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
Applicant's election with traverse of group I species B in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that linking claim being mistakenly indicated as claim 7 instead of claim 17.
The examiner agrees to the pointed mistake, the linking claim was claim 17.
As a result, the examiner examined based on corrected linking claim.
Otherwise, the restriction deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “starshaped curve”, ‘starshaped curve bounding the convex region is substantially elliptical, polygonal, rectangular, and hexagonal’ respectively, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, 5-10, and 13-19 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “non-circular starshaped curve is defined”.
However, it is not clear what it means by the starshaped curve.
First, conventional starshape is not a curve.
Second, multiple dependent claims 4-6 and 8 stating “the starchaped curve … is substantially elliptical, polygonal, rectangular, or hexagonal”. However, non-of them are conventionally considered as a starshape.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret it to mean that any curve lies within the polygon as the starshaped curve such as Eisenberg et al. (US 20030128801).
Claims 9 and 17 include the same problem and thus rejected.
As to the claims 2, 10, and 17, the claims recite “a reconstruction bandwidth factor used in the generation of a tomographic image is based on a distance from the radiation source to each reconstruction point”.
However, reconstruction bandwidth factor is not known in the art terminology.
Furthermore, how to control/select the reconstruction bandwidth factor to use or not to use based on the distance (is it selectable from the obtained data? Or controlling illumination condition when the source illuminate the object for measurement or sampling etc.).
As a result, it is not clear what the applicant tried to mean by this limitation.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret it as appeared in paragraph [0088]) of Eisenberg et al. (US 20030128801 A1), such as the bandwidth of pre-amplifier being adjusted to obtain a high SNR, and the and the output of pre-amplifier applied to a signal processor and the output of signal processor input to ATD and the final signal produce signal proportional to the input x-ray flux level and the energy of x-ray flux and the resulting sample signal being controlled by the gating control system into gantry position parameters, which depends on the distance between source and the detector.
Proper corrections are required.
As to the claims 5-8, and 13-16, the claims recite “substantially”.
However, the limitation “substantially” is not indicating which being considered as substantially and what is not. (ex., 51% of the shape being elliptical is substantially elliptical and 49% is not substantial? etc.)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Proper corrections are required.
Claims 2, 5-10, 13-16 and 18-19 have been rejected also based upon their dependencies.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eisenberg et al. (US 20030128801 A1 hereinafter Eisenberg)
As to claim 1, Eisenberg teaches a tomography system (abstract [0001]) comprising:
a plurality of radiation sources ([0009] 24 in Figure 2), each configured to emit radiation towards a target object or objects ([0054]);
a plurality of detectors (26 in Figure 2) positioned around the target object or objects ([0054]);
wherein the radiation sources and detectors are located along a non-circular starshaped curve (three side in hexagon 20) bounding a convex region encompassing the target object or objects (Figure 2);
wherein the non-circular starshaped curve is defined such that each of the detectors is positioned at a position on the starshaped curve such that any line segment connecting any of the radiation sources to any detector lies entirely within the convex region (Figure 2); and
wherein the tomography system is configured to generate tomographic images of the target object or objects based on radiation measurements acquired by the plurality of detectors ([0054] and [0056]).
As to claim 9, the claim calls for the method that corresponds to the system of claim 1. Since the prior art of Eisenberg as discussed above meets the system of claim 1, the method practiced as recited for claim 9 is also met.
As to claim 2, Eisenberg teaches the tomography system of claim 1.
Eisenberg further teaches a reconstruction bandwidth factor used in the generation of a tomographic image is based on a distance from the radiation source to each reconstruction point ([0088]).
As to claim 10, the claim calls for the method that corresponds to the system of claim 2. Since the prior art of Eisenberg as discussed above meets the system of claim 2, the method practiced as recited for claim 10 is also met.
As to claims 5 and 8, Eisenberg teaches the tomography system of claim 1.
Eisenberg further teaches the starshaped curve bounding the convex region is substantially polygonal, especially hexagonal (Figure 2, hexagonal).
As to claims 13 and 16, the claim calls for the method that corresponds to the system of claims 5 and 8. Since the prior art of Eisenberg as discussed above meets the system of claims 5 and 8, the method practiced as recited for claims 13 and 16 are also met.
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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberg.
As to claims 6 and 14, Eisenberg teaches the tomography system of claim 2.
While Eisenberg does not explicitly disclose the starshaped curve bounding the convex region is substantially rectangular, still the examiner thinks, having a different starshaped curve is one of the possible design choice, which is within a realm of ordinary skill in the art which does not require special technique or incredible imagination (i.e., light sources and detector arrangement being hexagonal or rectangular being within a reasonable design modification depending on the operator’s preference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Eisenberg by having the starshaped curve bounding the convex region is substantially rectangular for the benefit including optimizing available space shape for the system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberg in view of Cao et al. (US 20160143607 A1) in further view of Waggener (US 5293312 A).
As to claim 17, Eisenberg teaches the tomography system of claim 2.
However, Eisenberg does not explicitly disclose a Jacobian factor used in the generation of tomographic images includes a term that incorporates a rate of change of a source radius as a function of the angle to the radiation source.
Cao teaches a weighting factor used in the generation of tomographic images includes a term that incorporates a rate of change of a source radius as a function of the angle to the radiation source ([0082]).
And Waggener teaches use of Jacobian of the scaling transformation from the detector array to the line along a diameter of reconstruction circle (col. 17 lines 6-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Eisenberg by having a Jacobian factor used in the generation of tomographic images includes a term that incorporates a rate of change of a source radius as a function of the angle to the radiation source for the benefit of using known mathematical tools for efficiently scaling multivariable during reconstruction of images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 7, 15 and 18, none of the prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach of an image reconstruction equation as claimed in claims 7, 15 and 18 which also requires Jacobian factor for rectangularly arranged source detector.
Claim 19 is indicated as allowable due to their dependencies only.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights