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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 should read: “the time constraint is an amount of time allocated for performing the scan sequence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation “wherein a first duration of the modified scan sequence is less than a second duration of the scan sequence” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of “a first duration” and “a second duration” and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of “a first duration” and “a second duration” in claim 3. For example: the scan sequence of claim 1 comprises a series of subsequent scans with a delay between scans. Does the first and second duration refer to the duration of the exposure times of the scans? Does the duration refer to the duration of the delay? Is the first duration the first scan exposure time and the second duration the first delay time? It is impossible to determine the intended interpretation and scope of the claim. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou CN 110916696.
Regarding claim 1, Lou teaches a method for an imaging system (claim 1), the method comprising: receiving a scan sequence protocol (claim 1 “initial scanning protocol”) for a sequence of scans to be performed using the imaging system (pg. 6 para. 5 “initial scanning protocol comprises a set of scanning sub-protocol sequence”); modifying the scan sequence protocol (claim 1 “adjusting the initial scanning protocol”) which includes a delay between each scan and a subsequent scan of the scan sequence (pg. 6 para. 6 “sub-time protocol may include exposure time and cooling time, the protocol execution time can be total exposure time and total cooling time”) to reduce a temperature of one or more components of an X-ray tube of the imaging system to a target temperature for performing the subsequent scan (pg. 7 para. 4-5), where the delay has a duration that is customized based on the scan and the subsequent scan (pg. 6 para. 6 “cooling time may be understood as adjacent execution interval time between two scanning sub-protocol”; pg. 6 para. 7-11 the series [k] calculates customized series of scans based in part on the cooling delay Tinterval[k] which makes up the scan sequence protocol); and executing the modified scan sequence using the imaging system (pg. 13 para. 1 “executing the optimum scanning protocol”).
Luo teaches a scan sequence protocol which already has a delay (“cooling time”) and modifying the delay time based on the scan and subsequent scan (pg. 6 para. 7-11). Luo does not teach the modification introducing a cooling delay. However, the facts that the steps are separate (i.e. both methods result in a protocol with a delay which is customized based on a scan and a subsequent scan to reduce the temperature to a target) is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected result (MPEP 2144). Also, making the steps separate would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because it would make the method more modular and applicable to existing systems which lack a built in delay.
Regarding claim 3, Luo teaches wherein a first duration of the modified scan sequence is less than a second duration of the scan sequence (pg. 6 para. 7 equation for series [k]. There exists an embodiment for series[k] wherein a first duration is less than a second duration).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou CN 110916696 in view of Hockersmith et al. US 8503615.
Regarding claim 2, Luo discloses claim 2 except that the protocol is an examination protocol instead of an image quality calibration protocol, Hockersmith shows that examination protocols and calibration protocols are equivalent structures known in the art (col. 4 ln. 26-28; the same systems can perform both types of protocols). Therefore, because these two protocols were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a calibration protocol for the examination protocol.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou CN 110916696 in view of Drummond et al. US 2004/0008819.
Regarding claim 9, Luo teaches determining a total amount of time of the scan sequence (pg. 6 para. 1 “execution cost is the protocol execution time, waiting for the initial protocol execution waiting time and initial protocol execution function of recovery time”) and optimizing the scan sequence time (pg. 13 para. 4-5 “adjust and optimize the initial scanning protocol, according to the optimal scanning protocol for scanning, and improves the performance of the CT system. may be using a particular execution cost function to realize adjusting and optimizing the protocol according to particular needs, so as to flexibly adjust the and the optimization target”) to meet a particular optimization target by customizing the delays between scans (pg. 6 para. 6 “cooling time may be understood as adjacent execution interval time between two scanning sub-protocol”; pg. 6 para. 7-11 the series [k] calculates customized series of scans based in part on the cooling delay Tinterval[k] which makes up the scan sequence protocol).
Luo fails to teach receiving a time constraint for performing the scan sequence, the time constraint an amount of time allocated for performing the scan sequence.
Drummond teaches scans for large organs such as the liver have a total time constraint due to the contrast enhancement (para. 0016).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have receiving a time constraint for performing the scan sequence, the time constraint an amount of time allocated for performing the scan sequence as taught by Drummond in the method of Luo for the purpose of using the method of scanning large organs with a contrast enhancement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 10-13 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:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest parsing a first scan protocol of the scan to extract a first set of scanning parameters of the scan; parsing a second scan protocol of the subsequent scan to extract a second set of scanning parameters of the subsequent scan; estimating thermal limits of a plurality of components of an X-ray tube of the imaging system, based on the first set of scanning parameters and the second set of scanning parameters, along with other claim limitations.
Lou CN 110916696; Hockersmith et al. US 8503615; and Drummond et al. US 2004/0008819, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "parsing a first scan protocol of the scan to extract a first set of scanning parameters of the scan; parsing a second scan protocol of the subsequent scan to extract a second set of scanning parameters of the subsequent scan; estimating thermal limits of a plurality of components of an X-ray tube of the imaging system, based on the first set of scanning parameters and the second set of scanning parameters", along with other claim limitations.
Claims 5-7 are dependent on 4 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein modifying the scan sequence protocol to include the delay between each scan and the subsequent scan of the scan sequence further comprises adjusting a delay of a standard duration between each scan and the subsequent scan to the delay customized to the scan and the subsequent scan, the customized delay having a duration that is shorter than the standard duration, along with other claim limitations.
Lou CN 110916696; Hockersmith et al. US 8503615; and Drummond et al. US 2004/0008819, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "wherein modifying the scan sequence protocol to include the delay between each scan and the subsequent scan of the scan sequence further comprises adjusting a delay of a standard duration between each scan and the subsequent scan to the delay customized to the scan and the subsequent scan, the customized delay having a duration that is shorter than the standard duration", along with other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest determining that the total amount of time of the modified scan sequence is greater than the time constraint, and in response, further modifying the scan sequence protocol to remove one or more scans from the modified scan sequence protocol, along with other claim limitations.
Lou CN 110916696; Hockersmith et al. US 8503615; and Drummond et al. US 2004/0008819, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "determining that the total amount of time of the modified scan sequence is greater than the time constraint, and in response, further modifying the scan sequence protocol to remove one or more scans from the modified scan sequence protocol", along with other claim limitations.
Claims 11-13 are dependent on 10 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a physics-based model of an X-ray tube of an imaging system, along with other claim limitations.
Lou CN 110916696; Hockersmith et al. US 8503615; and Drummond et al. US 2004/0008819, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest " a physics-based model of an X-ray tube of an imaging system", along with other claim limitations.
Claims 15-19 are dependent on 14 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest in a first condition, in response to receiving a selection of scans to be removed from the scan sequence protocol, generating a second scan sequence protocol not including the selection of scans to be removed; in a second condition, in response to receiving a scanning parameter of the scan sequence protocol, ordering the list of scans in a descending order based on a magnitude of the scanning parameter, and sequentially eliminating scans of the scan sequence protocol in the descending order until the estimated amount of time for performing of the second scan sequence is less than the amount of time allocated for performing the scan sequence; in a third condition, in response to not receiving the selection of scans to be removed from the scan sequence protocol and not receiving the scanning parameter of the scan sequence protocol, calculating a total amount of time of each of plurality of combinations of scans of the scan sequence protocol to determine a combination of scans that maximizes a number of scans included in the scan sequence protocol, while maintaining the total amount of time less than the amount of time allocated for performing the scan sequence, and generating a second scan sequence including the combination of scans, along with other claim limitations.
Lou CN 110916696; Hockersmith et al. US 8503615; and Drummond et al. US 2004/0008819, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest " in a first condition, in response to receiving a selection of scans to be removed from the scan sequence protocol, generating a second scan sequence protocol not including the selection of scans to be removed; in a second condition, in response to receiving a scanning parameter of the scan sequence protocol, ordering the list of scans in a descending order based on a magnitude of the scanning parameter, and sequentially eliminating scans of the scan sequence protocol in the descending order until the estimated amount of time for performing of the second scan sequence is less than the amount of time allocated for performing the scan sequence; in a third condition, in response to not receiving the selection of scans to be removed from the scan sequence protocol and not receiving the scanning parameter of the scan sequence protocol, calculating a total amount of time of each of plurality of combinations of scans of the scan sequence protocol to determine a combination of scans that maximizes a number of scans included in the scan sequence protocol, while maintaining the total amount of time less than the amount of time allocated for performing the scan sequence, and generating a second scan sequence including the combination of scans", along with other claim limitations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884