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 .
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 “…FIG. 6F illustrates a multitude of possible types of misalignments of the ASG and the corresponding offset profiles. To determine the rotational misalignment and shift misalignment of the ASG offsets, one can plot the offsets along the micro row (microsegment) direction for a specific submodule …” in
PNG
media_image1.png
1321
2625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the second paragraph on pg. 12) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim terms “a misalignment between a position of the radiation detector and a position of the septa of the ASG”, “a right offset of the first septa relative to a position of the radiation detector”, and “a left offset of the second septa relative to the position of the radiation detector”.
The specification (e.g., see “… source tilt angle ρ … X-ray source tilt may be defined by defining coordinates xS=STD.(1-cos(ρ)) and yS=STD·sin(ρ) according to one embodiment, wherein xS is the x-coordinate of the X-ray source location in a 2D space, yS is the y-coordinate of the X-ray source location in the 2D space, and STD is the distance from the isocenter to the X-ray source location …” in
PNG
media_image2.png
1968
1707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the third paragraph on pg. 12) serves as a glossary for the claim terms “isocenter” and “tilt angle”.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: micropixel to other recited elements (e.g., pixel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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) 1, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onouchi et al. (US 2022/0074872) in view of Kawata et al. (US 2020/0367836).
In regard to claim 1, Onouchi et al. disclose an apparatus, comprising:
(a) a radiation detector including a plurality of pixels (e.g., “… dividing the semiconductor layer 203 in FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B into the semiconductor layer 203A and the semiconductor layer 203B … alignment to be performed in a case where three or more detecting elements are arrayed along the wall 208 in the passing hole 205 will be described. Incidentally, in the second embodiment, since it is possible to apply part of configurations and functions which are described in the first embodiment … FIG. 8A is a top view illustrating one example of a case where three detecting elements are arrayed along the wall 208 in the passing hole 205 …” in paragraphs 33, 55, and 56);
(b) an anti-scatter grid (ASG) arranged on an incident side of the radiation detector, wherein a septa of the ASG is arranged over a portion of a first pixel of the plurality of pixels as viewed from the incident side of the radiation detector (e.g., see “… collimator 201 may be configured by combining heavy metal plates with one another in a gridshape … scattered rays and so forth which diagonally enter the passing hole 205 are absorbed by the wall 208 …” in
PNG
media_image3.png
1317
1189
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and paragraph 30); and
(c) processing circuitry configured to receive a first detection result from the first pixel, receive a second detection result from a second pixel of the plurality of pixels, and estimate a misalignment between a position of the radiation detector and a position of the septa of the ASG, based on the first detection result and the second detection result (e.g., see “… signal processing unit 3 performs processing such as correction and so forth on output signals from the detecting elements and controls operations of respective units of the X-ray CT apparatus … As illustrated in FIG. 4B, in a case where the semiconductor layer 203 and the collimator 201 are correctly aligned with each other, values of the output signals from the respective detecting elements are equal to one another … since the collimator 201 is out of alignment with the semiconductor layer 203A and the semiconductor layer 203B in the Z-direction, a difference occurs among the output signals from the respective detecting elements as illustrated in FIG. 5B … in the second embodiment, since it is possible to apply part of configurations and functions which are described in the first embodiment …” in Fig. 4B, Fig. 5B, and paragraphs 26, 37, 43, and 55).
While Onouchi et al. also disclose (paragraph 34) that “… it is desirable to align the semiconductor layer 203 with the collimator 201 with an error of, for example, about 10% or less such that the center of the passing hole 205 almost match a central part which is surrounded by the four pixel electrodes 206. In a case where an accuracy of alignment of the both is insufficient, a false image which is called an artifact is produced in the tomographic image that the CT apparatus generates …”, the apparatus of Onouchi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… alignment of the both is insufficient …” such as >10% misalignment resulted in the septa not being over any portion of the second pixel, as viewed from the incident side. However, “… alignment of the both is insufficient …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… in the lower diagram of FIG. 2A, when misaligmnent has not occurred, for example, one detecting element 221 is placed each between the respective shielding plates 29a … If misalignment has occurred, the shielding plates 29a obstruct the paths of X-rays on some of the electrodes 221a. In the example illustrated in the lower diagram of FIG. 2B, the paths of X-rays on one row of the electrodes 221a arranged in the slice direction have been obstructed …” in Figs. 2A-B and paragraphs 51 and 52 of Kawata 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 insufficient alignment (e.g., comprising details such as “paths of X-rays on one row of the electrodes 221a arranged in the slice direction have been obstructed” because “misalignment has occurred”) for the unspecified insufficient alignment of Onouchi 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 that a known conventional insufficient alignment (e.g., comprising details such as the septa is not arranged over any portion of the second pixel, as viewed from the incident side) as the unspecified insufficient alignment of Onouchi et al.
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Onouchi et al. also disclose that the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate a positional offset of the septa, the positional offset being one of a right offset and a left offset (e.g., see “… signal processing unit 3 performs processing such as correction and so forth on output signals from the detecting elements and controls operations of respective units of the X-ray CT apparatus … As illustrated in FIG. 4B, in a case where the semiconductor layer 203 and the collimator 201 are correctly aligned with each other, values of the output signals from the respective detecting elements are equal to one another … since the collimator 201 is out of alignment with the semiconductor layer 203A and the semiconductor layer 203B in the Z-direction, a difference occurs among the output signals from the respective detecting elements as illustrated in FIG. 5B … in the second embodiment, since it is possible to apply part of configurations and functions which are described in the first embodiment …” in Fig. 4B, Fig. 5B, and paragraphs 26, 37, 43, and 55 and “difference” can also be labeled as a right offset or a left offset).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Onouchi et al. also disclose that the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate a positional off set of the septa, the positional offset being one of a rotation up and a rotation down (e.g., see “… Accordingly, in FIG. 7A And FIG. 7B, the position adjustment amount is calculated on the basis of the output signals from the detecting elements which correspond to the first passing hole and the second passing hole which are two of the passing holes in the four comer of the collimator 201 and from the detecting elements which correspond to the passing holes which are located just on the inner sides of the first passing hole and the second passing hole. The position adjustment amounts are calculated as the amounts to be adjusted in a first direction and a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction and a direction that the subject 7 is irradiated with the X-rays at respective positions that the first passing hole and the second passing hole are formed. For example, the following formulae are used for calculation of the position adjustment amounts …” in Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B, and paragraph 49). Alternative it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate rotational offset in order to also correct rotational misalignment.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onouchi et al. in view of Kawata et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Xiaohui et al. (US 2021/0290195).
In regard to claims 2 and 3 which are dependent on claim 1, the apparatus of Onouchi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… processing …” such as estimate the misalignment based on the septa’s width and an estimated length of a shadow cast by the septa on the first pixel based on the first pixel’s width and the first and second detection results. However, “… processing …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… focal spot (FS) position … FS positional variation combined with non-ideal ASG angular alignment can cause different intensity drifts across the detector pixels, and result in ring artifacts in the reconstructed image … total counts of the edge reference detector pixels are used to estimate Lshadow … N≈N0(Lpixel - xasg - Lshadow)/( Lpixel - xasg),where Lpixel is the pixel size, xasg is the initial ASG shadow which is t/2 with ideal ASG-pixel alignment, and Lshadow is the additional shadow caused by non-ideal FS-ASG alignment … one can estimate the initial shadow xasg based on the pixel intensity difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map). One method is to compare the normalized intensity of the ASG covered pixels with the uncovered ones to estimate xasg
N
A
S
G
N
0
=
1
-
x
A
S
G
/
L
p
i
x
e
l
(Eq. 2) where NASG is the normalized ASG covered pixel intensity, and N0 is the normalized uncovered pixel intensity … With reference to FIG. 9, the ASG shadow influences on two neighboring pixels with non-ideal ASG-FS alignment. m1=0, m2=1 when FS position is between 0 and 1; m1=1, m2=0 when FS position is between 0 and 2. Due to the ASG plates alignment variations, the 0 position could be different for the pixels under ASG …” in the paragraphs 3, 52, 53, and 57 of Xiaohui 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 processing (e.g., comprising details such as calculate “Lpixel - xasg - Lshadow” “based on the pixel intensity difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map)”, in order to minimize “artifacts in the reconstructed image”) for the unspecified processing of Onouchi 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 processing (e.g., comprising details such as the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate a length of a shadow cast by the septa on the first pixel based on the first detection result and the second detection result; and estimate the misalignment between the position of the radiation detector and the position of the septa based on the estimated length of the shadow, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate the length of the shadow further based on a width of the first pixel, and estimate the misalignment between the position of the radiation detector and the position of the septa further based on a width of the septa) as the unspecified processing of Onouchi et al.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onouchi et al. in view of Kawata et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Ikhlef et al. (US 2022/0338823).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Onouchi et al. also disclose that the ASG comprises a plurality of septa, which are radiation absorptive members, and a plurality of radiation transmissive members, alternatively arranged in a form of slits or a matrix (e.g., see “… collimator 201 may be configured by combining heavy metal plates with one another in a gridshape … scattered rays and so forth which diagonally enter the passing hole 205 are absorbed by the wall 208 …” in Fig. 8A and paragraph 30), a plurality of submodules comprising a two-dimensional array of micropixels arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, the plurality of columns are arranged in channels consisting of three of the columns, each channel including a left microchannel, a center microchannel, and a right microchannel, and a first septa of the ASG is disposed on a left edge of the left microchannel and a second septa of the ASG is disposed on a right edge of the right microchannel (e.g., see “… X-ray detector 2 which has a plurality of detecting elements … dividing the semiconductor layer 203 in FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B into the semiconductor layer 203A and the semiconductor layer 203B … alignment to be performed in a case where three or more detecting elements are arrayed along the wall 208 in the passing hole 205 will be described. Incidentally, in the second embodiment, since it is possible to apply part of configurations and functions which are described in the first embodiment … FIG. 8A is a top view illustrating one example of a case where three detecting elements are arrayed along the wall 208 in the passing hole 205 …” in Fig. 8A and paragraphs 26, 33, 55, and 56, micropixels can also be labeled as pixels, and submodules can also be labeled as semiconductor layers). The apparatus of Onouchi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… X-ray detector …” such as the plurality of submodules are included in a plurality of detector module blades (DMB). However, “… X-ray detector …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… alignment of such modules presents various challenges due to the increased length of the detectors, along the Z-axis. Tolerances can stack along the Z-axis and it can be difficult to control the tolerance stack up as the modules are assembled onto a detector structure. In addition, not only may there be expensive and time-consuming procedures developed for assembly when in a manufacturing facility, it is difficult to apply such techniques to a detector that is installed (such as in a hospital suite). From time to time it is necessary to replace a module, such as if there is a failure that develops in an installed unit, so it may be impractical and very costly to remove an entire detector assembly from an installed CT system to have a failed module replaced …” in the paragraph 7 of Ikhlef 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 “modules are assembled onto a detector structure”, in order to avoid removing “an entire detector assembly from an installed CT system to have a failed module replaced”) for the unspecified detector of Onouchi 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 radiation detector apparatus comprises a plurality of detector module blades (DMB), each of the plurality of DMB includes a plurality of submodules) as the unspecified detector of Onouchi et al.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onouchi et al. (US 2022/0074872) and Xiaohui et al. (US 2021/0290195).
In regard to claim 7, Onouchi et al. disclose an apparatus for detecting misalignment of an anti-scattering grid (ASG) offset detection for a radiation detector apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a radiation detector including a plurality of pixels, the plurality of pixels being arranged in a plurality of modules (e.g., “… dividing the semiconductor layer 203 in FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B into the semiconductor layer 203A and the semiconductor layer 203B … alignment to be performed in a case where three or more detecting elements are arrayed along the wall 208 in the passing hole 205 will be described. Incidentally, in the second embodiment, since it is possible to apply part of configurations and functions which are described in the first embodiment … FIG. 8A is a top view illustrating one example of a case where three detecting elements are arrayed along the wall 208 in the passing hole 205 …” in paragraphs 33, 55, and 56); and processing circuitry (e.g., “… signal processing unit 3 performs processing such as correction and so forth on output signals from the detecting elements …” in paragraph 30) configured to:
(a) acquire first counts obtained from a first air scan with an anti-scatter grid (ASG) having a plurality of septa arranged on an incident side of the radiation detector (e.g., see “… As illustrated in FIG. 4B, in a case where the semiconductor layer 203 and the collimator 201 are correctly aligned with each other, values of the output signals from the respective detecting elements are equal to one another … since the collimator 201 is out of alignment with the semiconductor layer 203A and the semiconductor layer 203B in the Z-direction, a difference occurs among the output signals from the respective detecting elements as illustrated in FIG. 5B … in the second embodiment, since it is possible to apply part of configurations and functions which are described in the first embodiment …” in Fig. 4B, Fig. 5B, and paragraphs 37, 43, and 55 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that for both the first and second embodiments a positional offset estimate is zero because “values of the output signals from the respective detecting elements are equal to one another” when “correctly aligned”);
(b) estimate a misalignment between a position of the radiation detector and positions of the plurality of septa of the ASG based on the first counts (e.g., “… semiconductor layer 203 is aligned with the collimator 201 such that a ratio or a difference between the output signals from the detecting elements which are mutually adjacent with the wall 208 being interposed falls within a predetermined range … case where although the semiconductor layer 203A is correctly aligned with the collimator 201, the semiconductor layer 203B is out of alignment with the collimator 201 in the Z-direction … FIG. 6B illustrates a distribution of the output signals from the respective detecting elements in the Z-direction …” in paragraphs 34 and 46);
(e) determine whether any particular module of the plurality of modules is faulty based on the estimated misalignment between a position of the radiation detector and positions of the plurality of septa (e.g., “… semiconductor layer 203 is aligned with the collimator 201 such that a ratio or a difference between the output signals from the detecting elements which are mutually adjacent with the wall 208 being interposed falls within a predetermined range … case where although the semiconductor layer 203A is correctly aligned with the collimator 201, the semiconductor layer 203B is out of alignment with the collimator 201 in the Z-direction … FIG. 6B illustrates a distribution of the output signals from the respective detecting elements in the Z-direction …” in paragraphs 34 and 46).
The apparatus of Onouchi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… processing …” such as the first counts are normalized based on second counts acquired from a second air scan without the ASG arranged on the radiation detector. However, “… processing …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… focal spot (FS) position … FS positional variation combined with non-ideal ASG angular alignment can cause different intensity drifts across the detector pixels, and result in ring artifacts in the reconstructed image … total counts of the edge reference detector pixels are used to estimate Lshadow … N≈N0(Lpixel - xasg - Lshadow)/( Lpixel - xasg),where Lpixel is the pixel size, xasg is the initial ASG shadow which is t/2 with ideal ASG-pixel alignment, and Lshadow is the additional shadow caused by non-ideal FS-ASG alignment … one can estimate the initial shadow xasg based on the pixel intensity difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map). One method is to compare the normalized intensity of the ASG covered pixels with the uncovered ones to estimate xasg
N
A
S
G
N
0
=
1
-
x
A
S
G
/
L
p
i
x
e
l
(Eq. 2) where NASG is the normalized ASG covered pixel intensity, and N0 is the normalized uncovered pixel intensity … With reference to FIG. 9, the ASG shadow influences on two neighboring pixels with non-ideal ASG-FS alignment. m1=0, m2=1 when FS position is between 0 and 1; m1=1, m2=0 when FS position is between 0 and 2. Due to the ASG plates alignment variations, the 0 position could be different for the pixels under ASG …” in the paragraphs 3, 52, 53, and 57 of Xiaohui 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 processing (e.g., comprising details such as calculate “Lpixel - xasg - Lshadow” “based on the pixel intensity difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map)”, in order to minimize “artifacts in the reconstructed image”) for the unspecified processing of Onouchi 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 processing (e.g., comprising details such as the first counts are normalized based on second counts acquired from a second air scan without the ASG arranged on the radiation detector) as the unspecified processing of Onouchi et al.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7, the apparatus of Onouchi et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… processing …” such as modify the acquired second counts based on the pixels’ sizes. However, “… processing …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… focal spot (FS) position … FS positional variation combined with non-ideal ASG angular alignment can cause different intensity drifts across the detector pixels, and result in ring artifacts in the reconstructed image … total counts of the edge reference detector pixels are used to estimate Lshadow … N≈N0(Lpixel - xasg - Lshadow)/( Lpixel - xasg),where Lpixel is the pixel size, xasg is the initial ASG shadow which is t/2 with ideal ASG-pixel alignment, and Lshadow is the additional shadow caused by non-ideal FS-ASG alignment … one can estimate the initial shadow xasg based on the pixel intensity difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map). One method is to compare the normalized intensity of the ASG covered pixels with the uncovered ones to estimate xasg
N
A
S
G
N
0
=
1
-
x
A
S
G
/
L
p
i
x
e
l
(Eq. 2) where NASG is the normalized ASG covered pixel intensity, and N0 is the normalized uncovered pixel intensity … With reference to FIG. 9, the ASG shadow influences on two neighboring pixels with non-ideal ASG-FS alignment. m1=0, m2=1 when FS position is between 0 and 1; m1=1, m2=0 when FS position is between 0 and 2. Due to the ASG plates alignment variations, the 0 position could be different for the pixels under ASG …” in the paragraphs 3, 52, 53, and 57 of Xiaohui 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 processing (e.g., comprising details such as calculate “Lpixel - xasg - Lshadow” “based on the pixel intensity difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map)”, in order to minimize “artifacts in the reconstructed image”) for the unspecified processing of Onouchi 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 processing (e.g., comprising details such as the processing circuitry is further configured to modify the acquired second counts based on sizes of the plurality of pixels) as the unspecified processing of Onouchi et al.
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 7, Onouchi et al. also disclose that the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether any particular module of the plurality of modules is faulty based on an average positional offset computed for a group of the plurality of septa of the ASG within the particular module (e.g., “… it is desirable to align the semiconductor layer 203 with the collimator 201 with an error of, for example, about 10% or less such that the center of the passing hole 205 almost match a central part which is surrounded by the four pixel electrodes 206. In a case where an accuracy of alignment of the both is insufficient, a false image which is called an artifact is produced in the tomographic image that the CT apparatus generates … SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) of the output signals is improved by adding the values of the output signals together and thereby more accurate alignment of the semiconductor layer 203 with the collimator 201 becomes possible …” in paragraphs 34 and 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the instant application is deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the invention disclosed in US 2022/0074872. The improvement comprises in combination with other recited elements, (1) a first septa of the ASG is arranged over a portion of a first pixel of the channel, but is not arranged over any portion of a second pixel of the channel that is adjacent to the first pixel, and (2) a second septa of the ASG is arranged over a portion of a third pixel of the channel that is adjacent to the second pixel, but is not arranged over any portion of the second pixel, estimate a right offset of the first septa relative to a position of the radiation detector, based on the first detection result and the second detection result; estimate a left offset of the second septa relative to the position of the radiation detector, based on the third detection result and the second detection result as recited in amended independent claim 10.
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 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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. Xiaohui et al. teach that to determine difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map) (e.g., see “… focal spot (FS) position … FS positional variation combined with non-ideal ASG angular alignment can cause different intensity drifts across the detector pixels, and result in ring artifacts in the reconstructed image … total counts of the edge reference detector pixels are used to estimate Lshadow … N≈N0(Lpixel - xasg - Lshadow)/( Lpixel - xasg),where Lpixel is the pixel size, xasg is the initial ASG shadow which is t/2 with ideal ASG-pixel alignment, and Lshadow is the additional shadow caused by non-ideal FS-ASG alignment … one can estimate the initial shadow xasg based on the pixel intensity difference between neighboring pixels after normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map). One method is to compare the normalized intensity of the ASG covered pixels with the uncovered ones to estimate xasg
N
A
S
G
N
0
=
1
-
x
A
S
G
/
L
p
i
x
e
l
(Eq. 2) where NASG is the normalized ASG covered pixel intensity, and N0 is the normalized uncovered pixel intensity … With reference to FIG. 9, the ASG shadow influences on two neighboring pixels with non-ideal ASG-FS alignment. m1=0, m2=1 when FS position is between 0 and 1; m1=1, m2=0 when FS position is between 0 and 2. Due to the ASG plates alignment variations, the 0 position could be different for the pixels under ASG …” in the paragraphs 3, 52, 53, and 57). The cited prior art establish that detector uniformity map is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Without normalizing with the no ASG measurements (detector uniformity map), intensity difference between neighboring pixels is due in part to detector nonuniformity. 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 processing (e.g., comprising details such as the first counts are normalized based on second counts acquired from a second air scan without the ASG arranged on the radiation detector) as the unspecified processing of Onouchi et al. Therefore the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0358334 teaches a CT detector.
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 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