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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 have been elected without traverse. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a stacking axis of at least one of the plurality of PCCT detector units is positioned at an angle with respect to the axis of rotation”. The scope of the phrase “a stacking axis” is unclear. Does the phrase refer to an orientation of stacking of the PCCT detector units? Or does stacking axis refer to the orientation of sensors within one of the PCCT units per the description of the Specification in [0054] and FIGURE 4 of the drawings? One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of the invention. For the purposes of rejection, the claim will be interpreted to refer to the pixel stacking axis of the detector.
Claim 2 recites the phrase:
“wherein the detector array comprises a number of horizontally oriented PCCT detector units positioned with a stacking axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation and a number of vertically oriented PCCT detector units positioned with a stacking axis parallel to the axis of rotation, configured such that X-rays scattered at an angle are detected by both the vertically oriented PCCT detector units and the horizontally oriented PCCT detector units, an wherein the number of vertically oriented detector units and the number of horizontally oriented detector units is equivalent”.
The mention of “horizontally” and “vertically” oriented detector units is unclear because the claim fail to establish a frame of reference such that one of ordinary skill would understand to what directions horizontal and vertical correspond. Horizontal and/or vertical with respect to what? A stacking axis? A scanning direction? For the purpose of rejection, the phrases will be interpreted to correspond to any directions where the horizontal and vertical directions are orthogonal to one another. The same rationale applies to other instances of the phrase in the claims 3, 4, 5, and 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "receive a first pixel intensity from a first orientation detector; receive a second pixel intensity from a corresponding second orientation detector" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. How are these detectors related to the plurality of PCCT detector units of claim 1? Are they some of the plurality? Or do they correspond to sensors within one of the plurality of PCCT detector units? How does the “orientation” relate to the stacking direction of the detector units? One of ordinary skill would not understand the relationship of elements.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “correct first pixel intensity and the second pixel intensity for spectral and efficiency differences”. The scope of the phrase “efficiency differences” has not be defined, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim. Efficiency of what? Radiation detection? Noise performance? One of ordinary skill would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JACOB et al. (US Pub # 2023/03633728).
Regarding claim 1, JACOB discloses a computed tomography system (FIG 3; CT imaging system 100), comprising:
a gantry configured to rotate around an axis of rotation (gantry 11 rotates around the imaged object; [0053]); and
a detector array comprised of a plurality of photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) detector units configured to be rotated with respect to the axis of rotation by the gantry (detector 20 is a photon counting detector comprising detector elements 22; [0054-0056, 0068]),
wherein a stacking axis of least one of the plurality of PCCT detector units is positioned at an angle with respect to the axis of rotation (FIG 7 shows pixels 22 of a module 21 detector unit stacked in a direction of incident radiation; which is orthogonal to the axis of rotation of the gantry; [0123]; FIGs 7-10).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACOB et al. (US Pub # 2023/03633728) in view of NELSON et al. (US Pub # 2018/0172849).
Regarding claim 2, JACOB discloses the detector array comprises: a number of horizontally oriented PCCT detector units positioned with a stacking axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation (FIGs 8B and 10 shows modules 21 arranged horizontally; [0093, 0095]). JACOB does not further specify a number of vertically oriented detector units positioned with a stacking axis parallel to the axis of rotation, configured such that X-rays scattered at an angle are detected by both the vertically oriented detector units and the horizontally oriented detector units, and wherein the number of vertically oriented detector units and the number of horizontally oriented detector units is equivalent. In the same field of endeavor, NELSON discloses a ionizing radiation photon imaging system comprising a number of vertically oriented detector units positioned with a stacking axis parallel to the axis of rotation (detector units 115 comprise crossed strip detectors arranged horizontally and vertically with respect to a detection axis; FIG 1), configured such that X-rays scattered at an angle are detected by both the vertically oriented PCCT detector units and the horizontally oriented PCCT detector units, and wherein the number of vertically oriented detector units and the number of horizontally oriented detector units is equivalent ([0107, 0276]). Crossed strip detector electrode density is an obvious design choice that can be selected based on the application at hand, such that improved resolution can be achieved through a density at the expense of potentially decreased performance and increased hardware requirements. Lastly, it is noted that NELSON commonly references a PET/SPECT detector system. However, NELSON clearly describes that the medical diagnostic imaging field includes PET as well as CT imaging system, wherein the CT systems in reference are photon counting CT systems (i.e. PCCT detector units; [0003]), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of NELSON with those of JACOB.
Regarding claim 3, NELSON discloses the detector array comprises a plurality of horizontally oriented detector units positioned with a stacking axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation and positioned in front of a plurality of vertically oriented detector units positioned with a stacking axis parallel to the axis of rotation such that X-rays scattered at an angle towards one of the plurality of horizontally oriented detector units also reaches one of the plurality of vertically oriented PCCT detector units (FIG 1).
Regarding claim 4, NELSON discloses X-rays detected by the plurality of vertically oriented PCCT detector units are hardened with respect to the X-rays detected by the plurality of horizontally oriented PCCT detector units (beam hardening is an inherent phenomenon to spectral x-ray transmission, where soft x-rays are likely to absorb first while higher energy x-rays are likely to transmit, shifting the mean x-ray energy of the beam as it impinges on subsequent detectors; FIG 1; [0199-0200]).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson discloses wherein the detector array comprises an alternating pattern of horizontally oriented PCCT detector units positioned with a stacking axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation and vertically oriented PCCT detector units positioned with a stacking axis parallel to the axis of rotation, wherein X-rays scattered at an angle interact with one of a vertically oriented PCCT detector unit or a horizontally oriented PCCT detector unit (FIG 1).
Regarding claim 7, JACOB discloses wherein the detector array comprises a plurality of horizontally oriented PCCT detector units positioned with a stacking axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation and does not include vertically oriented PCCT detector units positioned with a stacking axis positioned parallel to the axis of rotation (FIG 10).
Regarding claim 8, NELSON further comprising a controller configured to: receive a first pixel intensity from a first orientation detector receive a second pixel intensity from a corresponding second orientation detector; correct first pixel intensity and the second pixel intensity for spectral and efficiency differences; and combine intensities from the first orientation detector and the second orientation detector to form an image (Corrections can be applied to account for scattering within and between detector layers as well as the responses of the first and second layer detectors. Where the spectral and total detector energy data can then be evaluated with respect to calibration data in order to implement multi-spectral CT reconstruction; [0178, 0183, 0412]).
Regarding claim 9, NELSON wherein the first orientation detector is positioned in front of the corresponding second orientation detector such that X-rays scattered at an angle upon the detector array are detected by the first orientation detector and the corresponding second orientation detector (FIG 1 shows first detectors in a first orientation positioned in an irradiation direction in front of second detectors orientation).
Regarding claim 10, NELSON discloses wherein the first orientation detector is adjacent to the corresponding second orientation detector such that the first orientation detector is at a different detection angle than the corresponding second orientation detector (FIG 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiedmann et al. (US Pub # 20210244343) discloses a vertically arranged PCCT detector (FIG 5).
Yanoff et al. (US Patent # 11389125) also discloses a vertically arranged PCCT detector (FIG 2).
Li et al. (US Pub # 20240148342) discloses a vertically arranged hybrid PCCT with direct and indirect conversion detectors sandwiched in a detector unit (FIG3A).
Yanoff et al. (US Pub # 20250052916) discloses a PCCT detector having a tapered detector geometry such that detectors (FIG 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884