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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 15 are amended. Claims 9 and 12 are canceled. No claims are newly added. Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Claim Interpretation
In light of the amendments to claims 1, 3 and 4 addressing the use of means-plus-function limitations, the examiner withdraws the previous invocations of 35 USC § 112(f).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(a)
In light of the amendments, the applicant argues that the written description requirement has been met. The examiner respectfully disagrees. MPPE 2161 explains that, independent of the use of means-plus-function, computer-implemented inventions require explicit support in the written disclosure in the form of algorithms, mathematical equations, flowcharts, or explicit steps providing detailed support that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The applicant has not point to where said limitations are supported, and the specification does not appear to provide said detailed support.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b)
The applicant argues that, in light of the amendment to claim 1 of the phrase “…saturated during irradiation from the radiation source”, that the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is overcome. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment as filed does not address the previously raised issue regarding the clarity requirement of the scope of the claim. The claim fails to make clear what specific structural features support the claimed result (“at least one of the radiation source or the detector unit is configured such that the second detector element is not saturated for sections of the recording area in which the first detector element is saturated during irradiation from the radiation source”). The amendment does not address this issue. Furthermore, the applicant has not pointed to what specific features define the claimed result, and it does not appear that the written disclosure supports all possible solutions of the result, of which all possible solutions would be included. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the previous rejection under 35 USC § 112(b).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §§ 102 & 103
In light of the amendments to claim 1, a new rejection is made, further in view of GAGNON et al. (US 20200170590 A1). See the rejection below.
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, 10-11 and 13-20 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:
“…at least one of the radiation source or the detector unit is configured such that the second detector element is not saturated for sections of the recording area in which the first detector element is saturated during irradiation…”.
MPEP 2173.05(g) explains:
“[W]hen claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)…Without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010).”
(1) A clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the instant claim limitation is not apparent. (2) The claim language fails to set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention as the claim merely describes a result achieved. (3) One of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim, since a result encompasses any and all means of achieving the result. The balance of claims are rejected based on dependence.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “processing circuitry configured to cause the imaging system to…record…and extract…”. The instant claim limitation is a computer-implemented invention, of which MPEP 2161 requires explicit support in the written disclosure in the form of algorithms, mathematical equations, flowcharts, or explicit steps providing detailed support that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. However, the supporting disclosure fails to provide the requisite details supporting the claimed invention. While it is acknowledged that Figure 4 appears to illustrate a flowchart of the computer-implemented invention, the Figure is absent detail beyond generic identifiers (numbers and letters corresponding steps). The corresponding specification provides no further detail beyond mere generalizations or repeating the language of the claims (Specification, [0048-0052]). The balance of claims are rejected based on dependence.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TKACZYK et al. (US 20070206721 A1) in view of GAGNON et al. (US 20200170590 A1).
Regarding claim 1, TKACZYK discloses an imaging system configured to record projection images, the imaging system (CT system 10; FIG 2) comprising:
a detector unit (detector assembly 18);
a radiation source (x-ray source 14; [0065]),
wherein the detector unit includes two detector elements arranged one behind the other, both of the two detector elements cover a same recording area, the two detector elements including a first detector element and a second detector element (FIG 5-6; first and second semiconductor layers 62/64 with respective pixels 65; [0080-0083]),
at least one of the radiation source or the detector unit is configured such that the second detector element is not saturated for sections of the recording area in which the first detector element is saturated during irradiation from the radiation source (first and second detector layer thicknesses are selected such that the second layer will saturate at a flux rate at 14x higher than a 3.0 mm thick first layer. As the incident flux rate increases, the second layer will saturate or over-range at an x-ray flux more than the x-ray flux required to saturate a 3.0 mm thick layer; [0084]); and
processing circuitry configured to cause the imaging system to:
record a first data set of the first detector element and to record a second data set of the second detector element such that the first data set and the second data set are separable from one another (DAS 32 receives first layer data and second layer data; [0065-70, 0088]).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1211
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 25 of TKACZYK shows a dual layer CT detector with processing for saturation correction
TKACZYK discloses processing circuitry further configured to perform, at high count rates above which the first layer is saturated, the step of only counting responses from a second layer weighted by its fractional absorption is assigned to that projection for each pixel, such that no signal value is assigned to the first data set and corresponding pixels; [0085]). TKACZYK does not disclose the processing circuitry configured to extract a position and signal path on a surface of a recorded subject from the second data set and determine a corresponding signal path from the first data set using the position and signal path from the second data set. In the same field of endeavor, GAGNON discloses a performing a dose calculation embodiment where a kV scan of narrow and low dose beam for finding the skin-air interface at each angle such that a pCT can be properly deformed to the body outline at the time of each fraction ([0166]). In light of the teachings and benefits of GAGNON, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of TKACZYK.
Regarding claim 2, TKACZYK discloses wherein the radiation source is an X-ray source or a particle radiation source ([0065]).
Regarding claim 3, TKACZYK discloses the invention further comprising: a correction unit configured to correct at least one of the data sets ([0085, 0126-0127]; FIG. 25).
Regarding claim 4, TKACZYK discloses the invention further comprising: an image generating unit configured to generate a projection image, the projection image having a first area generated using data from the first data set and a second area generated using data from the second data set (image reconstructor 34 receives projection data from detector 20; logical switch 262 determines whether to transfer data from first detector layer, second detector layer, or both to image chain 264 to generate a projection image comprising a combination or signals for pixels in different layers; [0082, 0085, 0126]).
Regarding claim 5, TKACZYK discloses wherein the second detector element is configured to receive higher energy radiation than the first detector element (second detector layer is thicker and thus configured to receive higher energy radiation than thinner first detector layer; [0084, 0094, 0124]).
Regarding claim 6, TKACZYK discloses wherein the first detector element is an absorber (direct conversion material; [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, TKACZYK discloses method for recording projection images with the imaging system of claim 1, the method comprising:
irradiating a body part of a patient with the radiation source (x-ray source irradiates patient 22; [0065]);
forming the first data set by reading the first detector element and the second data set by reading the second detector element; and
generating a projection image from the first data set and the second data set, wherein image values in the projection image in which the first detector element was saturated during reading are based on data from the second data set ([0084-0085]).
Regarding claim 8, TKACZYK discloses wherein a first area of the projection image that shows the body part is generated from the first data set and a second area of the projection image is generated from the second data set or a combination of the first data set and the second data set ([0084-0085]).
Regarding claim 10, TKACZYK discloses wherein at least one of the first data set or the second data set is corrected with regard to geometric effects related to dual-layer technology (discriminator 186 is designed to exclude those photons having an energy level corresponding to noise in the system, wherein energy discriminating information derived through readout electronics 256/258 from first and second detector layers is applied to energy binning architecture; [0114, 0127]).
Regarding claim 11, TKACZYK discloses wherein the first data set and the second data set are spectrally corrected (energy discriminating information derived through readout electronics 256/258 from first and second detector layers, wherein discriminators exclude photons having energy corresponding to noise in the system; FIG 25; [0114, 0127]).
Regarding claim 13, TKACZYK discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising commands that, when executed by a system, cause the system to perform the method of claim 7 ([0126]).
Regarding claim 14, TKACZYK discloses wherein the imaging system is a medical technology imaging system ([0065]).
Regarding claim 15, TKACZYK discloses wherein the correction unit is configured to perform at least one of: noise suppression, pixel registration, correction of cone beam enlargement, or spectral correction (discriminator 186 is designed to exclude photons having an energy corresponding to noise; [0114]).
Regarding claim 16, TKACZYK discloses forming a composite image of first and second detector layers, but does not specify the first area of the projection image is a central area and the second area of the projection image is a peripheral area ([0106]). However, TKACZYK discloses the peripheral detectors of a detector assembly encounter higher flux conditions than centrally disposed detectors, and can thus be constructed with over-ranging self-correctability whereas the more centrally located detectors are not ([0086]). In light of the teachings of TKACZYK, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify a first area of the projection image as a central area and a second area of the projection image as a peripheral area, in order to mitigate saturation effects in the image.
Regarding claim 17, TKACZYK discloses the first area of the projection image is generated using the data from the first data set and the data from the second data set (self-correctability algorithm determined high count rate above which the first layer is saturated, only the count response from a second layer weighted by its fractional absorption is assigned to that projection for each pixel, where at low count rate, a weighted sum of the response from both layers is assigned to the projection for each pixel; [0085]).
Regarding claim 18, TKACZYK wherein image data for which the first detector element was saturated is reconstructed using data from the second data set ([0085]).
Regarding claim 19, TKACZYK discloses wherein a detection layer of the first detector or a surface in or on the detection layer is configured such that that the second detector element does not become saturated with a predetermined radiation intensity for image recording (an example of a CT detector constructed to have a first layer absorbing 92% of incident x-ray flux and a second layer absorbing 7%; [0016, 0084]).
Regarding claim 20, TKACZYK discloses wherein the detector unit includes an absorber plate between the first detector element and the second detector element, and the absorber plate at least partially covers the second detector element (detector system may comprise three layers, wherein the second layer acts as an absorber plate covers the third layer; FIG 15; [0101-0102]).
Pertinent References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jacob et al. (US 20180177481 A1) discloses a self-calibrating CT detector which performs energy correction ([0008]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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