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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 11 – 12, 14 – 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102011075804 A1 (cited in the IDS, hereunder D1; see provided a translation copy).
With respect to independent claim 11, as discussed below in the rejection justification to claim 1 D1 teaches method of monitoring operation of an X-ray tube, the method comprising:
obtaining unattenuated in paragraph [0008] X-ray radiation signals directly from one or more X-ray detectors 3;
storing scan metadata a specific voltage U and a specific tube current in paragraph [0034] and the unattenuated X-ray radiation signals into memory;
performing time domain analysis and frequency domain analysis on the stored unattenuated X-ray radiation signals in paragraph [0046];
recording amplitude and frequency data in paragraph [0046] for all peaks greater than a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) FG from a spectrum derived from the frequency analysis as shown in Fig. 5; and
monitoring components of the X-ray tube according to the recorded amplitude and frequency data see paragraph [0049].
With respect to dependent claim 12, D1 should have the limitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to write the obtained unattenuated X-ray radiation signals and the scan metadata to a data file” in order to analyze data in paragraph [0056] every time when a test measurement is performed.
With respect to dependent claim 14, D1 teaches wherein the one or more X-ray detectors are at least an X-ray reference detector and a patient detector 3; because an object in paragraph [0008] can be presence.
With respect to dependent claim 15, D1 teaches wherein the unattenuated X-ray radiation signals and scan metadata are obtained from at least one scan selected from the group consisting of existing scans, routine scans generated during normal operation, dedicated scans in paragraph [0008], and standard scans.
With respect to dependent claim 16, D1 teaches in Fig. 5 wherein a plurality of amplitudes at plurality of frequencies are obtained for one or more of the selected scans.
With respect to dependent claim 17, D1 teaches wherein the scan metadata includes at least one of: X-ray tube emission current in paragraph [0034], scan or shot time, sampling period, integration period of the stored x-ray radiation signal, rotation time, X-ray acceleration voltage, and number of samples per rotation.
With respect to dependent claim 19, D1 teaches in Fig. 5 wherein the recorded amplitude and frequency data for all peaks greater than a predetermined SNR from the spectrum derived from the frequency analysis are compared to a threshold range FG.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102011075804 A1 (cited in the IDS, hereunder D1; see provided a translation copy), and further in view of Robinson (US 2020/0105495 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, D1 teaches in Fig. 1 an X-ray imaging apparatus, comprising:
a processor 6; 15;
a memory see paragraph [0045];
one or more X-ray detectors 3; and
an X-ray tube, the X-ray tube comprising:
an enclosure 2;
a cathode 8; see paragraph [0033] positioned within the enclosure;
an anode 10; see paragraph [0033] positioned within the enclosure and configured to receive a beam of electrons from the cathode as shown in Fig. 1, the beam of electrons generating an X-ray radiation signal,
wherein the processor 15 is configured to obtain unattenuated X-ray radiation signals directly a blank measurement in paragraphs [0008 and 0044] from the one or more detectors and obtain scan metadata a specific voltage U and a specific tube current in paragraph [0034] for an active scan; and
the memory configured to store the unattenuated X-ray radiation signals and the scan metadata in paragraph [0045],
wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform time domain analysis and frequency domain analysis of the stored X-ray radiation signals in paragraph [0046];
record amplitude exposure intensity in paragraph [0046] and frequency data function of frequency in paragraph [0046] for all peaks greater than a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) FG in Fig. 5 from a spectrum derived from the frequency analysis; and
monitor components of the X-ray tube according to the recorded amplitude and frequency data “computer 6 indicating the presence of an impermissibly strong plate impact” in paragraph [0049].
D1 is silent with a motor positioned within the enclosure and configured to rotate the anode in response to a drive input. However, D1 teaches a drive input to rotate the anode in Fig. 1. Robinson teaches a motor in paragraph [0031] in a housing 102. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of D1 in order to rotate anode within the enclosure. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 2, D1 teaches wherein the one or more X-ray detectors are at least an X-ray reference detector and a patient detector 3; because an object in paragraph [0008] can be presence.
With respect to dependent claim 3, D1 teaches wherein the unattenuated X-ray radiation signals and scan metadata are obtained from at least one scan selected from the group consisting of existing scans, routine scans generated during normal operation, dedicated scans in paragraph [0008], and standard scans.
With respect to dependent claim 4, D1 teaches in Fig. 5 wherein a plurality of amplitudes at plurality of frequencies are obtained for one or more of the selected scans.
With respect to dependent claim 5, D1 teaches wherein the scan metadata includes at least one of: X-ray tube emission current in paragraph [0034], scan or shot time, sampling period, integration period of the stored x-ray radiation signal, rotation time, X-ray acceleration voltage, and number of samples per rotation.
With respect to dependent claim 6, D1 should have the limitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to write the obtained unattenuated X-ray radiation signals and the scan metadata to a data file” in order to analyze data in paragraph [0056] every time when a test measurement is performed.
With respect to dependent claim 8, D1 shows in Fig. 5 wherein the processor is further configured to write the recorded amplitude and frequency for all peaks greater than the predetermined SNR to a data file because “a test measurement” in paragraph [0008] would be performed regularly so D1 should write Fig. 5 in a datafile.
With respect to independent claim 20, A non-transitory computer-readable medium this limitation of “computer-readable medium” would have obvious as an engineering design choice in order to carry out desired program in different X-ray or CT systems for the same automated purpose for monitoring X-ray tubes having stored thereon instructions for causing processing circuitry to execute a process of predicting failure of an X-ray tube, the process comprising: obtaining unattenuated X-ray radiation signals directly from one or more X-ray detectors; storing the unattenuated X-ray radiation signals and scan metadata data into memory; performing time domain analysis and frequency domain analysis on the stored X-ray radiation signals; recording amplitude and frequency data for all peaks greater than a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) from a spectrum derived from the frequency analysis; writing the recorded amplitude and frequency data for all peaks greater than the predetermined SNR to a data file; and monitoring components of the X-ray tube according to the recorded amplitude and frequency data as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 modified by Robinson, and further in view of Teshigawara (Us 2020/0005495 A1)
The teaching of D1 modified by Robinson has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 13, D1 is silent with wherein analysis of the X-ray radiation signals and scan metadata file is performed with machine learning or deep learning techniques, the machine learning or deep learning techniques including at least one of neural networks, logistic regression, random forests, nearest neighbors, and cluster or multivariate analysis. However, at the time of the claimed invention, machine learning or deep learning technique using at least neural networks as evidenced by Teshigawara in paragraph [0071] are well-kwon in order to analyze desired data using a machine learning. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, and further in view of Teshigawara (Us 2020/0005495 A1)
The teaching of D1 has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 13, D1 is silent with wherein analysis of the X-ray radiation signals and scan metadata file is performed with machine learning or deep learning techniques, the machine learning or deep learning techniques including at least one of neural networks, logistic regression, random forests, nearest neighbors, and cluster or multivariate analysis. However, at the time of the claimed invention, machine learning or deep learning technique using at least neural networks as evidenced by Teshigawara in paragraph [0071] are well-kwon in order to analyze desired data using a machine learning. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 10 and 18 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 dependent claim 9 and its dependent claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein a plurality of X-ray tube disturbances corresponding to the recorded amplitude and frequency data are monitored.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein a plurality of X-ray tube disturbances corresponding to the recorded amplitude and frequency data are monitored, the plurality of X-ray tube disturbances being selected from the group consisting of: X-ray tube electrical emission current modulation, X-ray tube acceleration voltage modulation, X-ray tube vibration, cathode vibration, stator electrical current, anode rotational speed, anode imbalance, anode wobble, anode drive slip, samplings per gantry rotation, and anode bearing frequencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884