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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,5,8,9,16,17,18 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 13 refers to a “computer program.” The program is a data structure per se. Computer programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed.
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.
Claims 1,3,6,10,11,12,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burleton(US-20100310036-A1) in view of Fan(US-20120039440-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burleton discloses A method for reconstructing virtual monoenergetic images(para.[0022] “At step 110, the MECT data is decomposed to generate a monochromatic image at the energy level that was selected during step 108.”), the method comprising: acquiring spectral CT data at at least two different average radiation energies(para.0014] “Each of the plurality of detector elements produces an electrical signal that varies based on the intensity of the x-ray beam received during a sampling interval. According to an embodiment, multiple-energy computed tomography (MECT) data may be acquired by collecting attenuation data with both the low-kVp x-ray beam and the high-kVp x-ray beam. For purposes of this disclosure, the term “MECT data” is defined to include computed tomography data acquired at more than two different kVps. For example, according to additional embodiments, the x-ray source 18 may be configured to emit x-ray beams at a low kVp, a medium kVp, and a high kVp. The table 16 is adapted to translate the patient 24 in a z-direction with respect to the gantry 14 as indicated by a coordinate axis 26. The controller 22 is configured to control the rotation of the gantry 14, the position of the table 16, and the activation of the x-ray source 18.” This reference teaches multi-energy acquisition of at least 2 energies aligning with the claim element. ); reconstructing virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) from the CT data(para.[0024] “For example, the conventional CT image shows attenuation values that were acquired with a polychromatic x-ray beam, while the monochromatic image represents attenuation values as if they were acquired with a monochromatic x-ray beam. ”), and outputting the virtual monoenergetic images(para.[0016] “The technical effect of the method 100 is the generation and display of a composite image from MECT data.” Explicit disclosure that the generated images are outputted.)
However, Burleton does not disclose a respective VMI energy of the VMIs varies along a longitudinal axis of a patient, a 3D image of at least a part of the patient being based on the VMIs;
The combination of Burleton and Fan does disclose a respective VMI energy of the VMIs varies along a longitudinal axis of a patient, a 3D image of at least a part of the patient being based on the VMIs(Fan discloses in para.[0054] “In one embodiment, location 308 is selected as simply a default value. For instance, in a water/iodine basis material combination, minimization occurs at approximately 73 keV. For other basis material combinations, a default minimal location may be determined based on the other basis material combinations. In another embodiment, location 308 may be selected based on a priori information such as scanning protocol, anatomy, and the like. In yet another embodiment, location 308 may be selected based on a scout image. And in still another embodiment, location 308 may be numerically determined in real-time or “on the fly” based on first material image 208 and second material image 210, as examples.” Fan teaches that the keV selection can be driven by scout image or computed “on the fly”. Since conditions vary along the z-axis(longitudinal) during a CT exam and scout images are inherently z-resolved this aligns with the first half of the claim element. This can be used with Burleton’s disclosure in para.[0020] “It should be appreciated that the term image includes both a two-dimensional image and a three-dimensional image;” teaching that a 3D image is used.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan into the teachings of Burleton in order to improve image representation as conditions change along the subject and have a higher quality output.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Burleton and Fan disclose all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above. Burleton also discloses wherein the acquiring acquires the spectral CT data using a CT system including photon-counting detectors, a dual-source CT system, a CT system having a dual-layer detector, a CT system using kV switching(para.[0014] “According to an embodiment, multiple-energy computed tomography (MECT) data may be acquired by collecting attenuation data with both the low-kVp x-ray beam and the high-kVp x-ray beam. For purposes of this disclosure, the term “MECT data” is defined to include computed tomography data acquired at more than two different kVps. For example, according to additional embodiments, the x-ray source 18 may be configured to emit x-ray beams at a low kVp, a medium kVp, and a high kVp.” Alternating low/high kVp to acquire two spectra corresponds to a CT system “using kV switching” as stated in the claim element. Since the claim recites or only one of the limitations needs to be rejected to reject the whole claim.) or a CT system having split prefilters.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fan and Burleton discloses all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above. Fan also discloses wherein the VMIs have VMI energies that are variable in a craniocaudal direction (Fan discloses in para.[0054] “In one embodiment, location 308 is selected as simply a default value. For instance, in a water/iodine basis material combination, minimization occurs at approximately 73 keV. For other basis material combinations, a default minimal location may be determined based on the other basis material combinations. In another embodiment, location 308 may be selected based on a priori information such as scanning protocol, anatomy, and the like. In yet another embodiment, location 308 may be selected based on a scout image. And in still another embodiment, location 308 may be numerically determined in real-time or “on the fly” based on first material image 208 and second material image 210, as examples.” Fan teaches that the keV selection can be driven by scout image or computed “on the fly”. Since conditions vary along the z-axis(longitudinal) and a craniocaudal direction is longitudinal towards the feet, during a CT exam and scout images are inherently z-resolved this aligns with the claim element.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan into the teachings of Burleton in order to improve image representation as conditions change along the subject and have a higher quality output.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1. However, claim 10 recites a “data interface.” Burleton also recites a “data interface” (para.[0015] “According to an embodiment, data acquired by the CT system 10 may be transmitted to a database 28. The workstation 11 may access data that is stored on the database 28. According to an embodiment, the workstation includes a processor 30, a memory 31, a user interface device “) The other limitations of claim 10 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Burleton and Fan disclose all the elements of claim 10 as discussed above. Burleton also discloses a “control facility” (para. [0013] “Referring to FIG. 1, a schematic representation of a computed tomography (CT) system 10 and a workstation 11 according to an embodiment is shown. The CT system 10 includes a gantry support 12, a gantry 14, a table support 15, a table 16, an x-ray generator (not shown), an x-ray source 18, a detector 20, and a controller 22.”)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Burleton and Fan disclose all the elements of claim 11 as discussed above. Burleton also discloses a “controlled tomography system” (para. [0013] “Referring to FIG. 1, a schematic representation of a computed tomography (CT) system 10 and a workstation 11 according to an embodiment is shown. The CT system 10 includes a gantry support 12, a gantry 14, a table support 15, a table 16, an x-ray generator (not shown), an x-ray source 18, a detector 20, and a controller 22.”)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Burleton and Fan disclose all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above. Fan also discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (para. [0062] “An implementation of the embodiments of the invention in an example employs one or more computer readable storage media. An example of a computer-readable signal-bearing medium for an implementation of the embodiments of the invention comprises the recordable data storage medium of the image reconstructor 34, and/or the mass storage device 38 of the computer 36.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan into the teachings of Burleton in order to improve image representation as conditions change along the subject and have a higher quality output.
Claim(s) 2,7,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burleton as modified by Fan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US-20220270251-A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Burleton and Fan disclose all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the acquiring includes: selecting two different X-ray spectra; and acquiring, by an energy-selective radiation detector, the spectral CT data at a first average radiation energy between 33 keV and 70 keV and a second average radiation energy range between 55 keV to 100 keV.
Schmidt does disclose wherein the acquiring includes: selecting two different X-ray spectra (para.[0012] “At least one example embodiment provides an X-ray imaging method, such as a CT X-ray imaging method, for generating image data of an examination region of an object to be examined, first X-ray projection measurement data is acquired initially using a first X-ray energy spectrum and at least second X-ray projection measurement data of the examination region of an examination object is acquired using a second X-ray energy spectrum, the second X-ray energy spectrum being different from the first X-ray energy spectrum.” Explicit disclosure of selecting two different x-ray spectra.); and acquiring, by an energy-selective radiation detector, the spectral CT data at a first average radiation energy between 33 keV and 70 keV and a second average radiation energy range between 55 keV to 100 keV(para.[0067] “ The mean energy values E1, E2 of the thus generated X-ray spectra amount to approx. 45 keV for the first X-ray energy spectrum RE1 and approx. 80 keV for the second X-ray energy spectrum RE2. Also at step 1.I, the X-ray beams generated by the two X-ray sources are detected by two X-ray detectors 16a, 16b (see FIG. 3) mounted opposite the respective X-ray sources. This imaging method, also known as a dual-energy CT measurement method, is used in the method applied in FIG. 1 for generating first and second projection measurement datasets PMD1, PMD2, which are assigned to the respective different X-ray energy spectra RE1, RE2.” The two mean values disclosed here 45 and 80 are respectively within the range of values indicated in the claim element.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt into the combination of teachings of Burleton and Fan in order to improve image representation as conditions change along the subject and have more uniform results.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Burleton and Fan disclose all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the reconstructing includes: generating an image stack of virtual monoenergetic slice images is generated during the reconstruction of the virtual monoenergetic images.
Schmidt does disclose wherein the reconstructing includes: generating an image stack of virtual monoenergetic slice images is generated during the reconstruction of the virtual monoenergetic images(para.[0027] “ Initially, the partial image generating unit generates partial images with location-specific partial image data by reconstructing virtual basis-material-weighted image data weighted differently depending on location, and finally the overall image generating unit generates the overall image by combining the partial image data.” Although the reference does not use the language “slice images” the “image series” taught by the reference is analogous as a combination of partial images.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt into the combination of teachings of Burleton and Fan in order to improve image representation as conditions change along the subject and have more uniform results.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Burleton, Fan and Schmidt disclose all the elements of claim 2 as discussed above. Schmidt also discloses wherein one X-ray spectra results from an average radiation energy between 33 keV and 65 keV, and another X-ray spectra results from an average radiation energy between 65 keV and 100 keV para.[0067] “ The mean energy values E1, E2 of the thus generated X-ray spectra amount to approx. 45 keV for the first X-ray energy spectrum RE1 and approx. 80 keV for the second X-ray energy spectrum RE2. Also at step 1.I, the X-ray beams generated by the two X-ray sources are detected by two X-ray detectors 16a, 16b (see FIG. 3) mounted opposite the respective X-ray sources. This imaging method, also known as a dual-energy CT measurement method, is used in the method applied in FIG. 1 for generating first and second projection measurement datasets PMD1, PMD2, which are assigned to the respective different X-ray energy spectra RE1, RE2.” The two mean values disclosed here 45 and 80 are respectively within the range of values indicated in the claim element.)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burleton as modified by Fan and Schmidt as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yanof (US-5371778-A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Burleton, Fan and Schmidt disclose all the elements of claim 2 as discussed above. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the slice images of the image stack lie parallel to a transverse plane or parallel to a sagittal plane.
Yanof does disclose wherein the slice images of the image stack lie parallel to a transverse plane or parallel to a sagittal plane (col.4 lines 56-59 “A second view port 32 displays the data along the transverse plane 10 through the position of the cursor. In the coordinate system of FIG. 2, the transverse plane is also the (x,y) plane.” Explicitly teaches being able to view data(slices) along a transverse plane. Further in col. 5 lines 3-8 “By moving the cursor along track 38s, the sagittal plane is re-positioned left and right in the illustration of FIG. 2C. To index the transverse planes with the coronal and sagittal planes, the operator uses either a transverse slice selection means other than a cursor or tracks along one of paths 38t and 38t'” it explicitly describes the slice images on a sagittal plane, aligning with the claim element.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yanof into the combination of teachings of Burleton, Fan and Schmidt in order to output the slice image data as a stack for easier review and manipulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS ALEJANDRO PUNTIER whose telephone number is (703)756-1893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/CHRIS ALEJANDRO PUNTIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616