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 .
Comments
The Amendment – After Non-Final Rejection filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
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, 2, 5-7, 9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0124927) in view of Bal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0106300).
As to claims 1, 12 and 16 Koehler et al. teaches a system (system (i.e., “imaging system 700”, Paragraph [0029]) for tomographic reconstruction of phase contrast or dark-field imagery, comprising/:
a memory that stores a plurality of instructions (i.e., “computer readable storage medium is encoded with computer readable instructions”, Paragraph [0009]); and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the plurality of instructions to (i.e., “which, when executed by a processor”, Paragraph [0009])/method for tomographic reconstruction of phase contrast or dark-field imagery, comprising/non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., “computer readable storage medium is encoded with computer readable instructions”, Paragraph [0009]) for storing executable instructions, which cause a method for tomographic reconstruction of phase contrast or dark-field imagery to be performed, the method comprising:
receive phase contrast (PC) or dark-field (DF) projection data based on measurements along rays through an image domain (i.e., “radiation source 708 emits a polychromatic incoherent radiation beam, and the source grating, for example, an absorbing mask with transmitting slits, filters the emitted radiation beam, creating the individually coherent sources, which have sufficient spatial coherence for dark field imaging”, Paragraph [0032]), the projection data acquired in a scan operation by an X-ray imaging apparatus (i.e., “The examination region includes a field of view 716 configured for scanning a human body 715 and/or an object”, paragraph [0029]; and “radiation source 708 (e.g., an X-ray tube)”, Paragraph [0030]); and
perform a data processing operation, including a reconstruction operation, to reconstruct the PC or DF imagery in image domain based on the projection data (i.e., “reconstructor 728 reconstructs the signal based on a reconstruction algorithm(s) 730, generating volumetric image data”, Paragraph [0036]),
wherein the data processing operation includes a weighting (i.e., “the dark field signal is weighted”, Paragraph [0067]).
However, Koehler does not explicitly disclose the weighting based at least on a sensitivity of a mean of the measurements along the respective ray.
Bal et al. teaches a weighting (i.e., “sensitivity, attenuation, and scan time (SAT) weighting factors are calculated”, Paragraph [0062]) that is based at least on a sensitivity of a mean of the measurements (i.e., “after scan data is acquired, it is necessary to reconstruct the data from multiple beds to generate a single reconstructed image. Systems and methods of reconstruction (i.e., stitching) configured to weight (or optimize) voxels with higher signal to noise ratio higher than voxels having lower signal to noise ratio during stitching”, Paragraph [0024]) along the respective ray (i.e., “Each of the first modality 12 and/or the second modality 14 can include one or more detectors 50 configured to detect an annihilation photon, gamma ray, and/or other nuclear imaging event”, Paragraph [0022]; and Paragraph [0064]).
Koehler et al. and Bal et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for image scan data analysis.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Koehler et al. by incorporating the weighting is based at least on a sensitivity of a mean of the measurements along the respective ray.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to increase the signal to noise ration and provide a clearer image with well define lesion points.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bal et al. with Koehler et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 12 and 16.
As to claim 2, Koehler et al. teaches a weight per ray that depends on a fan angle for the respective ray (See for example, a diffusion coefficient dependent on ɸ a fan angle of a measured sample, Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
As to claim 5, Koehler et al. teaches wherein the imaging apparatus includes at least one imaging facilitator component operable to (i.e., “phase grating 718 and an analyzer grating 720”, Paragraph [0031]) facilitate conversion of radiation intensities detectable at a detector of the imaging apparatus into DF of PC signals as the DF or PC projection data, wherein the image domain is located between the detector and the at least one imaging facilitator component (See for example, FIG. 7, Paragraph [0029]).
As to claim 6, Koehler et al. teaches wherein the imaging facilitator component is an interferometric grating or a coded aperture structure (i.e., “phase grating 718 and an analyzer grating 720”, Paragraph [0031]).
As to claim 7, Koehler et al. teaches wherein the processor implements a tomographic reconstruction algorithm of the filtered-back-projection type (i.e., “the resulting sinogram reconstructed using a conventional filtered back projection reconstruction algorithm”, Paragraph [0046]).
As to claim 9, Koehler et al. teaches wherein the processor implements a tomographic reconstruction algorithm of the iterative type to process the reconstructed imagery as initial data to reconstruct a second DF or the PC imagery (i.e., “reconstructor 728 can employ a reconstruction algorithm that takes magnification of the object 715 into account. An example reconstruction algorithm is an algebraic reconstruction technique (ART) reconstruction algorithm, which is an iterative reconstruction algorithm”, Paragraph [0040]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehler et al. in view of Bal et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0192098), hereinafter Koehler ‘098. The teachings of Koehler et al. and Bal et al. have been discussed above.
As to claim 8, Koehler et al. and Bal et al. do not explicitly disclose further comprising two modes, wherein one mode reconstructs DF imagery and another mode reconstructs PC imagery using the same back-projection operation.
Koehler ‘098 teaches two modes, wherein one mode reconstructs DF imagery and another mode reconstructs PC imagery using the same back-projection operation (i.e., “The interferometric projection data is reconstructed into cross-sectional images of the object by using a preferably iterative reconstruction algorithm. The iterative reconstruction algorithm fits three image variables, one for each of the three data channels (phase contrast, attenuation, and dark field imaging) to the measured projection data to arrive at the cross sectional images for each of the channels”, Paragraph [0062]).
Koehler et al., Bal et al. and Koehler ‘098 are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for X-ray 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 further modify Koehler et al. and Bal et al. by incorporating the two modes, one mode reconstructs DF imagery and another mode reconstructs PC imagery using the same back-projection operation, as taught by Koehler ‘098.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to increase robustness while reducing artifacts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Koehler ‘098 with Koehler et al. and Bal et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehler et al. in view of Bal et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chabior et al. (“Grating-based phase-contrast computed tomography of thick samples”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 693 (2012) pp. 138-142). The teachings of Koehler et al. and Bal et al. have been discussed above.
As to claim 10, Koehler et al. and Bal et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein, in a back-projection operation, a contribution of rays from radiation source positions 360° apart from each other are normalized to ½.
Chabior et al. teaches in a back-projection operation, a contribution of rays from radiation source positions 360° apart from each other are normalized to ½ (See for example, “artifact free reconstruction”, factor ½, 3.2. Sample position between G1 and G2, p. 140).
Koehler et al., Bal et al. and Chabior et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for X-ray image reconstruction.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Koehler et al. and Bal et al. by incorporating the in a back-projection operation, a contribution of rays from radiation source positions 360° apart from each other are normalized to ½, as taught by Chabior et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reconstruct artifact free images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chabior et al. with Koehler et al. and Bal et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 3 and 4, the closest prior art made of record fails to disclose teach, and/or suggest, inter alia, the system of claim 1, wherein the mean sensitivity further relates to a measurement along a ray complementary to the ray; or wherein the weight represents the mean of measurements along the ray, halfway between the two locations of the imaging apparatus’s radiation source on the ray, the two locations assumable by the radiation source in the scan operation.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - USC §§ 102 and 103
With respect to claims 1-10, 12, and 16, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks dated April 14, 2026, pages 5-6) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the previous ground(s) of rejection have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and search, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Koehler et al., Bal et al., Koehler ‘098, and Chabior et al. (Refer to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Section above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights