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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 9, 19 - 29 are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 3-4 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “homogeneous plates of different thicknesses”. It is unclear which plates the claim is referring to.
Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as claim 3 for dependency reasons.
For examination purpose the “homogeneous plates of different thicknesses” is construed to phantom “homogeneous plates of different thicknesses”.
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.
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.
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 1, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heigl et al. (US 7,780,351 B2; pub. Aug. 24, 2010) in view of Oikawa (US 2002/0131549 A1; pub. Sep. 19, 2002).
Regarding claim 1, Heigl et al. disclose: A method for data correction and applied to a medical scanning device, the medical scanning device including a ray emitting device and a detector (col.4 L34-39), the detector including a plurality of detector pixel units (col.5 L50-53), wherein the method comprises: obtaining spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units (col.5 L50-53); a spatial position of a focal point of the ray emitting device (claim 1).
Heigl et al. are silent about: determining cosine correction data based on the spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units and a spatial position of a focal point of the ray emitting device; determining response data to be corrected of the detector; determining target data by correcting the response data to be corrected using the cosine correction data; determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data; and correcting response data of a subject to be detected based on the one or more correction coefficients.
In a similar field of endeavor Oikawa discloses: determining cosine correction data based on the spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units and a spatial position of a focal point of the ray emitting device; determining response data to be corrected of the detector (para. [0058]-[0062]); determining target data by correcting the response data to be corrected using the cosine correction data (para. [0058]-[0062]); determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data; and correcting response data of a subject to be detected based on the one or more correction coefficients (para. [0058]-[0062]) motivated by the benefits reducing image artifacts (Oikawa para. [0017]-[0018]).
In light of the benefits for reducing image artifacts as taught by Oikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heigl et al. with the teachings of Oikawa.
Regarding claim 19, Heigl et al. and Oikawa disclose: A device for data correction including a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform a method for data correction comprising: obtaining spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units; determining cosine correction data based on the spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units and a spatial position of a focal point of the ray emitting device; determining response data to be corrected of the detector; determining target data by correcting the response data to be corrected using the cosine correction data; determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data; and correcting response data of a subject to be detected based on the one or more correction coefficients (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 20, Heigl et al. and Oikawa disclose: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing computer instructions, wherein the computer, when reads the computer instructions in the storage medium, performs a method for data correction comprising: obtaining spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units; determining cosine correction data based on the spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units and a spatial position of a focal point of the ray emitting device; determining response data to be corrected of the detector; determining target data by correcting the response data to be corrected using the cosine correction data; determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data; and correcting response data of a subject to be detected based on the one or more correction coefficient (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 2, 21, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heigl et al. (US 7,780,351 B2; pub. Aug. 24, 2010) in view of Oikawa (US 2002/0131549 A1; pub. Sep. 19, 2002) and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2014/0284491 A1; pub. Sep. 25, 2014).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data includes: for each row of the plurality of detector pixel units of the detector in a preset direction, determining a mean value of target data corresponding to the row of the plurality of detector pixel units, designating the mean value as correction data of the row of the plurality of detector pixel units; and determining the one or more correction coefficients based on correction data of all the plurality of detector pixel units.
In a similar field of endeavor Sato et al. disclose: the determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data includes: for each row of the plurality of detector pixel units of the detector in a preset direction (para. [0069]-[0070]), determining a mean value of target data corresponding to the row of the plurality of detector pixel units, designating the mean value as correction data of the row of the plurality of detector pixel units (para. [0069]-[0070]); and determining the one or more correction coefficients based on correction data of all the plurality of detector pixel units (para. [0069]-[0070]) motivated by the benefits for high-quality image with suppressed artifact (Sato et al. para. [0010]).
In light of the benefits for high-quality image with suppressed artifact as taught by Sato et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heigl et al. and Oikawa with the teachings of Sato et al.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Heigl et al., Oikawa and Sato et al. disclose: the determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data includes: for each row of the plurality of detector pixel units of the detector in a preset direction, determining a mean value of target data corresponding to the row of the plurality of detector pixel units, designating the mean value as correction data of the row of the plurality of detector pixel units; and determining the one or more correction coefficients based on correction data of all the plurality of detector pixel units (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 2, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Heigl et al., Oikawa and Sato et al. disclose: the determining one or more correction coefficients corresponding to the plurality of detector pixel units based on the target data includes: for each row of the plurality of detector pixel units of the detector in a preset direction, determining a mean value of target data corresponding to the row of the plurality of detector pixel units, designating the mean value as correction data of the row of the plurality of detector pixel units; and determining the one or more correction coefficients based on correction data of all the plurality of detector pixel units (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 2, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 3, 21, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heigl et al. (US 7,780,351 B2; pub. Aug. 24, 2010) in view of Oikawa (US 2002/0131549 A1; pub. Sep. 19, 2002) and further in view of Taly et al. “A spectral CT Method to Directly Estimate Basis Material Maps From Experimental Photon-Counting Data”, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Vol.36, No. 9, Sep. 2017, pg.1808 – 1819.
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: the response data to be corrected includes data of the detector in response to homogeneous plates of different thicknesses.
In a similar field of endeavor Taly et al. disclose: the response data to be corrected includes data of the detector in response to homogeneous plates of different thicknesses (pg.1812 fig.3, col.2 B.) motivated by the benefits for high signal to noise ratio (Taly et al. pg.1808 col.1 Abstract).
In light of the benefits for high signal to noise ratio as taught by Taly et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heigl et al., Oikawa and Sato et al. with the teachings of Taly et al.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Heigl et al., Oikawa, Sato et al. and Taly et al. disclose: the response data to be corrected includes data of the detector in response to homogeneous plates of different thicknesses (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 3, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 5, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heigl et al. (US 7,780,351 B2; pub. Aug. 24, 2010) in view of Oikawa (US 2002/0131549 A1; pub. Sep. 19, 2002) and further in view of Claus et al. (US 2004/0264648 A1; pub. Dec. 30, 2024).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: the obtaining spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units includes: obtaining a projection image of a testing phantom on the detector; determining a response center point of the detector based on the projection image; and determining three-dimensional coordinates of the plurality of detector pixel units based on the response center point, distances between the plurality of detector pixel units, and a distance between the focal point of the ray emitting device and the response center point.
In a similar field of endeavor Claus et al. disclose: the obtaining spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units includes: obtaining a projection image of a testing phantom on the detector (para. [0013]-[0014]); determining a response center point of the detector based on the projection image (para. [0028]); and determining three-dimensional coordinates of the plurality of detector pixel units based on the response center point (para. [0028], [0057]), distances between the plurality of detector pixel units, and a distance between the focal point of the ray emitting device and the response center point (para. [0048], [0064]) motivated by the benefits for optimal image quality (Claus et al. para. [0036]).
In light of the benefits for optimal image quality as taught by Claus et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heigl et al. and Oikawa with the teachings of Claus et al.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Heigl et al., Oikawa and Claus et al. disclose: the obtaining spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units includes: obtaining a projection image of a testing phantom on the detector; determining a response center point of the detector based on the projection image; and determining three-dimensional coordinates of the plurality of detector pixel units based on the response center point, distances between the plurality of detector pixel units, and a distance between the focal point of the ray emitting device and the response center point (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 5, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 8, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heigl et al. (US 7,780,351 B2; pub. Aug. 24, 2010) in view of Oikawa (US 2002/0131549 A1; pub. Sep. 19, 2002) and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0180482 A1; pub. Jan. 13, 2019).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: the determining response data to be corrected of the detector includes: obtaining phantom data and air data by the detector, wherein the phantom data is response data of the detector when a testing phantom is disposed between the ray emitting device and the detector, and the air data is response data of the detector when the testing phantom is not disposed between the ray emitting device and the detector; and determining the response data to be corrected based on the air data and the phantom data.
In a similar field of endeavor Takahashi et al. disclose: the determining response data to be corrected of the detector includes: obtaining phantom data and air data by the detector (para. [0062], [0087]), wherein the phantom data is response data of the detector when a testing phantom is disposed between the ray emitting device and the detector (para. [0062], [0087]), and the air data is response data of the detector when the testing phantom is not disposed between the ray emitting device and the detector (para. [0062], [0087]); and determining the response data to be corrected based on the air data and the phantom data (para. [0062], [0087]) motivated by the benefits for high signal to noise ratio (Takahashi et al. para. [0094]).
In light of the benefits for high signal to noise ratio as taught by Takahashi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heigl et al. and Oikawa with the teachings of Takahashi et al.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Heigl et al., Oikawa and Takahashi et al. disclose: the determining response data to be corrected of the detector includes: obtaining phantom data and air data by the detector, wherein the phantom data is response data of the detector when a testing phantom is disposed between the ray emitting device and the detector, and the air data is response data of the detector when the testing phantom is not disposed between the ray emitting device and the detector; and determining the response data to be corrected based on the air data and the phantom data (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 8, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 9, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heigl et al. (US 7,780,351 B2; pub. Aug. 24, 2010) in view of Oikawa (US 2002/0131549 A1; pub. Sep. 19, 2002) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0180482 A1; pub. Jan. 13, 2019) and further in view of Taly et al. “A spectral CT Method to Directly Estimate Basis Material Maps From Experimental Photon-Counting Data”, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Vol.36, No. 9, Sep. 2017, pg.1808 – 1819.
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the testing phantom includes homogeneous plates of at least two thicknesses.
In a similar field of endeavor Taly et al. disclose: the testing phantom includes homogeneous plates of at least two thicknesses (pg.1812 fig.3, col.2 B.) motivated by the benefits for high signal to noise ratio (Taly et al. pg.1808 col.1 Abstract).
In light of the benefits for high signal to noise ratio as taught by Taly et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heigl et al., Oikawa and Takahashi et al. with the teachings of Taly et al.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Heigl et al., Oikawa, Takahashi et al. and Taly et al. disclose: the testing phantom includes homogeneous plates of at least two thicknesses (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 9, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the determining the one or more correction coefficients based on correction data of all the plurality of detector pixel units includes: establishing a linear relationship between the target data and the correction data of the all the plurality of detector pixel units; and determining the one or more correction coefficients by solving the linear relationship between the target data and the correction data of the all the plurality of detector pixel units based on the correction data of the all the plurality of detector pixel units corresponding to the homogeneous plates of different thicknesses.
Claims 6-7, 23, 25-26 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the determining cosine correction data based on the spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units and a spatial position of a focal point of the ray emitting device includes: for each of the plurality of detector pixel units, obtaining the cosine correction data by determining cosine of an angle between a first connecting line and a second connecting line according to the three-dimensional coordinates of the detector pixel unit and coordinates of the focal point, wherein the first connecting line is a connecting line between the detector pixel unit and the focal point of the ray emitting device, the second connecting line is a connecting line between the focal point of the ray emitting device and a vertical point on the detector, and the second connecting line is perpendicular to the detector.
Claim 7 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 6 for dependency reasons.
Regarding claim 23, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the determining the one or more correction coefficients based on correction data of all the plurality of detector pixel units includes: establishing a linear relationship between the target data and the correction data of the all the plurality of detector pixel units; and determining the one or more correction coefficients by solving the linear relationship between the target data and the correction data of the all the plurality of detector pixel units based on the correction data of the all the plurality of detector pixel units corresponding to the homogeneous plates of different thicknesses.
Regarding claim 25, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the determining cosine correction data based on the spatial positions of the plurality of detector pixel units and a spatial position of a focal point of the ray emitting device includes: for each of the plurality of detector pixel units, obtaining the cosine correction data by determining cosine of an angle between a first connecting line and a second connecting line according to the three-dimensional coordinates of the detector pixel unit and coordinates of the focal point, wherein the first connecting line is a connecting line between the detector pixel unit and the focal point of the ray emitting device, the second connecting line is a connecting line between the focal point of the ray emitting device and a vertical point on the detector, and the second connecting line is perpendicular to the detector.
Claim 26 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 25 for dependency reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884