DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”). Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… Computing device 110 may observe and record a signal developed on each pixel (e.g., pixel by pixel, groups of pixels, or all of the pixels, without limitation) and non-destructively read (i.e., without erasing a pixel voltage-which may also be characterized as not erasing a pixel signal) or destructively read (i.e., erasing a pixel signal) at specified intervals (e.g., frames) defined by a given frame rate …” in paragraph 35) serves as a glossary for the claim term “non-destructively or destructively”.
The specification (e.g., see “… computing device 110 may capture one or more frames during a frame reference period 608 (e.g., reference image data, base image data, offset image data or image data representative of the environment before the radiation source 102 is activated, without limitation) …” in paragraph 72) serves as a glossary for the claim term “computing device”.
The specification (e.g., see “… computing device 110 may monitor pixels 310 by only reading and not recording the digitized e.g., data, information, without limitation developed on pixels 310. In some embodiments, computing device 110 may monitor pixels 310 grey value by only recording the signal for the pixels 310 from a limited number of the frames, such as between about 1 frame and about 10 frames, or between about 2 frames and about 4 frames …” in paragraph 75) serves as a glossary for the claim term “a computing device configured to: monitor a pixel or subset of the number of pixels until the radiation is detected”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by “such as” and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim(s) 11 and 17 recite(s) the broad recitation “non-destructively or destructively”, and the claim also recites “non-destructively” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitation “non-destructively or destructively” recited in claim 12 does not appear to further limit or include the newly added limitation “non-destructively” recited in claim 11.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also of improper dependent form for the same reasons. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2012/0189100).
In regard to claim 1, Liu et al. disclose an x-ray imaging system comprising:
(a) a radiation source configured to transmit radiation toward an object (e.g., see “… X-ray radiation source 16 … portion of the radiation 50 passes through or around the subject 20 and impacts the digital X-ray detector 22 …” in
PNG
media_image1.png
1669
2507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, Fig. 6, and paragraph 28);
(b) a number of pixels arranged to detect radiation transmitted through the object (e.g., see “… detector 22 includes a detector array 74 …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 31); and
(c) a computing device configured to: monitor a pixel or subset of the number of pixels until the radiation is detected (e.g., see “… Processing includes determining when the exposure begins and ends based upon comparison of the sampled image data generated by the detector 22 … detector samples data prior to, during, and after the exposure from one or more frames …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraphs 44 and 46); and begin capture of image data in response to the radiation being detected (e.g., see “… detector control circuitry 84 is configured to sample data, including X-ray image data, from the discrete picture elements during receipt of X-ray radiation …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 36).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Liu et al. also disclose that the computing device is configured to capture image data from the number of pixels responsive to radiation being detected until no radiation is detected (e.g., see “… detector 22 ceases sampling after determining the end of the exposure and after sampling all of the X-ray image data from the frames …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44), and continue to monitor the number of pixels or subset of the number of pixels responsive to no radiation being detected (e.g., see “… (block 146) for a further exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Liu et al. also disclose that the number of pixels are individually coupled to a respective electrode (e.g., see “… cathode of each diode is connected to the source of the transistor … each picture element 102 is generally defined at a row and column crossing, at which a column electrode 114 crosses a row electrode 116 …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraphs 35 and 39).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Liu et al. also disclose that the number of pixels comprise pixels coupled to X-ray-to-charge converters (e.g., see “… detector 22 converts X-ray photons received on its surface to lower energy photons. The detector 22 includes a detector array 74 that includes an array of photodetectors to convert the light photons to electrical signals. Alternatively, the detector 22 may convert the X-ray photons directly to electrical signals …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 31).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 1, Liu et al. also disclose that a synchronization signal indicating readiness for signal integration between the radiation source and a number of pixels or the computing device is not needed (e.g., see “… detector 22 is configured to acquire X-ray image data without communication from a controller of the X-ray radiation source 16. In other words, the detector 22 is without communication of timing signals from the controller of the source 16 as to an X-ray exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Liu et al. also disclose that the radiation source is communicatively de-coupled from one or both of the number of pixels and the computing device (e.g., see “… detector 22 is configured to acquire X-ray image data without communication from a controller of the X-ray radiation source 16. In other words, the detector 22 is without communication of timing signals from the controller of the source 16 as to an X-ray exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 21).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2012/0189100) in view of Tredwell (US 2008/0149843) and Kohashi (US 3,798,508).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 4, Liu et al. also disclose (paragraph 31) that “… detector 22 may convert the X-ray photons directly to electrical signals …”, the system of Liu et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… detector …” such as each pixel of the number of pixels comprises transistors operable to initiate reset, integration, and readout of a signal from a capacitor selected from programmable capacitors coupled to a photoconductor’s electrode. However, “… detector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… photodiode as photosensing element 24, other embodiments are possible with alternative types of photo sensors, including photo-capacitors, photo-transistors, and photo-conductors. Other embodiments are also possible with alternative switching elements, including bipolar transistors, diode switches, and CMOS switching gates with NMOS and PMOS transistors in parallel. Additionally, other types of charge storage elements, such as diodes and MOS transistors, may be used … rapid capture of a discrete number of successive image frames and allows read-out of each frame at a rate that is slower than the rate of charge storage for successive frames. With this arrangement, each pixel 22 has a single photosensing element 24 (labeled PS) supported by multiple frame storage circuits 46a, 46b, and 46c, shown outlined in dashed-line rectangles in FIG. 4. Each frame storage circuit 46a, 46b, and 46c uses photosensing element 24 and provides a separate signal storage element 32, shown as a capacitor Cs1, Cs2, or Cs3 in the FIG. 4 embodiment, and an associated switching element 34, shown as a transistor Ms1, Ms2, or Ms3 for isolating its corresponding signal storage element 32. Each frame storage circuit 46a, 46b, and 46c also has a corresponding read-out switching element 26, shown as a transistor MR01, MR02, or MR03 … FIG. 6 employs a similar circuit arrangement to that of the FIG. 4 embodiment, with the addition of a separate reset switch RS, typically a transistor component, as shown. The use of reset switch RS to set photo sensing element 24 to a reset level helps to reduce the overall time required to reset photosensing element 24 (PS) …” in paragraphs 59, 62, and 72 of Tredwell). The “charge storage elements, such as diodes” of Tredwell can also be labeled as a varactor or voltage-controlled capacitor (e.g., see “… voltage-controlled capacitor is well known in the art as "varactor", in which the thickness of a depletion region formed in a PN junction diode is varied by changing a reverse bias voltage to vary the junction transition capacitance …” in the third column 1 paragraph of Kohashi). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as “photo-conductors”, “charge storage elements, such as diodes and MOS transistors, may be used”, “reset switch RS”, “an associated switching element 34”, and “read-out switching element 26”, in order to achieve “rapid capture of a discrete number of successive image frames and allows read-out of each frame at a rate that is slower than the rate of charge storage for successive frames”) for the unspecified detector of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as each pixel of the number of pixels comprises a photoconductor coupled to an electrode, a programmable and selectable set of capacitors coupled to the electrode, and transistor switches operable to initiate reset, integration and readout of a signal from a capacitor of the programmable and selectable set of capacitors) as the unspecified detector of Liu et al.
In regard to claims 6 and 7 which are dependent on claim 4, Liu et al. also disclose (paragraph 31) that “… detector 22 may convert the X-ray photons directly to electrical signals …”, the system of Liu et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… detector …” such as two-stage pixels comprising switches operable to initiate reset, integration, and readout of a separate programmable capacitor for each stage. However, “… detector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… photodiode as photosensing element 24, other embodiments are possible with alternative types of photo sensors, including photo-capacitors, photo-transistors, and photo-conductors. Other embodiments are also possible with alternative switching elements, including bipolar transistors, diode switches, and CMOS switching gates with NMOS and PMOS transistors in parallel. Additionally, other types of charge storage elements, such as diodes and MOS transistors, may be used … rapid capture of a discrete number of successive image frames and allows read-out of each frame at a rate that is slower than the rate of charge storage for successive frames. With this arrangement, each pixel 22 has a single photosensing element 24 (labeled PS) supported by multiple frame storage circuits 46a, 46b, and 46c, shown outlined in dashed-line rectangles in FIG. 4. Each frame storage circuit 46a, 46b, and 46c uses photosensing element 24 and provides a separate signal storage element 32, shown as a capacitor Cs1, Cs2, or Cs3 in the FIG. 4 embodiment, and an associated switching element 34, shown as a transistor Ms1, Ms2, or Ms3 for isolating its corresponding signal storage element 32. Each frame storage circuit 46a, 46b, and 46c also has a corresponding read-out switching element 26, shown as a transistor MR01, MR02, or MR03 … FIG. 6 employs a similar circuit arrangement to that of the FIG. 4 embodiment, with the addition of a separate reset switch RS, typically a transistor component, as shown. The use of reset switch RS to set photo sensing element 24 to a reset level helps to reduce the overall time required to reset photosensing element 24 (PS) …” in paragraphs 59, 62, and 72 of Tredwell). The “charge storage elements, such as diodes” of Tredwell can also be labeled as a varactor or voltage-controlled capacitor (e.g., see “… voltage-controlled capacitor is well known in the art as "varactor", in which the thickness of a depletion region formed in a PN junction diode is varied by changing a reverse bias voltage to vary the junction transition capacitance …” in the third column 1 paragraph of Kohashi). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as “photo-conductors”, “charge storage elements, such as diodes and MOS transistors, may be used”, “reset switch RS”, “an associated switching element 34”, and “read-out switching element 26”, in order to achieve “rapid capture of a discrete number of successive image frames and allows read-out of each frame at a rate that is slower than the rate of charge storage for successive frames”) for the unspecified detector of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as the pixels respectively comprise two-stage pixels, wherein each stage of the two-stage pixels comprises a separate programmable capacitor and at least three switches operable to initiate reset, enable charge integration, and signal readout) as the unspecified detector of Liu et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2012/0189100).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, Liu et al. also disclose that the computing device is configured to capture image data at a frame rate between about 10 fps and about 60 fps (e.g., “… fluoroscopic …” in paragraph 21). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the “fluoroscopic” imaging of Liu et al. “produces immediate images and motion on a screen”1 (e.g., 30 fps).
Claim(s) 11-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2012/0189100) in view of Hayashida et al. (US 2007/0071171).
In regard to claim 11 in so far as understood, Liu et al. disclose a method of capturing x-ray images for two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional imaging applications, the method comprising:
(a) monitoring a number of pixels, non-destructively or destructively, at a frame rate (e.g., see “… detector samples data prior to, during, and after the exposure from one or more frames …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 46);
(b) detecting a presence of radiation at the number of pixels monitored (e.g., see “… Processing includes determining when the exposure begins and ends based upon comparison of the sampled image data generated by the detector 22 …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44);
(c) initiating, in response to detecting the presence of radiation at the number of pixels, capturing and recording of image data from an array of pixels including the number of pixels (e.g., see “… detector control circuitry 84 is configured to sample data, including X-ray image data, from the discrete picture elements during receipt of X-ray radiation …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 36);
(d) erasing the image data from the array of pixels after the image data is captured and recorded (e.g., see “… as the charge is restored to all the picture elements 102 in a row simultaneously by each of the associated dedicated readout channels, the readout electronics is converting the measurements from the previous row from an analog voltage to a digital value. Furthermore, the readout electronics may transfer the digital values from rows previous to the acquisition subsystem, which will perform some processing prior to displaying a diagnostic image on a monitor or writing it to film …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 40);
(e) detecting an absence of radiation in the array of pixels (e.g., see “… detector 22 ceases sampling after determining the end of the exposure and after sampling all of the X-ray image data from the frames …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44); and
(f) monitoring the number of pixels, non-destructively or destructively, after detecting the absence of radiation (e.g., see “… (block 146) for a further exposure …” in Fig. 3,
PNG
media_image2.png
2567
1622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and paragraph 44).
Liu et al. also disclose (paragraph 24) that “… portable detector control device 40 is also configured to communicate instructions (e.g., detector operating mode) to the detector 22 for the acquisition of X-ray image data …”, the system of Liu et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… detector …” such as a non-destructive readout mode. However, “… detector operating mode …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… data collection circuit 7 can select a mode for reading image data from the image data reading unit 6, such as a continuous readout mode, a nondestructive readout mode, or other suitable still-image readout mode …” in paragraph 32 of Hayashida et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector operating mode (e.g., comprising details such as “nondestructive readout mode” , in order to achieve a desired readout) for the unspecified “detector operating mode” of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector operating mode (e.g., comprising details such as detecting a presence of radiation at the number of pixels monitored non-destructively) as the unspecified “detector operating mode” of Liu et al.
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 11 in so far as understood, Liu et al. also disclose that further comprising binning the number of pixels when the number of pixels are being monitored non-destructively or destructively (e.g., see “… To determine the beginning and ending of the exposure and the imaging data, a row average of each frame 150 is obtained …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 48).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, Liu et al. also disclose that binning the number of pixels comprises coupling an output of at least two pixels to a single output and monitoring a single output representative of the at least two pixels (e.g., see “… To determine the beginning and ending of the exposure and the imaging data, a row average of each frame 150 is obtained …” in Fig. 4 and paragraph 48).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 12, Liu et al. also disclose that binning the number of pixels comprises coupling an output of at least four pixels to a single output and monitoring a single output representative of the at least four pixels (e.g., see “… To determine the beginning and ending of the exposure and the imaging data, a row average of each frame 150 is obtained …” in Fig. 4 and paragraph 48).
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 11, Liu et al. also disclose capturing reference image data from the array of pixels from at least one frame before detecting the presence of radiation (e.g., see “… sampled data (e.g., offset data from offset frame 152) gathered prior to obtaining imaging frame 156. Offset frame 152 is acquired prior to the initiation of the exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 15, Liu et al. also disclose correcting the image data for offset using the reference image data, wherein the offset comprises one or more of lag offset or residual signal offset (e.g., see “… To obtain the offset-corrected X-ray image, the total number of frames 150 used to make the X-ray image (e.g., two, frames 156 and 158) are multiplied time the calculated offset image (e.g., offset frame 152) and subtracted from the X-ray image to form the offset corrected X-ray image …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 50).
In regard to claim 17 in so far as understood, Liu et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed by a processor of a system for two-dimensional or three-dimensional imaging, are configured to enable the system to perform, or control performance of, operations (e.g., see “… Processing includes determining when the exposure begins and ends based upon comparison of the sampled image data generated by the detector 22 …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44), the operations comprising:
(a) monitoring a number of pixels, non-destructively or destructively, at a frame rate (e.g., see “… detector samples data prior to, during, and after the exposure from one or more frames …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 46);
(b) detecting a presence of radiation at the number of pixels monitored (e.g., see “… Processing includes determining when the exposure begins and ends based upon comparison of the sampled image data generated by the detector 22 …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44);
(c) initiating, in response to detecting the presence of radiation at the number of pixels, capturing and recording of image data from an array of pixels including the number of pixels (e.g., see “… detector control circuitry 84 is configured to sample data, including X-ray image data, from the discrete picture elements during receipt of X-ray radiation …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 36);
(d) erasing the image data from the array of pixels after the image data is captured and recorded (e.g., see “… as the charge is restored to all the picture elements 102 in a row simultaneously by each of the associated dedicated readout channels, the readout electronics is converting the measurements from the previous row from an analog voltage to a digital value. Furthermore, the readout electronics may transfer the digital values from rows previous to the acquisition subsystem, which will perform some processing prior to displaying a diagnostic image on a monitor or writing it to film …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 40);
(e) detecting an absence of radiation in the array of pixels (e.g., see “… detector 22 ceases sampling after determining the end of the exposure and after sampling all of the X-ray image data from the frames …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44); and
(f) monitoring the number of pixels, non-destructively or destructively, after detecting the absence of radiation (e.g., see “… (block 146) for a further exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44).
Liu et al. also disclose (paragraph 24) that “… portable detector control device 40 is also configured to communicate instructions (e.g., detector operating mode) to the detector 22 for the acquisition of X-ray image data …”, the system of Liu et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… detector …” such as a non-destructive readout mode. However, “… detector operating mode …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… data collection circuit 7 can select a mode for reading image data from the image data reading unit 6, such as a continuous readout mode, a nondestructive readout mode, or other suitable still-image readout mode …” in paragraph 32 of Hayashida et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector operating mode (e.g., comprising details such as “nondestructive readout mode” , in order to achieve a desired readout) for the unspecified “detector operating mode” of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector operating mode (e.g., comprising details such as detecting a presence of radiation at the number of pixels monitored non-destructively) as the unspecified “detector operating mode” of Liu et al.
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 17, Liu et al. also disclose that the operations further comprising capturing reference imaging data from a subset of pixels for at least one frame before identifying the presence of radiation (e.g., see “… sampled data (e.g., offset data from offset frame 152) gathered prior to obtaining imaging frame 156. Offset frame 152 is acquired prior to the initiation of the exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 17, Liu et al. also disclose that the operations further comprising defining a reference image using reference imaging data from a subset of pixels (e.g., see “… sampled data (e.g., offset data from offset frame 152) gathered prior to obtaining imaging frame 156. Offset frame 152 is acquired prior to the initiation of the exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 19, Liu et al. also disclose that the operations further comprising correcting the image data for offset responsive to the reference image, wherein the offset includes one or more of lag or residual signal from a previous frame (e.g., see “… To obtain the offset-corrected X-ray image, the total number of frames 150 used to make the X-ray image (e.g., two, frames 156 and 158) are multiplied time the calculated offset image (e.g., offset frame 152) and subtracted from the X-ray image to form the offset corrected X-ray image …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 50).
In regard to claim 21 which is dependent on claim 17, Liu et al. also disclose that the operations further comprising: interpreting data received from a subset of pixels of the array of pixels at a first exposure setting (e.g., see “… sampled data (e.g., offset data from offset frame 152) gathered prior to obtaining imaging frame 156. Offset frame 152 is acquired prior to the initiation of the exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 47); interpreting captured image data received from pixels of the array of pixels at a second exposure setting (e.g., see “… To obtain the X-ray image all of the frames 150 including image data (e.g., frames 156 and 158) are combined (i.e., added) …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 50); and interpreting data received from the subset of pixels of a pixel array at a third exposure setting responsive to detecting the absence of radiation (e.g., see “… Offset frame 154 is acquired after the exposure ends and the frames 150 include no more image data. Neither of the offset frames 152 and 154 includes image data …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 24 which is dependent on claim 21, Liu et al. also disclose that the operations further comprising interpreting the data received from the subset of pixels of the pixel array at the third exposure setting without capturing the data (e.g., see “… detector 22 ceases sampling after determining the end of the exposure and after sampling all of the X-ray image data from the frames …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 44).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. and Hayashida et al. as applied to claim(s) 21 above, and further in view of Sayed et al. (US 5,693,948).
In regard to claim 22 which is dependent on claim 21, the method of Liu et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… detector …” such as the operations further comprising interpreting captured imaging data and providing information about identified radiation to an automatic exposure control operation to adjust an exposure duration setting. However, “… detector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… real-time exposure control or tracking function. In this mode of operation the horizontal serial registers 40a are clocked periodically during the exposure so as to determine an amount of signal coming into the serial registers. Based on the output signals the PC 56 predicts when the optimum exposure time is reached, and the x-ray machine 52 is then signalled to turn off at that time … variable resolution … CCD chip 18a having a basic pixel size of 15x15 micrometers, the PC 56 programs the CCD chip 18a to provide one of 15x15, 30x30, 45x45, 60x60, 75x75 microns, etc., output pixel sizes … binning … 2kx2 pixel, etc. This capability also enables the PC 56 to measure a finite amount of x-ray dose with a very high accuracy … start of the exposure is detected, at block E the vertical clocks of the CCD chip 18a are immediately stopped so as to initiate the integration of charge within the individual pixels. The horizontal register clocks can continue to run so as to (1) detect an onset and a termination of the exposure, (2) to perform the automatic exposure length function that was referred to above, and/or to (3) perform the real time exposure control function …” in the first and third column 8 paragraphs and the second column 10 paragraph of Sayed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as a desired image resolution achieved with “real time exposure control function” with “binning”, in order to “measure a finite amount of x-ray dose with a very high accuracy”) for the unspecified detector of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as the operations further comprising interpreting captured imaging data and providing information about identified radiation to an automatic exposure control operation to adjust an exposure duration setting) as the unspecified detector of Liu et al.
In regard to claim 23 which is dependent on claim 21, Liu et al. also disclose that. the method of Liu et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… detector …” such as the first exposure setting and the third exposure setting correspond to respective resolutions that are lower than a resolution of the second exposure setting. However, “… detector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… real-time exposure control or tracking function. In this mode of operation the horizontal serial registers 40a are clocked periodically during the exposure so as to determine an amount of signal coming into the serial registers. Based on the output signals the PC 56 predicts when the optimum exposure time is reached, and the x-ray machine 52 is then signalled to turn off at that time … variable resolution … CCD chip 18a having a basic pixel size of 15x15 micrometers, the PC 56 programs the CCD chip 18a to provide one of 15x15, 30x30, 45x45, 60x60, 75x75 microns, etc., output pixel sizes … binning … 2kx2 pixel, etc. This capability also enables the PC 56 to measure a finite amount of x-ray dose with a very high accuracy … start of the exposure is detected, at block E the vertical clocks of the CCD chip 18a are immediately stopped so as to initiate the integration of charge within the individual pixels. The horizontal register clocks can continue to run so as to (1) detect an onset and a termination of the exposure, (2) to perform the automatic exposure length function that was referred to above, and/or to (3) perform the real time exposure control function …” in the first and third column 8 paragraphs and the second column 10 paragraph of Sayed et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as a desired image resolution achieved with “real time exposure control function” with “binning”, in order to “measure a finite amount of x-ray dose with a very high accuracy”) for the unspecified detector of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as the first exposure setting and the third exposure setting correspond to respective resolutions that are lower than a resolution of the second exposure setting) as the unspecified detector of Liu et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 27 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liu et al. do not teach or suggest, literally or inherently, “” as recited in amended independent claim 1 because Liu et al. describe a digital X ray imaging system and method “to acquire offset data (when no radiation is present) and imaging data (when radiation is present) and to combine multiple frames to produce a reconstructed X-ray image” citing paragraphs 16 and abstract. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… computing device 110 may capture one or more frames during a frame reference period 608 (e.g., reference image data, base image data, offset image data or image data representative of the environment before the radiation source 102 is activated, without limitation) …” in paragraph 72) serves as a glossary for the claim term “computing device”. Thus the scope of the claim term “computing device” includes a plurality of functions such as “computing device 110 may capture” “offset image data or image data representative of the environment before the radiation source 102 is activated, without limitation”. It is important to note that amended independent claim 1 does not include claim terms such as only said image data was captured. Therefore the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in amended independent claim 1.
Applicant argues that claim 9 is independently allowable at least because Liu et al. do not anticipate “a synchronization signal indicating readiness for signal integration between the radiation source and a number of pixels or the computing device is not needed”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the previous office action, Liu et al. disclose that a synchronization signal indicating readiness for signal integration between the radiation source and a number of pixels or the computing device is not needed (e.g., see “without communication” in “… detector 22 is configured to acquire X-ray image data without communication from a controller of the X-ray radiation source 16. In other words, the detector 22 is without communication of timing signals from the controller of the source 16 as to an X-ray exposure …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 21). Without communication of timing signals can also be labeled as a synchronization signal is not needed. Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claim.
Applicant argues that claim 12 is independently allowable at least because Liu et al. do not anticipate “binning the number of pixels when the number of pixels are being monitored non-destructively or destructively”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification (e.g., see “… computing device 110 may monitor pixels 310 by only reading and not recording the digitized e.g., data, information, without limitation developed on pixels 310. In some embodiments, computing device 110 may monitor pixels 310 grey value by only recording the signal for the pixels 310 from a limited number of the frames, such as between about 1 frame and about 10 frames, or between about 2 frames and about 4 frames …” in paragraph 75) serves as a glossary for the claim term “a computing device configured to: monitor a pixel or subset of the number of pixels until the radiation is detected”. As discussed in the previous office action, Liu et al. disclose binning the number of pixels when the number of pixels are being monitored non-destructively or destructively (e.g., see “… To determine the beginning and ending of the exposure and the imaging data, a row average of each frame 150 is obtained …” in Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and paragraph 48). Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claim.
Applicant argues that claim 5 is independently allowable at least because the combination of the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest “a programmable and selectable set of capacitors coupled to the electrode”. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves (e.g., see “… detector 22 may convert the X-ray photons directly to electrical signals … it should be noted that the particular circuit components used for the row drivers and column readout electronics may vary, and the present invention is not limited to the use of FETs or any particular circuit components …” in paragraphs 31 and 41 of Liu et al.). As discussed in the previous office action, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as “photo-conductors”, “charge storage elements, such as diodes and MOS transistors, may be used”, “reset switch RS”, “an associated switching element 34”, and “read-out switching element 26”, in order to achieve “rapid capture of a discrete number of successive image frames and allows read-out of each frame at a rate that is slower than the rate of charge storage for successive frames”) for the unspecified detector of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and one of ordinary skill in the art could also have substituted a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as “photo-conductors”, “charge storage elements, such as diodes and MOS transistors, may be used”, “reset switch RS”, “an associated switching element 34”, and “read-out switching element 26”, in order to achieve “rapid capture of a discrete number of successive image frames and allows read-out of each frame at a rate that is slower than the rate of charge storage for successive frames”) for the unspecified detector of Liu et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional detector (e.g., comprising details such as each pixel of the number of pixels comprises a photoconductor coupled to an electrode, a programmable and selectable set of capacitors coupled to the electrode, and transistor switches operable to initiate reset, integration and readout of a signal from a capacitor of the programmable and selectable set of capacitors) as the unspecified detector of Liu et al. Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claim.
Applicant argues that claim 8 is allowable because it depends from claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0099689 teaches an X-ray detector.
US 2008/0259182 teaches an X-ray detector.
US 2015/0078528 teaches an X-ray detector.
US 2016/0047920 teaches an X-ray detector.
US 2016/0116611 teaches an X-ray detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 Fluoroscopic (fluoroscopy) An x-ray procedure that produces immediate images and motion on a screen. The images look like those seen at airport baggage security stations. Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.