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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to show any labeling indicating what is being shown in Figure 5 other than stating that Figure 5 is an exemplary calibration curve depicting a plurality of operating points for a pre-patient collimator. It is not understood exactly what “operating points” are and in reference to what. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, it appears that “the” should be inserted after “connected to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, there appears to be a typo where “selected the” should perhaps be “the selected”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, it appears that “an operating point” should perhaps be “the operating point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears that “a” should be inserted before “pediatric”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears that “a” should be inserted before “scout”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, it appears that “a pre-computed” should perhaps be “the pre-computed”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 “at least one processor” in line 3. Line 4 also recites “at least one processor”. It is not known if this is the same “at least one processor” as recited in line 3 or a second “at least one processor”.
Claim 1 recites, in line 7, “dynamically configuring a collimator aperture of the system…” The recitation “dynamically configuring” is not understood. Does this mean that the collimator aperture is dynamically configured/changed during an imaging scan, or does it mean the collimator aperture is configured once right before the scan starts. It is not known for sure what is being claimed. The metes and bounds are indeterminable.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the elements which make up “a collimator aperture”. “A collimator aperture” by itself is not a structural recitation since it just refers to an aperture/hole and not the structure which defines the aperture.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “a processor” in line 2. It is not known if this is the same processor as recited in either of claim 1, line 3, claim 1, line 4, or a different processor altogether.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each collimation process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is not known if a collimation process refers to a single scan (collimator configured once before the start of a scan and remaining unchanged during duration of the scan) or more than one collimation process in a single scan (collimator aperture dynamically changed more than once during the same scan). The metes and bounds of this claim limitation are indeterminable.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "may be further optimized and controlled" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites “searching an operating point, by a processor, within a reliability range”. It is not known what exactly is “an operating point”. The disclosure does not provide a definition of what this is or what this refers to other than to state that Figure 5 is an exemplary calibration curve depicting a plurality of operating points for a pre-patient collimator. What are the units for operating points? The metes and bounds are indeterminable.
Claim 10 recites “searching an operating point, by a processor, within a reliability range”. But it is not known how the operating point is related to “implementing the collimator aperture” and/or if it is related at all.
Claim 10 recites “dynamically configuring a collimator aperture, by the processor, based on the selected X-ray dose efficiency prior to a scan; and implementing the collimator aperture, by the processor, during an x-ray exposure.” This is confusing because it would appear that the collimator aperture is configured prior to a scan, and then dynamically configured during an x-ray exposure. It is not understood how a collimator is dynamically configured before a scan. The metes and bounds are indeterminable.
Claims 11-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the dose efficiency component" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the subject" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how is “a model of a subject” used in the method of claim 10.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the computing device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the subject" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “enabling an actuating device/collimator”. It is uncertain what “an actuating device/collimator” is, and how it is enabled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David J 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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights