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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 14-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk (US 2021/0279917 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2021) in view of Steadman Booker et al. (US 2021/0067710 A1; pub. Mar. 4, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Wilk discloses: A method for determining a model characterizing an output from a photon-counting detector (PCD) (para. [0011]) used in a computed tomography (CT) system (para. [0019]), the PCD having a plurality of pixels, the method comprising: constructing a PCD output model that has a plurality of model parameters including a first model parameter set (para. [0075]), where the first model parameter set is dependent on an incident count rate on the PCD (para. [0075]), and dependent on a pixel position in the PCD (para. [0075]).
Wilk is silent about: receiving calibration data acquired by scanning a plurality of combinations of basis materials, under a plurality of incident count rates; and estimating the plurality of model parameters based on the received calibration data.
In a similar field of endeavor Steadman Booker et al. disclose: receiving calibration data acquired by scanning a plurality of combinations of basis materials (para. [0108]), under a plurality of incident count rates (para. [0069], [0079]); and estimating the plurality of model parameters based on the received calibration data (para. [0108]-[0109]) motivated by the benefits for improved event counting (Steadman Booker et al. para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for improved event counting as taught by Steadman Booker et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wilk with the teachings of Steadman Booker et al.
Regarding claim 3, Steadman Booker et al. disclose: the first model parameter set is one of: a detector deadtime set of the PCD, a charge sharing matrix set of the PCD, and a threshold energy vector set of the PCD (para. [0029], [0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Steadman Booker et al. disclose: the constructing step further comprises: determining, as the constructed PCD output model, a cascaded model having submodels characterizing an attenuation effect of the materials, a charging sharing effect, a pulse pileup effect, and an energy binning operation, respectively (para. [0029], [0099], [0101]).
Regarding claim 6, Wilk discloses: receiving a number of parameters specifying a working condition of the PCD; and generating, based on the received number of parameters, a simulated output of the PCD, using the PCD output model with the estimated plurality of model parameters (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Wilk and Steadman Booker et al. disclose: receiving scanning data acquired by scanning an imaging object using the CT system; correcting the received scanning data or compensating for an effect of a spectral distortion included in the received scanning data, based on the PCD output model with the estimated plurality of model parameters; and reconstructing, based on the corrected scanning data, an image of the imaging object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, additionally see para. [0081] of Wilk & para. [0077] of Steadman Booker et al.).
Regarding claim 8, Wilk and Steadman Booker et al. disclose: An apparatus for determining a model characterizing an output from a photon-counting detector (PCD) used in a computed tomography (CT) system, the PCD having a plurality of pixels, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to construct a PCD output model that has a plurality of model parameters including a first model parameter, where the first model parameter set is dependent on an incident count rate on the PCD, and dependent on a pixel position in the PCD; receive calibration data acquired by scanning a plurality of combinations of basis materials, under a plurality of incident count rates; and estimate the plurality of model parameters based on the received calibration data (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, the claim is therefore rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 10, Steadman Booker et al. disclose: the first model parameter set is one of: a detector deadtime set of the PCD, a charge sharing matrix set of the PCD, and a threshold energy vector set of the PCD (para. [0029], [0099]).
Regarding claim 11, Steadman Booker et al. disclose: the processing circuitry is configured to: determine, as the constructed PCD output model, a cascaded model having submodels characterizing an attenuation effect of the materials, a charging sharing effect, a pulse pileup effect, and an energy binning operation, respectively (para. [0029], [0099], [0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Wilk and Steadman Booker et al. disclose: the processing circuitry is configured to: receive scanning data acquired by scanning an imaging object using the CT system; correct the received scanning data or compensate for an effect of a spectral distortion included in the received scanning data, based on the PCD output model with the estimated plurality of model parameters; and reconstruct, based on the corrected scanning data, an image of the imaging object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, additionally see para. [0081] of Wilk & para. [0077] of Steadman Booker et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Wilk and Steadman Booker et al. disclose: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to execute a method for determining a model characterizing an output from a photon-counting detector (PCD) used in a computed tomography (CT) system, the PCD having a plurality of pixels, the method comprising: constructing a PCD output model that has a plurality of model parameters including a first model parameter set, where the first model parameter set is dependent on an incident count rate on the PCD, and dependent on a pixel position in the PCD; receiving calibration data acquired by scanning a plurality of combinations of basis materials, under a plurality of incident count rates; and estimating the plurality of model parameters based on the received calibration data (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, the claim is therefore rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 17, Steadman Booker et al. disclose: the first model parameter set is one of: a detector deadtime set of the PCD, a charge sharing matrix set of the PCD, and a threshold energy vector set of the PCD (para. [0029], [0099]).
Regarding claim 18, Steadman Booker et al. disclose: the constructing step further comprises: determining, as the constructed PCD output model, a cascaded model having submodels characterizing an attenuation effect of the materials, a charging sharing effect, a pulse pileup effect, and an energy binning operation, respectively (para. [0029], [0099], [0101]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12-13, 16, 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the first model parameter set includes a first subparameter set that is dependent on the incident count rate, and a second subparameter set that is dependent on the pixel position in the PCD, and the estimating step further comprises: estimating initial values of the plurality of model parameters, such that a total count error between an output derived from the PCD output model and the received calibration data is minimized, determining the first subparameter set, such that a global model-data mismatch over the plurality of pixels is minimized, and determining the second subparameter set, such that pixel-to-pixel variations are minimized.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: receiving verification data acquired by scanning the plurality of combinations of basis materials, under the plurality of incident count rates; and assessing, based on the received verification data, performance of the PCD output model having the estimated plurality of model parameters.
Regarding claim 9, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the first model parameter set includes a first subparameter set that is dependent on the incident count rate, and a second subparameter set that is dependent on the pixel position in the PCD, and the processing circuitry is configured to: estimate initial values of the plurality of model parameters, such that a total count error between the output derived from the PCD output model and the received calibration data is minimized, determine the first subparameter set, such that a global model-data mismatch over the plurality of pixels, is minimized, and determine the second subparameter set such that pixel-to-pixel variations are minimized.
Regarding claim 12, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the processing circuitry is configured to: receive verification data acquired by scanning the plurality of combinations of basis materials, under the plurality of incident count rates; and assess, based on the received verification data, performance of the PCD output model having the estimated plurality of model parameters.
Regarding claim 13, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the processing circuitry is configured to: receive a number of parameters specifying a working condition of the PCD; and generate, based on the received number of parameters, a simulated output of the PCD, using the PCD output model with the estimated plurality of model parameters.
Regarding claim 16, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the first model parameter set includes a first subparameter set that is dependent on the incident count rate, and a second subparameter set that is dependent on the pixel position in the PCD, and the estimating step further comprises: estimating initial values of the plurality of model parameters, such that a total count error between the output derived from the PCD output model and the received calibration data is minimized, determining the first subparameter set, such that a global model-data mismatch over the plurality of pixels, is minimized, and determining the second subparameter set such that pixel-to-pixel variations are minimized.
Regarding claim 19, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the method further comprises: receiving a number of parameters specifying a working condition of the PCD; and generating, based on the received number of parameters, a simulated output of the PCD, using the PCD output model with the estimated plurality of model parameters.
Regarding claim 20, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the method further comprises: receiving scanning data acquired by scanning an imaging object using the CT system; correcting the received scanning data or compensating for an effect of a spectral distortion included in the received scanning data, based on the PCD output model with the estimated plurality of model parameters; and reconstructing, based on the corrected scanning data, an image of the imaging object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights