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 claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 1 is objected to because suitable descriptive legends are required for structural elements a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit 20, an X-ray tube 22, a dual layer X-ray detector 24, a processing unit 30, an output unit 40, and at least one visible or infrared camera 50 as set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(o).
Figure 2 is objected to because suitable descriptive legends are required for method steps a locating step 110, a utilizing and determining step 120, a controlling step 130, a receiving step 140, an implementing and determining step 150, and an outputting step 160 as set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(o).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 179, .
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SPECTRAL X-RAY CT IMAGING SYSTEM COMPRISING AN X-RAY TUBE AND A DUAL LAYER X-RAY DETECTOR.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1.(Proposed Amendments) A spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system, comprising:
a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit comprising an X-ray tube and a dual layer X-ray detector,
wherein a body portion of a subject to be examined can be located between the X-ray tube and the dual layer X-ray detector;
wherein the spectral X-ray CT imaging unit is configured to acquire an initial overall scan of the body portion of the subject comprising a plurality of acquisitions at different projection angles of the initial overall scan;
a processor configured to utilize information on the body portion of the subject from the initial overall scan;
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of a plurality of acquisitions of an implemented overall scan;
wherein the processor is further configured to control the spectral X-ray CT imaging unit to carry out the implemented overall scan of the body portion of the subject,
wherein the control comprises controlling the X-ray tube to operate at the determined for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions at the different projection angles of the initial overall scan;
wherein the processor is further configured to receive data from the dual layer X-ray detector for each acquisition of the implemented overall scan;
wherein the processor is further configured to implement a machine learning algorithm to determine material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject,
wherein the determination comprises a utilization of the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for each acquisition of the implemented overall scan and the determined for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the implemented overall scan; and
an output unit configured to output the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the information on the body portion of the subject for each projection of the different projection angles of the initial overall scan comprises a thickness of the body portion of the subject for each projection of the different projection angles of the initial overall scan.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the information on the body portion of the subject for each projection of the different projection angles of the initial overall scan comprises an X-ray attenuation of the body portion of the subject for each projection of the different projection angles of the initial overall scan.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
4.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, wherein determination of the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject comprises a utilization of X-ray spectra associated with each determined for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the implemented overall scan.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to control the spectral X-ray CT imaging unit to carry out a single 2D scanogram of the body portion of the subject,
wherein the processor is further configured to receive data from the dual layer X-ray detector for the single 2D scanogram of the body portion of the subject, and
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the information on the body portion of the subject for each projection of the different projection angles of the initial overall scan on [[the]] a basis (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for the single 2D scanogram of the body portion of the subject.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
6.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to control the spectral X-ray CT imaging unit to carry out two 2D scanograms of the body portion of the subject,
wherein the processor is further configured to receive data from the dual layer X-ray detector for the two 2D scanograms of the body portion of the subject, and
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the information on the body portion of the subject for each projection of the different projection angles of the initial overall scan on [[the]] a basis (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for the two 2D scanograms of the body portion of the subject.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 6, wherein the two 2D scanograms of the body portion of the subject are two orthogonal 2D scanograms of the body portion of the subject.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, further comprising:
at least one visible or infrared camera,
wherein the processor is further configured to control the at least one visible [[and/]]or infrared camera to acquire visible [[and/]]or IR image data of the body portion of the subject,
wherein the processor is further configured to receive the visible [[and/]]or IR image data of the body portion of the subject, and
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the information on the body portion of the subject for each projection of the different projection angles of the initial overall scan on [[the]] a basis (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the visible [[and/]]or IR image data of the body portion of the subject.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a comparison of [[the]] corresponding information (a lack of an antecedent basis) on the body portion of the subject for [[the]] a projection associated with [[that]] an acquisition with reference data of different information of body portions versus different for the X-ray tube.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a determination of a voltage for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a insubstantially equivalent signal strength in both [[the]] a top detector layer and a bottom detector layer of the dual layer X-ray detector for [[the]] corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for [[the]] a projection associated with that acquisition.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
11.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a determination of a voltage for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a maximum signal to noise ratio for the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for [[the]] corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for [[the]] a projection associated with that acquisition.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
12.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a current for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan, (a previously recited limitation in claim 1)
wherein the determination for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan comprises a utilization of [[the]] corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for [[the]] a projection associated with that acquisition.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13.(Proposed Amendments) The spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system according to claim 12, wherein the determination of the current for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan comprises a determination of a current for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a substantially same X-ray dose received by the body portion of the subject for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14.(Proposed Amendments) A computer-implemented spectral X-ray CT imaging method, comprising:
locating a body portion of a subject to be examined between an X-ray tube and a dual layer X-ray detector of a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit,
wherein the spectral X-ray CT imaging unit is configured to acquire an initial overall scan of the body portion of the subject comprising a plurality of acquisitions at different projection angles of the initial overall scan;
utilizing information from the initial overall scan on the body portion of the subject and determining a voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of a plurality of acquisitions of an implemented overall scan;
controlling the spectral X-ray CT imaging unit to carry out the implemented overall scan of the body portion of the subject,
wherein the controlling the spectral X-ray CT imaging unit comprises controlling the X-ray tube to operate at the determined for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions at [[the]] different projection angles of the implemented overall scan;
receiving data from the dual layer X-ray detector for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions at different projection angles of the implemented overall scan;
implementing a machine learning algorithm and determining by the machine learning algorithm material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject,
wherein the determining the material decomposition imagery comprises utilizing the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the implemented overall scan and the determined for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the implemented overall scan; and
outputting the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: an output unit in claims 1-13.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 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 claim(s) 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.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “an output unit configured to output the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject” in lines 29-30. However, the specification dose not describe a structural limitation, linked to the output unit, configured to output the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject. 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 1-13 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 “the control comprises controlling the X-ray tube to operate at the determined voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions at the different projection angles of the initial overall scan” in lines 19-21, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system 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 (“the control comprises controlling the X-ray tube to operate at the determined voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions at the different projection angles of the initial overall scan”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
Claim 1 recites a functional limitation “the determination comprises a utilization of the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for each acquisition of the initial overall scan and the determined voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the initial overall scan” in lines 25-28, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
Like the previously presented argument, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the determination comprises a utilization of the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for each acquisition of the initial overall scan and the determined voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the initial overall scan”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
Claim 4 recites a functional limitation “determination of the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject comprises a utilization of X-ray spectra associated with each determined voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the initial overall scan” in lines 2-4, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
Like the previously presented argument, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“determination of the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject comprises a utilization of X-ray spectra associated with each determined voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the initial overall scan”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
Claim 9 recites a functional limitation “the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a comparison of corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with an acquisition with reference data of different information of body portions versus different voltages for the X-ray tube” in lines 1-5, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
Like the previously presented argument, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a comparison of corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with an acquisition with reference data of different information of body portions versus different voltages for the X-ray tube”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
Claim 10 recites a functional limitation “the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a determination of a voltage for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a insubstantially equivalent signal strength in both a top detector layer and a bottom detector layer of the dual layer X-ray detector for corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with that acquisition” in lines 1-6, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
Like the previously presented argument, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a determination of a voltage for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a insubstantially equivalent signal strength in both a top detector layer and a bottom detector layer of the dual layer X-ray detector for corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with that acquisition”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
Claim 10 recites a limitation “that acquisition” in line 6, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites a functional limitation “the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a determination of a voltage for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a maximum signal to noise ratio for the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with that acquisition” in lines 2-6, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
Like the previously presented argument, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the determination of the voltage for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions comprises a determination of a voltage for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a maximum signal to noise ratio for the data from the dual layer X-ray detector for corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with that acquisition”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
Claim 11 recites a limitation “that acquisition” in lines 5-6, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites a functional limitation “the determination for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan comprises a utilization of corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with that acquisition” in lines 3-5, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
Like the previously presented argument, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the determination for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan comprises a utilization of corresponding information on the body portion of the subject for a projection associated with that acquisition”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “that acquisition” in line 5, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites a functional limitation “the determination of the current for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan comprises a determination of a current for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a substantially same X-ray dose received by the body portion of the subject for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan” in lines 1-4, which renders the claim indefinite because the boundaries of the claim are not reasonably clear.
Like the previously presented argument, the limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the determination of the current for the X-ray tube for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan comprises a determination of a current for the X-ray tube that is determined to result in a substantially same X-ray dose received by the body portion of the subject for each acquisition of the plurality of acquisitions of the initial overall scan”) 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., a spectral X-ray CT imaging unit, a processor, and an output unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the spectral X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging system in a certain manner.
It is requested that the functional limitation “the determination …” be replaced by --the processor is further configured to determine …--.
Claim limitation “an output unit configured to output the material decomposition imagery of the body portion of the subject” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation in unclear because it merely recites a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses a corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what a corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 14, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested a computer-implemented spectral X-ray CT imaging method as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Proksa (U. S. Patent No. 12,471,874 B2) disclosed a CT scanner comprising a controller.
Kim et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,193,867 B2) disclosed computed tomography systems for an adaptive data acquisition.
Vogtemeir et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,138,089 B2) disclosed a detection of a ripple in kilovoltage in spectral computed tomography and a correction method.
Maltz (U. S. Patent No. 12,004,895 B2) disclosed a metric-based data management for X-ray imaging systems.
Fan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,246,555 B2) disclosed systems and methods for an automatic selection of a tube potential in dual-energy imaging.
Lai et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,229,413 B1) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus comprising adaptive photon-counting detectors.
Prabhu Verleker et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,207,041 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT system comprising a medical processing apparatus.
Taguchi (U. S. Patent No. 11,172,894 B2) disclosed a medical processing apparatus, an X-ray diagnosis system, and a medical processing method.
Zhou et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,039,806 B2) disclosed an apparatus and a method for correcting a completion of a sinogram of projection data in computed tomography (CT).
Drapkin (U. S. Patent No. 11,039,801 B1) disclosed systems and methods for high-resolution spectral computed tomographic imaging.
Proksa et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,000,251 B2) disclosed a CT imaging system and a method for a CT imaging system.
Zhou et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,945,695 B2) disclosed an apparatus and a method for a reconstruction of an image acquired by dual-energy computed tomography (CT) using sparse kVp-switching and deep learning.
Fan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,893,839 B2) disclosed a computed tomography system and a method configured to image at different energy levels and focal spot positions.
Schaefer et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,485,503 B2) disclosed spectral imaging.
Rowley Grant et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,463,332 B2) disclosed a spectral tomogram-based determination of imaging parameters.
Nakai et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,182,775 B2) disclosed an X-ray computed tomography apparatus including a first X-ray detector and a second X-ray detector for counting X-ray photons.
Nitta et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,074,197 B2) disclosed an X-ray computed tomography apparatus, an image-processing apparatus, and an image-processing method.
Schirra et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,928,585 B2) disclosed spectral imaging.
Taguchi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,532,759 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus, an image-processing apparatus, and an image-processing method.
Edic et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,885,910 B2) disclosed systems and methods for X-ray imaging.
Zou (U. S. Patent No. 8,031,831 B2) disclosed a modulation of a current and/or a voltage in dual-energy computed tomography.
Nishide et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,949,088 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus and a method for processing X-ray projection data.
Nishide et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,778,381 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT apparatus.
Besson (U. S. Patent No. 6,973,158 B2) disclosed an X-ray multi-target tube for dynamic multi-spectral limited-angle CT imaging.
Besson (U. S. Patent No. 6,950,493 B2) disclosed dynamic multi-spectral CT imaging.
Besson (U. S. Patent No. 6,950,492 B2) disclosed dynamic multi-spectral X-ray projection imaging.
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