DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 12/4/2025 and 3/4/2026 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner. The Non-Patent Literature Document No. 2 in IDS 12/4/2025 was not considered because it was not translated into English.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The dependent claims 2-11 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claims 1, 12, and 13 elements are vague and indefinite because “a similarity measure” is repeated before “the similarity measure,” so it is not clear what is “the similarity measure.”
The following claims 1, 12, and 13 elements are vague and indefinite because the structure of the limitation is not clear. It is not clear what “is evaluated” and the “calculation of the similarity measure”;
“wherein at least a partial region of data including:
a) the sinogram from (SI);
b) the corrected sinogram from (S3);
c) the simulated sinogram; or
d) an intermediate result for calculating a similarity measure derived from at least one of the sinogram from (S1), the corrected sinogram from (S3) or the simulated sinogram,
is evaluated differently from other regions of the data during calculation of the similarity measure, wherein the partial region includes the metal regions from (S2).”
The following claims 1, 12, and 13 elements are vague and indefinite because DVT is not defined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2019/0325621) discusses geometric calibration, sinograms with metal regions, and reconstructing sinogram images.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights