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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an acquisition unit configured to acquire information,” and “an x-ray imaging condition determination unit configured to determine each of x-ray imaging conditions,” in claim 1, and “an image reconstruction unit configured to reconstruct an x-ray dual energy tomographic image,” as in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the “acquisition unit,” the “x-ray imaging condition determination unit,” and the “image reconstruction unit,” are interpreted to include the structure of a central processing unit, as disclosed in ¶¶ 14 and 32 of the originally filed specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–2, and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno, WIPO Publication No. WO 2016/147844 A1 (with reference to the provided machine English language translation, herein “Konno”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, with substantive differences between the claims noted in curly brackets {}, and with claim 1 as exemplary, Konno teaches {an X-ray CT apparatus (Konno pages 3–4, X-ray CT apparatus shown in fig. 1) comprising an X-ray generation device (Konno page 3, fig. 1, X-ray source 100 and irradiation X-ray spectrum changing unit 111 which changes (thus is connected to and includes) an X-ray filter) and an X-ray detector configured to detect an X-ray emitted from the X-ray generation device and passing through an inspection object (Konno fig. 1, pages 3–4, X-ray detector 104 in an X-ray irradiation range that includes a subject 102 being x-rayed (thus X-ray emitted from 100 passing through subject 102), where page 4, ¶5 teaches the x-rays entering the x-ray detector by way of a detection layer 401, and being detected therefor), and collecting X-ray projection data (Konno page 3, second full paragraph, fig. 1, signal collection unit 108 shown just below and connected to the detector 104, thus considering the signal collection unit and its associated operations to be part of the detector 104, the detector also acquires projection data) of at least two types of X-ray energies to reconstruct a dual energy image (Konno bottom of page 2–top of page 3, X-ray CT apparatus is a multi-energy apparatus, thus at least two types of X-ray energies, the multiple energy ranges used to create projection data which is used to create a reconstructed image), the X-ray CT apparatus further – claim 1 / A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process – claim 8 / An information processing method causing a computer to execute a process – claim 9 (Konno page 4, first full paragraph, system including a memory and storage unit with programs stored in the storage unit for loading and executing by a CPU) / } comprising:
{an acquisition unit (Konno page 4, ¶1, central processing unit, page 5, fig. 6, data processing performed by the calculation unit 105) configured to – claim 1 only} acquire inspection object information including a physical quantity and physical property information of the inspection object (Konno page 6, next to last paragraph, and page 7, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs, multi-energy calculation processing using (thus acquiring) calculation data including subject characteristics including reference substances ingested by the subject, the reference substances affecting the physical property of mass absorption by the subject, and that there are two (physical quantity) of the reference substances ingested by the subject with each reference substance having its own mass absorption coefficient), and X-ray characteristic information of an X-ray spectrum, an X-ray filter, and the X-ray detector (Konno page 7, first spectrum and second spectrum of the x-ray spectra with respective energies (characteristic information of an X-ray spectrum (its energy)), the number of detected photons by the X-ray detection element (characteristic information of the X-ray detector), and page 16, second embodiment section, teaching that an imaging condition determination unit further determines (acquires) imaging conditions including the presence or absence of a an x-ray filter); and
{an X-ray imaging condition determination unit configured to – claim 1 only} determine each of X-ray imaging conditions for collecting the X-ray projection data of the at least two types of X-ray energies emitted from the X-ray generation device (Konno page 16, imaging condition determination unit, where page 17, second full paragraph teaches it as part of the calculation unit 105, thus a central processing unit, which determines imaging conditions using projection data for the first and second irradiation x-ray energy spectrums (the at least two types of X-ray energies)), on a basis of the inspection object information (Konno page 16 last full paragraph, and page 17 first full paragraph, imaging conditions are according to the subject (inspection object information), and specifically photon absorption by the subject, where page 7, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs teach that absorption of x-rays (photons) by the subject is determined by the reference substances ingested by the subject) and the X-ray characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum, the X-ray filter, and the X-ray detector acquired by the acquisition unit (Konno page 16, imaging conditions are those such as presence or absence of X-ray filter, and uses projection data using the different energies of the X-ray spectrums (characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum), and page 17 second full paragraph, teaching the image condition determination unit calculating the ratio of the number of X-ray photons detected in the low energy range and the high energy range respectively, using the configuration of the X-ray CT apparatus of fig. 1, where page 5, 5th full paragraph teaches that the number of high and low energy photons is detected and calculated by the X-ray detector (thus characteristic information of the X-ray detector)).
In the above rejection rationale, the teachings from the second embodiment are combined with the teachings from the first embodiment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (herein “PHOSITA”) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first embodiment of Konno to include the imaging condition determination unit of the second embodiment of Konno at least because doing so would allow for determining optimal imaging conditions so that x-ray photons in the energy range deficient in the X-ray of the first spectrum are supplemented by the X-ray of the second spectrum thus improving SNR and CNR of the imaging. See Konno page 18, 3rd paragraph.
Regarding claim 2, Konno teaches wherein the X-ray imaging condition determination unit determines the each of the X-ray imaging conditions for collecting the X-ray projection data of the at least two types of energies emitted from the X-ray generation device by using a simulation method determined in advance or using a method of referring to an information table based on a simulation, on a basis of the inspection object information and the X-ray characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum, the X-ray filter, and the X-ray detector acquired by the acquisition unit (given that the claim as recited with the alternative “or” only requiring one of the two listed “by using” options for determining the each of the x-ray imaging conditions, Konno page 28, first–third full paragraphs, teaches a simulation result formed is passed to the imaging condition control unit (thus the determining the each of the x-ray imaging conditions based on the simulation result), where the simulation producing the simulation result is via a method that simulates multi-energy imaging of a model subject stored in the storage unit based on the subject information input via the input unit, and an energy range to be used for the simulation).
Regarding claim 6, Konno teaches further comprising an image reconstruction unit configured to reconstruct an X-ray dual energy tomographic image on a basis of X-ray projection data detected by the X-ray detector (Konno page 11 under the first modification of first embodiment section, a dual energy image is created using the reconstructed image of a reference substance, where page 12, last paragraph into page 13, and page 13, full paragraphs 3–4, teach that a reconstructed image results from the processing of the multi/dual energy image processing which uses projection data, and page 1, last paragraph teaching that the reconstructed images discussed are tomographic images), wherein the image reconstruction unit obtains a plurality of pieces of substance density projection data on a basis of X-ray projection data of the at least two types of X-ray energies that has been collected (Konno page 12, 2nd full paragraph and last paragraph which continues onto page 13, the density of the reference material is determined using the values from the conventional reconstructed image in each of the first and second spectra (two types of X-ray energies collected), where page 11, last paragraph continuing onto page 12 teaches that conventional reconstructed image is determined using projection data, thus on the basis of), and reconstructs an X-ray dual energy tomographic image including at least one of a plurality of substance density tomographic images or a monochromatic tomographic image (given that the claims recite “at least one of,” Konno page 13, 1st–4th full paragraph, the resulting reconstruction image as a monochromatic x-ray image is created for the reference material 1, and similarly a monochromatic x-ray image is created for the reference material 2, the reference materials having different densities).
Regarding claim 7, Konno teaches wherein the X-ray imaging condition determination unit determines the each of the X-ray imaging conditions for collecting the X-ray projection data of the at least two types of X-ray energies emitted from the X-ray generation device by using a lookup table, a judgement algorithm, or a learning model stored in advance in a predetermined storage area (given that the claim as recited with the alternative “or” only requiring one of the listed “by using” options for determining the each of the x-ray imaging conditions, Konno page 28, first–third full paragraphs, and page 29, ¶¶3–4, teach a simulation result formed is passed to the imaging condition control unit, and the simulation unit simulates what kind of image can actually be acquired (judgement algorithm), where page 30, 4th full paragraph teaches the imaging conditions are used later on for acquiring projection data), on a basis of the inspection object information and the X-ray characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum, the X-ray filter, and the X-ray detector acquired by the acquisition unit (Konno page 30, simulation determining the x-ray imaging conditions is generated based on a simulated subject and organ (such as the heart) for an imaging region, an irradiation X-ray spectrum distribution, x-ray tube voltage values, and the position and view of the X-ray detection element, and X-ray CT apparatus configuration such as the thickness and type of filter as taught on page 25, last full paragraph).
Claims 3–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno, as set forth above regarding claim 1 from which claims 3–4 depend, further in view of Yamakawa et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0116594 A1 (herein “Yamakawa”).
Regarding claim 3, with deficiencies of Konno noted in square brackets [], Konno teaches wherein the X-ray generation device includes X-ray filter[s] through which X-rays of the at least two types of X-ray energies pass, [respectively] (Konno page 3, first and sixth full paragraphs, in a system with multiple X-ray energies, an X-ray filter is applied), to adjust X-ray quality (Konno page 10, 6th paragraph, parameter accuracy (for generating X-rays) is improved by using an X-ray filter), and the X-ray imaging condition determination unit determines an X-ray imaging condition of an X-ray of each of the at least two types of X-ray energies by determining [a filter characteristic of each of the X-ray filters], on a basis of the inspection object information (Konno page 16 last full paragraph, and page 17 first full paragraph, imaging conditions are according to the subject (inspection object information), and specifically photon absorption by the subject, where page 7, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs teach that absorption of x-rays (photons) by the subject is determined by the reference substances ingested by the subject) and the X-ray characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum, the X-ray filter, and the X-ray detector acquired by the acquisition unit (Konno page 16, imaging conditions are those such as presence or absence of X-ray filter, and uses projection data using the different energies of the X-ray spectrums (characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum), and page 17 second full paragraph, teaching the image condition determination unit calculating the ratio of the number of X-ray photons detected in the low energy range and the high energy range respectively, using the configuration of the X-ray CT apparatus of fig. 1, where page 5, 5th full paragraph teaches that the number of high and low energy photons is detected and calculated by the X-ray detector (thus characteristic information of the X-ray detector)).
Konno does not explicitly teach where Yamakawa teaches X-ray filters (plural) respective to two types of X-ray energies (Yamakawa ¶¶44–45, imaging condition configuration providing options to select from a list of adaptive filter modes and processing respective to the configured X-ray energy), or a filter characteristic of each of the X-ray filters (Yamakawa ¶¶44–45, imaging condition configuration providing options to select the degree of smoothing (filter characteristic) by the selected filter).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Konno and Yamakawa together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging condition determination disclosed by Konno to consider respective X-ray filters for different energies and their respective filter characteristics as disclosed by Yamakawa at least because doing so would reduce noise and thus enhance X-ray imaging quality. See Yamakawa ¶4.
Regarding claim 4, with deficiencies of Konno noted in square brackets [], Konno teaches wherein the X-ray imaging condition determination unit determines an X-ray imaging condition of an X-ray of each of the at least two types of X-ray energies by determining an X-ray tube voltage value, an X-ray tube current value, imaging time, and an X-ray filter of the X-ray (Konno page 10, ¶6, page 11, ¶6, and page 16, first two paragraphs after the second embodiment header, imaging conditions determined for X-ray tube voltage values of 80 kV and 140 kV X-ray tubes (two types of X-ray energies), as well as tube current, view time (imaging time), and presense/absence of X-ray filter and thickness) [of each of the at least two types of X-ray energies], on a basis of the inspection object information (Konno page 16 last full paragraph, and page 17 first full paragraph, imaging conditions are according to the subject (inspection object information), and specifically photon absorption by the subject, where page 7, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs teach that absorption of x-rays (photons) by the subject is determined by the reference substances ingested by the subject) and the X-ray characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum, the X-ray filter, and the X-ray detector acquired by the acquisition unit (Konno page 16, imaging conditions are those such as presence or absence of X-ray filter, and uses projection data using the different energies of the X-ray spectrums (characteristic information of the X-ray spectrum), and page 17 second full paragraph, teaching the image condition determination unit calculating the ratio of the number of X-ray photons detected in the low energy range and the high energy range respectively, using the configuration of the X-ray CT apparatus of fig. 1, where page 5, 5th full paragraph teaches that the number of high and low energy photons is detected and calculated by the X-ray detector (thus characteristic information of the X-ray detector)).
Konno does not explicitly teach where Yamakawa teaches of each of the at least two types of X-ray energies (Yamakawa ¶¶44–45, imaging condition configuration providing options to select from a list of adaptive filter modes and processing respective to the configured X-ray energy).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Konno and Yamakawa together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging condition determination disclosed by Konno to consider respective X-ray filters for different energies and their respective filter characteristics as disclosed by Yamakawa at least because doing so would reduce noise and thus enhance X-ray imaging quality. See Yamakawa ¶4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno, as set forth above regarding claim 1 from which claim 5 depends, further in view of Madhav et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0086775 A1 (herein “Madhav”).
Regarding claim 5, with deficiencies of Konno noted in square brackets [], Konno teaches wherein the acquisition unit that acquires the inspection object information including the physical quantity and the physical property information of the inspection object acquires the inspection object information (Konno page 6, next to last paragraph, and page 7, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs, multi-energy calculation processing using (thus acquiring) calculation data including subject characteristics including reference substances ingested by the subject, the reference substances affecting the physical property of mass absorption by the subject, and that there are two (physical quantity) of the reference substances ingested by the subject with each reference substance having its own mass absorption coefficient) [on a basis of at least one of an appearance image, a scout image, or drawing information of the inspection object].
Konno does not explicitly teach where Madhav teaches on a basis of at least one of an appearance image, a scout image, or drawing information of the inspection object (Madhav ¶¶21, 31, a scout scan (scout image) is acquired to derive the anatomy size, patient size (physical characteristics of the object), scan range, and attenuation levels).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Konno and Madhav together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acquiring of inspection object information disclosed by Konno to using scout scans as disclosed by Madhav at least because doing so would allow for use of waveform configurations known to be effective and optimal for patients of a particular size. See Madhav ¶32.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
De Man et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0383582 A1, directed towards a CT X-ray system for reconstructing an image from a sparse view projection dataset.
Sen Sharma et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0324499 A1, directed towards X-Ray multi-energy CT imaging displaying an image reconstructed from corrected first and second projected datasets.
Zou et al., US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0287205 A1, directed towards processing X-ray projection data having multiple spectral components resulting in image reconstruction, using calibration data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M KOETH whose telephone number is (571)272-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 09:00-17:00, Friday 09:00-13:00, EDT/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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
MICHELLE M. KOETH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/MICHELLE M KOETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights