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 § 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.
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) 1-11, 14, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US 2012/0155617) hereinafter known as Dutta, and further in view of Fitzgerald et al. (US 2020/0232938) hereinafter known as Fitzgerald.
With regards to claim 1, Dutta discloses a phantom for spectral CT image system calibration [0001] and systems, methods, and computer instructions for analyzing multi-energy data [0020], wherein said method comprising:
subjecting a body (FIG. 2; [0027]; medical patient 24)(FIG. 9; [0043]; baggage pieces 126)(FIG. 5; [0010][0033]; a phantom 72 for spectral CT image calibration) to X-rays propagating through the body 24,126 in an inspection zone (opening 114)(gantry opening 48) of the X-ray inspection apparatus ([0027]; computed tomography system (CT) imaging system 10 and gantry 12)(FIG. 9; [0043]; package/baggage inspection system 110 and rotatable gantry 112), wherein the body is a phantom )(FIG. 5-6; a phantom 72 for spectral CT image calibration) mainly made from artificial material ([0033]-[0035]; material inserts 86) and comprising at least two different regions ([0036][0037] teaches of different phantom insert combinations 92-104).
Dutta teaches that X-ray or CT phantoms typically comprise synthetic materials configured to mimic the x-ray attenuation of clinically relevant materials [0008]. Dutta further discloses that the phantom comprises a shell 106 to attenuate x-rays (claim 11). Dutta [0039] states “A plurality of shells 106 of various sizes and shapes may be configured to removably engage housing 74 to allow for calibrating the spectral CT imaging system based on a plurality of patient sizes.” Further, the reference teaches of a plurality of slots 78-80 formed in the housing 74 wherein the material inserts are placed [0033]. Also [0036] teaches “… the sizes of one or more of the inserts 86 may be different than other inserts 86 so as to create a larger or smaller quantity of respective clinically relevant material for calibration.” Finally, Dutta teaches “…data for two or more energy sensitive scans may be obtained in a temporally interleaved fashion rather than two separate scans made several seconds apart as typically occurs with previous CT technology. The interleaved projection data may furthermore be registered so that the same path lengths are defined at each energy level using, for example, some form of interpolation.” [0006]
Dutta do not specifically disclose a phantom comprising of two regions where a difference between the propagation path lengths correlates with a difference of measured X-ray attenuation arising between regions of a product sample of said product type mimicked by the phantom whose regions correspond to said regions of the phantom.
In the same field of endeavor, Fitzgerald discloses a modular phantom and method for image quality assessment using interchangeable inserts (Title). Fitzgerald teaches that NDT CT differs from other CT approaches in that imaging needs a high energy spectrum generated by a source 12 in order to penetrate a large manufactured object and/or high-density alloys. [0037] further teaches “… spectra up to approximately 450 kVp can be achieved with “Coolidge”-type X-ray tubes ... Focal spot sizes can be much smaller than 1 mm for micro-CT, sometimes yielding system spatial resolution of less than 10 microns, but micro-CT usually uses “Coolidge”-type X-ray tubes and therefore is limited to approximately 450 kVp, ... Therefore, to achieve high spatial resolution in reasonable scan times, micro-CT can only scan parts made of highly-attenuation material such as metal with relatively short path lengths,…In comparison, high-energy X-ray sources, typically 1 to 9 megavolts (MeV), are implemented using a linear accelerator (linac)….the system spatial resolution can be from several hundred microns up to approximately 1 mm. Linac-based NDT scanners can produce much higher X-ray flux than micro-CT scanners and because of this, combined with the higher-energy spectra, these can scan larger parts with, for example, path lengths of several inches of steel or high-temperature superalloys,…” Further, the reference teaches of a modular phantom body that can be configured with inserts that can provide the ability to use micro-CT or other means to determine ground truth results/images. The inserts can be samples of real manufactured material and real manufacturing material with defects such as cracks [0008]. Also, the reference teaches that the inserts 100 can be a solid cylinder [0056]. Finally, the reference teaches that the inserts, used for CT attenuation, can be constructed of metallic materials, alloys, ceramics, plastics, composites, and so forth.
In view of Fitzgerald, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify (or view) the material inserts, of Dutta, to have (as having) a difference in pathlength that correlates to X-ray attenuation. The motivation is to utilize material inserts having specific X-ray propagation path lengths for X-ray attenuation and wherein the inserts represent material defects or materials typically found within a patient’s body. The difference in pathlengths correspond to x-ray attenuation and also difference represents spectral energy levels.
With regards to claim 2, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the phantom material comprises a material or material mixture having absorption characteristic similar/close to that of the mimicked product type (Dutta; [0008][0034]), comprising a polymer material (M) as base material (Dutta; [0035]; “The clinically relevant materials may be suspended and preserved in a matrix to form the solid insert 86. The matrix may be, in an example, a polymer or epoxy matrix.”)
With regards to claim 3, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the phantom comprises, locally, a piece of a different material than said polymer material. (Dutta [0034] in view of [0038] “…it may be desirable to fill each slot 78, 80 with a combination of material inserts that includes a different material for each of the inserts.”)
With regards to claim 4, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the phantom comprises a plurality of pieces of different material (Dutta; [0038] “…it may be desirable to fill each slot 78, 80 with a combination of material inserts that includes a different material for each of the inserts.”)
With regards to claim 5, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein at least a part of the local piece is embedded in the base material. (Dutta; [0035]; “The clinically relevant materials may be suspended and preserved in a matrix to form the solid insert 86. The matrix may be, in an example, a polymer or epoxy matrix.”) (Fitzgerald; [0057])
With regards to claim 6, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 1, where the X-ray inspection apparatus is configured to perform multi-energy attenuation measurement (Dutta; [0026][0027])
With regards to claim 7, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein an overall area shape of the product sample (Fitzgerald; [0025]; samples of real manufactures material) transverse to the propagation path is mimicked by the phantom. (Fitzgerald; [0025)(Dutta; [0039][0040])
With regards to claim 8, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the X-ray inspection method is repeated on the X-ray inspection apparatus after a time interval l(Fitzgerald; [0035]). and/or the X-ray inspection method of claim 1 is additionally executed with the same phantom at another X-ray inspection apparatus (Dutta; [0042])(Fitzgerald; [0035]).
With regards to claim 9, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein settings of the X-ray inspection apparatus are adjusted based on, and in accordance with, the results of the X-ray inspection of the phantom. (Fitzgerald; [0033][0034][0035])
With regards to claim 10, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses a method for X-ray inspection of products of a given product type using an X-ray inspection apparatus, verified in accordance with the method of claim 1 with respect to said given product type. (Fitzgerald; [0025]; samples of real manufactures material)
With regards to claim 11, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses a method of manufacturing a phantom (Fitzgerald; [0044]) for use with the method claim 1, said method comprising:
making an X-ray measurement for a product sample of said product type, wherein the respective local measured X-ray attenuation is converted into a thickness profile having thickness variations correlated to respective X-ray attenuation variations of the product sample (Fitzgerald; [0048][0049]);
and manufacturing the phantom with a thickness based on, and accordance with said thickness profile (Fitzgerald; [0049]).
With regards to claim 14, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the manufacturing of the phantom involves casting a material or material mixture. (Fitzgerald; [0042]; “Further it may be desirable for the phantom designs to be capable of being fabricated in a conventional machine shop or other widely-available production method such as, for example, …casting, etc.”)(Fitzgerald; [0057]; “These closed pores can represent, for example, inclusions in a cast-metal part…”)
With regards to claim 16, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses a method of phantom mimicking a product type using the verifying method of claim 1. (Fitzgerald; [0025][0057]; “… the resulting assembly can again be assessed with micro-CT for comparison with results obtained with macro-CT.”)
With regards to claim 18, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the piece of the different material comprises calcium. (Dutta; [0037])
With regards to claim 19, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the piece of the different material is provided at the region having a longer of the prolongation path lengths. (see the rejection of claim 1)
With regards to claim 20, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein said plurality of pieces of different material (Dutta; FIG. 6) comprises a first group of pieces varying in dimension to the propagation path direction (Fitzgerald; [0045] in view of the rejection of claim 1)(Dutta; [0037] FIG. 6; 92, in view of the rejection of claim 1), a second group of pieces varying in dimension (Fitzgerald; [0045] in view of the rejection of claim 1)(Dutta; [0037] FIG. 6; 104, in view of the rejection of claim 1), and/or a third group of pieces varying in material composition (Dutta; [0011] FIG. 6; 94).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13, 15 and 17 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:
With regards to claim 12, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, do not disclose the method according to claim 11, further comprising determining an average absorption coefficient by use of an average thickness of the measured product sample and an average over the intensity of the transmitted X- ray, and calculating a local thickness, by way of the average absorption coefficient and the local intensity of the corresponding local X-ray intensity of the measured product sample, to obtain relative thickness differences.
Claim 13 is objected due to dependency on objected base claim 12.
With regards to claim 15, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, do not specifically disclose the method according to claim 14, wherein casting is divided in two or more steps and one or more pieces of a different material.
With regards to claim 17, Dutta, in view of Fitzgerald, do not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the product type is a food product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cochran et al. (US 2022/0005174)
Stringer, III et al. (US 2023/0036916)
Daerr et al. (US 2019/0298294)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 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, 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights