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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 2007-319575 A, pagination according to the provided translation) in view of Baumgartner (EP 2387945 A1, pagination corresponding to the English version provided with the IDS filed 5/31/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa discloses an extraoral dental x-ray apparatus (Figs.1-2), including:
a) a radiator 101 configured to emit x-rays; and
b) an x-ray detector 103 configured to at least partially detect the x-rays emitted by the radiator 101, the radiator 101 and the detector 103 being rotatably arranged about an axis (Fig.1);
c) a control device 106 that controls the radiator 101, the control device 106 being configured such that at least two x-rays beams differ in intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays to effect an intensity and/or spectral distribution which is varied (controlling pulse width, tube current, and/or voltage amplitude for each of two or more alternating energy levels, Figs.3-6), where the control device 106 adapts the intensity and/or spectral distribution adaptively to the anatomy of the patient (bottom half of p.8).
Further regarding claim 1, Ogawa does not specifically disclose that the radiator has at least two individual radiators. Ogawa teaches the practice of providing a single radiator for providing both exposure spectra.
Baumgartner teaches the routine practice of replacing a single radiator (Figs.1-5, par.0158) with a radiator array 26 of at least two radiators 26-I and 26-II, each dedicated to providing one or the other of the high and low energy exposures (Fig.17). In this manner, the high and low energy exposures are readily provided with less demands on the x-ray tube power supply (pars.0158 and 0160). In addition, Baumgartner teaches arranging the radiators vertically in order to eliminate the angular difference between the radiators in the rotational direction for minimizing imaging artifacts upon reconstruction (par.0164). These teachings result in the intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays varying in the vertical direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ogawa to provide a radiator array with at least two individual radiators which are offset along a predetermined direction, and where the emitted x-ray beams of the at least two individual radiators differ in the intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays to effect an intensity and/or spectral distribution which is varied along the predetermined direction, as a functionally-equivalent substitution for providing adaptable high and low spectra x-ray beams with reduced demands on the x-ray power supply circuitry, where the sources are arranged vertically in order to remove the angular variation between the projections in the plane of rotation, all as taught by Baumgartner
With respect to claim 2, Ogawa further discloses that the high and low x-ray beams are emitted sequentially and that the detector signals are read out in synch with the sequential high and low x-ray beams (Figs.3-6), and Baumgartner further teaches that the individual radiators are actuated sequentially; where the detected signals of the x-ray detector are read out synchronously with the actuation of the individual radiators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ogawa to read out the detected signals in synch with the actuation of the individual radiators, as taught by Baumgartner, as a natural consequence of the essentially identical imaging methodologies of each.
With respect to claim 3, Baumgartner further teaches that the radiator array 26 has a common aperture device 28 (Fig.17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ogawa to have a radiator array, as taught by Baumgartner, for reduced demands on the power supply circuitry and minimizing angular artifacts.
With respect to claim 4, neither Ogawa nor Baumgartner specifically disclose filtration of the x-ray beams.
However, the skilled artisan readily appreciates the advantages of providing beam hardening filters for medical x-ray systems in order to prevent unnecessary exposure of low-energy Bremsstrahlung to the patient that does not positively contribute to the quality of the image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ogawa and Baumgartner to include beam hardening filters in order to minimize the radiation dose to the patient, as known in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Ogawa further discloses that a mode of operation of the x-ray apparatus is configurable by the user using an input device with respect to at least one of the following configuration variables: PAN imaging method, target value for intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays (based on patient data, bottom half of p.8), where the control device is configured to control the radiators on the basis of the user configuration.
With respect to claim 6, Ogawa further discloses that the intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays are adaptively adapted to the patient’s anatomy, where the control device determines the patient’s anatomy according to at least pre-known anatomy of the patient (bottom half of p.8).
With respect to claim 8, Ogawa further discloses that the control device 106 is further configured to control at least one individual radiator during imaging such that the intensity and/or the spectral distribution of the x-rays of the individual radiator are varied according to a predetermined sequence which has a frequency of at least 50Hz (the source is operated at 300Hz, which it then follows that the high energy x-ray beam and the low energy x-ray beam are each emitted at a frequency of 150Hz; thus, as modified by Baumgartner, each of the individual radiators would have predetermined on/off cycles of 150Hz, which is higher than 50Hz).
With respect to claim 10, Ogawa further discloses that the extraoral x-ray apparatus has at least a PAN imaging method that is selectable by the user (see at least bottom half of p.6).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Baumgartner, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rotondo (EP 2 198 783 A1, see IDS filed 5/31/2024).
With respect to claim 7, Ogawa does not specifically disclose controlling the radiator such that the intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays is readjusted during the imaging as a function of the signal from the x-ray detector. Ogawa sets the initial modulation parameters based on patient information (bottom half of p.8) prior to the scan.
Rotondo teaches the practice of providing real-time feedback control of the x-ray beam, the scanning speed, and/or the detector sensitivity (par.0021) based on the detected signal from the x-ray detector (par.0025), enabling optimal exposure based on actual x-ray attenuation measurements for improved image quality and minimizing the radiation dose to the patient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ogawa to further control the radiator for imaging such that the intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays is readjusted during the imaging as a function of the signal from the x-ray detector, as taught by Rotondo, in order to optimize the image quality and limit patient exposure.
With respect to claim 9, Ogawa does not specifically disclose that an operating mode of the x-ray detector for the respective intensity and/or spectral distribution of the x-rays used is adapted completely or regionally before or during the imaging, where the operating mode includes at least one of the dynamic range, readout rate, readout range, and the gain.
Rotondo teaches the practice of modulating the detector gain (“sensitivity”, par.0021) either before or during the imaging (pars.0020-0026) in order to improve image quality by optimizing the gain based on the received x-rays (par.0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Ogawa to have an operating mode of the x-ray detector where the gain is adapted for the respective intensity and/or spectral distributions, as suggested by Rotondo, in order to further enable the optimization of the S/N ratios between the high and low energy x-ray image projections, as taught by Ogawa (p.2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892 unless otherwise stated):
Byun (WO 2008/035828 A1) and Bianconi (EP 2 609 861 A1) each teach integrated extraoral DVT, panoramic and cephalographic imaging systems;
US patent documents to Suzuki et al. teach an integrated extraoral DVT and panoramic imaging system;
US patent documents to Sonobe et al. teach an integrated extraoral panoramic and cephalographic imaging system with real-time feedback control of the scan based on measured patient information; and
The remaining cited art are US family members of previously-cited art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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 Makiya can be reached on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884