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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2023 and 11/28/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 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 2, 3, 5, 11 and 12 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 term “preferably” in claims 2, 3, 5, 11 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” indicates what is most desired or wants in comparison to the other options, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rule against indefiniteness is not only a technical one, but is to protect and keep patentee from taking an advantage to which he is not entitled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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, 5, 6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paul et al. (US PAP 2011/0129057 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 15, Paul et al. teaches (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) a target, an assembly and a method for calibrating and determining the spatial resolution, SNR and/or CNR associated with an X-ray computed tomography system having a rotation axis about which a beam of X-rays is rotated relative to the target to produce signals that are processable to generate an image on an imaging plane perpendicular to the rotation axis, the target comprises comprising (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045):
PNG
media_image1.png
481
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a radiopaque body (see Fig. 5a) and the target being configured to be locatable in the system with a center of the body on the rotation axis, and a thickness direction of the body parallel to the rotation axis such that the body extends radially from its center in the imaging plane (see Fig. 3a); the body contains a plurality of non-radiopaque columns extending longitudinally in the thickness direction of the body (see Fig. 5a), the columns being arranged in first sub-groups of identically-shaped columns with the columns of each first sub-group sharing a respective predetermined transverse diameter, the first sub-groups being spaced from each other (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045), and the columns of each first sub-group also being spaced from each other; and the first sub-groups are members of one or more first sets, the first sub-groups of each first set being arranged such that within that first set the first sub-groups are at respective and different radial distances from the center (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045),
PNG
media_image2.png
424
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and within that first set the predetermined transverse diameters of the first sub-groups vary with radial distance from the center; such that an image of the target generated by the system is useable to calibrate and determine the spatial resolution, SNR and/or CNR associated with the system on the basis of the predetermined column transverse diameters (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045).
With respect to claim 5, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045), wherein the body is planar, and preferably is disc-shaped (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045).
With respect to claim 6, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045), wherein the first sub-groups of each first set are arranged along a respective, radially extending, first group line (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045).
With respect to claim 14, Paul et al. teaches the target as claimed in claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045), wherein the target is used in calibrating and determining respective spatial resolution, SNR and/or CNR associated with one or more X-ray computed tomography systems, each X-ray computed tomography system having a rotation axis about which a beam of X-rays is rotated relative to the target to produce signals that are processable to generate an image on an imaging plane perpendicular to the rotation axis (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045).
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.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (US PAP 2011/0129057 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fails to explicitly mention that the columns of each first sub-group are spaced from their nearest neighbor or neighbors by a distance which is in a range from the respective predetermined transverse diameter to three times the respective predetermined transverse diameter, and which is preferably equal to the respective predetermined transverse diameter.
However, it would be 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 to provide the columns of each first sub-group are spaced from their nearest neighbor or neighbors by a distance which is in a range from the respective predetermined transverse diameter to three times the respective predetermined transverse diameter, and which is preferably equal to the respective predetermined transverse diameter in order to provide user with the target for calibration associated with the X-ray computed tomography in the apparatus of Paul et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, make it adjustable, rearranging parts, a mere change in the size of the component without producing any new and unexpected results in addition to discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fails to explicitly mention that the columns are holes extending in the thickness direction, and preferably are through-holes extending across the entire thickness of the body.
However, it would be 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 to provide the columns are holes extending in the thickness direction, and preferably are through-holes extending across the entire thickness of the body, in order to provide user with the target for calibration associated with the X-ray computed tomography in the apparatus of Paul et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, make it adjustable, rearranging parts, a mere change in the size of the component without producing any new and unexpected results in addition to discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fails to explicitly mention that the columns of each first sub-group share a respective predetermined length in the thickness direction, the respective predetermined length being at least three times the respective predetermined transverse diameter.
However, it would be 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 to provide the columns of each first sub-group share a respective predetermined length in the thickness direction, the respective predetermined length being at least three times the respective predetermined transverse diameter in order to provide user with the target for calibration associated with the X-ray computed tomography in the apparatus of Paul et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, make it adjustable, rearranging parts, a mere change in the size of the component without producing any new and unexpected results in addition to discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 8, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fails to explicitly mention that the first sub-groups are arranged within each first set such that the predetermined transverse diameters of the first sub-groups decrease with increasing distance from the center.
However, it would be 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 to provide the first sub-groups are arranged within each first set such that the predetermined transverse diameters of the first sub-groups decrease with increasing distance from the center in order to provide user with the target for calibration associated with the X-ray computed tomography in the apparatus of Paul et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, make it adjustable, rearranging parts, a mere change in the size of the component without producing any new and unexpected results in addition to discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 9, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 8 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045), wherein the body further contains a plurality of further non-radiopaque columns extending longitudinally in the thickness direction but fails to explicitly mention that the further columns being arranged in second sub-groups of identically-shaped columns with the columns of each second sub-group sharing a respective predetermined transverse diameter, the second sub-groups being spaced from each other, and the columns of each second sub-group also being spaced from each other; wherein the second sub-groups are members of one or more second sets, the second sub-groups of each second set being arranged such that within that second set the second sub-groups are at respective and different radial distances from the center, and within that second set the predetermined transverse diameters of the second sub-groups increase with increasing distance from the center.
However, it would be 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 to provide the body that further contains a plurality of further non-radiopaque columns extending longitudinally in the thickness direction but fails to explicitly mention that the further columns being arranged in second sub-groups of identically-shaped columns with the columns of each second sub-group sharing a respective predetermined transverse diameter, the second sub-groups being spaced from each other, and the columns of each second sub-group also being spaced from each other; wherein the second sub-groups are members of one or more second sets, the second sub-groups of each second set being arranged such that within that second set the second sub-groups are at respective and different radial distances from the center, and within that second set the predetermined transverse diameters of the second sub-groups increase with increasing distance from the center in order to provide user with the target for calibration associated with the X-ray computed tomography in the apparatus of Paul et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, make it adjustable, rearranging parts, a mere change in the size of the component without producing any new and unexpected results in addition to discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 9 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fails to explicitly mention that the second sub-groups of each second set are arranged along a respective, radially extending, second group line.
However, it would be 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 to provide the second sub-groups of each second set are arranged along a respective, radially extending, second group line in order to provide user with the target for calibration associated with the X-ray computed tomography in the apparatus of Paul et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, make it adjustable, rearranging parts, a mere change in the size of the component without producing any new and unexpected results in addition to discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, Paul et al. teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fails to explicitly mention that each column is square prismatic, and thereby intersects as a square cross- section on the imaging plane, the predetermined transverse diameter of each column being equated to the length of the sides of its square cross-section, and preferably wherein two opposing sides of the square cross-section are perpendicular to a radial direction of the body.
However, it would be 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 to provide each column is square prismatic, and thereby intersects as a square cross- section on the imaging plane, the predetermined transverse diameter of each column being equated to the length of the sides of its square cross-section, and preferably wherein two opposing sides of the square cross-section are perpendicular to a radial direction of the body in order to provide user with the target for calibration associated with the X-ray computed tomography in the apparatus of Paul et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, make it adjustable, rearranging parts, a mere change in the size of the component without producing any new and unexpected results in addition to discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
12. Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 7, the most relevant prior art, Paul et al. (US PAP 2011/0129057 A1) teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fail to explicitly teach or make obvious that the target comprises three first group lines which are formed in a tristar-shape such that the three first group lines are angularly spaced 120° apart, or having four first group lines which are formed in a cross-shape such that the four first group lines are angularly spaced 90° apart as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 11, the most relevant prior art, Paul et al. (US PAP 2011/0129057 A1) teaches the target according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 3a, 3b and 5a; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0035 and 0045) but fail to explicitly teach or make obvious that the columns of each sub-group are arranged in first and second column rows, the first column row extending along a radial direction of the body, and the second column row extending perpendicularly thereto, and preferably wherein the first and second column row of each sub-group form a cross-shape as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siewerdsen et al. (UA PAP2021/0174502 A1; see abstract; Figs. 1-18; paragraphs 0003, 0034, 0045 and 0125); Jones et al. (US PAP 2021/0325560 A1; see abstract; Figs. 1-10; paragraphs 0005, 0021, 0023, 0036, 0044, 0057, 0062 and 0063); Kaufman et al. (US PAP 2003/0095693 A; see abstract; Figs. 1-9; paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0068, 0069, 0107 and 0127) and Miyauchi et al. (US PAP 2005/0157848 A1; see abstract; Fig.1; paragraphs 0013, 0048 and 0075; claim 6) teach the variety of systems and methods comprising a target for calibrating and determining the spatial resolution associated with an X-ray computed tomography system.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 J. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ October 30, 2025