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
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the phrase “configured for.” Examiner suggests the phrase be rewritten to: “configured to” (see also claims 11, 12, 14 and 15) .
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 but introduces a shutter affixed on the back side, which lacks antecedent basis in claim 5. Claim 7 would be in proper form if amended to depend from claim 6.
Claim 8 depends from claim 6 but recites the fiducial marker on the shutter affixed to the back side. The back-side fiducial marker is first introduced in claim 7. Claim 8 would be in proper form if amended to depend from claim 7.
Claim 17 is directed to a mobile radiography system and also appears to recite a method of determining, which renders the claim ambiguous (mixed statutory classification) as written. Examiner recommends the claim be amended accordingly.
The claims have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, claim 13 is directed to a system “wherein the radiography computing device may automatically select an appropriate kV and mAs when the x-ray focal spot and anti-scatter grid are aligned.” The phrase “radiography computing device” lacks antecedent basis, while the conditional phrase “may” renders the claim ambiguous, since it is unclear whether the system and/or device is configured to carry out the recited functionality. For purposes of examination, claim 13 will be treated as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 13-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tubbs (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20070041508) in view of Barnes (U.S. Patent 7,581,884).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
714
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 15 are treated concurrently because independent claim 15 recites a corresponding method of using a radiography system of independent claim 1. Accordingly, the analysis set forth below with respect to claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 15 unless otherwise noted.
As per claims 1 and 15, Tubbs discloses a radiography system and corresponding method, comprising:
an x-ray source assembly (210) configured to activate a digital x-ray detector (220) through X-rays striking the digital x-ray detector;
one or more shutters (230) installed in a collimator in a stream of the X-rays configured to project an alignment image onto the digital x-ray detector (see e.g. ¶ [0047-0048]);
a processor configured for receiving data indicative of the alignment image and the anatomy of interest, generating a first digital image indicative of the alignment image and the anatomy of interest, the processor further configured for analyzing the first image and determining if a focal spot of the x- ray source assembly is aligned with the digital x-ray detector based on the first digital image, and when the focal spot of the x-ray source assembly is misaligned, the processor further configured for aligning the focal spot of the x-ray source assembly with the center of the digital x-ray detector (see e.g. ¶¶ [0043-0045]; Figs. 4, 8).
Tubbs does not explicitly disclose the use of an anti-scatter grid and/or a processor configured to determine if a focal spot of the x- ray source assembly is aligned with a focal axis of an anti-scatter grid and further configured to align the focal spot of the x-ray source assembly with the focal axis of the anti-scatter grid.
Barnes teaches the use of an anti-scatter grid to reduce scattered X-rays which degrade image quality (col.1:24-26) and a processor configured to determine if a focal spot of an x- ray source assembly is aligned with a focal axis of an anti-scatter grid and further configured to align the focal spot of the x-ray source assembly with the focal axis of the anti-scatter grid (Abstract; Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
a) modify the system of Tubbs to incorporate an anti-scatter grid and
b) modify the processor of Tubbs such that it incorporated the processor functionality of Barnes.
One would have been motivated to make such modification(s) to maximize transmission of primary X-rays while reducing X-ray scattering through a corresponding anti-scatter grid, thereby improving image contrast and overall image quality as taught by Barnes (see e.g. col.1:52-60).
As per claims 2 and 6, Tubbs discloses a system as modified above, but does not explicitly disclose a system wherein
a) the one or more shutters comprises at least one pair of shutters moveably affixed on a left and right side relative to the stream of X-rays and
b) wherein the one or more shutters comprises at least one pair of shutters moveably affixed on a back and a front side relative to the stream of X-rays.
Tubbs discloses a collimator configured to project a calibration pattern by sequentially forming vertical and horizontal portions of a projected crosshair (¶¶ [0038, 0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the collimator of Tubbs such that it incorporated the aforementioned limitations. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since such arrangements are conventional structural configurations for adjustable X-ray collimators and represent a routine implementation.
As per claims 13 and 20, Tubbs discloses a system and method as modified above, but does not explicitly disclose a system further configured to automatically select an appropriate kV and mAs when the x-ray focal spot and anti-scatter grid are aligned.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the system and method of Tubbs such that it incorporated the aforementioned features. One would have been motivated to automatically select an appropriate exposure technique after the system is correctly aligned, as this is the next operational step before acquiring an image.
As per claims 14 and 21, Tubbs discloses a system and method as modified above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to receive data indicative of a location of a location of the x-ray source assembly and automatically locking at least one degree of freedom based upon the data indicative of the location.
Tubbs teaches a processor configured to determine an offset from an acquired alignment image and generating a correcting based on the determined offset (see e.g. Fig. 8, shown above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the system and method of Tubbs to automatically lock one or more movable degrees of freedom to preserve an alignment for a subsequent radiographic exposure. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to prevent movement after successful positioning, thereby maintaining an established imaging geometry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-12, and 16-19 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.
As per claim 3 and dependent claims 4-5, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a system wherein each shutter of the pair of shutters comprises a fiducial marker oriented open toward a central X-ray in the X-rays.
As per claim 7 and dependent claims 8-10, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a system wherein the shutter affixed on the back side comprises a fiducial marker oriented open toward a central X-ray in the X-rays.
As per claim 11 and dependent claim 12, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a system wherein the processor is further configured to receive a data indicative of the anatomy of interest and generate a second image of the data indicative of the anatomy of interest.
As per claim 16 and dependent claim 17, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a method wherein the one or more shutters comprises at least one pair of shutters moveably affixed on a left and right side relative to the stream of X-rays, wherein each shutter of the pair of shutters comprises a fiducial marker oriented open toward a central X-ray in the X-rays and the fiducial markers are centrally located on their respective shutters, further comprising determining a location of the x-ray source based upon the fiducial markers.
As per claim 18 and dependent claim 19, the Examiner found no reference in the prior art that disclosed or rendered obvious a method further comprising receiving, by the processor, data indicative of the anatomy of interest and generating a second image of the data indicative of the anatomy of interest.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2496. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/COURTNEY D THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights