DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The specification (e.g., see “… a general sample can be visualized as a collection of pinholes, with more or less penetration capacity …” in paragraph 10) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “general samples”.
The specification (e.g., see “… rectangles 104 can have a partial overlap 105 depending on the position and orientation of the pinholes 103 …” in paragraph 25) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “overlapping rectangles”.
The specification (e.g., see “… X-ray beam of size 'D' … decipher the captured images into a plurality of smaller dots of size 'd', wherein the deciphering process includes isolating comers of the rectangles, which are significantly smaller than the original rectangle size 'D' …” in paragraph 10) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “smaller dots”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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(s) 1, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While the specification discloses deciphering process involves self-subtraction of horizontally shifted digital data matrix 204 from the original rectangular area 202, followed by vertically shifting 206 and adding the inverted 208 (e.g., see “… deciphering process involves self-subtraction of the horizontally shifted digital data matrix 204 from the original rectangular area 202 of the detector. The step is followed by vertically shifting 206 and adding the inverted 208 …” in paragraph 26), there does not appear to be any disclosure of applying a two-dimensional difference process involving the self-subtraction and shifting of digital data matrices. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “applying a two-dimensional difference process involving the self-subtraction and shifting of digital data matrices” in the application as filed.
The specification discloses (paragraphs 2 and 4) that“… following description includes information that may be useful in understanding the present disclosure … X-rays have extremely short wavelengths (subnanometer) and coherent lengths of less than a micron. Thus, X-rays can capture very fine details, theoretically allowing for high-resolution imaging through mere projection. X-rays can capture very fine details, theoretically allowing for high-resolution imaging through mere projection, without worrying about the diffraction. However, an X-ray emitter, such as a tube anode in an X-ray machine, can be considered a collection of point sources. Each of the point sources emits X-rays that travel through a sample (such as a human body) and reach the detector (such as X-ray film). Since the beams from different point sources are superimposed on each other at the detector, a blurred image is created. Theoretically, the blurriness could be resolved using the point spread function (PSF) of the X-ray source. However, resolving blurriness through PSF is impractical as PSF transform often involves an oscillation function with many zeros, making the mathematical operation (division) challenging or unfeasible …”. It is important to note that an X-ray emitter can be considered as a collection of point sources but fails to disclose even an exemplary size of the X-ray emitter.
While the specification discloses X-ray source size (0.8 mm) (e.g., see “… X-ray source size (0.8 mm) …” in paragraph 32), there does not appear to be any disclosure of sub-micrometer sized X-ray source. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “sub-micrometer sized X-ray source” in the application as filed.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the self-subtraction” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the overlapping signal rectangles” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wiemker et al. (US 6,373,918).
In regard to claim 1 in so far as understood, Wiemker et al. disclose an imaging system, comprising:
(a) a rectangular aperture X-ray source configured to project an X-ray beam of a first size through a set of pinholes or general samples, resulting in a projection of a set of overlapping signal rectangles on a detector screen (e.g., “… X-ray source 1 whereto a multi-leaf collimator 2 is attached. The multileaf collimator includes a first pair of shutters 3 having shutter edges which extend perpendicularly to the plane of drawing and define an X-ray beam 4. The multi-leaf collimator 2 also includes (not shown) a further pair of shutters whose edges also extend horizontally but parallel to the plane of drawing of FIG. 1 … each pixel of the X-ray image converter there is associated an image value which is larger as the attenuation of the X-rays by the object 5 to be examined is lower … At least some of these points of intersection constitute corner points of the polygon defined by the shutter contour …” in the last two column 5 paragraphs and the second column 8 paragraph or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “attenuation of the X-rays” (that can be labeled as more or less penetration capacity) by an “object 5” (i.e., that can be labeled as a set of pinholes) would result in a surface (that can be labeled as a detector screen) with a plurality of “shutter contour” (that can be labeled as a set of overlapping signal rectangles) that are each illuminated through different ones of the pinholes), wherein number of the overlapping signal rectangles is dependent on number of the pinholes or general samples (e.g., “… X-ray source 1 whereto a multi-leaf collimator 2 is attached. The multileaf collimator includes a first pair of shutters 3 having shutter edges which extend perpendicularly to the plane of drawing and define an X-ray beam 4. The multi-leaf collimator 2 also includes (not shown) a further pair of shutters whose edges also extend horizontally but parallel to the plane of drawing of FIG. 1 … each pixel of the X-ray image converter there is associated an image value which is larger as the attenuation of the X-rays by the object 5 to be examined is lower … At least some of these points of intersection constitute corner points of the polygon defined by the shutter contour …” in the last two column 5 paragraphs and the second column 8 paragraph or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “attenuation of the X-rays” (that can be labeled as more or less penetration capacity) by an “object 5” (i.e., that can be labeled as a collection of pinholes) would result in a surface (that can be labeled as a detector screen) with a plurality of “shutter contour” (that can be labeled as overlapping rectangles) that are each illuminated through different ones of the pinholes);
(b) a digital detector configured to capture images of the set of overlapping signal rectangles (e.g., “… Behind the patient (viewed from the X-ray source 1) there is arranged a digital X-ray image converter which converts the X-ray image into digitized electric signals representing the X-ray image …” in the last column 5 paragraph); and
(c) a processing unit configured to decipher the captured images by applying a two-dimensional difference process involving the self-subtraction and shifting of digital data matrices into a plurality of smaller dots to form finer images, wherein said decipher includes isolating corners of the set of overlapping signal rectangles (e.g., “… processed by an image processing unit 8 … If the degree of sub-sampling of the source image is less, more calculation work will be required whereas if the degree of sub-sampling is higher there is a risk that the shutter contour can no longer be correctly determined … In order to calculate the x component of the gradient, the image is then convoluted with a one-dimensional kernel in the x direction … kernel may consist of the components -1, 0, +1, implying that to each pixel there is assigned the difference between the image value of the right neighbor pixel and that of the left neighbor pixel … y gradient can be calculated analogously …” in the first, third, and fifth column 6 paragraphs).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Wiemker et al. also disclose that the rectangular aperture is fabricated using lead strips or other X-ray absorbing materials (e.g., “… multileaf collimator includes a first pair of shutters 3 having shutter edges which extend perpendicularly to the plane of drawing and define an X-ray beam 4. The multi-leaf collimator 2 also includes (not shown) a further pair of shutters whose edges also extend horizontally but parallel to the plane of drawing of FIG. 1 …” in the last complete column 5 paragraph).
In regard to claim 6 in so far as understood, Wiemker et al. disclose a method for enhancing image resolution of a projected image, comprising:
(a) providing an imaging system, the imaging system includes a rectangular aperture, a digital detector, and a processing unit;
(b) projecting an X-ray or neutron beam through a set of pinholes or general samples using the rectangular aperture, wherein the projecting results in a set of overlapping projected rectangles on a detector screen (e.g., “… X-ray source 1 whereto a multi-leaf collimator 2 is attached. The multileaf collimator includes a first pair of shutters 3 having shutter edges which extend perpendicularly to the plane of drawing and define an X-ray beam 4. The multi-leaf collimator 2 also includes (not shown) a further pair of shutters whose edges also extend horizontally but parallel to the plane of drawing of FIG. 1 … each pixel of the X-ray image converter there is associated an image value which is larger as the attenuation of the X-rays by the object 5 to be examined is lower … At least some of these points of intersection constitute corner points of the polygon defined by the shutter contour …” in the last two column 5 paragraphs and the second column 8 paragraph or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “attenuation of the X-rays” (that can be labeled as more or less penetration capacity) by an “object 5” (i.e., that can be labeled as a set of pinholes) would result in a surface (that can be labeled as a detector screen) with a plurality of “shutter contour” (that can be labeled as a set of overlapping rectangles) that are each illuminated through different ones of the pinholes), wherein number of the overlapping signal rectangles is dependent on number of the pinholes or general samples (e.g., “… X-ray source 1 whereto a multi-leaf collimator 2 is attached. The multileaf collimator includes a first pair of shutters 3 having shutter edges which extend perpendicularly to the plane of drawing and define an X-ray beam 4. The multi-leaf collimator 2 also includes (not shown) a further pair of shutters whose edges also extend horizontally but parallel to the plane of drawing of FIG. 1 … each pixel of the X-ray image converter there is associated an image value which is larger as the attenuation of the X-rays by the object 5 to be examined is lower … At least some of these points of intersection constitute corner points of the polygon defined by the shutter contour …” in the last two column 5 paragraphs and the second column 8 paragraph or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “attenuation of the X-rays” (that can be labeled as more or less penetration capacity) by an “object 5” (i.e., that can be labeled as a collection of pinholes) would result in a surface (that can be labeled as a detector screen) with a plurality of “shutter contour” (that can be labeled as overlapping rectangles) that are each illuminated through different ones of the pinholes);
(c) capturing images of the projected rectangles using the digital detector (e.g., “… Behind the patient (viewed from the X-ray source 1) there is arranged a digital X-ray image converter which converts the X-ray image into digitized electric signals representing the X-ray image …” in the last column 5 paragraph); and
(d) deciphering, by the processing unit, the captured images into a plurality of smaller dots, wherein the deciphering includes isolating corners of the projected rectangles (e.g., “… processed by an image processing unit 8 … If the degree of sub-sampling of the source image is less, more calculation work will be required whereas if the degree of sub-sampling is higher there is a risk that the shutter contour can no longer be correctly determined … kernel may consist of the components -1, 0, +1, implying that to each pixel there is assigned the difference between the image value of the right neighbor pixel and that of the left neighbor pixel …” in the first, third, and fifth column 6 paragraphs).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 6, Wiemker et al. also disclose that further comprising the step of employing a finer detector to reduce the size of the projected rectangles and enhance the resolution of a final image (e.g., “… processed by an image processing unit 8 … If the degree of sub-sampling of the source image is less, more calculation work will be required whereas if the degree of sub-sampling is higher there is a risk that the shutter contour can no longer be correctly determined … kernel may consist of the components -1, 0, +1, implying that to each pixel there is assigned the difference between the image value of the right neighbor pixel and that of the left neighbor pixel …” in the first, third, and fifth column 6 paragraphs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention represents “a micrometer-scale resolution imaging” system and method. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a micrometer-scale resolution imaging) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that in the claimed invention, the pinholes are part of the signal generating optical array configured to project the specific geometry of the rectangular aperture. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “signal generating optical array”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, “signal generating optical array” does not appear to be in the specification as filed. MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… a general sample can be visualized as a collection of pinholes, with more or less penetration capacity …” in paragraph 10) serves as a glossary for the claim term “general samples”. It is important to recognize that “collection of pinholes” include a first pinhole in contact with a second directly pinhole (see “a general sample can be visualized as a collection of pinholes”), wherein an X-ray beam shaped by a rectangular aperture is transmitted through: (a) the first pinhole and imaged as a first rectangle on a detector screen and (b) the second directly adjacent pinhole and imaged as a second rectangle on the detector screen, and wherein the first and second rectangles overlap on the detector screen because the first and second pinholes are in contact. Therefore applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the two-dimensional difference method employed by the present invention is known in the art to be mathematically represented as d2(image)/dxdy, which is substantially different than the gradient and Laplacian approaches of Wiemker et al. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “d2(image)/dxdy”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, d2(image)/dxdy does not appear to be disclosed in the specification as filed. Applicant also fail to provide any evidence that “the two-dimensional difference method employed by the present invention is known in the art to be mathematically represented as d2(image)/dxdy”. Therefore applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the method in amended claim 6 is directed to resolution enhancement. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “resolution enhancement”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) 6. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Wiemker et al. teaches employing a finer detector to reduce the size of the projected rectangles and enhance the resolution of a final image by “degree of sub-sampling” in order that the final image’s resolution is sufficient to correctly determine “shutter contour” (e.g., see “… processed by an image processing unit 8 … If the degree of sub-sampling of the source image is less, more calculation work will be required whereas if the degree of sub-sampling is higher there is a risk that the shutter contour can no longer be correctly determined … kernel may consist of the components -1, 0, +1, implying that to each pixel there is assigned the difference between the image value of the right neighbor pixel and that of the left neighbor pixel …” in the first, third, and fifth column 6 paragraphs).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3,700,895 teaches a comparison of the pinhole pattern with the overlapping image pattern by evaluating their convolution integral, which may be accomplished by one or more optical methods, such as passing radiation through the two patterns as they are successively shifted with respect to each other, or digitally on a computer will provide a high resolution reconstruction of the pattern of the radiation sources in the object field.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights