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
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 30 July 2025 wherein: claims 1-17 are amended; claims 1-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges: the prior objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been overcome by amendment; the claims no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) due to amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 06 June 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2022-095224 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Numbering
The numbering of the claims is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g) which states in part “all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.” See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). The numbering of the claims should not be changed now. Examiner will correct the numbering of the claims if still necessary if the application is allowed. Due to the irregular numbering of the claims, the following rejections of the claims may not necessarily be in numerical order.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the energy spectrum in the excess region” in the claim prior to the limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Examiner recommends reversing the order of the limitations in the claim to provide sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 16-18
Claims 1-7, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2022/0091050 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s Figures 1-4 are indistinct from Figures 1-4, respectively, of Iwashita. Applicant’s Figures 5-7 are indistinct from Figures 5A-C of Iwashita.
Iwashita discloses a radiation imaging apparatus comprising: at least one processor (of 103); and at least one memory (of 103) storing instructions which when executed by the processor, cause the radiation imaging apparatus to (¶ 34: “The imaging control apparatus 103 includes, for example, one or a plurality of processors (CPUs) and a memory, and the processor executes a program stored in the memory to obtain an X-ray image and perform image processing”):
obtain a plurality of images corresponding to a plurality of different radiation energies by irradiating an object with radiation and performing imaging (¶ 35: “The obtaining unit 131 obtains a plurality of radiation images corresponding to a plurality of different radiation energies obtained by irradiating an object with radiation and performing imaging”)
using an energy spectrum generated by summing energy values obtained by dividing a time-series of radiation photon energies in a time axis, and perform energy subtraction processing using the plurality of images, wherein the imaging is performed using sample and hold timing using the energy spectrum (division in time to low energy in 401 and 402, high energy in 403, as shown in Fig. 4; summation, sampling and holding as described in ¶¶ 51-55; ¶ 51: “FIG. 4 shows the driving timing … of the X-ray imaging apparatus 104 when obtaining a plurality of X-ray images of different energies to be provided to energy subtraction in the X-ray imaging system”; ¶ 52: “the X-ray generating apparatus 101 exposes low energy X-rays 401. In this state, the X-ray imaging apparatus 104 causes the noise sample and hold circuit 207N to perform sampling. After that, the X-ray generating apparatus 101 switches the tube voltage to expose high energy X-rays 402. In this state, the X-ray imaging apparatus 104 causes the signal sample and hold circuit 207S to perform sampling. After that, the X-ray generating apparatus 101 switches the tube voltage to expose low energy X-rays 403. The X-ray imaging apparatus 104 reads out, as an image, the difference between the signal lines 21N and 21S. At this time, a signal (R.sub.1) of the low energy X-rays 401 is held in the noise sample and hold circuit 207N, and the sum (R.sub.1+B) of the signal of the low energy X-rays 401 and a signal (B) of the high energy X-rays 402 is held in the signal sample and hold circuit 207S. Therefore, an image 404 corresponding to the signal of the high energy X-rays 402 is read out”; ¶ 53: “Next, after completion of the exposure of the low energy X-rays 403 and the readout of the image 404, the X-ray imaging apparatus 104 causes the signal sample and hold circuit 207S to perform sampling again. After that, the X-ray imaging apparatus 104 resets the photoelectric conversion element 201, causes the noise sample and hold circuit 207N to perform sampling again, and reads out, as an image, the difference between the signal lines 21N and 21S. At this time, a signal in a state in which no X-rays are exposed is held in the noise sample and hold circuit 207N, and the sum (R.sub.1+B+R.sub.2) of the signal of the low energy X-rays 401, the signal of the high energy X-rays 402, and a signal (R.sub.2) of the low energy X-rays 403 is held in the signal sample and hold circuit 207S. Therefore, an image 406 corresponding to the signal of the low energy X-rays 401, the signal of the high energy X-rays 402, and the signal of the low energy X-rays 403 is read out”; ¶ 54: “After that, by calculating the difference between the images 406 and 404, an image 405 corresponding to the sum of the low energy X-rays 401 and the low energy X-rays 403 is obtained. This calculation processing may be performed by the X-ray imaging apparatus 104 or the imaging control apparatus 103. With respect to a synchronization signal 407, the same as in FIG. 3 applies. As described above, by obtaining images while actively switching the tube voltage, the energy difference between radiation images of low energy and high energy can be made large, as compared with the method shown in FIG. 3”; ¶ 93: “the execution timing of the dose dependence correction in an arrangement for obtaining a plurality of radiation images by performing a sample and hold operation a plurality of times during exposure of radiation”; see also ¶¶ 33-93, Figs. 1-5C).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Iwashita discloses obtaining the energy spectrum by summing the energy values obtained by dividing the radiation photon energy at a timing when a signal of the radiation energy is sampled and held (see rejection of claim 1 above; sampling and holding as described in ¶¶ 45-93, Figs. 4-5A).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Iwashita discloses generating the energy spectrum by counting a number of photons in the time-series in the energy values (see rejection of claim 1 above; counting as described in ¶¶ 45-93, Figs. 4-5A).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Iwashita discloses dividing the radiation photon energies at a time when a signal corresponding to a first radiation energy (low energy) is sampled and held and at a time when a signal corresponding to a second radiation energy (high energy) is sample and held and at a time when a signal corresponding to a second radiation energy higher than the first radiation energy is sampled and held (the high energy is higher than the low energy; see rejection of claim 1 above; sampling and holding as described in ¶¶ 45-93, Figs.4-5A).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, if irradiation is present, it is necessarily performed “at least once or a plurality of times” as claimed. Accordingly, this phrase does not limit the claimed invention.
Iwashita discloses generating a time series of the radiation photon energies when irradiation is performed at least once or a plurality of times; and summing the radiation photon energies divided at a time when a signal corresponding to the radiation photon energies is sampled and held, thereby obtaining the energy values, if the irradiation is performed a plurality of times (performing irradiation a plurality of times as recites in ¶ 93; see rejection of claim 1 above and ¶¶ 45-93, Figs.4-5A).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Iwashita discloses dividing the radiation photon energies at a time corresponding to each irradiation, if the irradiation is performed a plurality of times (performing irradiation a plurality of times as recites in ¶ 93; see rejection of claim 1 above and ¶¶ 45-93, Figs.4-5A).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Iwashita discloses obtaining the radiation photon energies in synchronism with irradiation based on a temporarily changing tube voltage (i.e., the tube voltage temporarily changes from a low value for region 401 to a high value in 402 before returning to a low value in 403 in Fig. 4; see rejection of claim 1 above and ¶¶ 45-93, Figs.4-5A).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Iwashita discloses generating radiation by switching at least one tube voltage, wherein the at least one tube voltage includes a first tube voltage (for regions 401 and 403 in Fig. 4) and a second tube voltage (for region 402 in Fig. 4), or generating radiation by switching the first voltage or the second tube voltage higher than the first tube voltage, or generating radiation by switching at least the first tube voltage and the second tube voltage, or generating radiation by switching at least second tube voltage and the first tube voltage (all options disclosed for first tube voltage for regions 401 and 403 and second tube voltage for region 402 in Fig. 4; see rejection of claim 1 above and ¶¶ 45-93, Figs.4-5A).
Claims 16-18
Regarding claims 16-18, as best understood, see the rejection of claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Carmi (US 2008/0260094 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Iwashita does not expressly disclose, if the energy spectrum includes an energy spectrum in an excess region exceeding an energy region of radiation, performing pile-up correction for excluding the energy spectrum in the excess region.
However, performing pile-up correction was well-known and routinely practiced in the art. For example, Carmi discloses a multiple energy x-ray detector configured to perform pile-up correction for excluding an energy spectrum in an excess region (Abstract; ¶ 8; Claims 1-3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Iwashita in view of the teachings of Carmi to perform pile-up correction as claimed.
One would have been motivated to do so to correct for overlapping events as recited by Carmi (i.e., the ordinary purpose of pile-up correction; Carmi, ¶¶ 5-6).
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Iwashita does not expressly disclose the processing unit performs smoothing correction for correcting a waveform of the energy spectrum to a smooth shape. Examiner takes Official Notice performing smoothing correction was well-known and routinely practiced in the art. Because Applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Iwashita so that the processing unit performs smoothing correction for correcting a waveform of the energy spectrum to a smooth shape. One would have been motivated to do so obtain a more accurate representation of radiation energy.
Claims 11 and 14
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gilat-Schmidt (US 2024/0374225 A1).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Iwashita discloses simulation of a spectrum of radiation energy (¶ 67). Iwashita does not expressly disclose the processing unit evaluates, based on evaluation information, quality of an image obtained by a simulation of the energy subtraction processing under a changed imaging condition, and sets an imaging condition with which the evaluation information takes a maximum value.
Gilat-Schmidt discloses an x-ray imaging apparatus (¶ 24) configured to evaluate, based on evaluation information (image quality metric), quality of an image obtained by a simulation of energy binning processing under a changed imaging condition, and sets an imaging condition with which the evaluation information takes a maximum value (¶¶ 51, 63-70, 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Iwashita in view of the teachings of Gilat-Schmidt so that the processing unit evaluates, based on evaluation information, quality of an image obtained by a simulation of the energy subtraction processing under a changed imaging condition, and sets an imaging condition with which the evaluation information takes a maximum value.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Gilat-Schmidt of maximizing image quality (Gilat-Schmidt: ¶ 51).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Iwashita modified teaches the processing unit sets the imaging condition under which evaluation information using a ratio of a contrast to noise of the image (Gilat-Schmidt: ¶¶ 51, 67-68).
Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita in view of Gilat-Schmidt as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Possin (US 6,404,851 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Iwashita modified teaches determining a timing of sampling and holding of the signal of the radiation imaging as described in the rejection of claim 2 above. Iwashita modified further teaches optimization (maximization) as described in the rejection of claim 11 above. Iwashita modified does not expressly disclose the processing unit changes, as the imaging condition, the timing of sampling and holding the signal of the radiation energy and sets the timing at which the evaluation information takes the maximum value.
Possin discloses a radiation imager (col. 3, ll. 26-38) wherein sample and hold timing is optimized (col. 8, l. 39 - col. 9, l. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Iwashita in view of the teachings of Possin so that the processing unit changes, as the imaging condition, the timing of sampling and holding the signal of the radiation energy and sets the timing at which the evaluation information takes the maximum value.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Possin of optimizing sampling rate (Possin: col. 8, l. 39 - col. 9, l. 2).
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita in view of Gilat-Schmidt as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hirokawa (US 2009/0141854 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Iwashita modified teaches adjusting an irradiation condition (tube voltage) as described in the rejection of claim 10 above. Iwashita modified further teaches optimization (maximization) as described in the rejection of claim 11 above. Iwashita modified does not expressly disclose the processing unit changes, as the imaging condition, an irradiation condition of the radiation and sets the irradiation condition under which the evaluation information takes the maximum value.
Hirokawa discloses an X-ray CT apparatus (¶¶ 50-52) wherein an irradiation condition (tube voltage or tube current) is optimized (¶ 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Iwashita in view of the teachings of Hirokawa so that the processing unit changes, as the imaging condition, an irradiation condition of the radiation and sets the irradiation condition under which the evaluation information takes the maximum value.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Hirokawa of optimizing tube voltage (Hirokawa: ¶ 100).
Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita in view of Gilat-Schmidt as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Grasruck (US 2014/0005533 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Iwashita modified teaches optimization (maximization) as described in the rejection of claim 11 above. Iwashita modified does not expressly disclose the processing unit sets the imaging condition under which evaluation information using an energy difference between the plurality of radiation energies irradiated when obtaining the plurality of images or evaluation information using a dose ratio of the radiation irradiated when obtaining the plurality of images takes the maximum value.
Grasruck discloses an X-ray imaging system (¶¶ 7-9, 141) wherein a dose ratio is optimized (maximized; ¶¶ 96-98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Iwashita in view of the teachings of Hirokawa so that the processing unit sets the imaging condition under which evaluation information using a dose ratio of the radiation irradiated when obtaining the plurality of images takes the maximum value.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Grasruck of reducing applied radiation dose while maintaining sufficient imaging quality (Grasruck: ¶¶ 7-9, 96-98).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Especially pertinent, Ueda (US 4,945,552 A) discloses an imaging system for obtaining X-ray energy subtraction images (Title; Abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, David Porta can be reached at 571-272-2444. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884