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 Office Action filed May 11, 2026, expressly invoked §112(f) for functionally recited “unit” limitations and cited specification [0167]; see paragraphs 2–6, That existing interpretation is preserved as the prosecution starting point. Each specific unit/function and corresponding disclosed algorithm must be checked against the claimed interpretation set forth in that office action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/30/2026 was entered. By the instant amendment, claims 1-20 remain in the application and are pending. Claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 were amended. Support for the amendment can be found, for example, in at least [0142] - [0150] of the present application
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 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.
Applicants’ remarks correctly identify the missing parts as amended in the earlier reliance on a gain-normalization table and a defect map. Reitz [0078] alone does not establish identifying abnormal pixels from a parameter/count correspondence read out from storage. That earlier theory is not maintained. The present rejection identifies actual threshold-indexed stored measurements and their read/use in Reitz, Yamakawa’s mean/deviation bad-address algorithm, and Zhan’s (New reference added to the rejection of the independent claims) express diagnosis of bad pixels from controlled calibration-scan data, together with the stated modification connecting those teachings.
Applicant’s broader contention that the cited art does not identify abnormal pixels in any way is not persuasive as to Yamakawa’s express zero-count, excessive-count, and statistical-outlier tests and stored bad addresses, Yamakawa [0104] – [0115]. Nevertheless, those tests alone do not cure the amended readout relationship. The present analysis separately establishes that relationship and the corresponding programmed algorithm. Gain adjustment, use of a previously prepared map, and automatic identification of new bad-pixel positions are distinct operations.
Claim 2 external-device architecture is separately addressed, including the detector-internal control unit, external storage and identification, and return of the generated abnormal-position information to the claimed local display. Neither a console processor nor a generic image display is substituted for those actors. The revised ground specifies the required allocation and reason to make it.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa et al. (US 2014/0105370 A1) in view of Reitz et al. (US 2014/0185781 A1) and Zhan et al. (US 2022/0342098 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Yamakawa teaches an X-ray generation source that irradiates an inspection region and an X-ray detector that detects X-rays passing through that region (tube 21, detector 22, and subject P between them), Yamakawa [0044] – [0046], (Figure 1).
Notice how the detector includes charge-sensitive element/cell circuitry and a shaper that produces a pulse whose peak amplitude corresponds to the energy of the incident X-ray, Yamakawa [0053] – [0055], (Figures 5 & 6). Its plurality of acquisition pixels uses comparators and counters to detect the number of those pulse signals exceeding a predetermined threshold voltage, Yamakawa [0053] – [0057], [0060] – [0062], (Figures 5 – 7). The highest-threshold counter supplies a count above its threshold, and the disclosed single-comparator option avoids treating an energy-bin difference alone as the claimed above-threshold count.
Yamakawa teaches a storage unit receiving pixel count data through interface 31, and programmed calibration calculator 38, first memory 34, and threshold-setting circuitry 41, Yamakawa [0063], [0068] – [0073], (Figure 1). Thresholds are swept and the resulting per-pixel measured counts are stored as pixel response profiles, Yamakawa [0127] – [0128], (Figures 15 & 16). The digital command, latch, and D/A converter change the discriminator threshold and thereby change the number of counted pulses, Yamakawa [0056] – [0057], (Figure 6). This maps the parameter, its applied value, the resulting count, and their pixel-specific correspondence, rather than merely identifying an unrelated memory.
Yamakawa also teaches an abnormal-pixel specifying calculation and an output identifying positions: counts are accumulated for each pixel; zero or excessive counts cause the bad-pixel address to be memorized; and a further mean/standard-deviation test identifies outlying pixel counts and stores their addresses, Yamakawa [0104] – [0112], (Figures 10, 12 & 13). Calculator 38 performs the identification and writing the identified address supplies abnormal pixel information including a position. A separate integrated circuit for the nested specifying function is not required by the disclosed programmed structure. Yamakawa also checks count inversion after changing a threshold, but that different test is not used as the sole equivalent of the application’s average/deviation algorithm, Yamakawa [0113] – [0115], (Figure 14).
Yamakawa, however, does not expressly teach the complete amended relationship in which the abnormal pixel specifying unit “identifies a number or position of an abnormal pixel” based on the parameter/count correspondence “being read out from the storage unit.”
Reitz teaches acquisition of actual per-pixel counts while changing threshold settings, storage of those measurements as a function of threshold, and calculation from the stored measurements, Reitz [0050] – [0053], (Figure 14). Reitz expressly permits an average across all pixels of a detector or module when processing threshold scans, Reitz [0067], (Figure 16). Reitz also retains measured Z(n,m,gDAC,Sp) values and can reuse measurements for subsequent parameter calculations instead of measuring again, Reitz [0074], [0076], (Figures 17 & 20).
Reitz supplies an indexed measured dataset and its later read/use. Reitz’s reference to a defect map alone does not teach how abnormal pixels are identified, Reitz [0078].
Zhan teaches performing calibration scans under changing operating settings to identify abnormal responses for each pixel, then processing those acquired data and isolating bad pixels, Zhan [0032] – [0035], [0040] – [0042], (Figures 3 & 6). The tests expressly compare pixel counts under different flux settings, normalized bin counts under slab/filter conditions, and residual errors against statistical limits, Zhan [0047] – [0050]. In the spectral-count test, upper and lower limits are set around the mean of qualifying pixels, Zhan [0049]. The results are written as pixel-specific bad-pixel tables, including board, module, and pixel positions and protocol information, Zhan [0059], (Figures 4A – 5B). Zhan therefore supplies the problem-specific reason and operation of deriving bad-pixel identities from the calibration response data, rather than merely applying a preexisting defect map. Zhan bad-pixel table is the identification result; it is not substituted for the claimed stored input correspondence.
In view of the utility of diagnosing detector nonuniformity from reusable calibration measurements, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamakawa’s calibration calculator to retain and read the actual pixel/threshold/count samples as taught by Reitz, apply the calibration-data screening taught by Zhan, and implement Yamakawa’s mean/deviation bad-address calculation at selected threshold states. Under the uniform calibration illumination, the calculation would use the whole-array representative average, extending Reitz’s averaging of all pixels within a detector module to the uniformly illuminated array, and a selected statistical tolerance, rather than retaining module normalization as an unstated substitute.
The predictable result is a pixel-position list determined from the very stored parameter/count correspondence and written as abnormal pixel information. This uses compatible photon-counting measurements and existing programmed calibration hardware, avoids a second acquisition for defect screening, and supports reevaluation of detector degradation from retained measurements. Zhan’s protocol-sensitive testing supplies a concrete diagnostic benefit for the selected data relationship; Reitz supplies the storage/read implementation.
With regards to claim 3, Yamakawa modified teaches selection of threshold voltage as the control parameter, using the threshold command and sweep that change the above-threshold counts, Yamakawa [0056] – [0057], [0127] – [0128], (Figures 6, 15 & 16). The “threshold voltage or a tube voltage” alternative is met by the threshold embodiment.
With regards to claim 5, Yamakawa teaches the threshold-voltage member of the recited alternatives for the same cited threshold-controlled acquisition. The claim permits any one of threshold voltage, tube voltage, or radiation-quality-body type; it does not require all three to be used in one calibration.
With regards to claim 9, Yamakawa modified teaches per-pixel stored threshold/count profiles and associating a threshold calibration point with a known tube-voltage energy endpoint, Yamakawa [0127] – [0129], (Figures 15 – 17).
Yamakawa, however, does not expressly teach selecting “a minimum threshold voltage” for which the actual count read from storage “is smaller than a predetermined value.” Its fitted zero is not the minimum qualifying measured sample: Yamakawa expressly describes measured tails persisting past the fitted zero, Yamakawa [0130]. The independent stored-data defect-identification limitations remain supplied by the inherited combination.
Reitz teaches stored actual measurements for the threshold scan, permits scanning through the programmable threshold range in ascending as well as descending order, and uses low-count/near-zero calibration points while explaining the imprecision of exact zero and discrete threshold selection, Reitz [0051] – [0053], [0067] – [0068], [0075], (Figures 14, 16 & 17). The selected threshold is related to the known source voltage/energy endpoint for each pixel, Reitz [0063] – [0065], [0072] – [0073]. These teachings support a low-count endpoint measured from the retained samples, but they are not characterized as an express disclosure of the claimed minimum-selection algorithm.
In view of the utility of obtaining a reproducible discrete calibration endpoint despite low-count noise and a fitted curve that can differ from the measured tail, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the low-count endpoint in Yamakawa using Reitz’s retained ascending-threshold measurements: set the low-count criterion before the comparison, read the actual counts in increasing threshold order, and choose the first threshold whose count is below that criterion.
This selects the minimum qualifying measured threshold over the programmable range, even if isolated counts are nonmonotonic. The selected threshold would be output with the tube voltage already associated with the acquisition. The comparison and first-qualifying-value sequence is the application’s disclosed minimum algorithm for unit 58; programmed association supplies unit 59.
With regards to claim 15, Yamakawa teaches the claimed X-ray source, energy-sensitive pulse/peak detection, and pixel above-threshold counting for the reasons and pins stated for claim 1. Yamakawa modified calibration sequence irradiates, detects and acquires per-pixel counts, changes the threshold, and stores the response measurements, Yamakawa [0097] – [0104], [0127] – [0128], (Figures 10, 15 & 16). Yamakawa modified identifies and writes bad-pixel addresses, Yamakawa [0105], [0108] – [0112].
Yamakawa modified, however, does not expressly teach using the correspondence read out from storage as the input to the newly amended identification/output step.
Reitz teaches storing the threshold/count measurements and calculating from those stored measurements, Reitz [0050] – [0053], [0067], [0076].
Zhan teaches processing calibration-scan data to isolate bad pixels and record their positions, Zhan [0032] – [0035], [0040] – [0050], [0059], (Figures 3 – 6).
In view of the utility of using a single acquired calibration dataset for energy-response characterization and pixel-health diagnosis, it would have been obvious to perform Yamakawa’s irradiation and detection, store the indexed actual samples as taught by Reitz, then read those samples for the average/deviation screening and bad-position output motivated by Zhan. The storage precedes the identification; the output includes the position determined from that stored input. These are the actual claimed method relationships.
With regards to claim 17, Yamakawa modified teaches the threshold-voltage control-parameter alternative during the performed acquisition/storage method, Yamakawa [0056] – [0057], [0127] – [0128]. Claim 17 inherits the actual stored-data identification and position output addressed for claim 15.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa et al. (US 2014/0105370 A1) in view of Reitz et al. (US 2014/0185781 A1), Zhan et al. (US 2022/0342098 A1) and Ellengogen et al. (US 2002/0172324 A1).
With regards to claim 2, Yamakawa teaches the source, inspection-region transmission, energy-proportional pulse peaks, and above-threshold pixel counters mapped for claim 1, Yamakawa [0044] – [0046], [0053] – [0057], [0060] – [0063], (Figures 1, 5 – 7).
Yamakawa also teaches display 36, interface 31, programmed calculator 38, memories, and programmable threshold circuitry, Yamakawa [0068] – [0073], (Figure 1).
Yamakawa, however, does not expressly teach:
(1) the detector including the control parameter control unit that changes the parameter value;
(2) the external device storing the per-pixel parameter/count correspondence received through the input/output unit and identifying the abnormal-pixel number or position from that correspondence read out from its storage; and
(3) the external device generating information including that identification and outputting it “to the display unit via the input/output unit.” Each actor and each direction of data transfer is retained.
Reitz teaches programmable threshold scanning and changes to discriminator DAC settings, Reitz [0050] – [0053], (Figure 14). Reitz expressly describes sending the measured Z(n,m,gDAC,Sp) data to an external PC for calculation, with resulting threshold tables returned to the detector, and alternatively implementing calculation in an FPGA within the detector’s peripheral electronics, Reitz [0074].
This supplies a disclosed detector-local programmable platform, an external processing platform, and the raw-data/calculation/return separation. The claimed detector-local scan controller is the proposed allocation of the known threshold-scan program to that detector-local programmable circuitry, operating the detector latch and DAC described by Yamakawa [0056] – [0057].
Zhan teaches identifying bad pixels by processing the calibration data and recording their positions, Zhan [0032] – [0035], [0040] – [0050], [0059], (Figures 3 – 6).
Zhan also describes programmable processors and memory implementations and protocol-specific bad-pixel tables, Zhan [0059], [0077]. Applied to the stored actual samples and whole-array mean/deviation calculation discussed for claim 1, these teachings supply the bad-identification operation on the external processor, rather than only correction with an existing map.
Ellengogen teaches the local imaging controller, operator interface/display, and bidirectional connection with external systems, Ellengogen [0046] – [0047], [0055], (Figures 2 & 5). Ellengogen displays computed statistics/status information and returns externally computed information through the communication architecture, Ellengogen [0059], [0065], [0072], (Figures 8 & 10). Notice how Ellengogen supplies the local-display return route.
In view of the utility of synchronizing threshold changes with detector acquisition while permitting external calibration analysis and local service review, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to allocate Yamakawa’s programmed threshold-scan control to Reitz’s detector-peripheral programmable hardware, next to the threshold latches/DACs, and transmit the resulting pixel/parameter/count records through the interface to the external PC for storage and later analysis. Notice how the PC would read those actual stored records, perform the whole-array average/deviation bad-pixel screening motivated by Zhan, generate the position list, and return that information through Ellengogen’s bidirectional route for presentation on the local display. Local execution avoids a separate external command for each scan increment and keeps the setting and sampled count coordinated; the external platform performs the reusable analysis; the local operator can review the bad-pixel status during maintenance.
The predicted result preserves every claimed actor and direction. Detector-local controller programming, external storage/read/identification, and the returned local display output are affirmative modifications.
With regards to claim 4, Yamakawa teaches the threshold-voltage control-parameter alternative, Yamakawa [0056] – [0057], [0127] – [0128]. Claim 4 inherits the detector-local control and external storage/identification/display-return arrangement addressed for claim 2.
With regards to claim 6, Yamakawa teaches the threshold-voltage alternative among the three recited control-parameter types at the same cited threshold sweep. Claim 6 inherits the complete external-device combination discussed for claim 2; the alternatives do not require operation of every listed parameter.
With regards to claim 10, Yamakawa teaches stored per-pixel threshold response profiles but does not expressly teach the claimed minimum threshold satisfying the actual stored-count inequality, for the reasons stated for claim 9, Yamakawa [0127] – [0130].
Reitz teaches the ascending full-range stored threshold scan, low-count endpoint, known tube-voltage association, and discrete selection, Reitz [0051] – [0053], [0063] – [0068], [0072] – [0075].
In view of the utility of a reproducible measured low-count endpoint, it would have been obvious to read the externally stored samples in ascending threshold order, select the first threshold with a count below the preset criterion, and output that threshold in association with the known tube voltage. The stored samples remain at the external device as claim 2 requires; the specifying/output routines can read that storage through the interface or execute on the disclosed external processor. The inherited bad-pixel information is separately returned to the claimed local display. The minimum is established by the ordered actual sample selection, not by equating a fit with actual zero.
Claims 7, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa et al. (US 2014/0105370 A1) in view of Reitz et al. (US 2014/0185781 A1) and Zhan et al. (US 2022/0342098 A1), and further in view of Livne et al. (US 2011/0012014 A1).
With regards to claim 7, Yamakawa modified teaches the limitations inherited through claims 5 and 1 and the threshold-voltage selection, Yamakawa [0056] – [0057], [0127] – [0128].
Yamakawa, however, does not expressly teach the known-edge body, the stored-count discontinuous-inclination specifying operation, or the specified-threshold/known-edge calibration output.
Reitz supplies the actual stored/read count records, Reitz [0050] – [0053].
Zhan supplies the calibration-data screening relationship inherited from claim 1, Zhan [0032] – [0035], [0040] – [0050], [0059].
Livne teaches the known-edge body and per-pixel derivative location and energy/threshold association, Livne [0036] – [0047], [0051] – [0058], (Figures 5 – 7).
In view of the utility of adding a known physical energy anchor to the retained pixel response data, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to program Yamakawa’s calculator to read Reitz’s stored threshold/count samples, locate the edge using Livne’s significant second-count-derivative operation, and output the selected threshold in association with the known edge energy. The unit 58 algorithm in the application detects a significant second derivative using θ; Livne selects the strongest qualifying derivative feature near a known edge after noise smoothing. These are equivalent programmed ways to identify the same significant change in inclination and produce the same calibrated threshold. A noise-qualified edge maximum is an insubstantial selection variation, rather than replacement of the second-derivative operation with a generic spectral peak. Programmed mapping to known energy supplies unit 59.
With regards to claim 16, Yamakawa teaches the source, transmitted X-ray detection, energy-proportional pulse peak, and above-threshold pixel counters, Yamakawa [0044] – [0046], [0053] – [0057], [0060] – [0063], (Figures 1, 5 – 7).
Yamakawa also teaches a calibration method that irradiates, detects and acquires counts, sweeps thresholds, and stores per-pixel threshold responses, Yamakawa [0097] – [0104], [0127] – [0128], (Figures 10, 15 & 16).
Lastly, Yamakawa identifies bad pixels by count-deviation tests and writes their addresses, Yamakawa [0104] – [0112].
Yamakawa, however, does not expressly teach:
(1) setting up “a radiation quality variable body having a known absorption edge” in the inspection region,
(2) specifying, for each pixel, the threshold at which the inclination of the count read from storage with respect to the control parameter “changes discontinuously”,
(3) outputting that specified threshold “in association with the known absorption edge”, and
(4) identifying a number or position of an abnormal pixel “based on the stored correspondence relationship” and outputting information including the identified number or position.
Reitz teaches acquisition and storage of actual per-pixel counts indexed by discriminator threshold and calculation from those stored samples, including a representative average across the pixels and reuse of the measured dataset, Reitz [0050] – [0053], [0067], [0076], (Figures 14, 16 & 20).
This supplies the stored/read count input for the proposed edge and abnormal-pixel calculations, rather than storage of only a finished energy calibration table.
Zhan teaches using calibration scans with controlled conditions to identify abnormal pixel response and writing the resulting positions in bad-pixel tables, Zhan [0032] – [0035], [0040] – [0050], [0059], (Figures 3 – 6). Its slabs can cover the detector array and can include K-edge materials, Zhan [0065], [0070].
These teachings support screening the responses measured through a uniform calibration body. The mean/deviation implementation and corresponding bad-address output are the programmed route established for claim 1, applied here to the same retained scan samples used for the edge calculation.
Livne teaches placing material 136 with a known K-edge in the beam path, including barium at 37.4 keV, and measuring its transmitted radiation using the spectral detector’s per-pixel threshold/count response, Livne [0036] – [0044], (Figures 1, 3 – 5).
Livne discloses an accumulated count curve as a function of discriminator threshold and derives spectral/first-difference curves 606 and 608 from that count curve, Livne [0044] – [0045], (Figures 5 & 6). The true edge is located at the steepest decrease of that derived spectrum by finding its maximum negative first derivative, with smoothing for noise, Livne [0045].
Since the derived spectrum is the negative first derivative of accumulated above-threshold counts, this operation locates the significant positive second derivative of the original count/threshold curve. It therefore matches a change in that curve’s inclination; it is not merely the maximum of curve 606 or 608, which Livne places below the edge.
Livne teaches mapping the detected edge location to the stored known K-edge energy and using the result as a per-pixel calibration datapoint/table, Livne [0046] – [0047], (Figures 2 & 7). Notice that the disclosed sequence scans the known material, discriminates over thresholds, counts and accumulates, locates the edge, and maps edge energy to the corresponding threshold, Livne [0051] – [0058], (Figure 7).
The programmed implementation can use computer instructions and storage, Livne [0083]. This supplies both the specified threshold and its association with the known absorption edge.
In view of the utility of calibrating energy-discriminating pixels to a known physical absorption-edge anchor while diagnosing their response nonuniformity from the same acquisition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamakawa’s threshold calibration using Livne’s known-edge body and per-pixel derivative-based edge-location operation. The actual threshold/count samples would be retained and read as taught by Reitz. For each pixel, the processor would calculate the change in inclination from those read samples, select the significant edge location, and output its threshold with the known edge energy. It would also read that same stored body-scan correspondence at selected threshold states for the whole-array mean/deviation screening motivated by Zhan and output the resulting bad-pixel positions. This combines established calibration operations on compatible cumulative photon counts; it supplies a physical energy reference and a protocol-relevant pixel-health result without acquiring a second dataset.
With regards to claim 18, Yamakawa teaches the threshold-voltage alternative in the parameter list, Yamakawa [0056] – [0057], [0127] – [0128]. Claim 18 inherits the complete known-edge and abnormal-position method of claim 16; the threshold alternative retains the readout derivative operation and the identification from the same stored correspondence.
With regards to claim 19, Yamakawa teaches the method limitations inherited through claims 17 and 15 and the selected threshold-voltage parameter at the cited threshold scan but does not expressly teach the additional known-edge/discontinuous-inclination/associated-output steps.
Reitz supplies the stored measured count input, Reitz [0050] – [0053].
Zhan supplies calibration-data abnormal-pixel screening, Zhan [0032] – [0035], [0040] – [0050], [0059].
Livne teaches the added known-edge body and second count-derivative edge localization followed by per-pixel energy/threshold mapping, Livne [0036] – [0047], [0051] – [0058], (Figures 5 – 7).
In view of the utility of a physical energy reference for each pixel, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform those edge-location and mapping steps on the stored threshold/count samples in the inherited method, while retaining its stored-data bad-position output.
With regards to claim 20, Yamakawa modified teaches selection of threshold voltage, Yamakawa [0056] – [0057], [0127] – [0128]. The known-edge body, readout-based inclination specification, paired calibration output, and abnormal-pixel output are already inherited through claims 18 and 16 and are mapped in the claim 16 discussion.
Reitz supplies actual stored/read counts.
Zhan supplies calibration-data defect screening; and Livne supplies the known-edge derivative/mapping acts at the cited locations.
In view of the utility of improving the calibration, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Yamakawa with the teachings such as that taught by Reitz and Zhan.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa et al. (US 2014/0105370 A1) in view of Reitz et al. (US 2014/0185781 A1), Zhan et al. (US 2022/0342098 A1), and Ellengogen et al. (US 2002/0172324 A1), and further in view of Livne et al. (US 2011/0012014 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Yamakawa teaches the base detector and threshold scan identified for claims 2 and 6 but does not expressly teach the external-device arrangement or the added known-edge body, stored-count discontinuous-inclination specifying unit, and associated calibration output.
Reitz supplies the external stored-data/read arrangement and detector-local programmable platform, Reitz [0050] – [0053], [0074].
Zhan supplies calibration-data bad-position screening, Zhan [0032] – [0035], [0040] – [0050], [0059].
Ellengogen supplies the bidirectional route and return to the local display, Ellengogen [0046] – [0047], [0059], [0065], [0072]. Those inherited relationships remain unchanged.
Livne teaches the known-edge body, per-pixel significant second count-derivative edge location, and threshold/known-energy mapping, Livne [0036] – [0047], [0051] – [0058], (Figures 5 – 7).
In view of the utility of obtaining the known physical calibration anchor while retaining external storage and local diagnostic presentation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Livne’s edge calculation to the externally stored actual threshold/count dataset of the claim 6 combination and output the selected threshold with the known edge.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11–14 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 claims 11 – 14, the prior art of record fails to expressly disclose or render obvious that the X-ray inspection device further comprises that the control parameter is the tube voltage, the X-ray inspection device further comprising:
a control parameter value specifying unit that specifies, for each pixel, a maximum tube voltage at which the number of pulse signals detected by respective pixels, which is read out from the storage unit, is smaller than a predetermined value; and a calibration information output unit that outputs the tube voltage specified by the control parameter value specifying unit in association with the threshold voltage, as calibration information for respective pixels.
The closest art includes Yamakawa’s threshold sweep/fit, Reitz’s threshold scans at multiple source voltages and energy/threshold relation, and Hannemann’s multi-spectrum count calibration.
Reitz’s statement that a common threshold corresponds to different energies for different pixels does not establish selecting a maximum actual source-voltage sample under the claimed stored-count inequality, Reitz [0063] – [0068], [0072] – [0073].
Inverting a fitted endpoint relation does not prove that extremum of actual stored counts, particularly where measured noise or pileup persists, Yamakawa [0130]. Livne’s known-edge threshold operation and Zhan’s controlled-scan bad-pixel screening likewise do not supply the missing tube-voltage selection.
The added combination in claims 11–14 provides a pixel-specific calibration pair anchored to the greatest source-voltage setting that satisfies the measured low-count criterion at the detector threshold, while retaining the inherited stored-data abnormal-pixel identification.
Claims 11 - 14 provide pixel-by-pixel energy calibration using the stored tube-voltage/count measurements. Its contribution is the particular calibration point it selects—not merely varying the X-ray tube voltage.
For each pixel, it selects the highest tested tube voltage at which the detected pulse count remains below a predetermined value, then outputs that voltage paired with the detector’s threshold voltage. Because tube voltage sets the maximum available photon energy, this pairing helps establish what X-ray energy that threshold represents for that pixel.
The practical benefits are:
- Individual-pixel calibration: It characterizes differences among pixels rather than assuming one calibration applies uniformly to the detector.
- A useful boundary measurement: Technically, choosing the highest qualifying voltage locates the upper boundary of the low-count region, rather than selecting an arbitrary point far below the detection threshold.
- Tolerance for background noise: The disclosed method uses a small count criterion instead of requiring absolutely zero counts.
- Calibration without a radioactive reference source: The specification expressly identifies this safety benefit. The calibration information can also support subsequent gain adjustment of abnormal pixels.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Notice that any extension is tied to the time policy set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 case, however, will the statutory period for replying 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 Djura Malevic whose telephone number is 571.272.5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, it’s 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
