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 1 – 9 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 2024/0233213 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2024) in view of Zhao (WO 2021/108715 A1; pub. Jun. 3, 2021) and further in view of Tal et al. (WO 2023/044114 A1; pub. Mar. 23, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Qiang et al. disclose: A method for reducing metal artifacts in CT images (para. [0005]), comprising the following steps: a material decomposition (MD) calibration step (para. [0006], [0023]), using multiple MD calibration phantoms with known characteristics and multiple spectral CT data corresponding thereto to construct a system characteristic model of spectral CT (para. [0007]).
Qiang et al. are silent about: a MD testing step, comprising: the following steps: imaging multiple testing objects with a different unknown material and thickness to obtain projection-based multiple spectral CT imaging data of different energy bins; obtaining corresponding multiple basis material images of different materials based on projection data according to said spectral CT imaging data and said system characteristic model of spectral CT; and combining said basis material images and a photon energy information to be recombined with each other to obtain multiple virtual monoenergetic images.
In a similar field of endeavor Zhao discloses: a MD testing step, comprising: the following steps: imaging multiple testing objects with a different unknown material and thickness to obtain projection-based multiple spectral CT imaging data of different energy bins (para. [0276], [0397]-[0398]); obtaining corresponding multiple basis material images of different materials based on projection data according to said spectral CT imaging data and said system characteristic model of spectral CT (para. [0276], [0397]-[0398]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio (Zhao para. [0284]).
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio as taught by Zhao, 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 Qiang et al. with the teachings of Zhao.
Zhao is silent about: combining said basis material images and a photon energy information to be recombined with each other to obtain multiple virtual monoenergetic images.
In a similar field of endeavor Tal et al. disclose: combining said basis material images and a photon energy information to be recombined with each other to obtain multiple virtual monoenergetic images (para. [0059], [0101]) motivated by the benefits for optimized image quality (Tal et al. para. [0054]).
In light of the benefits for optimized image quality as taught by Tal 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 combined method of Qiang et al. and Zhao with the teachings of Tal et al.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Qiang et al., Zhao and Tal et al. disclose: said MD calibration step comprises the following steps: using multiple reference materials with known characteristics as said MD calibration phantoms; and imaging said MD calibration phantoms with a different material and thickness to obtain said spectral CT calibration data of different energy bins based on projection corresponding to said MD calibration phantoms with a different material and thickness (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Qiang et al., Zhao and Tal et al. disclose: placing said MD calibration phantoms between an X-ray tube and a photon-counting detector in the step of imaging said MD calibration phantoms with a different material and thickness (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, especially see para. [0705] of Zhao).
Regarding claim 4, Qiang et al. disclose: using said MD calibration phantoms as an input end of said system characteristic model of spectral CT (para. [0041]); using said spectral CT calibration data as an output end of said system characteristic model of spectral CT (para. [0041]); and constructing said system characteristic model of spectral CT related to both said MD calibration phantoms (para. [0041]). Zhao discloses: said spectral CT calibration data after the step of imaging said MD calibration phantoms with a different material and thickness (para. [0328], [0397]-[0398]).
Regarding claim 5, Qiang et al. disclose: substituting said MD calibration phantoms together with said spectral CT calibration data corresponding thereto into a MD calibration algorithm to construct said system characteristic model of spectral CT in the step of constructing said system characteristic model of spectral CT related to both said MD calibration phantoms and said spectral CT calibration data (para. [0041]. [0043]. [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Tal et al. disclose: mage-reconstructing said virtual monoenergetic image based on projection to obtain a three-dimensional CT reconstruction image after the step of obtain said virtual monoenergetic image (para. [0036]) motivated by the benefits for optimized image quality (Tal et al. para. [0054]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 2024/0233213 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2024) in view of Zhao (WO 2021/108715 A1; pub. Jun. 3, 2021) in view of Tal et al. (WO 2023/044114 A1; pub. Mar. 23, 2023) and further in view of Frederic et al. “An Efficient One-Step Method for Spectral CT Based on an Approximate Linear Model”, IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 4, Jul. 2021, pg. 528 - 536.
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: using a polynomial approximation method as said MD calibration algorithm in the step of substituting said MD calibration phantoms together with said spectral CT calibration data corresponding thereto into said MD calibration algorithm.
In a similar field of endeavor Frederic et al. disclose: using a polynomial approximation method as said MD calibration algorithm in the step of substituting said MD calibration phantoms (pg.533) together with said spectral CT calibration data corresponding thereto into said MD calibration algorithm (pg. 529 col.2 B. – pg. 530 col.1) motivated by the benefits for increased signal to noise ratio (Frederic et al. pg.533 col.1).
In light of the benefits for increased signal to noise ratio as taught by Frederic 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 combined method of Qiang et al., Zhao and Tal et al. with the teachings of Frederic et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: adopting a maximum likelihood estimation method to estimate a MD calibration phantom calculation value; and using a error calibration look-up table to calibrate said MD calibration phantom thickness calculation value to obtain a material thickness estimation a calibration parameter for material calibration estimation in said system characteristic model of spectral CT in the step of substituting said MD calibration phantoms together with said spectral CT calibration data corresponding thereto into said MD calibration algorithm.
Regarding claim 8, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: substituting said spectral CT imaging data and said system characteristic model of spectral CT into a basis MD algorithm in the step of obtaining corresponding multiple basis material images of different materials based on projection data according to said spectral CT imaging data and said system characteristic model of spectral CT.
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