12,13 of applicant’s disclosure (WO 2022/058220 A1):
PNG
media_image3.png
535
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicants state in page 7, bullet “4.”, that the specification “confirms the technical character and lack of pure math recitations”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since the specification has two equations shown in said pages 12,13.
Applicants state in page 8, bullet “5.”, that --The claims do not abstractly claim a mathematical relationship or algorithm itself3, and there is no hint of any mathematical formula in the claims.--.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 has “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”4:
Claim 1, lines 16-18:
“determine, as the quantitative measure, a ratio of depth-normalized dark-field signals between the first lung segment and the second lung segment”.
Applicants state in page 8, bullet “7.” that “the claims do not set forth a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation as such, they do not "recite" the mathematical concepts exception.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees since words (“a ratio”5, claim 1, line 17) used in claim 1 operating (as an operation inverse to multiplication) on data (“signals”, claim 1, line 17) to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula6:
PNG
media_image4.png
835
960
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Step 2A Prong Two
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “interferometric”, applicant’s remarks, page 9: Step 2A Prong Two, bullet “2.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “lung pathology using dark-field scatter”, applicant’s remarks, page 9: Step 2A Prong Two, bullet 3.a.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “imaging interface”, applicant’s remarks, page 9: Step 2A Prong Two, bullet 3.b.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, page 9, bullet 4.a., filed 3/20/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered (shown below regarding applicant’s disclosure’s page 8,ll. 5-15 and MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), 2nd para) and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,19 and 13,18 and 20 in the Office action of 12/22/2025, starting page 4, has been withdrawn:
Applicants state in page 9, bullet 4.a. that “Equal-volume segmentation” yields technical improvements in view of applicant’s disclosure. The examiner agrees in view of applicant’s disclosure, pg. 8,ll. 5-15 and MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019], 2nd para :
PNG
media_image5.png
1365
933
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 103
A. The combination does not teach or suggest "a ratio of depth-normalized dark-field signals"
Applicant’s state in page 12, section A, 2nd para that Wiemker’s normalization is not a ratio of7 depth-normalized8 dark-field9 signals between the first lung segment and the second lung segment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Wiemker (of the combination, illustrated in page 36 below, of Wiemker (WO 2019/110313 A1), Yamamoto (Impact of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Pulmonary Ventilation Imaging-Based Functional Avoidance for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy) ,Oraevsky (US 2014/0039293 A1)) teaches a ratio of depth normalized dark-field signals (Wiemker, page 12, ll. 25-30 and page 13, ll.5-20, reproduced below) or likewise a ratio of a “lung volume”10-“normalized”-“dark field signal” “D1” & “D2” (Wiemker, page 13, ll 8-21, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image6.png
1480
1031
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
1516
1024
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dark-field signal normalization”, remarks, page 12, section A, 3rd para, 3rd S) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dark-field depth normalization” “lung-segment ratios”, remarks, page 12, section A, 3rd para, 4th/last S) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dark-field or lung-segment ratios”, remarks, page 12, section A, 4th para) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants state in page 12, section A, last para that none of the references suggests the processor ... configured to determine11 121314 a ratio of depth-normalized dark-field signals between the first lung segment and the second lung segment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Wiemker (of the combination of Wiemker, Yamamoto,Oraevsky) teaches
a ratio (as shown in said Wiemker’s pages 12,13: reproduced above showing boxed-in ratio equations) of depth-normalized dark-field signals (said D1 and D2 in said boxed-in ratio equations) between the first lung segment and the second lung segment.
B. The combination does not teach or suggest performing "the segmentation and the derivation based solely on the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data"
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ ‘ solely’ 2D projection processing”, page 13, section B, 2nd para, 2nd S) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,
“obtaining two approximately equal-volume segments purely from a 2D projection image”, remarks, page 13, section B, 2nd para, last S) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In contrast to said:
--obtaining15 two approximately equal-volume segments purely16 from a 2D projection image--, remarks, page 13, section B, 2nd para, last S,
claim 1 distinctly has:
--segment1718…to have approximately equal volumes…based19 solely20 on21 the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data--.
Applicants state in page 13, section B, 3rd para, that “Yamamoto and Oraevsky do not deal with dark-field X-ray imaging at all, and therefore do not teach derivation based solely on 2D dark-field X-ray projection image data”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since Oraevsky teaches (1) dark-field and (2) the x-ray range:
(1) Oraevsky (US 2014/0039293 A1) teaches “dark field” in fig. 1B: a surface-area between ray-beams:
PNG
media_image8.png
1745
927
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(2) Oraevsky (US 2014/0039293 A1) teaches operating in the x-ray22 range via “In an embodiment, the optical energy is replaced with other electromagnetic energy with the wavelength from 1 nm to 1 m.” [0043] last S:
PNG
media_image8.png
1745
927
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus Wiemker of the combination of Wiemker,Yamamoto,Oraevsky teaches derivation based solely on 2D dark-field X-ray projection image data.
PNG
media_image8.png
1745
927
media_image8.png
Greyscale
C. The "equal volume" segmentation in Yamamoto is not the claimed segmentation used for dark-field analysis
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dark-field analysis in projection space or for comparing two equal-volume lung segments”, remarks, page 13 section C, 2nd para 1st S) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ an algorithm in 2D projection images that creates two approximately equal-volume segments used for dark-field signal comparison”, remarks, page 13 section C, 2nd para, 2nd/last S) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
D. Lack of articulated motivation to combine (KSR) to arrive at the claimed arrangement
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “2D-only, segment-ratio diagnostic measure”, remarks, page, section D, pg. 14) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “2D-only, segment-ratio diagnostic measure”, remarks, page, section D, pg. 14) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ solely 2D dark-field”, remarks, page, section D, pg. 14) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “depth-normalized segment ratio”, remarks, page, section D, pg. 14) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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) 1,4,5,8,11,19 and 13,18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIEMKER et al. (WO 2019/110313 A1: Published: 13 June 2019) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Yamamoto et al. (Impact of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Pulmonary Ventilation Imaging-Based Functional Avoidance for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy) and Oraevsky et al. (US 2014/0039293 A1):
PNG
media_image9.png
527
653
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re 1., (Currently Amended) WIEMKER teaches A medical imaging th txt blk) for processing dark-field X-ray image data, the apparatus comprising:
a memory that stores a plurality of instructions; and
a (“data”, SEARCH machine translation: pg. 11. 7th txt blk) processor that couples to the memory and is configured to execute the plurality of instructions to:
receive (via “an input23 unit 20”, SEARCH translation: page 5, penult txt blk: fig. 1) two-dimensional (2-D) dark-field X-ray projection image data ((1) “dark field X-ray image” “data”, translation: pg. 7, 10th txt blk, mentioned as “a 2D dark field projection image”, machine translation: pg. 10, 3rd txt blk or (2) “2D dark field image” “complementary information”, translation: pg. 10, 8th txt blk) of a lung;
segment the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image (machine translation: “information”, pg. 8, 2nd txt blk) data (“into sub-regions”, WO 2019/110313: pg. 6, ll.10,11: fig. 4: machine translation: page 5, 10th txt blk) to provide segmented image data of the lung, the segmented image data comprising at least a first lung segment and a second lung segment, the first lung segment and the second lung segment being segmented to have approximately equal volumes;
derive, from24 the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data, at least a first dark-field signal value (“Di”) assigned (functionally25 via a “model”, WO 2019/110313: pg. 15, ll.16-19; machine translation, pg. 11, 1st txt blk) to the first lung segment (via index “j”) and a second dark-field signal value (“Di”) assigned (functionally via a “model”, WO 2019/110313: pg. 15, ll.16-19) to the second lung segment (via index “j”); and
derive a (“subtracted”26, WO 2019/110313: pg.10,1st S; translation: pg. 7, 14 txt blk) quantitative measure by comparing the first dark-field signal value and the second dark-field signal value, the (subtracted) quantitative measure being output data (“derived”, WO 2019/110313: pg. 10, 1st S; translation: pg. 7, 14 txt blk) for lung analysis (comprising “lung segments”, 2019/110313: pg. 6: “Fig. 6”; translation: page 5, 12th txt blk) and/or (“effective”, 2019/110313: pg. 14, ll. 1-5; translation, pg. 10, 2nd txt blk) diagnosis, wherein the processor is further configured to determine,27 as28 the quantitative measure,29 a ratio (“of two images”, translation: pg. 9, 10th txt blk) of depth (via “volume”, pg. 4, 8th txt blk)-normalized (via “normalization”, pg. 9, 10th txt blk) dark-field signals (“normalized to the lung volume”, pg. 4, 8th txt blk) between the first lung segment and the second lung segment, and wherein the processor is further configured to perform the segmentation30 and the derivation31 based32 solely (via “per33 volume-element”: pg. 10, 8th txt blk) on the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data (“of the region of interest”, pg. 7, 5th txt blk).
WIEMKER does not teach the difference of claim 1 of:
A) the first lung segment and the second lung segment being segmented to have approximately equal volumes…
B) depth.
Yamamoto teaches the difference A) of claim 1:
information (or 4D-CT derived34 “ ‘free’ information”, pg. 280, lcol, 2nd para, penult S: i.e., “regional ventilation”, pg. 280, last S, representing “Regional functional information”, pg. 280, lcol, 2nd para, 1st S) in medical imaging (or in patient35 imaging or in medical-care imaging, via “in36 patients”-“4D-CT-based ventilation imaging”, pg. 286, rcol. last S, which “consists of…4D-CT images…voxel-wise mapping…and…a 4D-CT ventilation image”37, pg. 280, lcol, last para, 1st S: i.e. said ‘free information’ is included within the medical-care 4D-CT imaging’s (x,y,z)-“voxel” (pg. 281, lcol, 1st S))… the first lung segment and the second lung segment being38 (see Yamamoto’s annotated, zoomed-in fig. 1 below) segmented (equally “divided”, pg. 281, locl, penult S:fig. 1: “Segment high-, moderate-, and low-functional lungs”) to have (three) approximately equal39 volumes (for comparison: fig. 1: “Compare”):
PNG
media_image10.png
391
1166
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Since WIEMKER suggests other segmentations of regions via an orientation example, pg. 7,ll.1-3, and provides alternatives for segmenting different types of images, pg. 10, ll.12-22, regarding WIEMKER’s figure 4, one of skill in the art of segmentation can make WIEMKER’s segmentation be as Yamamoto’s predictably recognizing the change resulting in clearly “defined”40 “regions” (Yamamoto, lcol, penult S) as to extent, outline, or form thus making a clearly effective diagnosis as to extent, outline, or form:
PNG
media_image11.png
1136
1837
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER,Yamamoto does not teach the last difference B) of claim 1:
B) depth.
Oraevsky teaches the last difference B) of claim 1:
B) (“utilizing the”) depth(“-normalized palette enhances visibility of deep objects” [0108]).
Since WIEMKER of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER,Yamamoto teaches x-ray, one (“radiologist”, WIEMKER, pg. 2, 7th txt block and “diagnostic radiologist”, Oreevsky [0099]) of skill in the art of x-rays can make WIEMKER’s “lung volume”41, pg. 4, 8th txt blk, having a specified dimension in depth, of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER,Yamamoto be as Oraevsky’s “other electromagnetic energy with the wavelength from 1 nm to 1 m”, Oraevsky: [0043] (x-ray42), predictably recognizing the change “enhances visibility of deep objects”, Oraevsky [0108], “to diminish effects of” x-ray “distribution within tissue” “for better visualization of both shallow and deep objects” Oraevsky [0107] of the lung volume:
PNG
media_image12.png
1408
970
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
2554
1837
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Re 4. (Currently Amended), WIEMKER of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to claim 1 nd S).
Re 5., (Previously presented), WIEMKER of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to
Re 8., (Previously presented), WIEMKER of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to claim 5nd S) of an acquired image comprised in the image data.
Re 11., (Previously presented), WIEMKER of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is (via figures 4 and 6) further configured to separate a left lung and a right lung to provide the segmented image data of the lung, wherein for each lung the first lung segment and the second lung segment is segmented.
Re 13. (Currently Amended), claim 13 is rejected as claim 1: A computer-implemented medical imaging method for providing dark-field X-ray image data, the method comprising:
receiving two-dimensional (2-D) dark-field X-ray projection image data of a
segmenting the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data to provide segmented image data of the lung, the segmented image data comprising at least a first lung segment and a second lung segment, the first lung segment and the second lung segment being43 segmented to4445 have46 approximately47 equal48 volumes49;
deriving, from the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data, at least a first dark-field signal value assigned to the first lung segment and a second dark-field signal value assigned to the second lung segment; and
deriving a quantitative measure by comparing the first dark-field signal value and the second dark-field signal, the quantitative measure being output data for lung analysis and/or diagnosis, wherein the method further comprises determining, as the quantitative measure, a ratio of depth-normalized dark-field signals for the first lung segment and the second lung segment, and wherein the method further comprises performing the segmentation and the derivation based solely on the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data.
Re 18.( Currently Amended), claim 18 is rejected as claim 4: The method according to claim 13
Re 19.( Previously presented), claim 19 is rejected as claim 5: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first lung segment is an upper lung field, and the second lung segment is a lower lung field, the lung fields defined as upper and lower with respect to a longitudinal axis of a subject's body.
Re 20.(Currently Amended), claim 20 is rejected as claim 1: A non-transitory computer-readable medium50 for storing executable instructions, which cause a medical imaging method to be performed to provide dark-field X-ray image data , the method comprising:
Receiving two-dimensional (2-D) dark-field X-ray projection image data of a
segmenting the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data to provide segmented image data of the lung, the segmented image data comprising at least a first lung segment and a second lung segment, the first lung segment and the second lung segment being segmented to have approximately equal volumes;
deriving, from the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data, at least a first dark-field signal value assigned to the first lung segment and a second dark-field signal value assigned to the second lung segment; and
deriving a quantitative measure by comparing the first dark-field signal value and the second dark-field signal, the quantitative measure being output data for lung analysis and/or diagnosis, wherein the method further comprises determining51, as the quantitative measure, a ratio of depth (via “lung volume”52, pg. 4, 8th txt blk, having a specified dimension in depth)-normalized dark-field signals for the first lung segment and the second lung segment, and wherein the method further comprises performing the segmentation and the derivation based solely on the 2-D dark-field X-ray projection image data.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIEMKER et al. (WO 2019/110313 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Yamamoto et al. (Impact of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Pulmonary Ventilation Imaging-Based Functional Avoidance for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy) and Oraevsky et al. (US 2014/0039293 A1) as applied in claims 1,4,5,8,11,19 and 13,18 and 20 above further in view of SHIMAMURA (JP 2019-030492 A) with machine translation:
PNG
media_image14.png
527
790
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Re 6., (Previously presented), Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to estimate a lung depth, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane of the image data, for a plurality of different (“first…at a second”, pg. 4,ll. 3-5) positions within the corresponding lung segment.
Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky does not teach the difference of claim 6:
“a lung depth, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane of the image data”.
SHIMAMURA teaches the difference of claim 6:
Re 6., (Currently Amended), The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to estimate a (landmarking “pulmonary apex”,pg. 7,4th text blk) lung depth (“position”, pg. 2, last two Ss), the (landmarking pulmonary) lung depth (position) defined (or tilted) along (or “with respect to”, pg. 9, 8th txt blk) a normal of a projection plane (or a projected plane cut, figs. 5,9-24, via a “projected” “moving image” “shape”53, pg. 4, 6th text blk) of the image data, for a plurality of different (“end”, pg. 7, 2nd txt blk, 5th S) positions (with the lower end pointed out in fig. 10:1300 with the pulmonary landmarking apex) within the corresponding lung segment (via “segmentation” “image 1320”: fig. 10).
Given that Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky suggests teaches there are other segmentations by teaching an example, pg. 7,ll.1-3, one of skill in the art of segmentation can make Wiemaker’s of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky be as SHIMAMURA’s predictably recognizing the change providing a diagnosis “accurately”, SHIMAMURA, 6th txt blk, last S.
Claim(s) 7,9,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIEMKER et al. (WO 2019/110313 A1: Published: 13 June 2019) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Yamamoto et al. (Impact of Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography Pulmonary Ventilation Imaging-Based Functional Avoidance for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy) and Oraevsky et al. (US 2014/0039293 A1) as applied in claims 1,4,5,8,11,19 and 13,18 and 20 above further in view of ERHARD (US 2019/0114815 A1: Published: 18 Apr 2019):
PNG
media_image15.png
527
790
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Re 7.(Previously presented), Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to determine the corresponding segment volume (“from the transmission signal”, pg. 13,ll.16-18) on the basis of a lung depth determination, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane of the image data, and an area determination from the image data (“into sub-regions”, pg. 6, ll.10,11: fig. 4) to obtain the at least approximately equal segment volumes (via “corresponding lung volumes”, pg. 14, 1st para).
Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky does not teach the difference of claim 7:
“a lung depth determination, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane of the image data, and an area determination”.
Erhard teaches the difference of claim 7:
7. (Previously presented) The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to determine the corresponding segment volume (or “second volume V’ ”54[0065] 1st S) on the basis (or “based on this input volume V” [0063] 1st S) of a lung depth determination (via a “lung” “image structure” “depth extension” “along Z”, [0063] 5th S), the lung depth (extension) defined along a normal (planar-views via fig. 5) of a (motion) projection plane (fig. 1: curved left-right arrows) of the image data, and an (“image structure of interest”, [0062] 10th S, via a bounding box) area determination from the image data to obtain the at least approximately equal segment volumes (via said 1st volume V corresponding to said 2nd volume V’: fig. 2).
Since Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky suggest maximizing contrast via a dark field (pg. 1,ll. 24,25 & pg. 16,ll. 1-5), one of skill in contrast can make Wiemker’s of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky be as Erhard’s predictably recognizing the change achieving “better contrast and thus better through-plane definition”, Erhard [0079], last S, of small angle dark field scatter.
Re 9., (Previously presented), Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to normalize the corresponding dark-field signal value (resulting in “normalized dark-field values”, pg. 14, ll. 1-5) to a lung depth, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane of the image data (“into sub-regions”, pg. 6, ll.10,11: fig. 4).
Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky does not teach the difference of claim 9:
“a lung depth, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane”.
Erhard teaches the difference of claim 9:
9. (Previously presented) The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to normalize the corresponding dark-field signal value (via “or small angle scatter (also known as ‘dark field’)” [0057] penult S) to a lung depth (via a “lung” “Z” “volume V” “image structure” “depth extension”, [0090] last S & [0063] 5th S, in the Z), the lung depth (in the “Z”) defined along a normal (or a perpendicular or “orthogonal in-plane view” [0102] 5th S: fig. 5) of a projection plane (or “central projection direction Z” “motion plane” [0056]: fig. 1: curved left-right arrows) of the (small angle scatter (also known as ‘dark field’)” [0057] penult S) image data.
Since Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky suggest maximizing contrast via a dark field (pg. 1,ll. 24,25 & pg. 16,ll. 1-5), one of skill in contrast can make Wiemker’s of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky be as Erhard’s predictably recognizing the change achieving “better contrast and thus better through-plane definition”, Erhard [0079], last S, of small angle dark field scatter.
Re 10., (Previously presented), Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky teaches The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine (via said model) the (function-assigned) corresponding dark-field signal value of the segment volume (“from the transmission signal”, pg. 13,ll.16-18) on the basis of a lung depth determination, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane of the image data (“into sub-regions”, pg. 6, ll.10,11: fig. 4).
Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky does not teach the difference of claim 10:
“a lung depth determination, the lung depth defined along a normal of a projection plane”.
Erhard teaches the difference of claim 10:
10.(Previously presented) The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the corresponding dark-field signal (“interferometer”55 [0057] last) value (fig. 1:RECON_2: V’’) of the segment volume (said V) on the basis of a lung depth (via “lung” “image structure” “depth extension”, [0090] last S & [0063] 5th S: fig. 1: RECON_2) determination (via fig. 1: volume “V”), the lung depth (via said V’’ that “incorporates…depth information” [0063] 2nd S) defined along a normal (“orthogonal view”56 [0101] 3rd S) of a projection plane (or “projection direction Z” “motion plane” [0056] 1st S:fig. 1: curved left-right arrows) of the (“small angle scatter (also known as ‘dark field’)” [0057] penult S) image data.
Since Wiemker of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky suggest maximizing contrast via a dark field (pg. 1,ll. 24,25 & pg. 16,ll. 1-5), one of skill in contrast can make Wiemker’s of the combination (illustrated above) of WIEMKER, Yamamoto, Oraevsky be as Erhard’s predictably recognizing the change achieving “better contrast and thus better through-plane definition”, Erhard [0079], last S, of small angle dark field scatter.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action:
Citation
Relevance
Ausschnitt et al. (US 6,193,919 B1)
Ausschnitt teaches “darkfield” and “thickness”57-“normalized”, abstract:
The darkfield optical image may be a double-lobe optical image, and signal processing may comprise creating a normalized intensity profile to overcome film-thickness dependencies, to which one or more noise-rejecting, edge-detection methods is or are applied to calculate the created length of the elements.
as the closest to the claimed “depth-normalized dark-field signals” of claim 1.
PROKSA et al. (WO 2017/055527 A1) corresponding to IDS cited PROKSA (US 2018/0271465 A1)
PROKSA teaches “thickness”-“normalized lung dark-field information”, via page 4,ll. 30:
The term "normalized lung dark-field information" refers to the output of a process to normalize the dark- field information to account for the thickness58 of the lungs.
as the closest to the claimed “depth-normalized dark-field signals” of claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 MPEP 2106(a)(2) I.A. Mathematical Relationships: A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.
2 MPEP 2106/04(a)(2) I.B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).
3 “itself”: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS, 3rd para, last S: ”itself“-- When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. See, e.g., Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame’."). For example, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim.--
4 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS , 4th para:--It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).--
5 ratio: maths a quotient of two numbers or quantities See also proportion, wherein quotient is defined: Mathematics. the result of division; the number of times one quantity is contained in another, wherein division is defined:Arithmetic. the operation inverse to multiplication; the finding of a quantity, the quotient, that when multiplied by a given quantity, the divisor, gives another given quantity, the dividend; the process of ascertaining how many times one number or quantity is contained in another. (Dictionary.com).
6 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS , 4th para:--It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea).--
7 of: (used to indicate material, component parts, substance, or contents). a dress of silk; an apartment of three rooms; a book of poems; a package of cheese. (Dictionary.com)
8 “depth-normalized” is a cumulative adjective modifying “dark-field”
9 “dark-field” is another cumulative adjective (already modified by “depth-normalized”) all of which, as a cumulative effect, in turn is modifying “signals”.
10 volume: the amount of space, measured in cubic units, that an object or substance occupies, wherein cubic is defined: having three dimensions; solid., wherein dimensions is defined: Usually dimensions. measurement in length, width, and thickness, wherein thickness is defined: the state or quality of being thick, wherein thick is defined: measured, as specified, between opposite surfaces, from top to bottom, or in a direction perpendicular to that of the length and breadth; (of a solid having three general dimensions) measured across its smallest dimension. a board one inch thick, wherein bottom is defined: the lowest or deepest part of anything, as distinguished from the top, wherein deepest is defined: having a specified dimension in depth. (Dictionary.com)
11 comma: the punctuation mark(,) indicating a slight pause in the spoken sentence and used where there is a listing of items or to separate a nonrestrictive clause or phrase (“as the quantitative measure”) from a main clause (claim 1)
12 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 4th para:
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive [I am identifying non-restrictive comma phrases or Non-Limiting comma Phrases (NLPs) as claim language that may raise a question as to its limiting effect, e.g., --, as the quantitative measure,--]):
• preamble (MPEP § 2111.02);
• clauses such as "adapted to," adapted for," "wherein," and "whereby" (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection I);
• contingent limitations (MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II);
• printed matter (MPEP § 2111.05); and
• functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP § 2181).
13 comma: the punctuation mark(,) indicating a slight pause in the spoken sentence and used where there is a listing of items or to separate a nonrestrictive clause or phrase (“as the quantitative measure”) from a main clause (claim 1)
14 The comma-phrase “, as the quantitative measure,” is not limiting under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of said MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 4th para:
15 obtain: to come into possession of; get, acquire, or procure, as through an effort or by a request. (Dictionary.com)
16 purely ADVERB: merely; only; solely. (“purely” aligns with the claimed “solely”), wherein ADVERB is defined: any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs (“obtaining”) or clauses, and in some languages, as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives (“approximately equal-volume”), other adverbs (“approximately”), or adverbial phrases (“two approximately equal-volume segments”), as very in very nice, much in much more impressive, and tomorrow in She'll write to you tomorrow. They relate to what they modify by indicating place (I promise to be there ), time (Do your homework now! ), manner (She sings beautifully ), circumstance (He accidentally dropped the glass when the bell rang), degree (I'm very happy to see you), or cause (I draw, although badly). (Dictionary.com)
17 segment: to separate or divide into segments. (Dictionary.com)
18 “segment” does not mean “obtain” and thus “segment” and “obtaining” are different from each other
19 based: the simple past tense and past participle of base, wherein past participle is defined: a participial form of verbs (“base”) used to modify a noun (“segmentation”) that is logically the object of a verb (“perform” of “perform the segmentation”), also used in certain compound tenses and passive forms of the verb in English and other languages (Dictionary.com)
20 What is the claim scope of “solely”?: Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any explicit guidance of the claim scope of “solely” and instead the specification states “Any reference signs in the claims should not be construed as limiting the scope.”, page 15, last sentence, and page 16 shows “LIST OF REFERENCE SIGNS”, wherein scope is defined: Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression over which a modifier (or a patent examiner) or operator (or me) has control.
21 on: so as to be or remain supported by or suspended from (Dictionary.com): “on” is similar to “from”
22 x-ray: Physics.
A. Often x-rays. a form of electromagnetic radiation, similar to light but of shorter wavelength and capable of penetrating solids and of ionizing gases.
B. such radiation having wavelengths in the range of approximately 0.1–10 nanometers. (Dictionary.com)
23 input: Computers. data to be entered into a computer for processing. (Dictionary.com)
24 from: (used to express removal or separation, as in space, time, or order). (Dictionary.com)
25 function: Mathematics.
A Also called correspondence, map, mapping, transformation. a relation between two sets in which one element of the second set is assigned to each element of the first set, as the expression y = x 2 ; operator.
B Also called mul·ti·ple-val·ue func·tion [muhl, -t, uh, -p, uh, l-, val, -yoo , fuhngk, -sh, uh, n]. a relation between two sets in which two or more elements of the second set are assigned to each element of the first set, as y 2 = x 2 , which assigns to every x the two values y = + x and y = − x.
26 subtract: to calculate the difference between (two numbers or quantities) by subtraction, wherein difference is defined: a degree of distinctness, as between two people or things, wherein between is defined: indicating a reciprocal relation or comparison (Dictionary.com)
27 comma: the punctuation mark(,) indicating a slight pause in the spoken sentence and used where there is a listing of items or to separate a nonrestrictive clause or phrase (“as the quantitative measure”) from a main clause (Dictionary.com): Thus “as the quantitative measure” does not limit claim 1 under BRI
28 as: in the role, function, or status of (Dictionary.com)
29 comma: the punctuation mark(,) indicating a slight pause in the spoken sentence and used where there is a listing of items or to separate a nonrestrictive clause or phrase (“as the quantitative measure”) from a main clause (Dictionary.com): Thus “as the quantitative measure” does not limit claim 1
30 Segmentation: the act or an instance of dividing into segments (Dictionary.com)
31 derivation: the act or fact of deriving or of being derived. (Dictionary.com)
32 Past-participle
33 per: for each; for every, wherein each is defined: every one of two or more considered individually or one by one, wherein individually is defined: one at a time; separately, wherein one is defined: a single person or thing, wherein single is defined: only one in number; one only; unique; sole, wherein only is defined: without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively. (Dictionary.com).
34 derive: (usually foll by from) to draw or be drawn (from) in (mapping) source (the exhale 4D-CT image) or (mapping) origin (the exhale 4D-CT image) (Dictionary.com)
35 patient: a person who is under medical care or treatment. (Dictionary.com)
36 in: any member of a class of words found in many languages that are used before nouns (“patients”), pronouns, or other substantives to form phrases (“in patients”) functioning as modifiers of verbs, nouns (or “imaging” of “4D-CT-based ventilation imaging”: “in patient”-“imaging”), or adjectives, and that typically express a spatial, temporal, or other relationship, as in, on, by, to, since. (Dictionary.com)
37 of: (used to indicate possession, connection, or association), wherein possess is defined: to have as belonging to one, wherein have is defined: contain, where contain is defined: to hold or include within its (referring to the Four-dimensional CT-based ventilation imaging’s) volume (via 4D) or area (Dictionary.com)
38 “being” essentially means looks at a figure: be: (used as a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject), wherein describe is defined: to represent or delineate by a picture or figure. (Dictionary.com)
39 equal: like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc., wherein like is defined: analogous, wherein analogous is defined: having analogy, wherein analogy is defined: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based, wherein comparison is defined: comparative estimate or statement, wherein estimate is defined: calculate approximately. (Dictionary.com)
40 defined: determined, fixed, or clearly marked out as to extent, outline, or form (Dictionary.com)
41 volume: the amount of space, measured in cubic units, that an object or substance occupies, wherein cubic is defined: having the form of a cube; cubical, wherein cube is defined: a solid bounded by six equal squares, the angle between any two adjacent faces being a right angle, wherein solid is defined: having three dimensions (length, breadth, and thickness), as a geometrical body or figure, wherein thickness is defined: the state or quality of being thick, wherein thick is defined: deep or profound, wherein deep is defined: having a specified dimension in depth. (Dictionary.com)
42 X-ray: Physics.
A) Often x-rays. a form of electromagnetic radiation, similar to light but of shorter wavelength and capable of penetrating solids and of ionizing gases.
B) such radiation having wavelengths in the range of approximately 0.1–10 nanometers.
43 auxiliary verb
44 Regarding “to” and semantic (different meanings) senses thereof: applicant’s disclosure, page 15, ll. 12-17:
--While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and the foregoing description, such illustration and description are to be considered illustrative or exemplary and not restrictive. The invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments. Other variations to the disclosed embodiments can be understood and effected by those skilled in the art in practicing a claimed invention, from a study of the drawings, the disclosure, and the dependent claims.--.
45 to: (used as the ordinary sign or accompaniment of the infinitive, as in expressing motion, direction, or purpose, in ordinary uses with a substantive object.), wherein infinitive is defined: in English, the simple or basic form of a verb [“have”], with no endings to indicate the verb’s [“have”] subject or tense, such as come, take, eat, be: used after auxiliary verbs [“being segmented to have”] or preceded by the word to [“to have”], and sometimes functioning as a noun, such as He must be, I want to eat, To love is to understand, wherein purpose in defined: an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal, wherein intended is defined: prospective, wherein prospective is defined: of or in the future. (Dictionary.com): of or in the future result: thus the claimed “to have approximately equal volumes” occurs in the future after the claimed “being segmented” under the broadest reasonable interpretation: interpreting the claimed “to have approximately equal volumes” being in the past (as in “done with intention”) is interpreted as a narrow subset of claim scope under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
46 auxiliary verb or infinitive
47 adverb
48 main verb
49 substantive object
50 The claimed “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” is plainly interpreted (plain meaning) like one of ordinary skill in the art of mediums would in view of applicant’s disclosure.
51 comma: the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase [“as the quantitative measure”], or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence, wherein off is defined: so as to be delineated, divided, or apportioned, wherein delineated is defined: precisely defined or explained, wherein defined is defined: to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc. [“quantitative measure”]): (Dictionary.com): this meaning of comma is not the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI): see above corresponding comma-meaning footnote (25) in claim 1 about a nonrestrictive clause or phrase
52 volume: the amount of space, measured in cubic units, that an object or substance occupies, wherein cubic is defined: having the form of a cube; cubical, wherein cube is defined: a solid bounded by six equal squares, the angle between any two adjacent faces being a right angle, wherein solid is defined: having three dimensions (length, breadth, and thickness), as a geometrical body or figure, wherein thickness is defined: the state or quality of being thick, wherein thick is defined: deep or profound, wherein deep is defined: having a specified dimension in depth. (Dictionary.com)
53 shape: Also called section, wherein section is defined: a representation of an object as it would appear if cut by a plane, showing its internal structure. (Dictionary.com)
54 second: being the latter of two equal parts (Dictionary.com)
55 Interferometer: Any of several optical, acoustic, or radio frequency instruments that use interference phenomena between a reference wave and an experimental wave or between two parts of an experimental wave to determine wavelengths and wave velocities, measure very small distances and thicknesses, and calculate indices of refraction. (Dictionary.com)
56 orthogonal: perpendicular, wherein perpendicular is defined: Also normal at right angles to a horizontal plane (Dictionary.com)
57 thickness: the state or quality of being thick, wherein thick is defined: measured, as specified, between opposite surfaces, from top to bottom, or in a direction perpendicular to that of the length and breadth; (of a solid having three general dimensions) measured across its smallest dimension. a board one inch thick, wherein bottom is defined: the lowest or deepest part of anything, as distinguished from the top, wherein deepest is defined: having a specified dimension in depth. (Dictionary.com)
58 thickness: the state or quality of being thick, wherein thick is defined: measured, as specified, between opposite surfaces, from top to bottom, or in a direction perpendicular to that of the length and breadth; (of a solid having three general dimensions) measured across its smallest dimension. a board one inch thick, wherein bottom is defined: the lowest or deepest part of anything, as distinguished from the top, wherein deepest is defined: having a specified dimension in depth. (Dictionary.com)
Prosecution Insights