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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The response received on 6/18/2026 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2026 June 18 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has amended the claim to overcome the previous objection and has argued prior art rejection. In particular, on pages 7-8, the applicant argues that there is no collimator in Noo, and that Andress does not focus the collimator based on cardiac location. The applicant further argues that Andress does not focus a collimator.
The examiner disagrees. Even if Noo does not disclose focusing a collimator, the references combined teach the claimed limitations because Andress discloses a collimator is used in image capture. By using the collimator that focuses the emissions, the collimator is inherently focused. If the applicant intends for the collimator to be focused in a specific way, the applicant should provide such language in the claims. However, the argument is moot in view of new grounds or rejection, below.
The applicant argues on pages 8-9 that Kaplan teaches separate images of scout images and images to find attenuation maps, and does not disclose that the scout images are used to find an attenuation map.
This argument is moot in view of new grounds of rejection, below.
On pages 9-11, the applicant argues the dependent claims.
Arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, below.
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 1-3 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. 20210052233 (Kaplan et al)
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 an imager 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 imager as focused, the cardiac location by the CT system (fig. 9-11).
Noo does not disclose expressly imaging using a SPECT system and that focusing imaging is focusing collimator of the SPECT system.
Kaplan et al discloses pre-scanning for location using CT scouting (page 3, paragraph 32) and imaging using a SPECT system (page 3, paragraph 30, 32, page 4, paragraph 35) by focusing collimators (page 4, paragraph 35).
Noo and 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 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 Kaplan et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Noo discloses obtaining first and second topograms (page 4, paragraph 55) as the only information from x-rays for the next imaging (page 7, paragraph 88). Kaplan et al discloses the imaging is SPECT (page 4, paragraph 35), and further that the x-ray images are the only information for the SPECT imaging (page 3, paragraph 32)
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). Kaplan et al discloses the CT and SPECT system share an axis of rotation (fig. 1, items 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kaplan et al discloses imaging comprises detecting emissions by the SPECT system (page 3, paragraph 30, 32) and reconstructing function in the patient from the detected emissions, by reconstructing the detections into an image (page 4, paragraph 34, 36).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Kaplan et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20140294276 (Song et al).
Regarding claim 4, Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan et al) all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Kaplan et al discloses obtaining comprises obtaining with a computed tomography imager (fig. 1, item 4), and wherein determining comprises determining the location, (page 3, paragraph 32) where a known relationship of the computed tomography imager to the SPECT system (fig. 1, CT and SPECT system have known relationship). Noo et al discloses determining cardiac location (fig. 2, 3).
Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan et al) does not disclose expressly determining location by triangulation.
Song et al discloses determining cardiac location by triangulation (page 3, paragraph 37).
Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan et al) & Song 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 triangulation to determine location.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a faster, more efficient system by considering important points.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan et al) with triangulation of Song et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Kaplan 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 Kaplan 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 Kaplan 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 Kaplan 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 Kaplan 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 Kaplan et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200258272 (Ding et al)
Regarding claim 6, Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan 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) and Kaplan et al discloses the collimator comprises a collimator (page 4, paragraph 35) with a focal location of the determined region of interest (page 3, paragraph 32), wherein focusing comprises positioning the focal location at the determined region of interest (page 3, paragraph 32).
Noo (as modified by Kaplan et al) does not disclose expressly the collimator comprises a non-parallel hole collimator.
Ding et al discloses the collimator comprises a non-parallel hole collimator for SPECT imaging (page 2, paragraph 20).
Noo (as modified by Kaplan et al) and Ding et al 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 using known collimators for detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Noo (as modified by Kaplan et al) with the collimator of Ding et al obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 8, 16, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Kaplan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20210174502 (Siewerdsen et al).
Regarding claim 6, Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan et al) all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Kaplan et al further discloses generating an attenuation map (page 3, paragraph 32), and imaging, by the SPECT scanner, based on the attenuation map (page 3, paragraphs 31 and 32). Noo et al discloses scout images that are first and second topograms ((page 7, paragaprh 88). Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan et al ) does not disclose expressly generating an attenuation map from topograms/ scout views.
Siewerdsen et al discloses generating an attenuation map from scout views (page 2, paragraph 15).
Noo et al (as modified by 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 create attenuation maps from the scout views.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a safer system by limiting exposure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Noo et al (as modified by Kaplan et al) with attenuation map generation of Siewerdsen et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, Noo et al discloses a method comprising: obtaining first and second topograms of a patient, the 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 three seconds, at least 250 ms (page 7, paragraph 89), and imaging, based on the topograms (page 7, paragraph 88). Noo et al does not disclose expressly that imaging, based on topograms, is by generating an attenuation map from the topograms/ scout images, and imaging, by the SPECT scanner, based on the attenuation map. Kaplan et al discloses a method for attenuation mapping in a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scanner (page 3, paragraphs 30, 32) in which imaging is based on generating an attenuation map (page 3, paragraph 32), and imaging, by the SPECT scanner, based on the attenuation map (page 3, paragraphs 31 and 32) and Siewerdsen et al discloses generating an attenuation map from scout images (page 2, paragraph 15).
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 na imager 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 imager with the imager focused, the cardiac location by the CT system (fig. 9-11). Kaplan et al discloses pre-scanning for location using CT scouting (page 3, paragraph 32) and imaging using a SPECT system (page 3, paragraph 30, 32, page 4, paragraph 35) by focusing collimators as focused (page 4, paragraph 35).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noo in view of Kaplan et al and Siewerdsen, 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 Kaplan et al and Siewerdsen 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 Kaplan et al and Siewerdsen 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 Kaplan et al and Siewerdsen et al) l) & 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 Kaplan et al and Siewerdsen 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.
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 M-F: 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 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights