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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, and 4 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gagnon (US 2013/0343517 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Gagnon teaches in Fig. 3 An X-ray imaging apparatus comprising:
an X-ray source 14 that irradiates an X-ray;
a photon counting detector 10; see paragraph [0041] that counts an X-ray photon for each energy bin; and
an image generation unit 34 that generates a medical image of a subject based on a detector output from the photon counting detector,
wherein the X-ray imaging apparatus further comprises a control unit In paragraph [0044] Gagnon teaches “the system” detects whether detector elements are under direct irradiation without object, then the system turns off bias voltages to these detector element and therefore, these detector elements will function properly. This is performed in order to minimize the degradation effect of polarization when operating photon-counting semiconductor detectors 10. Furthermore, Gagnon teaches a detector controller 35 and contour calculation unit 31. Because of this, this “wherein” clause is anticipated by the teaching of Gagnon or in view of the teaching of Gagnon, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Gagnon so as to have the-wherein- clause in order to minimize the degradation effect of desired direct conversion detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results. that checks, in a case where polarization of the photon counting detector is not stable, the subject not being present in an X-ray irradiation field which is a range where the X-ray is irradiated from the X-ray source and then causes the X-ray source to irradiate the photon counting detector with the X-ray.
With respect to dependent claim 2, the variation of “wherein the control unit checks that the subject is not present in the X-ray irradiation field based on a position of a bed on which the subject is placed” would be obvious choice within the ordinary skilled art because Gagnon teaches contour calculation unit 31. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Gagnon teaches contour calculation unit 31, and therefore, teaches wherein the control unit checks that the subject is not present in the X-ray irradiation field based on an image generated by irradiation of an X-ray dose lower than an X-ray dose in a case where the medical image is captured.
With respect to dependent claim 5, since Gagnon teaches degradation effect of polarization in a photon counting detector, the limitation of “wherein the control unit determines that the polarization of the photon counting detector is stable in a case where an elapsed time from previous imaging is shorter than a predetermined time set in advance” would be within the ordinary skilled art because Gagnon turns off detectors not unobstructed by a patient or an object in order to keep desired detectors in acceptable polarization.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Gagnon teaches in paragraph [0044] detecting X-ray (which is receiving a radiation dose) would cause the degradation effect of polarization in photon counting detector, and therefore, the limitation “wherein the predetermined time is set in accordance with an irradiation dose” would be obvious choice within the ordinary skilled art in order to determine polarization instability of photon counting detector elements per irradiation dose. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon, and further in view of Haider (US 2023/0414187 A1).
The teaching of Gagnon has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Gagnon is silent with a camera that images the X-ray irradiation field, wherein the control unit checks that the subject is not present in the X-ray irradiation field based on an image captured by the camera.
Haider, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0026] a camera to determine the presence of a patient. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Gagnon in order to perform an identification step whether a patient is presence in desired radiation field. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884