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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A computed tomography scanning system to perform a computed tomography scan on a subject, the computed tomography scanning system comprising:
a gantry including an X-ray detecting part and an X-ray generating part including a plurality of X-ray sources,
wherein the X-ray generating part and the X-ray detecting part are configured to rotate around a scan region by the gantry, the scan region having a plurality of partial regions; and
at least one processor configured to cause the computed tomography scanning system [[to]] to:
receive or determine a position of a partial region within the scan region,
determine an intensity profile according to an attenuation profile of the subject,
one of (i) send [[only]] X-rays into the scan region that pass through the partial region, or (ii) send first-type X-rays and second-type X-rays into the scan region;
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to send the X-rays by modulating the X-rays sent into the scan region according to the intensity profile by controlling an intensity of X-rays from each X-ray source of the plurality of X-ray sources;
wherein the first-type X-rays pass through the partial region and the second-type X-rays do not pass through the partial region;
wherein the second-type X-rays have a lower intensity than the first-type X- rays;
wherein the X-ray detecting part is configured to detect the X-rays after having passed through the partial region; and
wherein the computed tomography scan is a fluence field modulated computed tomography scan on the subject.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the computed tomography scanning system to:
receive a position of a region of interest that is a partial region within the scan region, and
have a scan mode in which the X-ray generating part and the X-ray detecting part are rotated by the gantry around the scan region and in which the X-ray generating part is configured to send only X-rays into the scan region that pass through the region of interest, or
send only the first-type X-rays and the second-type X-rays into the scan region,
wherein the first-type X-rays pass through the region of interest and the second-type X-rays do not pass through the region of interest, and the second-type X-rays have less than or equal to half of an intensity of the first-type X-rays.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 5, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 2,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the computed tomography scanning system to perform at least a first scan protocol upon a user activation,
wherein the first scan protocol includes:
performing a planning scan covering the scan region,
prompting a user to choose the region of interest from a visualization of image data of the planning scan: or automatically determining the region of interest, and
consecutively performing a plurality of partial scans covering only a part of the scan region while covering the region of interest.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according claim 3,
wherein the planning scan is a low-resolution scan,
wherein the plurality of partial scans are high resolution scans, each partial scan of the plurality of partial scans having a higher resolution than the planning scan, and
wherein the X-ray detecting part includes at least one photon counting detector configured to apply at least two energy thresholds (same as claim 18) for each partial scan of the plurality of partial scans and for the planning scan.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
19. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 18,
wherein the planning scan is a low-resolution scan,
wherein the plurality of partial scans are high resolution scans, each partial scan of the plurality of partial scans having a higher resolution than the planning scan, and
wherein the at least one photon counting detector configured to apply the at least two energy thresholds for each partial scan of the plurality of partial scans and for the planning scan.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
16. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 4,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the computed tomography scanning system [[to,]] to:
receive a position of a region of interest that is a partial region within the scan region, and
have a scan mode in which the X-ray generating part and the X-ray detecting part are rotated by the gantry around the scan region, and in which the X-ray generating part is configured to send only X-rays into the scan region that pass through the region of interest, or
send only the first-type X-rays and the second-type X-rays into the scan region,
wherein the first-type X-rays pass through the region of interest and the second-type X-rays do not pass through the region of interest, and the second-type X-rays have a lower intensity than the first-type X-rays.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 1,
wherein the X-ray generating part further includes a movable collimator in front of the plurality of X-ray sources,
wherein the X-ray generating part is configured to dynamically move the movable collimator during a scan, and
wherein the X-ray generating part is rotated by the gantry around the scan region such that the X-rays are dynamically adjusted such that X-rays that would not pass through the partial region are blocked by the movable collimator.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 1,
wherein the X-ray generating part is configured to dynamically change at least some pathways of the X-rays relative to a current position of the X-ray generating part during the computed tomography scan in which the X-ray generating part is rotated by the gantry around the scan region.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 8,
wherein the X-ray generating part is configured to switch individual X-ray sources of the plurality of X-ray sources on and off during a scan in which the X-ray generating part is rotated by the gantry around the scan region such that only X-rays that pass through the partial region are sent into a region of interest in the scan region.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 9,
wherein the plurality of X-ray sources of the X-ray generating part [[are]] comprises (referring to the plurality) carbon nano tubes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Proposed Amendments) The computed tomography scanning system according to claim 9,
wherein the plurality of X-ray sources of the X-ray generating part [[are]] comprises (referring to the plurality) field-emitter-based X-ray tubes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) A method for performing a computed tomography scan on a subject with an X-ray generating part having a plurality of X-ray sources and being rotatable around a scan region of the subject, the method comprising:
receiving or determining a position of a partial region within the scan region;
determining an intensity profile according to an attenuation profile of the subject;
rotating the X-ray generating part around the scan region; and
one of (i) sending [[only]] X-rays into the scan region that pass through the partial region, or (ii) sending first-type X-rays and second-type X-rays into the scan region,
wherein the first-type X-rays pass through the partial region and the second-type X-rays do not pass through the partial region, and the second-type X-rays have a lower intensity than the first-type X-rays; and
detecting, by an X-ray detecting part, the X-rays after having passed through the partial region,
wherein the computed tomography scan is a fluence field modulated computed tomography scan on the subject, and
wherein sending of the X-rays includes modulating the X-rays sent into the scan region according to the intensity profile by controlling an intensity of X-rays from each X-ray source of the plurality of X-ray sources.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
21. (Proposed Amendments) A computed tomography scanning system, comprising:
a gantry including an X-ray detecting part and an X-ray generating part including a plurality of X-ray sources,
wherein the X-ray generating part and the X-ray detecting part are configured to rotate around a scan region by the gantry, the scan region having a plurality of partial regions; and
at least one processor configured to cause the computed tomography scanning system [[to]] to:
receive or determine a position of a partial region within the scan region,
send first-type X-rays and second-type X-rays into the scan region, and
reconstruct a computed tomography image based on data created by detecting the first-type X-rays and using the second-type X-rays to avoid truncation artifacts in the reconstructed computed tomography image;
wherein the first-type X-rays pass through the partial region and the second- type X-rays do not pass through the partial region;
wherein the second-type X-rays have a lower intensity than the first-type X- rays; and
wherein the X-ray detecting part is configured to detect the first-type X-rays after having passed through the partial region.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: an X-ray detecting part and an X-ray generating part in claims 1-10 and 16-21.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 a limitation “the X-rays” in line 17, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “only X-rays” recited in line 14, or “first-type X-rays” and “second-type X-rays” recited in line 15.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the X-rays” in lines 24-25, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “only X-rays” recited in line 14, or “first-type X-rays” and “second-type X-rays” recited in line 15.
Claim 6 recites a limitation “the X-rays” in line 8, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “only X-rays” recited in line 14 of claim 1, or “first-type X-rays” and “second-type X-rays” recited in line 15 of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites a limitation “the X-rays” in line 4, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “only X-rays” recited in line 14 of claim 1, or “first-type X-rays” and “second-type X-rays” recited in line 15 of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 12, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested a method for performing a computed tomography scan on a subject with an X-ray generating part having a plurality of X-ray sources and being rotatable around a scan region of the subject as claimed.
With respect to claim 13, Okumura et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,113,569 B2) disclosed a method for performing a computed tomography scan on a subject with an X-ray generating part having at least one X-ray source (101) and being rotatable around a scan region (a first scanning range) of the subject, the method comprising:
receiving or determining a position of a partial region (a second scanning range) within the scan region (column 4, line 44 - column 5, line 67);
rotating the X-ray generating part around the scan region (column 3, line 54 - column 4, line 12).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the method further comprising:
sending the first-type X-rays and second-type X-rays into the scan region,
wherein the first-type X-rays pass through the partial region and the second-type X-rays do not pass through the partial region, and the second-type X-rays have a lower intensity than the first-type X-rays;
detecting, by an X-ray detecting part, the first-type X-rays after having passed through the partial region; and
reconstructing a computed tomography image based on data created by detecting the first-type X-rays and using the second-type X-rays to avoid truncation artifacts in the reconstructed computed tomography image.
With respect to claim 21, De Man et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,649,479 B2) disclosed a computed tomography scanning system, comprising:
a gantry (12) including an X-ray detecting part (18) and an X-ray generating part including a plurality of X-ray sources (14) (column 9, lines 7-17),
wherein the X-ray generating part and the X-ray detecting part are configured to rotate around a scan region by the gantry, the scan region having a plurality of partial regions.
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the computed tomography scanning system, further comprising:
at least one processor configured to cause the computed tomography scanning system to:
receive or determine a position of a partial region within the scan region,
send first-type X-rays and second-type X-rays into the scan region, and
reconstruct a computed tomography image based on data created by detecting the first-type X-rays and using the second-type X-rays to avoid truncation artifacts in the reconstructed computed tomography image;
wherein the first-type X-rays pass through the partial region and the second- type X-rays do not pass through the partial region;
wherein the second-type X-rays have a lower intensity than the first-type X- rays; and
wherein the X-ray detecting part is configured to detect the first-type X-rays after having passed through the partial region.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to the specification have been fully considered. The objections of the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 18, and 19 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 2, 3, 5, 18, and 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 3, 5, 18, and 19 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 3, 5, 18, and 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 19 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 17 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 9, 10, and 20 have been fully considered. The objection of claims 9, 10, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claim 20 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-10 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Man et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,649,479 B2) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to claims 12 and 15 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okumura et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,113,569 B2) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 March 2026 with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Strzelecki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,229,927 B2) disclosed a reduction of a metal artifact in computed tomography.
Helm et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,076,172 B2) disclosed a system and a method for imaging.
Helm et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,023,187 B2) disclosed a system and a method for imaging.
Helm et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,813,094 B2) disclosed a system and a method for imaging.
Strzelecki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,759,658 B2) disclosed a reduction of a motion artifact in computed tomography.
Koehler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,568,593 B2) disclosed a multi-focal-spot imaging system.
Heuscher et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,332,946 B2) disclosed an adaptive control of a sampling frequency for computed tomography.
Herold (U. S. Patent No. 9,295,434 B2) disclosed a dynamic collimation.
Heuscher et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,198,626 B2) disclosed a dynamic power control of a radiation source.
Noo et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,125,572 B2) disclosed a grated collimation system for computed tomography.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights