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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2025 and 10/26/2023 were being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suppes et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0131980 A1) in view of Michael et al. (EP 1,151, 322 B1) and Unger et al. (US Patent 7,200,201 B2).
With regards to claim 1, Suppes discloses a method for removing an artifact in an image (Figures 1 and 7) (Abstract) [0021], comprising:
obtaining original scan data of a target object, the original scan data being collected by a detector during a first imaging scanning, the original scan data containing a scattering signal [0046] [0047] [0055] [0056]; and
performing an artifact correction on the original scan data with a scattering reference signal, wherein the scattering reference signal is obtained based on energy data of the detector obtained under a condition that no aperture plate is applied and energy data of the detector obtained under a condition that an aperture plate is applied during a second imaging scanning [0007] [0046] [0047] (Figure 7).
Suppes fails to teach a slit type device is used but an aperture plate instead.
Michael relates generally to radiographic and tomographic imaging, and, more particularly, to estimating and reducing scatter in digital radiographic and tomographic imaging and to an improved digital X-ray detector used for same [0001].
Michael further teaches to reduce the scatter component signals 7, collimator 40 preferably comprises a solid piece of attenuating material of the same or greater height and width dimensions as the first detector 38 and includes a sufficient number of holes (also referred to as slits or apertures) 44 to sample appropriately the two-dimensional (2D) scatter signal 7. Notice how slits or apertures are equivalences. [0030] – [0033], [0051] – [0052].
Unger relates to a diagnostic radiology using an X-ray device, system or apparatus. The system is directed in particular to an X-ray device, system or apparatus using a flat panel detector in a slot scanning configuration (Abstract) (Background of the invention).
Unger further teaches a removable pre-patient slot collimator used or employed in the system in order to follow the required designated required process or method, as in, since the slot plate is removable it may be employed, may not be employed or removed in order to follow the needs of the application (Col. 13, Lines 14 – 34).
Notice that the selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
In view of the utility, to use removable slit/slots instead of aperture based measurements to reduce scatter and enable scatter estimation is no more than a predictable variation for the same problem “scatter reduction /correction’, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified Suppes to include the teachings such as that taught by Michael and Unger, since it have been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known element (substitution) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use in addition to reduce scatter as needed.
With regards to claim 15, Suppes discloses an electronic device for removing an artifact in an image (Figures 1 and 7) (Abstract) [0021],
comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, performs a method for removing an artifact in an image [0029], [0033], [0034], [0049], the method comprising
comprising obtaining original scan data of a target object, the original scan data being collected by a detector during a first imaging scanning, the original scan data containing a scattering signal [0046] [0047] [0055] [0056]; and
performing an artifact correction on the original scan data with a scattering reference signal, wherein the scattering reference signal is obtained based on energy data of the detector obtained under a condition that no aperture plate is applied and energy data of the detector obtained under a condition that an aperture plate is applied during a second imaging scanning [0007] [0046] [0047] (Figure 7).
Suppes fails to teach a slit type device is used but an aperture plate instead.
Michael relates generally to radiographic and tomographic imaging, and, more particularly, to estimating and reducing scatter in digital radiographic and tomographic imaging and to an improved digital X-ray detector used for same [0001].
Michael further teaches to reduce the scatter component signals 7, collimator 40 preferably comprises a solid piece of attenuating material of the same or greater height and width dimensions as the first detector 38 and includes a sufficient number of holes (also referred to as slits or apertures) 44 to sample appropriately the two-dimensional (2D) scatter signal 7. Notice how slits or apertures are equivalences. [0030] – [0033], [0051] – [0052].
Notice that the selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
In view of the utility, to use a slit/slots instead of aperture based measurements to reduce scatter and enable scatter estimation is no more than a predictable variation for the same problem “scatter reduction /correction’, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified Suppes to include the teachings such as that taught by Michael, since it have been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known element (substitution) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use in addition to reduce scatter as needed.
With regards to claim 20, Suppes modified discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method for removing an artifact in an image according to claim 1 [0029], [0033], [0034], [0049].
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 – 9, 11- 14, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suppes et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0131980 A1), Michael et al. (EP 1,151, 322 B1) and Unger et al. (US Patent 7,200,201 B2) in view of Stierstorfer (WO 2007028692 A1) and Schafer et al. (US Patent 5,949,842).
With regards to claims 2 and 16, Suppes modified discloses, referring to figure 1, the imaging system 10, such as CT systems, tomosynthesis systems, X-ray imaging systems, and so forth, includes a radiation source 12, such as an X-ray source. A collimator may be positioned adjacent to the radiation source 12 for regulating the size and shape of a stream of radiation 14 that emerges from the radiation source 12 [0023] – [0025] [0036] [0042] [0046] – [0056].
the energy data of the detector obtained with subject/CT under the condition that no slit is applied comprises an energy intensity value of the detector obtained under a condition no slit is applied, and an energy intensity value of the detector obtained under a condition that no slit is applied [0049] – [0051];
the energy data of the detector obtained under the condition that the slit is applied comprises an energy intensity value of the detector obtained under the condition the slit is applied, and an energy intensity value of the detector obtained under a condition that the slit is applied [0023] – [0025] [0036] [0042] [0046] – [0056] (Also see the rejection of claim 1) and
the first imaging scanning and the second imaging scanning are each a CT scanning, a PET scanning, a PET-CT scanning, or an enhancement CT scanning.
that no phantom is present and the phantom is configured to simulate the target object during the second imaging scanning.
Stierstorfer relates to a calibration and correction method for an X-ray device 1 and an X-ray device for carrying out such a calibration or correction method. It would also be conceivable to perform the measurements i with different reference bodies. The reference bodies can be, for example, cylindrical water phantoms 10,11 [0040] – [0057].
The correction procedure (Figures 1 – 4).
A measuring arrangement 2 associated with the X-ray device 1 has a plurality of detector elements 8,9 which are arranged such that a first part of the detector elements 8 generates measurement signals of the scanning area 3 irradiated by the X-ray radiation and that a second part of the detector elements 9 generates measurement signals of scatter radiation outside the scanning area 3 irradiated {0040] – [0057].
For each detector element k outside the scanning range 3, a correction factor qk is calculated from the measurement signals S3., k of several measurements i and previously determined reference signals R3., k of the scattered radiation 12, so that an actual value of the scattered radiation 12 of the detector element k can be calculated.
Based on the correction factors qk determined in this way and a corresponding correction procedure, images can be generated in which image artifacts from scattered radiation are largely suppressed [0040] – [0057].
Schafer relates generally to computed tomography (CT) scanners and with improved calibration (Abstract). This calibration is performed by a calibration or "air" scan of the field of view of the system. In a conventional medical CT system, when the air scan is performed, all obstructions, such as the patient table, are removed from the field of view. A complete scan of the field of view is then performed and data acquired by the detectors are analyzed. The system of the invention allows air scans to be performed without removing obstructions from the field of view (Col. 14, Line 21 to Col. 16, Line 2).
In view of the utility, to correct for stray radiation in addition to calibration between separate baseline and object effects, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified Suppes to include the teachings such as that taught by Stierstorfer and Schafer.
With regards to claims 3 and 17, Suppes modified discloses the performing the artifact correction on the original scan data with the scattering reference signal comprises:
performing a scatter intensity estimation on the original scan data to obtain an original scattering signal;
removing the scattering signal from the scan data to obtain artifact- corrected original scan data; and
generating an image based on the artifact-corrected original scan data [0018] - [0021] [0049] – [0051].
Suppes further teaches data collected from the detector array 16 then typically undergoes pre-processing to condition the data to represent the line integrals of the attenuation coefficients of the scanned objects 18 [0028] [0049] – [0055]. The processed data, commonly called projections, are then reconstructed to formulate a volumetric image of the scanned area, as discussed in greater detail below [0028].
Supper also teaches interpolating the scatter [0040] – [0048] but fails to expressly disclose inputting the original scattering signal into a first fitting function to obtain the scattering signal, wherein coefficients of the first fitting function are determined based on the scattering reference signal.
Michael relates generally to radiographic and tomographic imaging and discloses the sampled 2D map of scatter is then filtered using techniques known in the art to generate a spatially smooth scatter function by applying the a priori knowledge that the scatter signal SC1 should be spatially smooth or, in other words, contain low-frequency signal components. Alternatively, a polynomial surface is generated and the squared-error between the scatter estimates and the fit to the data are minimized to generate the continuous 2D map of scatter [0032] – [0034], [0051] – [0052].
In view of the utility, to reduce scatter and improve the detection, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified Suppes to include the teachings such as that taught by Stierstorfer and Michael.
With regards to claims 6 and 13, Suppes modified discloses the performing the scatter intensity estimation on the original scan data to obtain the original scattering signal comprises: analyzing the original scan data using an algorithm, model, or neural network to obtain the original scattering signal [0001], [0021], [0040], [0003], [0052], (Figure 7).
With regards to claims 7, 11, 12 and 19, Suppes modified discloses, referring now to FIG. 7, exemplary control logic for inspecting an object by employing scatter measurement and correction technique on the imaging system such as flat panel VCT system 10 is depicted in accordance with aspects of the present technique. As illustrated in the flowchart 66, a non-grid image and a grid image may be acquired for a given object at multiple projection angles via the VCT system at steps 68 and 70, respectively. As discussed above, the grid image may be acquired by employing the scatter rejection plate positioned between the object and the detector. A scatter grid image is then generated based on the non-grid image and the grid image at step 72. The scatter grid image is then processed to detect multiple aperture points or centroids at step 74. Based on the detected centroids, the scatter grid image is then interpolated to generate a full scatter image of the given object at step 76. The process is repeated for each of the multiple projection angles and the generated scatter images for the respective projection angles are stored for subsequent imaging applications at step 78 [0023] – [0025] [0036] [0042] [0046] – [0056].
Suppes fails to expressly disclose the projection reference signal specifically from a slit applied no phantom scan and slit applied phantom scan.
Stierstorfer relates to a calibration and correction method for an X-ray device 1 and an X-ray device for carrying out such a calibration or correction method. It would also be conceivable to perform the measurements i with different reference bodies. The reference bodies can be, for example, cylindrical water phantoms 10,11 [0040] – [0057].
The correction procedure (Figures 1 – 4).
A measuring arrangement 2 associated with the X-ray device 1 has a plurality of detector elements 8,9 which are arranged such that a first part of the detector elements 8 generates measurement signals of the scanning area 3 irradiated by the X-ray radiation and that a second part of the detector elements 9 generates measurement signals of scatter radiation outside the scanning area 3 irradiated {0040] – [0057].
For each detector element k outside the scanning range 3, a correction factor qk is calculated from the measurement signals S3., k of several measurements i and previously determined reference signals R3., k of the scattered radiation 12, so that an actual value of the scattered radiation 12 of the detector element k can be calculated.
Based on the correction factors qk determined in this way and a corresponding correction procedure, images can be generated in which image artifacts from scattered radiation are largely suppressed [0040] – [0057].
Schafer relates generally to computed tomography (CT) scanners and with improved calibration (Abstract). This calibration is performed by a calibration or "air" scan of the field of view of the system. In a conventional medical CT system, when the air scan is performed, all obstructions, such as the patient table, are removed from the field of view. A complete scan of the field of view is then performed and data acquired by the detectors are analyzed. The system of the invention allows air scans to be performed without removing obstructions from the field of view (Col. 14, Line 21 to Col. 16, Line 2).
In view of the utility, to incorporate known calibration techniques (air normalization and phantom/reference body calibration) into a projection correction workflow and to perform then in a slit/slot collimated acquisition to improve artifact suppression and calibration robustness, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified Suppes to include the teachings such as that taught by Stierstorfer and Schafer
With regards to claim 8, Suppes modified discloses the claimed limitation according to claim 7 and further acquisition of the first projection image 56 and the second projection image 58, and the generation of scatter grid image 60, are performed for each of the projection angles. The generated scatter grid image 60 is then interpolated to generate a complete scatter image. FIGS. 6A-B depict example schematics for interpolating a scatter grid image obtained by the technique of FIG. 5 to generate a complete scatter image in accordance with aspects of the present technique. As illustrated, all aperture points or centroids for the scatter grid image are first detected at step 62 (FIG. 6A). It should be noted that, for the scatter grid image acquired by employing an aperture plate, the aperture points may be detected based on the required pixel resolution. The scatter grid image is then interpolated based on the detected aperture points to generate a full or complete scatter image of the object at step 64 (FIG. 6B). In other words, the data points are first mapped to a regular grid and then interpolated using shape factors. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, any type of interpolation techniques may be employed to generate the scatter image from the scatter grid image. Non-limiting examples of the interpolation techniques include bi-linear interpolation, piecewise constant interpolation, bi-cubic interpolation, multivariate interpolation, and so forth [0049] – [0051].
Referring now to FIG. 7, exemplary control logic for inspecting an object by employing scatter measurement and correction technique on the imaging system such as flat panel VCT system 10 is depicted in accordance with aspects of the present technique. As illustrated in the flowchart 66, a non-grid image and a grid image may be acquired for a given object at multiple projection angles via the VCT system at steps 68 and 70, respectively. As discussed above, the grid image may be acquired by employing the scatter rejection plate positioned between the object and the detector. A scatter grid image is then generated based on the non-grid image and the grid image at step 72. The scatter grid image is then processed to detect multiple aperture points or centeroids at step 74. Based on the detected centeroids, the scatter grid image is then interpolated to generate a full scatter image of the given object at step 76. The process is repeated for each of the multiple projection angles and the generated scatter images for the respective projection angles are stored for subsequent imaging applications at step 78 [0049] – [0051].
Suppes fails to expressly disclose performing the artifact correction on the original scan data containing the projection signal with the projection reference signal comprises: transforming the original scan data into projection data; and inputting the projection data into a second fitting function to obtain the corrected projection data, wherein coefficients of the second fitting function are determined based on the projection reference signal.
Michael relates generally to radiographic and tomographic imaging and discloses the sampled 2D map of scatter is then filtered using techniques known in the art to generate a spatially smooth scatter function by applying the a priori knowledge that the scatter signal SC1 should be spatially smooth or, in other words, contain low-frequency signal components. Alternatively, a polynomial surface is generated and the squared-error between the scatter estimates and the fit to the data are minimized to generate the continuous 2D map of scatter [0032] – [0034], [0051] – [0052].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an explicit fitted correction function (i.e., Michael) within a projection -correction workflow (i.e., Suppes) because scatter/correction fields are known to be spatially smooth and fitting reduces noise and improves correction accuracy in a predictable way.
With regards to claim 9, Suppes modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 8 and further acquisition of the first projection image 56 and the second projection image 58, and the generation of scatter grid image 60, are performed for each of the projection angles. The generated scatter grid image 60 is then interpolated to generate a complete scatter image. FIGS. 6A-B depict example schematics for interpolating a scatter grid image obtained by the technique of FIG. 5 to generate a complete scatter image in accordance with aspects of the present technique [0049] – [0051].
As illustrated, all aperture points or centroids for the scatter grid image are first detected at step 62 (FIG. 6A). It should be noted that, for the scatter grid image acquired by employing an aperture plate, the aperture points may be detected based on the required pixel resolution. The scatter grid image is then interpolated based on the detected aperture points to generate a full or complete scatter image of the object at step 64 (FIG. 6B). In other words, the data points are first mapped to a regular grid and then interpolated using shape factors. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, any type of interpolation techniques may be employed to generate the scatter image from the scatter grid image. Non-limiting examples of the interpolation techniques include bi-linear interpolation, piecewise constant interpolation, bi-cubic interpolation, multivariate interpolation, and so forth [0049] – [0051].
Referring now to FIG. 7, exemplary control logic for inspecting an object by employing scatter measurement and correction technique on the imaging system such as flat panel VCT system 10 is depicted in accordance with aspects of the present technique. As illustrated in the flowchart 66, a non-grid image and a grid image may be acquired for a given object at multiple projection angles via the VCT system at steps 68 and 70, respectively. As discussed above, the grid image may be acquired by employing the scatter rejection plate positioned between the object and the detector. A scatter grid image is then generated based on the non-grid image and the grid image at step 72. The scatter grid image is then processed to detect multiple aperture points or centeroids at step 74. Based on the detected centeroids, the scatter grid image is then interpolated to generate a full scatter image of the given object at step 76. The process is repeated for each of the multiple projection angles and the generated scatter images for the respective projection angles are stored for subsequent imaging applications at step 78 [0049] – [0051].
Suppes fails to expressly disclose that the determination of the coefficients of the second fitting function comprises: obtaining the projection reference signal comprising a third detector response under a condition that no phantom is present and a slit is applied, and a fourth detector response under a condition that the phantom is present and the slit is applied; and determining the coefficients of the second fitting function based on the third detector response and the fourth detector response.
Schafer relates generally to computed tomography (CT) scanners and with improved calibration (Abstract). This calibration is performed by a calibration or "air" scan of the field of view of the system. In a conventional medical CT system, when the air scan is performed, all obstructions, such as the patient table, are removed from the field of view. A complete scan of the field of view is then performed and data acquired by the detectors are analyzed. The system of the invention allows air scans to be performed without removing obstructions from the field of view (Col. 14, Line 21 to Col. 16, Line 2).
Stierstorfer relates to a calibration and correction method for an X-ray device 1 and an X-ray device for carrying out such a calibration or correction method. It would also be conceivable to perform the measurements i with different reference bodies. The reference bodies can be, for example, cylindrical water phantoms 10,11 [0040] – [0057].
The correction procedure (Figures 1 – 4).
A measuring arrangement 2 associated with the X-ray device 1 has a plurality of detector elements 8,9 which are arranged such that a first part of the detector elements 8 generates measurement signals of the scanning area 3 irradiated by the X-ray radiation and that a second part of the detector elements 9 generates measurement signals of scatter radiation outside the scanning area 3 irradiated {0040] – [0057].
For each detector element k outside the scanning range 3, a correction factor qk is calculated from the measurement signals S3., k of several measurements i and previously determined reference signals R3., k of the scattered radiation 12, so that an actual value of the scattered radiation 12 of the detector element k can be calculated.
Based on the correction factors qk determined in this way and a corresponding correction procedure, images can be generated in which image artifacts from scattered radiation are largely suppressed [0040] – [0057].
Micheal supplies the “coefficients determined based on reference data “concept in the context of a fitted function (polynomial/least-squares) applied to correction [0034] – [0038].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to using paired calibration responses (air/no-object and phantom/reference-body) to parameterized correction coefficients is a predictable calibration strategy such as that taught by Schafer and Stierstorfer, while improving the correction accuracy across attenuation regimes in slit/slot-collimated systems such as that taught by Unger including using fitted correction functions of Michael in Suppes to improve imaging accuracy.
With regards to claim 14, Suppes modified discloses the claimed invention according to claims 7 but fails to expressly disclose a baffle with the slit is placed between the detector and a light source, and the energy data of the detector obtained under the condition that no slit is applied comprises energy data generated by the detector when the baffle with the slit is removed.
Unger relates to a diagnostic radiology using an X-ray device, system or apparatus. The system is directed in particular to an X-ray device, system or apparatus using a flat panel detector in a slot scanning configuration (Abstract) (Background of the invention).
Unger further teaches a removable pre-patient slot collimator used or employed in the system in order to follow the required designated required process or method, as in, since the slot plate is removable it may be employed, may not be employed or removed in order to follow the needs of the application (Col. 13, Lines 14 – 34).
See how the scanning portion for high frame averaging comprises employing at least the removable pre-patient slot collimator, such that the system is employed as a slot scanner, achieving dose reduction benefits. Configuring the scanning portion for low dose imaging comprises not employing the removable pre-patient slot collimator, such that the system is employed in FOV mode, enabling fast image acquisitions (fluoro, tomo, cine, etc.) (Col. 12, Line 35 to Col. 14, Line 15).
Notice that the selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
In view of the utility, to use removable slit/slots instead of aperture based measurements to reduce scatter and enable scatter estimation is no more than a predictable variation for the same problem “scatter reduction /correction’, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified Suppes to include the teachings such as that taught by Unger, since it have been held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known element (substitution) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use in addition to reduce scatter as needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious that the determination of the coefficients of the first fitting function comprises: obtaining the scattering reference signal comprising a first detector response under the condition that no phantom is present and no slit is applied, a second detector response under the condition that the phantom is present and no slit is applied, a third detector response under the condition that no phantom is present and the slit is applied, and a fourth detector response under the condition that the phantom is present and the slit is applied; and
determining the coefficients of the first fitting function based on the first detector response, the second detector response, the third detector response, and the fourth detector response.
Notice how claim 4 requires that the coefficients of the first fitting function are determined by obtaining a scattering reference signal that includes four specific detector responses with a matrix of no phantom and no slit, phantom and no slit, no phantom and slit, and phantom and slit along while determining the fitting coefficients based on all four responses. None of the prior art of record suggest the specific four-condition acquisition protocol requires such input.
Applicant claimed four-response protocol provides a structured calibration basis that can improve scatter-correction robustness when deriving fitting these coefficients.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4.
With regards to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious determining the coefficients of the second fitting function based on the third detector response and the fourth detector response comprises:
calculating projection values corresponding to different slit positions by performing a log operation on a ratio of the third detector response to the fourth detector response;
concatenating the projection values corresponding to the different slit positions to form a projection value for all pixels of the detector;
smoothing the projection value for all pixels of the detector to obtain a smoothed projection value; and performing fitting with the smoothed projection value as the y-coordinate and the projection value for all pixels of the detector as the x-coordinate to obtain the coefficients of the second fitting function.
Notice the prior art fails to teach or suggest the specific coefficient-determination workflow defined in the claim
Applicant claimed invention provides a nonobviousness improvement over the prior art of record. The claimed pipeline can reduce slit-position discontinuities and noise by creating projection value through concatenation, then stabilizing coefficient extract via smoothing and define axis fitting.
With regards to claim 18, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious the determination of the coefficients of the first fitting function comprises: obtaining the scattering reference signal comprising a first detector response under the condition that no phantom is present and no slit is applied, a second detector response under the condition that the phantom is present and no slit is applied, a third detector response under the condition that no phantom is present and the slit is applied, and a fourth detector response under the condition that the phantom is present and the slit is applied;
calculating normalized intensities of the fourth detector responses corresponding to different slit positions, the normalized intensity of the fourth detector response being equal to a ratio of the fourth detector response to the third detector response; concatenating the normalized intensities corresponding to different slit positions to form a normalized intensity for all pixels of the detector; calculating a normalized intensity of the second detector response, the normalized intensity of the second detector response being equal to a ratio of the second detector response to the first detector response; obtaining a scatter intensity by removing the normalized intensity for all pixels of the detector from the normalized intensity of the second detector response; smoothing the scatter intensity to obtain a smoothed scatter intensity; and performing fitting with the smoothed scatter intensity as the x-coordinate and the scatter intensity as the y-coordinate to obtain the coefficients of the first fitting function.
Notice that the prior art fails to teach two-ratio normalization schemes - as in the 4th / 3rd and 2nd / 1st -, the slit concatenation and the specific smoothing and fit assignment used to derive coefficients.
Applicant claimed limitation provides an improvement over the prior art of record. The claimed normalization/concatenation improves stability of coefficient extraction by isolating slit-dependent scale and object-dependent scaling, then smoothing and fitting as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884