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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 November 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “data acquisition unit”, “image correction unit”, “image synthesis unit”, “data correction unit” and “reconstruction unit” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a data acquisition unit that acquires…” in claims 1 and 2 (There is no detailed disclosure for a “data acquisition unit” in the detailed disclosure [the term in only used in the summary and in the claims]. Rather, only an “image generation unit” is disclosed as performing the claimed functionality, which in paragraph [0021] is explained to be a CPU, GPU or the like, and for examination purposes this is how the claim limitation will be interpreted. Thus, since only a generic computer is disclosed, the limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm for the specific structure, which in this case is shown in Figures 3-4 and 6-7 of the spec.);
“an image correction unit that generates…” in claim 1 (There is no detailed disclosure for an “image correction unit” in the detailed disclosure [the term in only used in the summary and in the claims]. Rather, only an “image generation unit” is disclosed as performing the claimed functionality, which in paragraph [0021] is explained to be a CPU, GPU or the like, and for examination purposes this is how the claim limitation will be interpreted. Thus, since only a generic computer is disclosed, the limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm for the specific structure, which in this case is shown in Figures 3-4 and 6-7 of the spec.);
“an image synthesis unit that synthesizes…” in claim 1 (There is no detailed disclosure for an “image synthesis unit” in the detailed disclosure [the term in only used in the summary and in the claims]. Rather, only an “image generation unit” is disclosed as performing the claimed functionality, which in paragraph [0021] is explained to be a CPU, GPU or the like, and for examination purposes this is how the claim limitation will be interpreted. Thus, since only a generic computer is disclosed, the limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm for the specific structure, which in this case is shown in Figures 3-4 and 6-7 of the spec.);
“a data correction unit that generates…” in claim 2 (There is no detailed disclosure for a “data correction unit” in the detailed disclosure [the term in only used in the summary and in the claims]. Rather, only an “image generation unit” is disclosed as performing the claimed functionality, which in paragraph [0021] is explained to be a CPU, GPU or the like, and for examination purposes this is how the claim limitation will be interpreted. Thus, since only a generic computer is disclosed, the limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm for the specific structure, which in this case is shown in Figures 3-4 and 6-7 of the spec.); and
“a reconstruction unit that reconstructs…” in claim 2 (There is no detailed disclosure for a “reconstruction unit” in the detailed disclosure [the term in only used in the summary and in the claims]. Rather, only an “image generation unit” is disclosed as performing the claimed functionality, which in paragraph [0021] is explained to be a CPU, GPU or the like, and for examination purposes this is how the claim limitation will be interpreted. Thus, since only a generic computer is disclosed, the limitation is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, which requires an algorithm for the specific structure, which in this case is shown in Figures 3-4 and 6-7 of the spec.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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 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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nett et al. (US 2013/0170609) in view of Bippus et al. (WO 2022/096312 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nett et al. disclose an X-ray CT apparatus (Figure 7) comprising:
a data acquisition unit that acquires first projection data corresponding to a first projection angle range and second projection data corresponding to a second projection angle range that is a projection angle range wider than the first projection angle range (Figure 1-2, 102 to 104 and 106, where the half/partial scan data is first projection data corresponding to a first projection angle range, and the full scan data is second projection data corresponding to a second projection angle range that is a projection angle range wider than the first projection angle range [full scan angle is wider than a partial scan angle].);
an image correction unit that generates a first image of a first tomographic image reconstructed from the first projection data (Figures 1-2 shows that the first image at 104 is generated from the partial scan data.) and that generates a second corrected image by reducing low-frequency components of a second tomographic image reconstructed from the second projection data (Figures 1-2, a corrected second image is generated by using a high pass filter at 110 on image 108 reconstructed from the full scan [second tomographic image reconstructed from the second projection data], where a high pass filter reduces low-frequency components, see paragraph [0028].); and
an image synthesis unit that synthesizes the first image and the second corrected image (Figures 1-2, 118 the images at 104 and 116 [after 110] are synthesized.).
Nett et al. fail to teach that the image correction unit generates a first corrected image by reducing high-frequency components of a first tomographic image reconstructed from the first projection data.
Bippus et al. disclose an image correction unit that generates a first corrected image by reducing high-frequency components of a first tomographic image reconstructed from the first projection data and that generates a second corrected image by reducing low-frequency components of a second tomographic image reconstructed from the second projection data (Page 7, line 33 to page 8, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the low pass filter teachings of Bippus et al. such that low pass and high pass filtering is performed on the half-scan and full-scan in Nett et al., respectively. The motivation to combine would have been in order to better reduce artifacts, thus improving the quality of the x-ray image (See Bippus et al., page 2, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 2, Nett et al. disclose an X-ray CT apparatus comprising:
a data acquisition unit that acquires first projection data corresponding to a first projection angle range and second projection data corresponding to a second projection angle range that is a projection angle range wider than the first projection angle range (Figure 1-2, 102 to 104 and 106, where the half/partial scan data is first projection data corresponding to a first projection angle range, and the full scan data is second projection data corresponding to a second projection angle range that is a projection angle range wider than the first projection angle range [full scan angle is wider than a partial scan angle].);
a data correction unit that generates first data of the first projection data (Figures 1-2 shows that the first data at 104 is generated from the partial scan data.) and that generates second corrected data by reducing low-frequency components of the second projection data (Figures 1-2, a corrected second data is generated by using a high pass filter at 110 on data 108, where a high pass filter reduces low-frequency components, see paragraph [0028].); and
a reconstruction unit that reconstructs a tomographic image from synthesized data obtained by synthesizing the first data and the second corrected data (Figures 1-2, 118 the data at 104 and 116 [after 110] are synthesized, thus reconstructing a tomographic image at 118.).
Nett et al. fail to teach that the data correction unit generates first corrected data by reducing high-frequency components of the first projection data.
Bippus et al. disclose an image correction unit that generates first corrected data by reducing high-frequency components of the first projection data and that generates second corrected data by reducing low-frequency components of the second projection data (Page 7, line 33 to page 8, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the low pass filter teachings of Bippus et al. such that low pass and high pass filtering is performed on the half-scan and full-scan in Nett et al., respectively. The motivation to combine would have been in order to better reduce artifacts, thus improving the quality of the x-ray image (See Bippus et al., page 2, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 3, Nett et al. and Bippus et al. disclose the X-ray CT apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the data acquisition unit further acquires third projection data in which the first projection data is removed from the second projection data (Nett et al.: Figures 1-2, 108), and
the image correction unit generates the second corrected image by synthesizing a third tomographic image reconstructed from the third projection data and the first tomographic image (Nett et al.: Figures 1-2, 116).
Regarding claim 4, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tang et al. (US 2016/0253818) disclose a method and apparatus for computed tomography wherein full-scan and half-scan data are used and individually filtered before being synthesized (Figure 12).
Zamyatin et al. (US 2006/0067457) disclose wherein ramp filtering, which removes low frequency, is used on a full scan (Figure 10B, 1003), whereas Hilbert-filtering is used on a half scan (Figure 10B, 1002), where paragraph [0035] states: “Hilbert-filtering, which is a low-frequency correction, helps reducing cone-beam artifacts.”
Zamyatin et al. (US 2016/0048983) discloses in paragraph [0039] that reducing cone-bean artifacts uses a low-pass filter, i.e. removing high frequency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
30 June 2026
Prosecution Insights