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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2024, 12/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 1, 11, and 15. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently being considered. Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kohler et. al. fails to disclose first ray intensities using a first isocentral ray intensity and second isocentral ray intensity, each corresponding to a ray that passes through the isocentre. Examiner disagrees. Kohler et. al. uses two distinct first and second isocentral ray intensities, which are selected on the basis of the projection data, and described in paragraphs [0111]-[0113]. As disclosed in Kohler et. al. paragraph [0113], after that, in step S4, it is determined whether the difference between the first ray and the second ray is greater than a predetermined threshold value. The threshold value may be set by a user or it may be set from the software side, depending on properties of the projection data. By broadest reasonable interpretation, since the projection data includes the first isocentral ray intensity and a second isocentral ray intensity, the threshold value can be set based on the first isocentral ray intensity to trigger a change in the reconstruction. Furthermore, the two isocentral rays are first selected based on a set criteria. Thus, Examiner maintains that Kohler is still effective in rejecting the amended independent claims 1, 11, and 15 because the original claim 10 was incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohler et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2007/0177713 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kohler et. al. discloses a computer-implemented method of image reconstruction (Kohler et. al. [0014]), the method comprising: acquiring projection data of a region of a patient, the projection data comprising one or more projections representing measured ray intensities of attenuated rays of radiation emitted from a radiation source, passed through the patient, and detected at a detector, wherein the detector and the radiation source are rotated about an isocentre (Kohler et. al. Fig. 1; [0048-49] rotational axis 2 is the isocenter); performing opposing projection data correction to obtain modified projection data, the opposing projection data correction comprising modification of first ray intensities for a projection at a first orientation of the detector and the radiation source using a first isocentral ray intensity corresponding to a first ray that passes through the isocentre and using a second isocentral ray intensity corresponding to a second ray that passes through the isocentre, the second ray being measured at a second orientation, the second orientation being substantially 180 degrees offset from the first orientation about the isocentre (Kohler et. al. [0005]: The first ray and the second ray are opposite rays passing through a single object point. [0116] the source of the radiation moves around the object of interest and the exact reconstruction algorithm uses projection data resulting from one of half a resolution (180 degrees) and three half revolutions of the source of radiation, [0111]-[0113] Fig. 11-13: At position 34, the source 4 emits a beam, which comprises a first ray 32, striking a certain object point 33 and hitting detector 30 at position 35. After half a revolution of the source 4 along the helical path 31 to position 35, the source 3 emits a cone beam, which comprises a second ray 36, running from position 35 of source 4, past object points 33 to position 34, which is not located on the detector 30. Therefore, the rays 32 and 36, which are emitted at different times from different sides of the helical path are true opposite arrays. In step S4, it is determined whether the difference between the first ray and the second ray is greater than a predetermined threshold value. The threshold value may be set by a user or it may be set from the software side, depending on properties of the projection data. [0116]; [0053] wherein the first ray and second rays are opposite rays i.e., 180 degrees about the rotational axis 2 i.e., isocenter); and running an image reconstruction process on the modified projection data to obtain an image of the region of the patient (Kohler et. al. [0117]; [0053] after motion artifact compensation, reconstruction commences).
PNG
media_image1.png
1004
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the projection data is fan-beam or cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data (Kohler et. al. [0028], [0116], Fig. 2a, The acquisition of a projection data set of the object of interest by means of a source of electromagnetic polychromatic radiation generating a cone beam and by means of a radiation detector detecting the cone beam…).
Regarding claim 5, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the measured ray intensities are a function of multiple intensity signals acquired at detector elements of the detector (Kohler et. al. [0049-0050], [0053]-[0055] e.g., first and second rays’ intensities; the detector adapted to measure the attenuation of the cone beam).
Regarding claim 6, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein acquiring projection data and performing opposing projection data correction are performed inline, such that first ray intensities for a projection at a first orientation of the detector and the radiation source are subject to the opposing projection data correction following rotation of the detector and the radiation source by substantially 180 degrees about the isocentre to a second orientation and acquisition of projection data at the second orientation (Kohler et. al. [0049] circular scan; [0052] the calculation unit may also be adapted to perform a motion artifact correction compensation in the image based on the read-outs from the detector elements of the detector; also [0053] wherein the first ray and second rays are opposite rays i.e., 180 degrees about the rotational axis 2 i.e., isocenter.).
Regarding claim 7, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is used in adaptive radiotherapy (Kohler et. al. [0114], the low-pass filtering may be performed in regions where motion has been detected in an adaptive manner).
Regarding claim 9, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modification of the measured ray intensities comprises modification of first ray intensities for a projection at a first orientation of the detector and the radiation source using second ray intensities, the second ray intensities being measured for a projection at a second orientation of the detector and the radiation source, the second orientation being substantially 180 degrees offset from the first orientation about the isocentre (Kohler et. al. [0116] the source of the radiation moves around the object of interest and the exact reconstruction algorithm uses projection data resulting from one of half a resolution (180 degrees) and three half revolutions of the source of radiation).
Regarding claim 11, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the modifications comprise application of the following perturbation:
CurrentProjection≔CurrentProjection+max(OpposingRay,CentralRay)-CentralRay,
wherein CurrentProjection are the first ray intensities for the projection at the first orientation, Central Ray is the first isocentral ray intensity, and OpposingRay is the second isocentral ray intensity (Kohler et. al. [0116], [0055]-[0057])).
PNG
media_image2.png
364
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein acquiring projection data and performing opposing projection data correction are performed for a plurality of orientations of the detector and the radiation source (Kohler et. al. [0052] the calculation unit may be adapted to perform a motion artifact correction compensation in the image based on the read-outs from the detector elements of the detector. This motion artifact compensation may be performed by determining a difference between a first ray and a second ray, wherein the first ray and the second ray are opposite rays and wherein the difference between the first ray and the second ray is due to the motion of an object of interest resulting in motion artifacts). For improved data acquisition, the skilled person would consider it for all rays.
Regarding claim 14, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the opposing projection data correction comprises adjustment for any flex of the radiation source and/or the detector (Kohler et. al. [0103] the angular range for the back-projection of every voxel is adjusted individually).
Regarding claim 15, which is a data processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to carry out image reconstruction, wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to carry out the method of claim 1, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, which is a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions which stored thereon, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to: acquire projection data of a region of a patient, according to the method of claim 1, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
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.
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) 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2007/0177713 A1) in view of Shea et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0013818 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, however, Kohler et. al. fails to disclose wherein the projection data is positron emission tomography (PET) data or single-photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) data.
Shea et. al. teaches wherein the projection data is positron emission tomography (PET) data or single-photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) data (Shea et. al. [0064] This technique can also be applied to image reconstruction/data processing based on the removal of unwanted counts/signals from the original counts to generate corrected images, such as, for example, scatter correction in SPECT, PET, MR, SPECT/CT, PET/CT, PET/MR, etc.).
This is important to the claimed invention because PET and SPECT are common modalities in tomography for medical imaging. The method would need to be applicable to these imaging modalities associated with the scan type. Thus, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kohler et. al. and Shea et. al. so that multiple imaging modalities are included in the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, however, Kohler et. al. fails to disclose further comprising: performing glare deconvolution on at least one of the projection data or scatter correction.
Shea et. al. teaches further comprising: performing glare deconvolution on at least one of the projection data or scatter correction (Shea et. al. [0042]-[0048] Scatter correction and image reconstructed from line integrals measured by all the detector elements in many angles around the patient). This is important to the claimed invention because in a CT scanner with a polychromatic source of radiation, the x-ray beam passes through matter and photons are absorbed or scattered according to the properties of the matter they are passing through. This introduces a scatter artifact that needs to be corrected for improved image quality. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kohler et. al. and Shea et. al. so that there is scatter correction on the captured images.
Claim(s) 8, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2007/0177713 A1) in view of Fahimian et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2012/0207370 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, however, Kohler et. al. fails to disclose wherein the image reconstruction process includes at least one of: a Feldkamp Davis and Kress (FDK) reconstruction technique, an iterative reconstruction technique, or a Polyquant reconstruction technique.
Fahimian et. al. teaches wherein the image reconstruction process includes at least one of: a Feldkamp Davis and Kress (FDK) reconstruction technique, an iterative reconstruction technique, or a Polyquant reconstruction technique (Fahimian et. al. [0017] the total variation regularization algorithm includes a total variation regularized Feldkamp-David-Kress (FDK) algorithm based on a cosine weighting function). This is essential to the claimed invention because FDK reconstruction techniques in cone-beam computed tomography allows for efficient reconstruction of 3D images from 2D projections. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kohler et. al. and Fahimian et. al. so that FDK techniques are used in the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Kohler et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, however Kohler et. al. fails to disclose wherein opposing projection data correction comprises modification of the measured ray intensities and modification of scatter estimations for the projection data acquired at substantially 180 degrees offsets about the isocentre.
Fahimian et. al. teaches wherein opposing projection data correction comprises modification of the measured ray intensities and modification of scatter estimations for the projection data acquired at substantially 180 degrees offsets about the isocentre (Fahimian et. al. [0142] The X-ray tube operated at 100 kVp and 138 mA with the pulse width at each
projection angle of 11 ms. Data of a 360° scan includes about656 projections with an angle interval of about 0.54°. Each acquired projection image contains 1024x768 pixels with pixel size to be 0.388x0.388 mm. The source-to-axis distance (SAD) was 1000 mm and the source-to-imager distance (SID) was 1500 mm.). A 360-degree rotation is performed so the correction is applied to a plurality of rays. This is important to the claimed invention so that the entire area of interest is included in the modification. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kohler et. al. and Fahimian et. al.
Regarding claim 16, Kohler et. al. discloses the data processing apparatus of claim 15, however, Kohler et. al. fails to disclose wherein acquiring projection data and performing opposing projection data correction are performed inline, such that first ray intensities for a projection at a first orientation of the detector and the radiation source are subject to the opposing projection data correction following rotation of the detector and the radiation source by substantially 180 degrees about the isocentre to a second orientation and acquisition of projection data at the second orientation.
Fahimian et. al. teaches wherein acquiring projection data and performing opposing projection data correction are performed inline, such that first ray intensities for a projection at a first orientation of the detector and the radiation source are subject to the opposing projection data correction following rotation of the detector and the radiation source by substantially 180 degrees about the isocentre to a second orientation and acquisition of projection data at the second orientation (Fahimian et. al. [0142] Data of a 360° scan includes about 656 projections with an angle interval of about 0.54°. ). A 360-degree rotation is performed so the correction is applied to a plurality of rays. This is important to the claimed invention so that the entire area of interest is included in the modification. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kohler et. al. and Fahimian et. al.
Regarding claim 17, Kohler et. al. discloses the data processing apparatus of claim 15, however, Kohler et. al. fail to disclose wherein the modification of the measured ray intensities comprises modification of first ray intensities for a projection at a first orientation of the detector and the radiation source using second ray intensities, the second ray intensities being measured for a projection at a second orientation of the detector and the radiation source, the second orientation being substantially 180 degrees offset from the first orientation about the isocentre.
Fahimian et. al. teaches wherein the modification of the measured ray intensities comprises modification of first ray intensities for a projection at a first orientation of the detector and the radiation source using second ray intensities, the second ray intensities being measured for a projection at a second orientation of the detector and the radiation source, the second orientation being substantially 180 degrees offset from the first orientation about the isocentre (Fahimian et. al. [0142] Data of a 360° scan includes about 656 projections with an angle interval of about 0.54°.). A 360-degree rotation is performed so the correction is applied to a plurality of rays. This is important to the claimed invention so that the entire area of interest is included in the modification. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kohler et. al. and Fahimian et. al.
Regarding claim 19, which is the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, which correspond to the apparatus of claim 16, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, which is the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, which correspond to the apparatus of claim 17, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
Examiner has carefully considered all amendments to the claims and performed an updated search. After reconsideration of the claims, Examiner maintains the rejection using the prior art Kohler.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 August 22, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights