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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026 was being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescatore et al., (US 2004/0202288 A1) in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2017/0238897 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '897.
With regard to claim 1, Pescatore teaches "calibrating an x-ray device" by geometrically calibrating a radiological imaging device before three-dimensional reconstruction (Pescatore [0004]-[0006], [0010]-[0013]);
"by performing a ... calibration routine ... to measure calibration parameters of the x-ray device that describe at least mechanics of the x-ray device" by imaging a calibration object, calculating a projection matrix for each calibration position, and determining six extrinsic translation/rotation parameters and five intrinsic source-detector parameters that describe the device position in space and the source-detector projection geometry (Pescatore [0023]-[0028], [0030]-[0035], Figs. 1-3 and 5);
"imaging a volume by projecting an x-ray beam through the volume onto a detector based on a desired scanning trajectory or the calibration parameters to produce a plurality of x-ray images" by rotating the C-arm about the patient and acquiring projection images at selected source positions for which the calibrated or calculated projection geometry is known (Pescatore [0002], [0006], [0029]-[0037], [0042]-[0045], Figs. 3-6);
"generating an estimated projection geometry corresponding to the imaging using the calibration parameters and the desired scanning trajectory" by estimating geometrical acquisition parameters for additional positions distributed along the continuous source trajectory, deriving corresponding projection matrices by interpolation or extrapolation from the calibrated parameters, and permitting any number of additional positions anywhere along the source trajectory (Pescatore [0035]-[0042], [0046]-[0050], [0055]-[0056], Figs. 4-6); and
"generating a reconstruction of the volume corresponding to the plurality of x-ray images using the estimated projection geometry" by reconstructing a three-dimensional model from the acquired images and the projection matrices associated with those images (Pescatore [0029], [0043]-[0045], [0050], Figs. 5-6).
Pescatore, however, does not expressly teach that the calibration routine is "generalized" and "applicable to any rotation center of the x-ray device" as broadly recited, nor does Pescatore expressly teach generating the reconstruction using both the estimated projection geometry and "a motion artefact compensation."
Siewerdsen '897 teaches a scan-specific self-calibration framework that estimates the complete projection geometry for each acquired projection, including intrinsic and extrinsic parameters and a corresponding projection matrix, and then reconstructs the volume using the resulting projection matrices (Siewerdsen '897 [0003]-[0006], [0009]-[0013], [0035]-[0040], [0042]-[0047], [0071]-[0079], Figs. 2-3 and 12).
The framework is not confined to one predetermined circular orbit: Siewerdsen '897 applies it to adjustable-geometry systems, custom-designed and non-reproducible trajectories, and non-circular trajectories, including a saddle-shaped orbit for which conventional pre-scan calibration may be irreproducible or infeasible (Siewerdsen '897 [0003]-[0005], [0035]-[0037], [0054], [0071], [0082]-[0083], [0091], [0096], [0101], [0103]-[0104], Figs. 1, 12, 14A-14B, and 16A-18J).
Siewerdsen '897 further teaches using the self-calibrated projection geometry to compensate for unknown geometry, residual geometric error, system jitter, and rigid patient motion, thereby reducing blur, geometric distortion, streak artefact, and motion artefact in the reconstructed volume (Siewerdsen '897 [0003], [0035]-[0037], [0050]-[0054], [0100], [0103], Figs. 6 and 18A-18J).
In view of the utility of retaining Pescatore's mechanics-based calibration while extending that calibration to selected imaging geometries and correcting scan-specific deviations during reconstruction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Pescatore's calibrated projection-geometry framework with Siewerdsen '897's projection-by-projection self-calibration and motion-compensation teachings.
Notice that Pescatore already calculates projection geometry for any number of additional positions along a desired source trajectory without requiring a calibration acquisition at each such position, while Siewerdsen '897 teaches estimating the actual scan-specific geometry for circular, non-circular, adjustable, custom-designed, and non-reproducible trajectories.
A skilled artisan therefore would have understood the combined framework to be applicable when a different rotation center or corresponding scan geometry is selected, without importing an unclaimed requirement that every conceivable rotation center be calibrated simultaneously. The modification would have predictably improved reconstruction accuracy and image quality by using estimated projection geometry while compensating residual geometry, system-jitter, and rigid relative-pose errors.
With regard to claim 3, Pescatore teaches the additional limitation that the calibration parameters include extrinsic parameters describing component position and movement in space and intrinsic parameters describing source/detector projection geometry and relative component relationships (Pescatore [0025]-[0028], [0034], [0056], Figs. 1-2).
With regards to claim 5, Pescatore modified discloses the claim invention according to claim 3. Claim 5 further recites that "the generalized calibration routine includes imaging a calibration body with known geometric properties to measure the intrinsic calibration parameters."
Pescatore teaches "imaging a calibration body" by positioning and imaging a calibration phantom ("ghost image") between the x-ray source and detector during the calibration phase (Pescatore [0005], [0023], [0030]-[0033], Figs. 1 and 3);
Pescatore further teaches that the calibration body has "known geometric properties", because its markers occupy known three-dimensional positions and known spatial relationships (Pescatore [0005], [0023], [0032]); and
Lastly, Pescatore shows how the body is imaged "to measure the intrinsic calibration parameters" because the known three-dimensional marker positions and their two-dimensional projected positions are used to calculate projection matrices and determine the five intrinsic parameters defining source-detector projection geometry (Pescatore [0025]-[0028], [0032]-[0034], Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 7, Pescatore teaches three-dimensional reconstruction generally but fails to expressly disclose CBCT, panoramic, or cephalometric output.
Siewerdsen '897 teaches the additional limitation of generating a cone-beam computed tomography volume (Siewerdsen '897 [0003]-[0004], [0033]-[0038], [0050]-[0055], Figs. 4A-6). The remaining limitations are met for at least the reasons discussed above.
In view of the utility, to improve image quality and detail, implement lower dose, 3D views, or cost effectiveness, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Pescatore to include the teachings such as that taught by Siewerdsen '897.
With regards to claim 8, Pescatore teaches reconstruction using projection geometry such as that already expressed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the motion artefact compensation corrects artefacts in the reconstruction caused by errors in estimating the estimated projection geometry.
Siewerdsen '897 teaches that inaccurate or non-reproducible projection geometry, system jitter, and rigid patient motion produce blur, distortion, streaking, and related artifacts in reconstructed images, and teaches estimating corrected projection geometry for the acquired views and using that corrected geometry in reconstruction to reduce those artifacts (Siewerdsen '897 [0003]-[0006], [0033]-[0038], [0051]-[0055], Figs. 6 and 16A-18B). Thus, the compensation is implemented through corrected geometry used by the reconstruction, rather than being equated with calibration alone. The remaining limitations are met for at least the reasons discussed above.
In view of the utility, to improve image quality, image details and precision and the like, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Pescatore to include the teachings such as that taught by Siewerdsen '897.
With regard to claim 12, Pescatore teaches an x-ray imaging apparatus implementing the reusable calibration and reconstruction framework discussed with respect to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose processing circuitry programmed to perform a generalized calibration routine applicable to any rotation center, generating estimated projection geometry based on mechanics related calibration parameters and a scanned trajectory and a reconstructing using motion artefact compensation along with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Pescatore supplies the reusable mechanics-parameter calibration for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Siewerdsen '897 teaches an x-ray imaging system having programmed processors and stored routines that acquire projections, estimate projection-specific geometry, generate or update projection matrices, and reconstruct a volumetric image using the corrected geometry (Siewerdsen '897 [0008]-[0013], [0033]-[0038], [0044]-[0055], Figs. 1-3).
The programmed apparatus therefore performs the corresponding operations rather than relying on generic computer hardware alone.
In view of the utility of using a processor for reusable mechanics calibration while correcting scan-specific deviations for the individual acquired views in terms of operation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Pescatore to include the teachings such as that taught by Siewerdsen '897, to include programmed processors and stored routines to perform the methods as already stated for claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, Pescatore teaches the corresponding intrinsic and extrinsic calibration parameters recited in apparatus form (Pescatore [0025]-[0028], [0034], [0056]).
With regard to claim 15, Pescatore teaches the corresponding known-geometry calibration body recited in apparatus form (Pescatore [0005], [0023], [0030]-[0034], Figs. 1-3).
With regards to claim 16, Pescatore modified teaches the claimed limitations according to claim 12 but fails to expressly disclose wherein the computer program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the x-ray device to perform operations comprising: correcting, by the motion artefact compensation, artefacts in the reconstruction caused by errors in estimating the estimated projection geometry.
Siewerdsen '897 teaches the corresponding programmed operation of estimating corrected projection geometry for acquired views and using that geometry in reconstruction to reduce blur, distortion, streaking, jitter-related artifact, and rigid-motion artifact attributable to inaccurate geometry or relative pose and the like. (Siewerdsen '897 [0003]-[0006], [0033]-[0038], [0051]-[0055], Figs. 6 and 16A-18B). The remaining limitations are met for at least the reasons discussed above.
In view of the utility, to improve image quality, image details and precision and the like by creating the corresponding programmed operation as noted above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Pescatore to include the teachings such as that taught by Siewerdsen '897.
With regards to claim 18, Pescatore supplies the reusable mechanics-parameter calibration for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose computer readable storage medium as claimed.
Siewerdsen '897 teaches programmed execution of projection acquisition, projection-specific geometry estimation, projection-matrix generation or correction, and volumetric reconstruction, and expressly contemplates storage of the executable routines on computer-readable media (Siewerdsen '897 [0008]-[0013], [0033]-[0038], [0044]-[0055]).
The medium therefore stores instructions causing performance of the corresponding operations, rather than merely reciting a conventional medium in the abstract.
In view of the utility, to apply the necessary instructions as need, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Pescatore to include the teachings such as that taught by Siewerdsen '897, which is to include a non-transitory computer readable medium programmed for applying methods as those already discussed with respect to claim 1.
With regards to claims 19 and 20, refer to the rejections to claims 7, 13 and 18.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescatore et al., (US 2004/0202288 A1) in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2017/0238897 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '897 and further in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2020/0085404 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '404.
With regards to claim 2, Pescatore and Siewerdsen '897 teach the inherited limitations for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Pescatore and Siewerdsen '897, however, do not expressly state that the trajectory of the generalized calibration routine is different from the trajectory of any predefined rotation centers.
To address this deficiency, Siewerdsen '404 teaches calibration hardware and software capable of determining view-specific geometry over circular, strongly noncircular, sinusoidal, and multi-arc trajectories without requiring the calibration fixture to be tailored to one orbit shape or one principal axis (Siewerdsen '404 [0024]-[0030], [0034]-[0053], Figs. 1B-3B, 5A-5B, and 10A-10C).
In view of the utility of using one calibration path to identify geometry over a broader kinematic workspace instead of duplicating each clinical scan-center trajectory, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select Siewerdsen '404's strongly noncircular, orbit-independent calibration path as a path separate from the predefined patient-scan rotation-center trajectories used by the Pescatore/Siewerdsen '897 system. The modification would predictably increase the diversity of poses sampled during calibration and permit one calibration routine to support multiple selectable scan centers.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescatore et al., (US 2004/0202288 A1) in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2017/0238897 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '897 and further in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2020/0085404 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '404.
With regards to claim 4, Pescatore modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 3, however; Pescatore modified does not expressly teach configuring the generalized calibration trajectory to include the claimed noncircular segment for measuring extrinsic calibration parameters.
Siewerdsen '404 teaches calibration routine by calibrating along strongly noncircular, sinusoidal, and multi-arc trajectories and estimates source position and detector orientation for each acquired view, i.e., extrinsic geometry, together with intrinsic geometry (Siewerdsen '404 [0007]-[0010], [0024]-[0034], [0037]-[0053], Figs. 2B-3B, 5A-5B, 10A-10C).
In view of the utility of noncircular calibration motion for sampling additional degrees of freedom and obtaining view-specific source/detector pose, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Siewerdsen '404's noncircular calibration segment in the Pescatore modified calibration routine, thereby predictably improving estimation of the extrinsic parameters over a broader range of device motion.
With regards to claim 14, refer to the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescatore et al., (US 2004/0202288 A1) in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2017/0238897 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '897 and further in view of Claus et al., (US 2007/0122020 A1).
With regards to claim 6, Pescatore modified teach the claimed invention according to claim 5, however; Pescatore modified do not expressly teach that the generalized calibration routine comprises no movement of the x-ray device while the intrinsic parameters are used to generate the estimated projection geometry.
Claus teaches phantom-based estimation of imaging geometry from known marker locations and observed marker projections and teaches imaging configurations in which the x-ray tube and/or detector remain stationary while the calibration object is translated or rotated. Claus further represents the resulting calibrated geometry by projection parameters or matrices used by the imaging system (Claus [0003], [0025]-[0039], [0051]-[0057], Figs. 1-5).
In view of the utility of isolating intrinsic source-detector relationships without introducing additional device-pose variables, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform the intrinsic portion of the Pescatore modified calibration while the source and detector remain fixed, such as that taught by Claus, and to use those measured intrinsic parameters in the subsequent projection-matrix generation. The modification would predictably simplify intrinsic calibration while preserving the later use of those parameters for moving scan trajectories.
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescatore et al., (US 2004/0202288 A1) in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2017/0238897 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '897 and further in view of Fiedler et al., (US 2007/0015986 A1).
With regards to claim 9, Pescatore modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, however; Pescatore modified does not expressly disclose using position encoders or light barriers to obtain additional position information about x-ray-device components and using that information in the estimated projection geometry.
Fiedler teaches a C-arm having fixed and moving angle sensors, including optical light barriers, that generate rotation-position-related signals and supply the control system with direct angular-position information for projection acquisition (Fiedler [0007]-[0009], [0012]-[0015], Fig. 1, claims 4-7 and 11-13).
In view of the utility of using measured rather than merely commanded component position, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Fiedler's encoders or optical light barriers in the Pescatore modified system and substitute the measured angular or component position for nominal trajectory position in the projection-matrix calculation.
The modification would predictably reduce angular misregistration and geometry-related reconstruction artifacts.
With regards to claim 17, refer to the rejections of claims 9 and 12.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescatore et al., (US 2004/0202288 A1) in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2017/0238897 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '897 and further in view Schildkraut et al., (US 2022/0071578 A1).
With regards to claim 10, Pescatore modified teach the claimed according to claim 1, however; Pescatore modified do not expressly teach selecting the desired scanning trajectory by taking into account an image-quality consideration for achieving a predetermined image quality.
Schildkraut teaches calculating an x-ray source and detector trajectory that minimizes reconstruction artifacts and optimizes image quality for a selected region of interest and then scanning and reconstructing using that calculated trajectory (Schildkraut [0003]-[0008], [0013]-[0016], Figs. 1-3).
In view of the utility of trajectory selection for reducing artifacts and achieving an intended reconstruction quality in a region of interest, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the desired trajectory in the Pescatore modified system according to Schildkraut's predetermined image-quality objective, thereby predictably improving the reconstructed image quality.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescatore et al., (US 2004/0202288 A1) in view of Siewerdsen et al., (US 2017/0238897 A1), hereinafter Siewerdsen '897 and further in view of Schildkraut et al., (US 2022/0071578 A1) and Fiedler et al., (US 2007/0015986 A1).
With regards to claim 11, Pescatore modified teaches the claimed limitations according to claim 10, however; Pescatore modified do not expressly identify the image-quality consideration as a speed consideration or a sensor-timing consideration.
Schildkraut teaches calculating an x-ray source and detector trajectory that minimizes reconstruction artifacts and optimizes image quality for a selected region of interest and then scanning and reconstructing using that calculated trajectory (Schildkraut [0003]-[0008], [0013]-[0016], Figs. 1-3).
Fiedler teaches that C-arm acceleration, braking, rotation-speed fluctuation, and recording-frequency fluctuation produce unequal angular spacing and artifacts, and teaches triggering projection acquisition directly at selected angular positions so image acquisition is not adversely affected by speed or timing variation (Fiedler [0002]-[0006], [0012]-[0016], Fig. 1).
In view of the utility of coordinating acquisition timing with actual device position to preserve angular sampling and reconstruction quality despite speed variation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include Fiedler's speed and sensor-timing considerations when selecting and executing Schildkraut's image-quality-driven trajectory in the Pescatore modified system, thereby predictably maintaining the intended image quality.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
