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 § 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) 1-6, 9-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (2018/0172854).
Regarding independent claim 1, Moore discloses an imaging system comprising: a stationary part; (Moore, Fig. 3, apparent)
a rotational part coupled to the stationary part and configured to rotate in relation to the stationary part; (Moore, item 302)
a radiation source apparatus coupled to the rotational part; (Moore, x-ray source 312)
one or more radiation detectors coupled to the rotational part and positioned to receive radiation signals generated by the radiation source apparatus; (Moore, detector array 316)
a motor configured to rotate the rotational part (Moore, [0032]);
a processor circuit coupled to the stationary part and configured to obtain unattenuated radiation signals directly from the one or more radiation detectors [and] obtain scan metadata for an active scan; (Moore, processor 105, [0057], [0058], [0033], [0040]) and
a memory configured to store the scan metadata [and] the obtained radiation signals (Moore, memory 110, other devices 220, computing device 105) and, wherein the processor is configured to:
perform time domain analysis and frequency domain analysis of the stored radiation signals (Moore, [0059]);
record amplitude and frequency data for all peaks greater than a predetermined Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) from a spectrum derived from the frequency analysis (Moore, Fig. 10, [0060]); and
monitor operational safety of the imaging system based on the recorded amplitude and frequency data (Moore, [0066]).
Regarding independent claim 9, Moore discloses a method of monitoring safety of an imaging system, the method comprising: obtaining unattenuated radiation signals directly from one or more radiation signal detectors; obtaining scan metadata for an active scan; storing scan metadata and the obtained radiation signals in memory; performing time domain analysis and frequency domain analysis on the stored 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; and monitoring operational safety of the imaging system based on the recorded amplitude and frequency data. (See above with respect to claim 1)
Regarding independent claim 20, Moore discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions for causing processing circuitry to execute a process of monitoring safety of an imaging system, the process comprising: obtaining scan metadata and unattenuated radiation signals directly from one or more radiation signal detectors obtaining scan metadata for an active scan; storing scan metadata and the obtained radiation signals in memory; performing time domain analysis and frequency domain analysis on the stored 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 operational safety of the imaging system based on the recorded amplitude and frequency data and the amplitude and frequency data in at least one said data file. (See above with respect to claim 1)
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Moore further discloses the one or more radiation detectors are at least a radiation reference detector and a patient detector (Moore, [0042], [0058]), and wherein the unattenuated 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, and standard scans (Moore, [0058], the claimed scan types cover the gamut of possibilities for the origin of the “raw offset data” used by Moore).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Moore further discloses a plurality of amplitudes at plurality of frequencies are obtained for one or more of the selected scans. (Moore, [0061])
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Moore further discloses the scan metadata includes at least one of: radiation source apparatus emission current, scan or shot time, sampling period, integrationperiod of the obtained radiation signal, rotation time, radiation source apparatus acceleration voltage, and number of samples per rotation. (Moore, [0040])
Regarding claims 5-6, Moore further discloses for each of the at least one selected scan, the processor is further configured to write to a data file the recorded amplitude and frequency data for all peaks greater than the predetermined SNR, wherein the processor is configured to compare the recorded amplitude and frequency data with amplitude and frequency data in at least one said data file. (Moore, [0063])
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.
Claims 7, 8, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 15, 17, and 18 writing data to a file and providing a warning to a user when a known safety system indicates a fault are well-known and routine concepts, and their inclusion for their ordinary purposes will not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from that of Moore.
Regarding claim 14, Moore further teaches comparing the recorded amplitude and frequency data with amplitude and frequency data in at least one said data file. (Moore, [0063])
Regarding claim 16, Moore further teaches the predetermined threshold range is derived from at least one of said data file. (Moore, Fig. 10 and [0060], peaks are relative and therefore identified as discrepancies from the apparent noise level)
Regarding claim 19, use of known methods, in this case machine learning/neural networks to automate previously manual tasks is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(III) citing In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights