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 .
Specification
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: CALIBRATION PHANTOM INCLUDING A CALIBRATION ASSEMBLY AND A SUPPORTING FRAME, AND CALIBRATION METHOD.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0050], line 8, “target” before “5” should be replaced by --object--.
Paragraph [0050], line 14, --10-- should be inserted after “the CT imaging system”.
Paragraph [0050], line 17, --10-- should be inserted after “the CT imaging system”.
Paragraph [0055], line 3, --102-- should be inserted after “the calibration wire”.
Paragraph [0073], lines 2-3, --102-- should be inserted after “the calibration wires”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to paragraph numbers in the originally-filed specification. The paragraph numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A calibration assembly, comprising:
a base; and
a plurality of calibration wires dispersedly connected to the base,
wherein an absorption capacity of [[the]] each calibration wire (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the plurality of calibration wires for X rays is greater than an absorption capacity of the base for X rays.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration assembly according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of an externally tangent circle of a section of [[the]] each calibration wire (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the plurality of calibration wires is 0.5 to 5 mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base forms as a flat plate shape, and the plurality of calibration wires are arranged on the base in a length direction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration assembly according claim 1, wherein at least one end of [[the]] each calibration wire of the plurality of calibration wires protrudes from a side of the base.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration assembly according to claim 1, wherein the base comprises two sub-bases arranged in parallel, and the plurality of calibration [[wire]] wires is connected between the two sub-bases.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) A calibration phantom, comprising:
a supporting frame; and
at least one calibration assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one calibration assembly is connected to an inside of the supporting frame, and an absorption capacity of [[the]] each calibration wire of the plurality of calibration wires for X rays is greater than an absorption capacity of the supporting frame for X rays.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration phantom according to claim 9, wherein each calibration assembly of the at least one calibration assembly comprises two mounting portions arranged at two opposite ends of the base (a previously recited limitation in claim 2), and
wherein each calibration assembly is connected to the inside of the supporting frame through the two mounting portions arranged at [[two]] the two opposite ends of the base .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
11. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration phantom according to claim 9, wherein the supporting frame is set as a substantially hexahedral box; and
wherein [[at]] the at least one calibration assembly is arranged in a length direction of the supporting frame.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration phantom according to claim 11, wherein projections of the plurality of calibration wires (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) of each calibration assembly of the at least one calibration assembly in a height direction and/or a length direction of the supporting frame do not coincide with each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration phantom according to claim 12, wherein projections of at least two calibration assemblies of the at least one calibration assembly arranged in the length direction of the supporting frame in the length direction do not coincide with each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration phantom according to claim 13, wherein projections of the at least two calibration assemblies of the at least one calibration assembly arranged in the length direction of the supporting frame in the height direction do not coincide with each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
15. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration phantom according to claim 12, wherein projections of at least two calibration assemblies of the at least one calibration assembly in a transverse direction of the supporting frame intersect with each other, and projections of the at least two calibration assemblies of the at least one calibration assembly in the length direction of the supporting frame do not coincide with each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
16. (Currently amended) A calibration method, comprising:
placing the calibration phantom according to claim 9 in a scanning channel of a scanning system;
performing X-ray scanning on the calibration phantom to obtain an imaging result of the calibration phantom;
evaluating the imaging result according to a preset evaluation method to obtain a first evaluation result;
completing a calibration of the scanning system in response to the first evaluation result meeting a preset condition; and
adjusting, in response to the first evaluation result not meeting the preset condition, a geometric parameter value of a preset system according to the first evaluation result, and repeating [[said]] the evaluating of the imaging result according to [[a]] the preset evaluation method (a previously recited limitation).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
17. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration method according to claim 16, wherein after [[said]] the adjusting, in response to the first evaluation result not meeting the preset condition, [[a]] the geometric parameter value of [[a]] the preset system according to the first evaluation result, and repeating [[said]] the evaluating of the imaging result according to [[a]] the preset evaluation method, the calibration method further comprises:
evaluating the imaging result according to the preset evaluation method to obtain a second evaluation result;
completing the calibration of the scanning system in response to the second evaluation result meeting the preset condition; and
adjusting, in response to the second evaluation result not meeting the preset condition, the geometric parameter value of the preset system according to a reference evaluation result, and repeating [[said]] the evaluating of the imaging result according to the preset evaluation method, and
wherein the reference evaluation result is .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
18. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration method according to claim 16, wherein after [[said]] the performing of the X-ray scanning on the calibration phantom to obtain [[an]] the imaging result of the calibration phantom, the calibration method further comprises:
simulating a numerical model of the calibration phantom according to the geometric parameter value of the preset system to obtain a simulation result;
comparing the simulation result with the imaging result to obtain a comparison data;
completing the calibration of the scanning system in response to the comparison data meeting the preset condition; and
adjusting, in response to the comparison data not meeting the preset condition, the geometric parameter value of the preset system according to the comparison data, and repeating [[said]] the simulating of [[a]] the numerical model the imaging result of the calibration phantom according to the geometric parameter value of the preset system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
22. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration method according to claim 18, wherein the simulation method in [[said]] the simulating the numerical model (a previously recited limitation in claim 18) of the calibration phantom according to the geometric parameter value of the preset system to obtain the simulation result comprises one or more of a pure parameter fitting method, a DR modeling projection simulation, and a CT reconstructed projection simulation; and
wherein the simulation result comprises one or more of a projection domain simulation result, a projection domain parametric simulation result, an image domain simulation result, and an image domain parametric simulation result.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
19. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration method according to claim 16, wherein a length direction of the calibration phantom is perpendicular to a scanning direction of the calibration phantom.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration method according to claim 16, wherein the performing X-ray scanning on the calibration phantom to obtain the imaging result of the calibration phantom comprises:
scanning the calibration phantom once in response to a size of the calibration phantom being close to a size of the scanning channel of the scanning system; and
changing a position of the calibration phantom in the scanning channel of the scanning system and scanning the calibration phantom for a plurality of times in response to the size of the calibration phantom being smaller than the size of the scanning channel of the scanning system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
21. (Proposed Amendments) The calibration method according to claim 16, wherein the geometric parameter value (a previously recited limitation in claim 16) comprises:
a relative position and a posture between an X-ray source and a detector in the scanning system; and
wherein the imaging result comprises one or more of a scanning data, a DR image, a slice [[image]] image, and a three-dimensional reconstructed image.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaufman et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,127,096 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Kaufman et al. disclosed A calibration assembly, comprising:
a base (116) (column 11, lines 24-37); and
a plurality of calibration wires (102, 104, 106, 108, and 110) dispersedly connected to the base (column 10, line 48 - column 11, line 23),
wherein an absorption capacity of each calibration wire of the plurality of calibration wires for X rays is greater than an absorption capacity of the base for X rays (column 10, line 48 - column 11, line 4; column 11, lines 24-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 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 9-15, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested a calibration phantom as claimed.
With respect to claims 16-22, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested a calibration method as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boone et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,642,094 B2) disclosed a modular phantom for an assessment of an imaging performance and a dose in cone-beam computed tomography.
Siewerdsen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,478,214 B2) disclosed a geometric calibration for cone-beam computed tomography using line fiducials.
Chen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,340,177 B2) disclosed a calibration assembly and a method for calibrating geometric parameters of a CT apparatus.
Hawker et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,478,147 B2) disclosed a calibration apparatus and a method for computed tomography.
Rohler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,681,851 B2) disclosed methods and an apparatus for an extended low-contrast detectability for radiographic imaging systems.
Holt (U. S. Patent No. 8,777,485 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus pertaining to computed tomography scanning using a calibration phantom.
Kappler (U. S. Patent No. 8,628,241 B2) disclosed a method for calibrating a CT system with at least one focus-detector combination with a quanta-counting detector.
Dutta et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,309,910 B2) disclosed a phantom for a calibration of a spectral CT imaging system.
Liu (U. S. Patent No. 8,259,879 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus for a determination of a centre-of-rotation in computed tomography.
Noordhoek et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,249,213 B2) disclosed a method for a correction of a ring artifact in non-ideal isocentric 3D rotational X-ray scanner systems using an algorithm for finding a rotation center with a calibration phantom.
Heigl et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,220,994 B2) disclosed an X-ray device and a method for calibrating a position of a laser fan-beam relative to a projection geometry of an X-ray device.
Weiser et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,104,958 B2) disclosed assigning X-ray markers to image markers imaged in an X-ray image.
Vogt et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,043,003 B2) disclosed a method for determining an imaging rule and a method for generating a 3D reconstruction.
Claus et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,950,849 B2) disclosed a method and a device for a geometry analysis and a calibration of volumetric imaging systems.
Heigl et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,780,351 B2) disclosed a method for determining gray-scale values for volume elements of bodies to be mapped.
Endo et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,510,325 B2) disclosed a phantom assembly including a phantom.
Cho et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,147,373 B2) disclosed a method and a system for calibrating a source and a detector.
Kaufman et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,127,096 B2) disclosed a method and a software for improving a coronary calcium-scoring consistency.
Basu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,016,456 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus for calibrating volumetric computed tomography systems.
Mitschke et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,851,855 B2) disclosed a registration method for navigation-guided medical interventions.
Mitschke et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,715,918 B2) disclosed a calibration phantom for X-ray projection systems.
Navab (U. S. Patent No. 6,044,132 A) disclosed an apparatus for providing markers on an image.
Vinegar et al. (U. S. Patent No. 4,613,754 A) disclosed a tomographic calibration apparatus.
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