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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claims: 1, 3, 8, 10; canceled claims: 6 & 13; the rest is unchanged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior arts rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new secondary reference is currently being used in the present rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The limitation “first scan unit” recited in L2 of claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for scan). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a processor, a memory, etc. as described in para. [0078]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a processor, a memory, etc. or its equivalent.
The limitation “second scan unit” recited in L8 of claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for scan). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a processor, a memory, etc. as described in para. [0078]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a processor, a memory, etc. or its equivalent.
The limitation “extraction unit” recited in L2 of claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for extraction). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a processor, a memory, etc. as described in para. [0078]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a processor, a memory, etc. or its equivalent.
The limitation “segmentation unit” recited in L8 of claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for segmentation). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a processor, a memory, etc. as described in para. [0078]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as requiring a processor, a memory, etc. or its equivalent.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Fan et al. disclose: A computed tomography imaging method, comprising: performing a three-dimensional scan of an examined site to obtain a three-dimensional scan image of the examined site and attenuation information of the examined site, wherein the three-dimensional scan image is used to position a scan range (para. [0049]-[0050], [0065]), calculating a tube current profile of an X-ray radiation dose of the examined site according to the three-dimensional organ picture and attenuation information corresponding to the three-dimensional organ picture (para. [0048]-[0049]); and performing a main scan of the examined site while modulating the tube current according to the calculated tube current profile to obtain a main scan image (para. [0048]-[0049]).
Fan et al. are silent about: performing organ segmentation on the three-dimensional scan image to generate a three- dimensional organ picture of a target organ, the organ picture registered with the attenuation information.
In a similar field of endeavor Braunagel et al. disclose: performing organ segmentation on the three-dimensional scan image to generate a three- dimensional organ picture of a target organ, the organ picture registered with the attenuation information (para. [0038]), [0057], [0059]) motivated by the benefits for an improved technique for providing diagnostic information based on 3D X-ray imaging data (Braunagel et al. para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for an improved technique for providing diagnostic information based on 3D X-ray imaging data as taught by Braunagel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al. with the teachings of Braunagel et al.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) and further in view of Rackow et al. (US 2015/0164440 A1; pub. Jun. 18, 2015).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the X-ray radiation dose used for the three- dimensional scan is within 4% of the X-ray radiation dose used for the main scan.
In a similar field of endeavor, Rackow et al. disclose: modulating the subsequent CT scan dose (para. [0075]) motivated by the benefits for preventing overexposure.
In light of the benefits for preventing overexposure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al. and Braunagel et al. with the teachings of Rackow et al.
Rackow et al. are silent about: the X-ray radiation dose used for the three- dimensional scan is within 4% of the X-ray radiation dose used for the main scan. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Fan et al., Braunagel et al. and Rackow et al. disclose: the X-ray radiation dose used for the three-dimensional scan is approximately 1% of the X-ray radiation dose used for the main scan (the claim is rejected on the basis as claim 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0081601 A1; pub. Mar. 16, 2023).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the pitch factor of a pitch used for the three- dimensional scan is greater than 1.0.
In a similar field of endeavor Wang et al. disclose: the pitch factor of a pitch used for the three- dimensional scan is 0.99 (para. [0086]) motivated by the benefits for applying appropriate dose on the ROI (Wang et al. para. [0059]).
In light of the benefits for applying appropriate dose on the ROI as taught by Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al. and Braunagel et al. with the teachings of Wang et al.
Wang et al. are silent about: the pitch factor of a pitch used for the three- dimensional scan is greater than 1.0. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) and further in view of Thibault et al. (US 2021/0045706 A1; pub. Feb. 18, 2021).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: extracting attenuation information for all angles in the scan range from raw scan data and the three-dimensional scan image obtained by carrying out the three-dimensional scan of the examined site.
In a similar field of endeavor Thibault et al. disclose: extracting attenuation information for all angles in the scan range from raw scan data and the three-dimensional scan image obtained by carrying out the three-dimensional scan of the examined site (para. [0032], [0085]) motivated by the benefits for improved diagnostic scan (Thibault et al. para. [0060]).
In light of the benefits for improved diagnostic scan as taught by Thibault et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al. and Braunagel et al. with the teachings of Thibault et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) and further in view of Klinder et al. (US 2016/0310090 A1; pub. Oct. 27, 2016).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: the three-dimensional scan is a spiral scan.
In a similar field of endeavor Klinder et al. disclose: the three-dimensional scan is a spiral scan (para. [0037]) motivated by the benefits for image quality at which the image data can be used for diagnostic purposes (Klinder et al. para. [0037]).
In light of the benefits for image quality at which the image data can be used for diagnostic purposes as taught by Klinder et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al. and Braunagel et al. with the teachings of Klinder et al.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) and further in view of Jianying (US 2009/0168950 A1; pub. Jul. 2, 2009).
Regarding claim 8, Fan et al. disclose: A computed tomography imaging apparatus, comprising: a first scan unit that performs a three-dimensional scan of an examined site to obtain a three-dimensional scan image of the examined site and attenuation information of the examined site, the three-dimensional scan image being used to position a scan range (para. [0049]-[0050], [0065]); the organ picture registered with the attenuation information an automatic exposure control unit that calculates a tube current profile of an X-ray radiation dose of the examined site according to a three-dimensional organ picture and the attenuation information corresponding to the three-dimensional organ picture (para. [0049]-[0050]).
Fan et al. are silent about: a segmentation unit that performs organ segmentation on the three-dimensional scan image to generate a three-dimensional organ picture, and a second scan unit that performs a main scan of the examined site while modulating the tube current according to the calculated tube current profile to obtain a main scan image.
In a similar field of endeavor Braunagel et al. disclose: a segmentation unit that performs organ segmentation on the three-dimensional scan image to generate a three-dimensional organ picture (para. [0038]), [0057], [0059]) motivated by the benefits for an improved technique for providing diagnostic information based on 3D X-ray imaging data (Braunagel et al. para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for an improved technique for providing diagnostic information based on 3D X-ray imaging data as taught by Braunagel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al. with the teachings of Braunagel et al.
Braunagel et al. are silent about: a second scan unit that performs a main scan of the examined site while modulating the tube current according to the calculated tube current profile to obtain a main scan image.
In a similar field of endeavor Jianying discloses: a second scan unit that performs a main scan of the examined site while modulating the tube current according to the calculated tube current profile to obtain a main scan image (para. [0073]) motivated for stabilizing the quality of each image and performing diagnosing interpretation of X rays easily and accurately (Jianying para. [0069]).
In light of the benefits for stabilizing the quality of each image and performing diagnosing interpretation of X rays easily and accurately as taught by Jianying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fan et al. and Braunagel et al. with the teachings of Jianying.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) in view of Jianying (US 2009/0168950 A1; pub. Jul. 2, 2009) and further in view of Jianying (US 2009/0168950 A1; pub. Jul. 2, 2009).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the X-ray radiation dose used for the three- dimensional scan is within 4% of the X-ray radiation dose used for the main scan.
In a similar field of endeavor Rackow et al. disclose: modulating the subsequent CT scan dose (para. [0075]) motivated by the benefits for preventing overexposure.
In light of the benefits for preventing overexposure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al., Braunagel et al. and Jianying with the teachings of Rackow et al.
Rackow et al. are silent about: the X-ray radiation dose used for the three- dimensional scan is within 4% of the X-ray radiation dose used for the main scan. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Fan et al., Braunagel et al., Jianying and Rackow et al. disclose: the difference between the X-ray radiation dose used for the three-dimensional scan and 1% of the X-ray radiation dose used for the main scan is within a predetermined range (the claim is rejected on the basis as claim 9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) in view of Jianying (US 2009/0168950 A1; pub. Jul. 2, 2009) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0081601 A1; pub. Mar. 16, 2023).
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: the pitch factor of a pitch used for the three- dimensional scan is greater than 1.0.
In a similar field of endeavor Wang et al. disclose: the pitch factor of a pitch used for the three- dimensional scan is 0.99 (para. [0086]) motivated by the benefits for applying appropriate dose on the ROI (Wang et al. para. [0059]).
In light of the benefits for applying appropriate dose on the ROI as taught by Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al., Braunagel et al. and Jianying with the teachings of Wang et al.
Wang et al. are silent about: the pitch factor of a pitch used for the three- dimensional scan is greater than 1.0. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) in view of Jianying (US 2009/0168950 A1; pub. Jul. 2, 2009) and further in view of Thibault et al. (US 2021/0045706 A1; pub. Feb. 18, 2021).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: an extraction unit that extracts the attenuation information for all angles in the scan range from raw scan data and the three-dimensional scout scan image obtained by carrying out the three-dimensional scan of the examined site.
In a similar field of endeavor Thibault et al. disclose: an extraction unit that extracts the attenuation information for all angles in the scan range from raw scan data and the three-dimensional scout scan image obtained by carrying out the three-dimensional scan of the examined site motivated by the benefits for improved diagnostic scan (Thibault et al. para. [0060]).
In light of the benefits for improved diagnostic scan as taught by Thibault et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al., Braunagel et al. and Jianying with the teachings of Thibault et a
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Fan et al. (US 2019/0142357 A1; pub. May 16, 2019) in view of Braunagel et al. (US 2024/0354954 A1; pub. Oct.24, 2024) in view of Jianying (US 2009/0168950 A1; pub. Jul. 2, 2009) and further in view of Klinder et al. (US 2016/0310090 A1; pub. Oct. 27, 2016).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the three-dimensional scan is a spiral scan.
In a similar field of endeavor Klinder et al. disclose: the three-dimensional scan is a spiral scan (para. [0037]) motivated by the benefits for image quality at which the image data can be used for diagnostic purposes (Klinder et al. para. [0037]).
In light of the benefits for image quality at which the image data can be used for diagnostic purposes as taught by Klinder et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fan et al., Braunagel et al. and Jianying with the teachings of Klinder et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884