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 .
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, a processor and a program storage device claimed in claim 1 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 Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A photon counting CT apparatus comprising:
an X-ray source that irradiates a subject with X-rays;
a photon counting type detector that detects the X-rays and outputs a signal corresponding to photon energies of the X-rays, a tomographic image of the subject being generated based on the signal output by the photon counting type detector; and
a processor and a program storage device tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the processor, the processor performing a method comprising:
acquiring calibration [[data]] data, which is an energy spectrum of X-rays transmitted through a calibration member including a combination of a first base substance and a second base substance having known substances and thicknesses;
creating a correction table indicating a relationship between a number of X-ray photons and an X-ray dose for each energy bin based on [[the]] an energy spectrum acquired while changing [[the]] an X-ray dose of X-rays irradiated by the X-ray source to the calibration member; and
generating a tomographic image decomposed for each substance based on the calibration data and the correction table.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The photon counting CT apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method performed by the processor further comprises:
correcting the calibration data based on the correction table and reference data including a fluctuation over time in [[the]] an X-ray dose (a lack of an antecedent basis) of X-rays irradiated by the X-ray source; and
performing a substance (not underlined) decomposition on projection data of the subject by using the corrected calibration data.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The photon counting CT apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method performed by the processor further comprises:
correcting projection data of the subject based on the correction table and reference data including a fluctuation over time in [[the]] an X-ray dose (a lack of an antecedent basis) of X-rays irradiated by the X-ray source; and
performing a substance (not underlined) decomposition on the corrected projection data by using the calibration data.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The photon counting CT apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the method performed by the processor further comprises:
acquiring the energy spectrum of the X-rays transmitted through the calibration member within a range of a fluctuation over time in [[the]] an X-ray dose (a lack of an antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A substance decomposition method using a photon counting CT apparatus comprising an X-ray source that irradiates a subject with X-rays, and a photon counting type detector that detects the X-rays and outputs a signal corresponding to photon energies of the X-rays, a tomographic image of the subject being generated based on the signal output by the photon counting type detector, the substance decomposition method comprising:
acquiring calibration [[data]] data, which is an energy spectrum of X-rays transmitted through a calibration member including a combination of a first base substance and a second base substance having known substances and thicknesses;
creating a correction table indicating a relationship between a number of X-ray photons and an X-ray dose for each energy bin based on [[the]] an energy spectrum acquired while changing [[the]] an X-ray dose of X-rays irradiated by the X-ray source to the calibration member; and
generating a tomographic image decomposed for each substance based on the calibration data and the correction table.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The substance decomposition method according to claim 5, further comprising:
correcting the calibration data based on the correction table and reference data including a fluctuation over time in [[the]] an X-ray dose (a lack of an antecedent basis) of X-rays irradiated by the X-ray source; and
performing a substance decomposition on projection data of the subject by using the corrected calibration data.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The substance decomposition method according to claim 5, further comprising:
correcting projection data of the subject based on the correction table and reference data including a fluctuation over time in [[the]] an X-ray dose (a lack of an antecedent basis) of X-rays irradiated by the X-ray source; and
performing a substance decomposition on the corrected projection data by using the calibration data.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The substance decomposition method according to claim 5, further comprising:
acquiring the energy spectrum of the X-rays transmitted through the calibration member within a range of a fluctuation over time in [[the]] an X-ray dose (a lack of an antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “a processor and a program storage device tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the processor” in lines 8-9. However, while a general computer device was mentioned (paragraph [00025], the specification does not describe a processor and a program storage device tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the processor. Claims may lack a written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result, but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed, or the result is achieved. For a program of instructions, this can occur when an algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP § 2161.01 (I). Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-8 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 functional limitation “a tomographic image of the subject being generated based on the signal output by the photon counting type detector” in lines 5-6, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the functional language are unclear.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., an X-ray source, a photon counting type detector, a processor and a program storage device, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the photon counting CT apparatus in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“a tomographic image of the subject being generated based on the signal output by the photon counting type detector”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., an X-ray source, a photon counting type detector, a processor and a program storage device, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the photon counting CT apparatus in a certain manner.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the energy spectrum acquired while changing the X-ray dose of X-rays emitted to the calibration member” in lines 21-23, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the energy spectrum is the same as “an energy spectrum of X-rays transmitted through a calibration member including a combination of a first base substance and a second base substance having known substances and thicknesses” recited in lines 10-13.
Claim 5 recites a limitation “the energy spectrum acquired while changing the X-ray dose of X-rays emitted to the calibration member” in lines 16-18, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the energy spectrum is the same as “an energy spectrum of X-rays transmitted through a calibration member including a combination of a first base substance and a second base substance having known substances and thicknesses” recited in lines 7-9.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to the drawings have been fully considered. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-4 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 1-4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 2 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 3 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-5 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-4 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsukagoshi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,533,092 B2) disclosed a medical image-processing apparatus and a medical image-processing method.
Zhan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,653,892 B2) disclosed a calibration method of counting response and beam hardening for a full-size photon-counting CT system.
Zhan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,249,035 B2) disclosed a calibration method of two-step material decomposition for a full-size photon-counting computed-tomography system.
Lai et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,229,413 B1) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus comprising adaptive photon-counting detectors.
Persson (U. S. Patent No. 10,139,354 B2) disclosed X-ray spectral imaging.
Tamura (U. S. Patent No. 10,117,628 B2) disclosed a photon-counting apparatus.
Kato et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,924,916 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus and a controlling method.
Schirra et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,750,471 B2) disclosed a calibration of a photon-counting detector.
Wu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,315,352 B2) disclosed a system and a method of a spectral calibration and a decomposition of basis materials for X-ray CT systems.
Altman et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,778,380 B2) disclosed data handling and an analysis in computed tomography with multiple-energy windows.
Tkaczyk et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,583,779 B2) disclosed a system and a method for an acquisition and a reconstruction of contrast-enhanced artifact-reduced CT images.
Wu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,466,793 B2) disclosed a detection of distinct incident energy spectra.
Cann et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,155,365 A) disclosed an emission-transmission imaging system using a single energy and dual-energy transmission and radionuclide emission data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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