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 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 10 recites the limitation "the phantom" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 9, which introduces the element of “a phantom”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharpless (US 9173627)
With respect to claim 1, Sharpless teaches a method for operating a CT imaging system comprising a gantry 104 having a detector 112 and a rotary encoder 602-608 attached to the gantry, the method comprising:
modelling, by an adaptive digital phase-locked loop (A-DPLL), a gantry rotation of the gantry, the A-DPLL configured to minimize the difference between an actual gantry angle and a modeled gantry angle (“The IP timing error determiner 204 provides the IP timing error curve to the IP timing corrector 206, which utilizes the IP timing error curve to correct the predicted IP timing signal…so that the IPs are synchronized with rotating gantry angular position” (Sharpless; Column 4); and
generating, for each of a plurality of predetermined values of the modeled gantry angle, a trigger pulse for the detector (“IP pulse generator 208 generates integrator reset pulses, based on the corrected IP timing signal, which resets the integrator 116 for each integration period for each rotation of the rotating gantry 104 during scanning. In the illustrated embodiment, the IP pulse generator 208 generates a serial stream of pulses, which triggers data transfer from and reset of the integrator 116. The output of the integrator 116 produces the projection data that is reconstructed by the reconstructor 122 as discussed above” (Sharpless; Column 5);
wherein the actual gantry angle is obtained by detecting a gantry angle by the rotary encoder and adapting the detected gantry angle to account for a deviation of the actual rotary encoder characteristics from expected rotary encoder characteristics, the adapting being performed using an angular pattern of the rotary encoder (“the IP error values for a scanner are determined ahead of time, for example, during a calibration or other procedure, and stored in a table such as a look up table (LUT) with the scanner. In this instance, LUT can be utilized by the IP timing corrector 206 to correct the IP timing signal from the IP timing predictor 202” (Sharpless; Column 5).
With respect to claim 2, Sharpless teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the angular pattern is accessed from a position look-up table, the position look-up table mapping each of a plurality of values of a gantry angle as detected by the rotary encoder during a calibration procedure to a corresponding estimated actual value of the gantry angle as estimated during the calibration procedure (“the IP error values for a scanner are determined ahead of time, for example, during a calibration or other procedure, and stored in a table such as a look up table (LUT) with the scanner. In this instance, LUT can be utilized by the IP timing corrector 206 to correct the IP timing signal from the IP timing predictor 202” (Sharpless; Column 5).
With respect to claim 3, Sharpless teaches the method according to claim 1, the method comprising determining the angular pattern of the rotary encoder by a calibration procedure comprising storing the angular pattern of the rotary encoder in a computer-readable memory comprising a position look-up table (“the IP error values for a scanner are determined ahead of time, for example, during a calibration or other procedure, and stored in a table such as a look up table (LUT) with the scanner. In this instance, LUT can be utilized by the IP timing corrector 206 to correct the IP timing signal from the IP timing predictor 202” (Sharpless; Column 5).
With respect to claim 11, Sharpless teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining the CT image or the CT images by the CT imaging system by a photon counting CT imaging system by a low-dose CT scan; and/or rotating the gantry by a motor based on the controlling the gantry “a standard motor encoder can be utilized to drive the rotating gantry at a constant velocity, which may compensate or reduce imbalance torque, which may reduce the IP timing error” (Sharpless; Column 5).
With respect to claim 12, Sharpless teaches adata processing system for use in operating a CT imaging system comprising a gantry having a detector and a rotary encoder attached to the gantry, the data processing system configured to:
model, by an adaptive digital phase-locked loop (A-DPLL), a gantry rotation of the gantry, the A-DPLL configured to minimize the difference between an actual gantry angle and a modeled gantry angle (“The IP timing error determiner 204 provides the IP timing error curve to the IP timing corrector 206, which utilizes the IP timing error curve to correct the predicted IP timing signal…so that the IPs are synchronized with rotating gantry angular position” (Sharpless; Column 4); and
generate, for each of a plurality of predetermined values of the modeled gantry angle, a trigger pulse for the detector (“IP pulse generator 208 generates integrator reset pulses, based on the corrected IP timing signal, which resets the integrator 116 for each integration period for each rotation of the rotating gantry 104 during scanning. In the illustrated embodiment, the IP pulse generator 208 generates a serial stream of pulses, which triggers data transfer from and reset of the integrator 116. The output of the integrator 116 produces the projection data that is reconstructed by the reconstructor 122 as discussed above” (Sharpless; Column 5);
wherein the actual gantry angle is an angle obtained by detecting a gantry angle by the rotary encoder and adapting the detected gantry angle to account for a deviation of the actual rotary encoder characteristics from expected rotary encoder characteristics, the adapting being performed using an angular pattern of the rotary encoder (“the IP error values for a scanner are determined ahead of time, for example, during a calibration or other procedure, and stored in a table such as a look up table (LUT) with the scanner. In this instance, LUT can be utilized by the IP timing corrector 206 to correct the IP timing signal from the IP timing predictor 202” (Sharpless; Column 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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 4, the pertinent prior art fails to teach or suggest the details of controlling the gantry to rotate and the rotary encoder to detect a plurality of angles per turn; determining slot times T(1 . . . N.sub.□, 1 . . . N.sub.Turn) for multiple turns, wherein N.sub.□ is the number of slots of the rotary encoder and N.sub.Turn is the number of turns; normalizing the values of the slot times per turn and calculating slot angles A(n, m), wherein
A(n,m) =
PNG
media_image1.png
27
56
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
averaging the values of the slot angles A(n, m) of the multiple turns to obtain the angular pattern β.sub.i of the rotary encoder, wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
23
90
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein β.sub.i are values of the gantry angle, wherein N is the number of slots and i=0 . . . N−1.
Regarding claim 9, the pertinent prior art fails to teach or suggest the details of wherein the calibration procedure comprises analyzing CT projection data of a phantom obtained by the CT imaging system to detect a deviation of a shape of the phantom in the CT images and a shape of the phantom as expected when using a rotary encoder having the expected rotary encoder characteristics, and determining the angular pattern based on the deviation
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huffman et al. (8085075), Jansen (US 6574301) and Takanashi et al. (US 6553091) all teach X-Ray devices with detector adjustments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J Makiya whose telephone number is (571)272-2273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30ET.
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.
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.
DAVID J. MAKIYA
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884