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 § 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 2 and 12 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recite target difference information and target second detection projection information, but it is not clear if they are the same as the difference information and second detection projection information recited in claims 1 and 11.
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) 1, 2, 4, 7, 10-12, 14, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (JP 2019176988 A) in view of Cui (WO 2021190276 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Miyazaki discloses a calibration method for an imaging device, comprising:
determining first detection projection information for the calibration phantom based on the first theoretical intersection line, an attenuation coefficient of a radiation emitted by the radiation source in the calibration phantom, and a radiation energy spectrum distribution of the radiation source in the imaging device (“second energy spectrum” described in [0071], [0072], and [0085]); and
adjusting a parameter of the imaging device by using difference information between the first detection projection information and second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom with the imaging device, so as to calibrate the imaging device and obtain a calibrated target parameter ([0069]: “As shown in Figure 6, in step S101, the acquisition function 445 projects X-rays onto the cylindrical phantom 100 at multiple rotation angles.”; [0073]: “…the generation function 446 generates correction data based on the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum. For example, the generation function 446 compares the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum. The generation function 446 then calculates a value as correction data to resolve the difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum.”).
Miyazaki fails to teach calculating a first theoretical intersection line according to a theoretical target point position of a radiation source of the imaging device, a theoretical detection position of a detector, and a phantom position of a calibration phantom, wherein the first theoretical intersection line represents a propagation path formed within the calibration phantom after a connecting line between the theoretical target point position and the theoretical detection position passes through the calibration phantom.
Cui teaches calculating a first theoretical intersection line according to a theoretical target point position of a radiation source of the imaging device (Fig. 7), a theoretical detection position of a detector (730), and a phantom position of a calibration phantom (720), wherein the first theoretical intersection line represents a propagation path formed within the calibration phantom after a connecting line between the theoretical target point position and the theoretical detection position passes through the calibration phantom (750).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have derived first detection projection information based on the first theoretical intersection line of Cui. One would be motivated to predict an ideal X-ray path through the phantom and provide accurate calibration.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting a parameter of the imaging device by using difference information between the first detection projection information and second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom with the imaging device comprises:
processing the difference information between the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information according to a target function to obtain the target parameter, wherein target difference information between target second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom and the first detection projection information converges, wherein the target difference information is obtained after the imaging device is calibrated according to the target parameter (Miyazaki: [0073]: “…the generation function 446 generates correction data based on the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum. For example, the generation function 446 compares the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum. The generation function 446 then calculates a value as correction data to resolve the difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum.” ; [0075]: For correction data, for example, the difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum may be used…”).
Regarding Claim 4: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the imaging device comprises a multi-level imaging device, the multi-level imaging device comprises L scanning-level imaging apparatuses, and L ≥ 2;
wherein the adjusting a parameter of the imaging device by using difference information between the first detection projection information and second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom with the imaging device comprises:
adjusting an apparatus imaging parameter of each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses based on difference information between the second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom with each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses and the first detection projection information respectively corresponding to each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses, so as to obtain a calibrated target apparatus imaging parameter of each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses; and
performing a coordinate system unification on the target apparatus imaging parameter of each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses, so as to obtain the calibrated target parameter.
However, Miyazaki discloses multiple imaging apparatuses configured to carry out the calibration method of claim 1 ([0104]: “The processing circuit 44 is not limited to being included in the console device 40, but may also be included in an integrated server that performs processing on detection data acquired by multiple medical imaging diagnostic devices in a unified manner.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the parameters of each imaging apparatus separately and then perform a coordinate system unification such that each subsystem is in the same coordinate system. One would be motivated to do so in order to correct each imaging component’s intrinsic geometric errors for accurate measurements. Further, one would be motivated to register the adjusted parameters to a single coordinate system to ensure all measurements correspond to the same reference frame.
Regarding Claim 7: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 1,
wherein the calibration phantom is provided in a scanning region of the imaging device (Miyazaki: Figs. 4 and 5); and
wherein a coverage area of the calibration phantom covering the scanning region is greater than or equal to a preset coverage threshold, and the preset coverage threshold is determined based on a scanning region area of the scanning region (Miyazaki: Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 10: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 1, wherein the parameter of the imaging device comprises: a target point position of the radiation source and a detection position of the detector (Cui discloses geometric parameters include positions of the source and detector [0063]).
Regarding Claim 11: Miyazaki discloses a calibration apparatus for an imaging device, comprising:
a determination module configured to determine first detection projection information for the calibration phantom based on the first theoretical intersection line, an attenuation coefficient of a radiation emitted by the radiation source in the calibration phantom, and a radiation energy spectrum distribution of the radiation source in the imaging device (“second energy spectrum” described in [0071], [0072], and [0085]); and
an adjustment module configured to adjust a parameter of the imaging device by using difference information between the first detection projection information and second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom with the imaging device, so as to calibrate the imaging device and obtain a calibrated target parameter ([0069]: “As shown in Figure 6, in step S101, the acquisition function 445 projects X-rays onto the cylindrical phantom 100 at multiple rotation angles.”; [0073]: “…the generation function 446 generates correction data based on the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum. For example, the generation function 446 compares the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum. The generation function 446 then calculates a value as correction data to resolve the difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum.”).
Miyazaki fails to teach a calculation module configured to calculate a first theoretical intersection line according to a theoretical target point position of a radiation source of the imaging device, a theoretical detection position of a detector, and a phantom position of a calibration phantom, wherein the first theoretical intersection line represents a propagation path formed within the calibration phantom after a connecting line between the theoretical target point position and the theoretical detection position passes through the calibration phantom.
Cui teaches calculating a first theoretical intersection line according to a theoretical target point position of a radiation source of the imaging device (Fig. 7), a theoretical detection position of a detector (730), and a phantom position of a calibration phantom (720), wherein the first theoretical intersection line represents a propagation path formed within the calibration phantom after a connecting line between the theoretical target point position and the theoretical detection position passes through the calibration phantom (750).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have derived first detection projection information based on the first theoretical intersection line of Cui. One would be motivated to predict an ideal X-ray path through the phantom and provide accurate calibration.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses calibration apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the adjustment module is further configured to:
process the difference information between the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information according to a target function to obtain the target parameter, wherein target difference information between target second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom and the first detection projection information converges, wherein the target difference information is obtained after the imaging device is calibrated according to the target parameter (Miyazaki: [0073]: “…the generation function 446 generates correction data based on the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum. For example, the generation function 446 compares the first energy spectrum with the second energy spectrum. The generation function 446 then calculates a value as correction data to resolve the difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum.” ; [0075]: For correction data, for example, the difference between the first energy spectrum and the second energy spectrum may be used…”).
Regarding Claim 14: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration apparatus according to claim 11,but both fail to teach wherein the imaging device comprises a multi-level imaging device, the multi- level imaging device comprises L scanning-level imaging apparatuses, and L >2;
wherein the adjustment module is further configured to:
adjust an apparatus imaging parameter of each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses based on difference information between the second detection projection information obtained by scanning the calibration phantom with each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses and the first detection projection information respectively corresponding to each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses, so as to obtain a calibrated target apparatus imaging parameter of each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses; and
perform a coordinate system unification on the target apparatus imaging parameter of each of the L scanning-level imaging apparatuses, so as to obtain the calibrated target parameter.
However, Miyazaki discloses multiple imaging apparatuses configured to carry out the calibration method of claim 1 ([0104]: “The processing circuit 44 is not limited to being included in the console device 40, but may also be included in an integrated server that performs processing on detection data acquired by multiple medical imaging diagnostic devices in a unified manner.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the parameters of each imaging apparatus separately and then perform a coordinate system unification such that each subsystem is in the same coordinate system. One would be motivated to do so in order to correct each imaging component’s intrinsic geometric errors for accurate measurements. Further, one would be motivated to register the adjusted parameters to a single coordinate system to ensure all measurements correspond to the same reference frame.
Regarding Claim 17: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein the calibration phantom is provided in a scanning region of the imaging device (Miyazaki: Figs. 4 and 5); and
wherein a coverage area of the calibration phantom covering the scanning region is greater than or equal to a preset coverage threshold, and the preset coverage threshold is determined based on a scanning region area of the scanning region (Miyazaki: Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 21: Miyazaki discloses an imaging device, comprising:
a radiation source configured to emit a radiation beam (Fig. 1, 11);
a conveying apparatus configured to convey a detected object, wherein a conveying channel is defined above the conveying apparatus, and a calibration phantom is provided in the conveying channel (33);
a detector configured to receive the radiation beam passing through the detected object or the calibration phantom (12); and
the calibration apparatus of claim 11 (as shown above).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki in view of Cui, in further view of Smolic (EP 3913572 A1) and Ferrucci (Ferrucci et al., Measurement of the X-ray computed tomography instrument geometry by minimization of reprojection errors—Implementation on experimental data, Precision Engineering, Volume 54, 2018, Pages 107-117, ISSN 0141-6359.).
Regarding Claim 3: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 2, but both fail to teach wherein the target function comprises a mapping function and a loss function;
wherein the processing the difference information between the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information according to a target function to obtain the target parameter comprises:
processing the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information by using the mapping function, so as to obtain a first projection mapping value and a second projection mapping value respectively;
processing the first projection mapping value and the second projection mapping value by using the loss function, so as to obtain a loss value;
iteratively adjusting the parameter of the imaging device according to the loss value until the loss function converges; and
determining the parameter of the imaging device as the target parameter when the loss function converges.
However, Smolic teaches transforming image data using a mapping function and then calculating the loss function for each of the transformed images ([0014] – [0019]):
processing the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information by using the mapping function, so as to obtain a first projection mapping value and a second projection mapping value respectively ([0014]: “the frequency loss function is a loss function which is calculated based on image data which has been converted into the frequency domain with a frequency transform.”; the resulting frequency domain representations correspond to the claimed first and second projection mapping values);
processing the first projection mapping value and the second projection mapping value by using the loss function, so as to obtain a loss value ([0015]: “…the method comprises computing the frequency loss function between two images at a plurality of scales and summing the results to obtain a final frequency loss function.”; calculated in [0016]).
Smolic fails to explicitly teach iteratively adjusting the parameter of the imaging device according to the loss value until the loss function converges; and
determining the parameter of the imaging device as the target parameter when the loss function converges.
However, these features are common in the art of optimization and CT calibration as shown by Ferrucci (page 110, last paragraph: “Solving for the geometrical parameters of the experimental instrument, and reference object position and orientation consists of minimizing the reprojection error by iteratively modifying the values of the geometrical parameters in the modelled forward projection operator.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Ferrucci and iteratively adjust the parameters until the loss function converges. One would be motivated to do so on the basis of improving calibration accuracy.
Regarding Claim 13: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration apparatus according to claim 12, but both fail to teach wherein the target function comprises a mapping function and a loss function;
wherein processing the difference information between the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information according to the target function to obtain the target parameter comprises:
processing the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information by using the mapping function, so as to obtain a first projection mapping value and a second projection mapping value respectively;
processing the first projection mapping value and the second projection mapping value by using the loss function, so as to obtain a loss value;
iteratively adjusting the parameter of the imaging device according to the loss value until the loss function converges; and
determining the parameter of the imaging device as the target parameter when the loss function converges.
However, Smolic teaches transforming image data using a mapping function and then calculating the loss function for each of the transformed images ([0014] – [0019]):
processing the first detection projection information and the second detection projection information by using the mapping function, so as to obtain a first projection mapping value and a second projection mapping value respectively ([0014]: “the frequency loss function is a loss function which is calculated based on image data which has been converted into the frequency domain with a frequency transform.”; the resulting frequency domain representations correspond to the claimed first and second projection mapping values);
processing the first projection mapping value and the second projection mapping value by using the loss function, so as to obtain a loss value ([0015]: “…the method comprises computing the frequency loss function between two images at a plurality of scales and summing the results to obtain a final frequency loss function.”; calculated in [0016]).
Smolic fails to explicitly teach iteratively adjusting the parameter of the imaging device according to the loss value until the loss function converges; and
determining the parameter of the imaging device as the target parameter when the loss function converges.
However, these features are common in the art of optimization and CT calibration as shown by Ferrucci (page 110, last paragraph: “Solving for the geometrical parameters of the experimental instrument, and reference object position and orientation consists of minimizing the reprojection error by iteratively modifying the values of the geometrical parameters in the modelled forward projection operator.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Ferrucci and iteratively adjust the parameters until the loss function converges. One would be motivated to do so on the basis of improving calibration accuracy.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki in view of Cui, in further view of Dafni (US 8121250 B2).
Regarding Claim 5: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 1, but both fail to explicitly teach wherein the calibration phantom is provided in N different calibration regions, and N > 2;
wherein the calibration method further comprises:
scanning the calibration phantom in each of the N calibration regions by using the imaging device, so as to obtain candidate second detection projection information corresponding to each of the N calibration regions; and
determining the second detection projection information according to the candidate second detection projection information corresponding to each of the N calibration regions.
However, Dafni discloses a method for calibration of a CT scanner involving scans of a phantom in multiple different calibration regions (Fig. 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have performed multiple scans of the phantom in different regions on the basis of improving the accuracy of the calibration.
Regarding Claim 6: Miyazaki discloses the calibration method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the calibration phantom is provided in a calibration region, the calibration phantom provided in the calibration region comprises M calibration postures, and M > 2;
wherein the calibration method further comprises:
scanning the calibration phantom with each of the M calibration postures by using the imaging device, so as to obtain candidate second detection projection information of the calibration phantom corresponding to each of the M calibration postures; and
determining the second detection projection information according to the candidate second detection projection information corresponding to each of the M calibration postures.
However, Dafni discloses a method for calibration of a CT scanner involving scans of a phantom in multiple different postures (Fig. 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have performed multiple scans of the phantom in different postures on the basis of improving the accuracy of the calibration.
Regarding Claim 15: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration apparatus according to claim 11, but both fail to teach wherein the calibration phantom is provided in N different calibration regions, and N > 2;
wherein the calibration apparatus further comprises:
a first scanning module configured to scan the calibration phantom in each of the N calibration regions by using the imaging device, so as to obtain second detection projection information corresponding to each of the N calibration regions; and
a first determination module configured to determine the second detection projection information according to the candidate second detection projection information corresponding to each of the N calibration regions.
However, Dafni discloses a method for calibration of a CT scanner involving scans of a phantom in multiple different calibration regions (Fig. 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have performed multiple scans of the phantom in different regions on the basis of improving the accuracy of the calibration.
Regarding Claim 16: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration apparatus according to claim 11, but both fail to teach wherein the calibration phantom is provided in a calibration region, the calibration phantom provided in the calibration region comprises M calibration postures;
wherein the calibration apparatus further comprises:
a second scanning module configured to scan the calibration phantom with each of the M calibration postures by using the imaging device, so as to obtain second detection projection information of the calibration phantom corresponding to each of the M calibration postures; and
a second determination module configured to determine the second detection projection information according to the candidate second detection projection information corresponding to each of the M calibration postures.
However, Dafni discloses a method for calibration of a CT scanner involving scans of a phantom in multiple different calibration regions (Fig. 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have performed multiple scans of the phantom in different regions on the basis of improving the accuracy of the calibration.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki in view of Cui, in further view of Siewerdsen (US 20200085404 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 1, but both fail to teach wherein the calibration phantom comprises a calibration phantom unit, and the calibration phantom unit comprises a plurality of calibration wires distributed in an array.
However, Siewerdsen discloses a wire fiducial phantom (Fig. 1b). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Miyazaki and Cui and provide the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen. One would be motivated to make such a modification because wire phantoms are well known in the art for providing precise fiducial features for calibration and substituting the phantoms of Miyazaki or Cui for the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen would only involve the simple substitution of one known element in the art for another.
Regarding Claim 9: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration method according to claim 8, but both fail to teach wherein the calibration wire comprises at least one of: a cylindrical calibration wire, a cubic calibration wire, a conical calibration wire, or a trapezoidal calibration wire.
However, Siewerdsen discloses a wire fiducial phantom (Fig. 1b). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Miyazaki and Cui and provide the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen. One would be motivated to make such a modification because wire phantoms are well known in the art for providing precise fiducial features for calibration and substituting the phantoms of Miyazaki or Cui for the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen would only involve the simple substitution of one known element in the art for another.
Regarding Claim 18: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration apparatus according to claim 11, but both fail to teach wherein the calibration phantom comprises a calibration phantom unit, and the calibration phantom unit comprises a plurality of calibration wires distributed in an array.
However, Siewerdsen discloses a wire fiducial phantom (Fig. 1b). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Miyazaki and Cui and provide the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen. One would be motivated to make such a modification because wire phantoms are well known in the art for providing precise fiducial features for calibration and substituting the phantoms of Miyazaki or Cui for the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen would only involve the simple substitution of one known element in the art for another.
Regarding Claim 19: Miyazaki in view of Cui discloses the calibration apparatus according to claim 18, but both fail to teach wherein the calibration wire comprises at least one of: a cylindrical calibration wire, a cubic calibration wire, a conical calibration wire, or a trapezoidal calibration wire.
However, Siewerdsen discloses a wire fiducial phantom (Fig. 1b). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Miyazaki and Cui and provide the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen. One would be motivated to make such a modification because wire phantoms are well known in the art for providing precise fiducial features for calibration and substituting the phantoms of Miyazaki or Cui for the wire fiducial phantom of Siewerdsen would only involve the simple substitution of one known element in the art for another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights