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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/2026. Therefore the restriction is made final herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
IT is noted that claims 1-10 and 16-20 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims were considered abstract ideas, the claims contain limitations that provide a practical application, i.e. medical imaging techniques.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 appears to have a clerical error. In lines 1-2, the applicant claims “obtaining comprising obtaining comprises obtaining”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100135454 (Noo) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20070078339 (Andress).
Regarding claim 1, Noo discloses a method for localization for cardiac imaging in a computed tomography system (page 1, paragraph 2), the method comprising: obtaining first and second topograms of a patient (page 7, paragraph 88), the first and second topograms comprising x-ray images captured from different angles relative to a patient, 90 degrees from each other (page 7, paragraph 88), the first and second topograms acquired without a full computed tomography acquisition, since they are scout views (page 7, paragraph 88); determining a cardiac location of interest in three dimensions from the first and second topograms, a region of interest to center the patient bed over a 3D volume/ cylinder (page 7, paragraph 88); focusing a collimator, i.e. the x-ray sources that are focused as disclosed in page 1, paragraphs 7 and 8, of the CT system (page 8, paragraph 96) based on the cardiac location determined from the first and second topograms, the ROI (page 7, paragraph 88); and imaging, using the collimator as focused, the cardiac location by the CT system (fig. 9-11).
Noo does not disclose expressly imaging using a SPECT system.
Andress et al discloses pre-scanning for location using CT Topogram (page 4, paragraph 55) and imaging using a SPECT system (page 4, paragraph 59).
Noo and Andress et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. medical imaging.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to scan using SPECT.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a safer system by minimizing x-ray exposure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Noo with SPECT imaging of Andress et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Andress et al discloses obtaining the topogram as the only information from x-rays for the imaging (Page 4, paragraph 55, 59). Noo discloses obtaining first and second topograms (page 4, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 3, Noo discloses wherein obtaining comprises obtaining the first and second topograms with first and second normal vectors, the first normal vector for the first topogram being substantially perpendicular to the second normal vector for the second topogram, since the topograms are 90 degrees from each other (Page 7, paragraph 88), both the first and second normal vectors being substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the CT system (Fig. 8B, axis of ration is through the center of the circle). Andress et al discloses the CT and SPECT system share an axis of rotation (fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 4, Andress et al discloses obtaining comprises obtaining with a computed tomography imager (fig. 1b, CT), and wherein determining comprises determining the location, a location that is being scanned in fig. 1B, page 4, paragraph 55) where a known relationship of the computed tomography imager to the SPECT system (fig. 2b, CT and SPECT system have known relationship). Noo discloses determining cardiac location by triangulation (page 1, paragraph 3, fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 7, Andress et al discloses imaging comprises detecting emissions by the SPECT system (page 1, paragraph 9) and reconstructing function in the patient from the detected emissions, by reconstructing the detections into an image (page 1, paragraph 9).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Andress et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220028129 (Balashova et al).
Regarding claim 5, Noo et al (as modified by Andress et al) all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Noo discloses detecting a cardiac location (page 7, paragraph 88).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al) does not disclose expressly determining comprises constructing a three-dimensional representation of the patient from topograms and detecting the location of interest in the three-dimensional representation.
Balashova et al discloses determining comprises constructing a three-dimensional representation of the patient from topograms (fig. 4, item 42) and detecting the location of interest in the three-dimensional representation, the 3D shape (fig. 4, item 44, fig. 6).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al) and Balashova et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. topogram processing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to construct a 3D shape.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by providing more data in 3D.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Noo (as modified by Andress et al) with the 3D constructing of Balashova et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Andress et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100067766 (Vija).
Regarding claim 5, Noo et al (as modified by Andress et al) all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Noo discloses positioning the focal location at the cardiac location (page 7, paragraph 88).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al) does not disclose expressly the collimator comprises a non-parallel hole collimator with a focal location, and wherein focusing comprises positioning the focal location at the location of interest.
Vija discloses the collimator comprises a non-parallel hole collimator with a focal location (page 1, paragraphs 10-11), and wherein focusing comprises positioning the focal location at the location of interest (page 1, paragraph 11).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al) and Vija are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. SPECT images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a non-parallel hole collimator
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by capturing depth data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Noo (as modified by Andress et al) with the collimator of Vija obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim 16-18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210052233 (Kaplan et al) in view of Noo.
Regarding claim 16, Kaplan et al discloses a method for attenuation mapping in a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scanner (page 2, paragraph 12), the method comprising: obtaining scout CT images of a patient, the scout images comprising x-ray images (page 3, paragraph 32); generating an attenuation map from the scout images (page 3, paragraph 32), and imaging, by the SPECT scanner, based on the attenuation map (page 3, paragraphs 31 and 32).
Kaplan et al does not disclose expressly the scout CT images are first and second topograms comprising x-ray images captured from different angles relative to a patient over a scan of less than 3 seconds.
Noo discloses the scout CT images are first and second topograms comprising x-ray images captured from different angles relative to a patient (page 7, paragraph 88) over a scan of less than 3 seconds, at least 250 ms (page 7, paragraph 89).
Kaplan et al and Noo are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. medical imaging.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use topograms.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a faster system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Kaplan et al with the topograms of Noo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Kaplan et al discloses obtaining the scout images as the only information from x-rays for the imaging (page 3, paragraph 32). Noo discloses the scout CT images are first and second topograms (page 7, paragraph 88)
Regarding claim 18, Noo discloses wherein obtaining comprises obtaining the first and second topograms with first and second normal vectors, the first normal vector for the first topogram being substantially perpendicular to the second normal vector for the second topogram, since the topograms are 90 degrees from each other (Page 7, paragraph 88), both the first and second normal vectors being substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the CT system (Fig. 8B, axis of ration is through the center of the circle). Kaplan discloses the CT and SPECT system share an axis of rotation (fig. 1, items 4, 6).
Regarding claim 20, Noo discloses determining a cardiac location of interest in three dimensions from the first and second topograms, a region of interest to center the patient bed over a 3D volume/ cylinder (page 7, paragraph 88); and focusing a collimator of the CT scanner i.e. the x-ray sources that are focused as disclosed in page 1, paragraphs 7 and 8, of the CT system (page 8, paragraph 96) based on the cardiac location determined from the first and second topograms the ROI (page 7, paragraph 88); wherein imaging comprises imaging by the CT scanner with the collimator as focused, the cardiac location by the CT system (fig. 9-11). Kaplan et al discloses obtaining from a SPECT system (fig. 1, item 6, page 3, paragraph 30).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Andress et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaplan et al.
Regarding claim 8, Noo (as modified by Andress et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and is incorporated herein by reference. Noo further discloses the scout images are first and second topograms (page 7, paragraph 88).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al) does not disclose expressly generating an attenuation map based on scout images and imaging comprises imaging based on the attenuation map
Kaplan et al discloses generating an attenuation map based on CT scout images (page 3, paragraph 32) and imaging comprises imaging based on the attenuation map (page 3, paragraph 32).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al) does & Kaplan et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. medical imaging.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the scout images in an attenuation map.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by using all the data to analyze the images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Noo (as modified by Andress et al) with the attenuation map of Kaplan et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Andress and Kaplan et al, as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250245864 (Partin et al).
Regarding claim 10, Noo (as modified by Andress et al and Kaplan et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth and incorporated herein by reference. Noo discloses obtaining first and second topograms (page 7, paragraph 88).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al and Kaplan et al) does not disclose expressly generating comprises generating by a machine-learned model in response to input of the topograms to the machine-learned model.
Partin et al discloses generating comprises generating by a machine-learned model in response to input of topograms to the machine-learned model (page 2, paragraph 20).
Noo (as modified by Andress et al and Kaplan et al) & Partin et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. medical imaging.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a machine learning model to generate data.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by allowing more data to be considered.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Noo (as modified by Andress et al and Kaplan et al) with the machine learning of Partin et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 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.
Claims 9 and 19 contain allowable subject matter regarding generating comprises delineating a patient shape from the claimed first and second topograms, and deriving attenuation coefficients per voxels using the patient shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 2/23/2026