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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing means configured to generate a digital image…” in claims 1 and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase:
“wherein the source is arranged to create … a first rotating movement …
a second reciprocating movement … and
wherein the source is … arranged to illuminate only an axial fraction of a lateral surface … and
wherein an entire axial extent of said later surface is irradiated …”.
The instant phrases amounts to a method step of using the apparatus of claim 1. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) explains that where a claim recites both the apparatus and method of using the apparatus, the invention is indefinite under 35 USC § 112(b). The claim fails to make clear when the subject matter is infringed upon: when a product capable of being used in the same manner is produced, or when the product is used according to the claimed method steps. In the instant case, the claims further fail to clearly define what structure defines the source such that it is capable of operating according to the claim. Claims 2-8 are rejected according to the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “processing means”, which invokes 112(f) as set forth above under Claim Interpretation. The supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, per the requirements of MPEP 2181(III). Furthermore, as the claim limitation is a Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitation, the claim must provide a supporting algorithm for executing the claimed limitation, per MPEP 2181(II)(B). However, the specification fails to provide support or mention of any algorithm, prose, mathematical formula, flow chart or any other manner than provides sufficient structure. The balance of claims are rejected based on dependence.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “wherein the detector is fixed in the axial direction and has an axial extension at least equal to the primary footprint” in line 2. The phrase implies a measurement of distance but fails to address (1) the points of measurement or (2) the aspect of the detector intended to be described. From what point of measurement does the detector have an axial extension? Does the axial extension describe a surface dimension of the detector, a mode of operation, or some other undefined aspect? One of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the claim scope.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREGERSON et al. (US 20190282185 A1) in view of HEUSCHER (US 8213568 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, GREGERSON discloses a computed tomography scanner system and method of using (Fig 1), comprising:
providing a source (43) arranged to generate cone beam x-ray radiation, wherein the cone beam vertex is in the source defining a collimated cone (cone beam x-ray CT; FIG 3; [0038, 0094, 0097]),
providing a detector (45) arranged so that said radiation generates a primary footprint completely contained on a surface of the detector (FIG 4A, [0038]; FIG 5C shows footprint is contained on a surface of detector 501 via collimator; [0071, 0094, 0096]); and
providing processing means configured to generate a digital image corresponding to a signal generated by the detector when illuminated by said radiation and configured to reconstruct a map of three-dimensional attenuation of a volume containing a sample under investigation (image processing/reconstructor unit including at least one of a CPU/GPU/FPGA/AIC/etc.; [0061, 0093, 0096]),
wherein the source is arranged to create:
a first rotating movement around an axis of rotation (FIGS. 7A-7G, which shows the focal spot of the x-ray source rotating 180° from the top of the gantry 40 (FIG. 7A) to the bottom of the gantry (FIG. 7G); [0095]); and
a second reciprocating movement parallel to said axis of rotation so as to identify an approximately sinusoidal motion on a cylindrical or semi-cylindrical surface coaxial with said axis of rotation, having a predetermined amplitude (the system controller 113 may control the motorized system 112 to perform a coordinated rotation of the gantry 40 about axis 102 (i.e., “wag” rotation) as the x-ray source rotates around the patient 701 so that the focal spot of the x-ray source follows a sinusoidal spherical trajectory; [0095-0100]), and
wherein the source (43) is provided with a collimator (506) arranged to illuminate a lateral surface enclosing said volume (Fig 5C as CBCT system having a collimator 506 that adjust the cone beam to illuminate a footprint of the detector, wherein the beam may be scanned over a surface extension, as implied by the 3D description; [0069, 0071, 0073, 0094, 0097]).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7F of GREGERSON shows the oscillation of the source and detector.
GREGERSON collimates the x-ray beam so as to expose only a portion of the detector area ([0094]), but does not expressly describe the collimation as illuminating only an axial fraction of the lateral surface enclosing the imaged volume nor the resulting relationship in which the entire axial extent of that surface is covered by a predetermined number of such fractions over one oscillation period. In the same field of endeavor, HEUSCHER is discloses a CBCT system and method of using comprising providing a dynamic collimator that moves axially with the x-ray source along a volume of interest (VOI) and opens/closes progressively, such that only a narrow portion of the cone beam is permitted at the ends of the VOI and a wider beam at the center (col. 5, l. 47 – col. 6, l. 19), thereby restricting the irradiated axial extent to the VOI and reducing dose exposure (col. 2, ll. 28-37). In light of the teachings of HEUSCHER for reducing a patient dose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of GREGERSON. See MPEP 2143(I)(A), (G).
PNG
media_image2.png
630
1066
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of HEUSCHER shows a variable collimator adjusting an axial fraction of exposure.
Regarding claim 2, GREGERSON discloses wherein the detector is fixed in the axial direction and has an axial extension at least equal to the primary footprint during said second reciprocating movement, so that said primary footprint is always contained in the surface of the detector ([0096]), or wherein the detector is movable in said axial direction, synchronously and concordant with the source ([0097-0098]).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, windowing the digital image in accordance with the primary footprint (processing only the illuminated region of the detector) would have been obvious over the combination in which GREGERSON discloses the beam is collimated to expose only a portion of the detector area ([0094]). Windowing a reduced number of pixels in an operation limited in an axial extension thereby reduces processing burden and image noise.
Regarding claim 4, GREGERSON discloses the x-ray source and detector rotate around the patient together on the gantry, and that the gantry is translated along the patient axis, so that the source and detector rotate integrally ([0093, 0097-0098]).
Regarding claim 5, GREGERSON in view of HEUSCHER makes obvious a contiguous, non-overlapping-fraction relationship in view of the teachings of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREGERSON et al. (US 20190282185 A1) in view of HEUSCHER (US 8213568 B2), further in view of EIN-GAL (US 20090110142 A1).
Regarding claim 6, GREGERSON and HEUSCHER are silent regarding wherein said source is associated with a turntable having a rotation axis coaxial with the rotation axis and wherein the source is associated with the platform by means of an axial actuator. In the same field of endeavor, EIN-GAL discloses a CBCT system 10 comprising a turntable 20 having a rotation axis 22 coaxial with the rotation axis and wherein the source 12 is associated with the platform by means of an axial actuator 24 (FIG 1; [0025-0029]), with the benefit of improved source trajectories ([0001]). In light of the teachings of EIN-GAL, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of GREGERSON and HEUSCHER.
PNG
media_image3.png
428
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of EIN-GAL shows a CBCT system with a turntable and source axial actuator.
Regarding claim 7, EIN-GAL discloses an axial actuator for the source relative the turntable, and would have been further obvious to provide a corresponding actuation of the detector according to the same rationale of improved control over transmission trajectories, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 8, EIN-GAL discloses a perpendicular plane with respect to said axis of rotation and passing through said detector, said detector is in a fixed angular position in said plane with respect to said rotation axis and said source tilts, in said plane, according to said first movement around said rotation axis for an angle lower than 180° (FIG 1 shows an angle tile of Ɵ; [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights