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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “CBCT apparatus (1,11) configured for…” should be changed to “A CBCT apparatus configured for…” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claims 2-8, “CBCT apparatus (1,11) configured for…” should be changed to “The CBCT apparatus configured for…” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “the first high energy voltage” and “the second low energy voltage” should be changed to “the first voltage” and “the second voltage” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the acquisition of the raw projections” should be changed to “the acquisition of the first plurality of X-ray raw projections and the acquisition of the second plurality of X-ray raw projections” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 9, “CBCT apparatus (11) configured for…” should be changed to “The CBCT apparatus configured for…” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claim 10, “Method for acquiring” should be changed to “A method for acquiring” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a CBCT apparatus according to claim 1” should be changed to “the CBCT apparatus according to claim 1” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 10, limitations “the first raw projections” and the second raw projection should be changed to “a first plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections” and “a second plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 11, “Method according to” should be changed to “The method according to” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “the first raw high-energy projections” and “the second raw low-energy projections” should be changed to “a first plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections” and “a second plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections” in order to correct the antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “software for image processing suitable for compensating for the artefact due to patient’s motion between the first and second acquisition” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the object" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites limitation directed to a “patient” but fails to introduce “an object”. The claim fails to particularly point out whether or not the object and the patient are the same. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the patient”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the propagation bundle of the radiation emitted by said X-ray source" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce “a propagation bundle”. The examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a propagation bundle of X-rays emitted by the X-ray source”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the acquisition of the first plurality of raw radiographic projections" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim fails to recite limitation directed to an acquisition of raw radiographic projections. The claim recites “X-ray ray projections” but fails to introduce radiographic projections. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the acquisition of a first plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the acquisition of the second plurality of raw radiographic projections" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim fails to recite limitation directed to an acquisition of raw radiographic projections. The claim recites “X-ray raw projections” but fails to introduce radiographic projections. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the acquisition of a second plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the common axis of rotation" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites the limitation “a rotation axis” but fails to introduce a limitation directed to “a common axis of rotation”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the rotation axis”. Claims 2-4, and 6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the X-ray beam" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim and independent claim 1 fail to recite a limitation introducing “an X-ray beam”. Claim 1 recites limitations directed to “propagation bundle of the radiation”. As noted above, the Examiner interpreted the “propagation bundle of the radiation emitted by the X-ray source” as “a propagation bundle of X-rays emitted by the X-ray source”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitations as “the X-ray emitted by the X-ray source”.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "the artefact" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim fails to introduce a limitation directed to “an artefact”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “an artefact”.
Further, claim limitation “software for image processing suitable for compensating for the artefact due to patient’s motion between the first and second acquisition” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states that the function of motion compensation is performed using “software”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure that is able to perform the claimed function. The use of the term “software” is not adequate structure for preforming motion compensation because it does not describe a particular structure. The specification fails to define a processor containing the software is able to perform the motion compensation. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in that would understand which software structure performs the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation "the X-ray source-detector group" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce “an X-ray source-detector group”. Independent claim 1 recites the apparatus having an X-ray source and a detector but fails to define the source and detector being “an X-ray source-detector group”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a gantry comprising the X-ray source and the X-ray detector”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “an X-ray source”, “a bi-dimensional X-ray detector”, and “a C-arm being provided with at least one movement” renders the claim indefinite. The claim relies upon claim 1 which defines an apparatus having a source and a detector. The claim fails to define the relationship between X-ray source and detector of claim 1 and the source and detector of claim 9. As currently written, the source and detector of claim 1 are different from the source and detector of claim 9. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out how the apparatus of claim 9 and the apparatus of claim 1 are connected.
Further, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as not being required.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the working of the various components" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim fails to recite a limitation directed to “a working” and fails to define what the components are. The claim recites an X-ray source, bi-dimensional detector, and a mechanical system but fails to define what elements are considered as the components. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “synchronizing the apparatus”.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation "the lying or standing patient" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim relies upon claim 1 which recites limitations directed to “a patient”. Claim 1 and claim 10 fail to define the patient standing or laying down. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the patient”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the proper positioning" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed “a proper positioning”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a proper positioning”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the system X-ray source-detector" in line 12 and line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed “a system X-ray source-detector”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the X-ray source and the X-ray detector”.
Further, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as not being required
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “an apparatus” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define whether or not the apparatus is the same one as the apparatus recited in claim 10. The claim recites limitations that similar to limitations recited in claim 10. The Examiner has interpreted the claim as being the same as claim 10.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the lying or standing patient" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim relies upon claim 1 which recites limitations directed to “a patient”. Claim 1 and claim 10 fail to define the patient standing or laying down. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the patient”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the proper positioning" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed “a proper positioning”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a proper positioning”.
Further, the claim recites the limitation "the system X-ray source-detector" in line 11 and line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed “a system X-ray source-detector”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the X-ray source and the X-ray detector”.
Further, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as not being required
Further, the limitations “the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a first clockwise direction” and “the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a second anticlockwise direction, opposed to the first direction” render the claim indefinite because the claim relies upon claim 10 which defines rotation being conducted in a first direction and a second direction. As currently written, the claim fails to define whether or not the clockwise and the anticlockwise direction is the same as the directions define in claim 10.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of artefact compensation. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As currently written, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 10 upon which it depends on. Claim 11 recites limitations directed to “Positioning of the lying or standing patient inside the apparatus (1 or 11), with a first rough patient centring based on a laser pointing system; - Selecting the desired acquisition protocol by a human operator; - Acquiring at least two scout views at different angles, giving indication to the human operator on the proper positioning of the patient; - Optionally positioning the X-ray source filter specific for the first high-energy acquisition; - Once the patient is properly positioned, acquiring the first raw high-energy projections; the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a first clockwise direction; - Optionally positioning the X-ray source filter specific for the second low-energy acquisition; - Acquiring the second raw low-energy projections; the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a second anticlockwise direction, opposed to the first direction; - Processing the raw projections in order to obtain a final reconstructed dual energy image, or alternatively two distinct images, one at high and one at low energy” which are recited by claim 10. The claim fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (U.S. 2014/0105352).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined for dual energy imaging, comprising
an X-ray source (Fig. 1, 16) and an X-ray detector (Fig. 1, 24),
said X-ray source and detector being supported in an opposed position (Fig. 1, 16 and 24 are opposite of each other), the patient (Fig. 1, 20) under investigation being positioned in an intermediate position between said X-ray source and detector (Fig. 1, patient 20 is between the source and detector) and in a propagation bundle of the radiation emitted by said X-ray source (Fig. 1, patient 20 is between the source and detector),
moreover said X-ray source and detector being movable along a pre-set trajectory thanks to at least a rotational movement of said X-ray source and detector around a rotation axis (Fig. 1, 16 and 24 rotated about 12), wherein the acquisition of a first plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections (Fig. 3, 58; [0035], an image is obtained for every angle or a set ms) occurs with a first voltage of said X-ray source (Fig. 3 50), while the acquisition of a second plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections (Fig. 3, 72; [0035], an image is obtained for every angle or a set ms) occurs with a second voltage (Fig. 3, 64) of said X-ray source, different from the first voltage, characterized in that
for acquiring the first plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections at the first voltage, the rotation of said X-ray source and detector around the rotation axis occurs in a direction opposite to the rotation direction of said X-ray source and detector around the rotation axis during the acquisition of second plurality of X-ray raw projections of the plurality of X-ray raw projections at the second voltage (Fig. 3, 52 and 66, rotation in opposite directions), and
in that the patient maintains the same position during the acquisition of the second plurality of raw images, which occurs immediately after the acquisition of the first plurality of raw projections ([0041], patient is fixed).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according to claim 1, wherein the X- ray source and detector acquire the first and the second plurality of raw projections by rotating for a trajectory of 360° around said patient ([0031], 360 degree rotation).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according to claim 1, wherein the X- ray source and detector acquire the first and the second plurality of raw projections by rotating for a trajectory shorter than 360° around said patient ([0031], 180 degree rotation).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according claim 1,wherein the first high energy voltage of the X-ray tube ranges 100-130 kVp ([0007], upper limit of 140 kVp), while the second low energy voltage of the X-ray tube ranges 60-90 kVp ([0035], 90kV).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according to claim 1,wherein the acquisition of the raw projections occurs at the same angles in the first and in the second acquisition ([0025], same angles but in the opposite direction).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according to claim 1, comprising a table (Fig. 1, 18) on which a patient is lying for acquiring said raw projections, and a gantry (Fig. 1, 10) comprising the X-ray source-detector group (Fig. 1, 16 and 24) said table being provided with a gurney (Fig. 1, 18) sliding inside and outside said gantry, so as to acquire different anatomical areas of said patient.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood:
Williams discloses method for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X- ray raw projections to be combined for dual energy imaging, said method being executed through a CBCT apparatus according to claim 1, said method being executed through a CBCT apparatus according to one or more of comprising the following steps:
- Positioning of the lying or standing patient inside the apparatus (Fig. 1, 20 on table 18) with a first rough patient centring based on a laser pointing system (Fig. 1, patient 20 is centered about axis 12);
- Selecting the desired acquisition protocol by a human operator ([0045], operator selects);
- Acquiring at least two scout views at different angles, giving indication to the human operator on the proper positioning of the patient ([0005], positioning);
- Once the patient is properly positioned, acquiring the first raw projections with a first voltage ((Fig. 3, 58; [0035], an image is obtained for every angle or a set ms); the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a first direction (Fig. 3, 52);
- Acquiring the second raw projections with a second voltage, different from the first voltage (Fig. 3, 72; [0035], an image is obtained for every angle or a set ms); the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a second direction, opposed to the first direction (Fig. 3, 66);
- Processing the raw projections in order to obtain a final reconstructed dual energy image ([0013], volumetric image reconstruction), or alternatively two distinct images, one at high and one at low energy.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood:
Method according to claim 10 for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X- ray raw projections to be combined for dual energy imaging, said method being executed through an apparatus, said method being executed through a CBCT apparatus according to one or more of comprising the following steps:
- Positioning of the lying or standing patient inside the apparatus (Fig. 1, 20 on table 18) with a first rough patient centring based on a laser pointing system (Fig. 1, patient 20 is centered about axis 12);
- Selecting the desired acquisition protocol by a human operator ([0045], operator selects);
- Acquiring at least two scout views at different angles, giving indication to the human operator on the proper positioning of the patient ([0005], positioning);
- Once the patient is properly positioned, acquiring the first raw projections with a first voltage ((Fig. 3, 58; [0035], an image is obtained for every angle or a set ms); the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a first direction (Fig. 3, 52);
- Acquiring the second raw projections with a second voltage, different from the first voltage (Fig. 3, 72; [0035], an image is obtained for every angle or a set ms); the system X-ray source-detector rotates in a second direction, opposed to the first direction (Fig. 3, 66);
- Processing the raw projections in order to obtain a final reconstructed dual energy image ([0013], volumetric image reconstruction), or alternatively two distinct images, one at high and one at low energy.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (U.S. 2014/0105352) in view of Garlow (U.S. 2018/0310900).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according to claim 1.
However, Williams fails to disclose wherein there is provided a first X-ray beam filter for the X-ray beam impinging on the patient, that is specific for the first acquisition and a second X-ray beam filter for the X-ray impinging on the patient, that is specific for the second acquisition, said second filter replacing the first filter between the first and the second acquisition.
Garlow teaches wherein there is provided a first X-ray beam filter for the X-ray beam impinging on the patient, that is specific for the first acquisition ([0060], filter for two energies) and a second X-ray beam filter for the X-ray impinging on the patient, that is specific for the second acquisition, said second filter replacing the first filter between the first and the second acquisition ([0060], filter for two energies).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Williams with the filters taught by Garlow in order to improve image quality by reducing overlap of energy spectra (Garlow; [0009]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (U.S. 2014/0105352) in view of Clinthrone (U.S. 2003/0235265).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according to claim 6.
However, Williams fails to disclose comprising a software for image processing suitable for compensating for the artefact due to patient's motion between the first and second acquisition.
Clinthorne teaches a software for image processing suitable for compensating for the artefact due to patient's motion between the first and second acquisition (This element has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being any structure that is able to perform the claimed function. Clinthorne teaches a computer programmed for image construction in [0110]-[0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Williams with the image processing taught by Clinthorne in order to improve image quality by reducing the effect of motion (Clinthorne; [0110]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (U.S. 2014/0105352) in view of Yoshikawa (U.S. 2016/00151027).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood:
Williams discloses CBCT apparatus configured for acquiring patient's two distinct pluralities of X-ray raw projections to be combined according to claim 1, comprising
an X-ray source (Fig. 1, 16) projecting a collimated X-ray bundle across a standing patient,
a bi-dimensional X-ray detector (Fig. 1, 26) positioned so as to measure the intensity of radiation after it crossed the patient.
However, Williams fails to disclose a C-arm on which said X-ray source and detector are fixed said C-arm being provided with at least one movement, the first being a rotational movement around the axis of rotation around, and optionally with at least a second translational movement of the axis of rotation along a direction in the horizontal plane perpendicular to said axis of rotation or with another rotational movement of the rotation axis of C-arm around a second axis of rotation; the position of C-arm being adjusted to patient's height thanks to vertically mobile post; a mechanical system so as to allow rotation and translation of said C-arm around the patient, so as to acquire raw projections from different positions; a device for positioning said patient; an electronic system controlling and synchronizing the working of the various components of the apparatus.
Yoshikawa teaches a C-arm (Fig. 2, structure where 20 and 10 are mounted on) on which said X-ray source (Fig. 2, 10) and detector (Fig. 2, 20) are fixed said C-arm (Fig. 2, structure where 20 and 10 are mounted on) being provided with at least one movement ([0065], rotation), the first being a rotational movement around the axis of rotation around ([0065], rotation), and
the position of C-arm being adjusted to patient's height thanks to vertically mobile post ([0066], vertical movement);
a mechanical system so as to allow rotation ([0065], rotation) and translation of said C-arm around the patient ([0066],vertical movement) so as to acquire raw projections from different positions;
a device for positioning said patient (Fig. 2, handle between 10 and 20); an electronic system (Fig. 3, 60 and 80) controlling and synchronizing the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Williams with the C-arm of Yoshikawa in order to reduce the influence of X-ray scattering (Yoshikawa; [0039]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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 Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884