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 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(s) 1-2, 5-11, 13-15 and 19-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. (US 20140198894).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a method for performing scans using a computed tomography system, the method comprising:
rotating a rotor 17 of a gantry 1 of the computed tomography system relative to a patient;
performing a topogram scan via the computed tomography system the performing the topogram scan including recording projection data corresponding to an overview of at least a part of the patient (para 18);
establishing settings for parameters for a main scan based on the projection data, the parameters for the main scan specifying at least one of at least one irradiation power level for the main scan or an examination region for the main scan (para 20); and
performing the main scan of the patient using the computed tomography system based on the parameters for the main scan, the topogram scan and the main scan being performed during the rotating (para 18, spiral acquisition for both 3D image and topogram).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt teaches the performing the topogram scan performs the topogram scan in a previously specified angle range (beam angle) about a number of pre-determined recording angles of the rotor (para 19).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt teaches the performing the topogram scan and the performing the main scan are each performed in a spiral scan and the method further comprises performing a translation movement of the patient relative to the gantry during the rotating (para 48).
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt teaches determining whether the examination region has been reached based on the projection data of the topogram scan, the examination region being defined before the performing the topogram scan; and increasing an X-ray radiation power level for the topogram scan based on reaching the examination region (para 52).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt teaches establishing the settings for of the parameters for the main scan using a model of the patient and the projection data before the topogram scan reaches the examination region; and starting the performing the main scan based on the parameters for the main scan upon based on the topogram scan reaching the examination region (para 61).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt teaches at least one of, selecting a model of the patient or a subregion of the patient based on the projection data of the topogram scan, or creating the model of the patient or the subregion of the patient by way of modifying a basic model (para 61).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt teaches performing a plurality of examinations, in succession, each of the plurality of examinations including a topogram scan and a main scan, and the gantry being rotated at a constant velocity from a first examination among the plurality of examinations to a last examination among the plurality of examinations (para 18, rotating part does not stop).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt teaches the control facility comprising: an establishing unit configured to establish the settings of the parameters for the main scan based on the projection data, , the control facility being configured to control the rotating of the rotor,control the performing of the topogram scan, and control the performing of the main scan (para 18, rotating part does not stop).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt teaches a model unit, is configured to at least one of select a model of the patient or a subregion of the patient based on the projection data, or modify a basic model based on the projection data.
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt teaches s computed tomography system- comprising the control facility of claim 10 (abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt teaches s non-transitory computer program product comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 1 (para 64).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to cause the computed tomography system to perform the method of claim 1 (para 64).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidt teaches the rotating includes maintaining rotation of the rotor through the performing the topogram scan and the performing the main scan without initiating deceleration of the rotor (para 18, 49, rotating part does not stop).
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt teaches the rotating includes maintaining rotation of the rotor through the performing the topogram scan and the performing the main scan without initiating deceleration of the rotor (para 18, 49, rotating part does not stop).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt.
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt fails to teach the specified angle range is less than 20°.
A fan beam angle range less than 20 degrees is known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the beam angle of Schmidt with the less than 20 degrees, since it would reduce overall patient dose.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Yanagita et al. (US 20150092908).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt teaches an idling unit, wherein the idling unit is configured to maintain the rotation of the rotor of the gantry between two examinations substantially without an energy feed and without initiating a deceleration.
Yanagita teaches an idling unit, wherein the idling unit is configured to maintain the rotation of the rotor of the gantry between two examinations substantially without an energy feed and without initiating a deceleration (para 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system of Schmidt with the idling unit as taught by Yanagita, since it would provide better image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16-18 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:
The prior art fails to teach the performing the topogram scan includes switching off an X-ray source of the computed tomography system at rotation angles of the rotor outside the respective specified angle ranges about the number of the recording angles as claimed in claims 4 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights