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 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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites “the part of the X-ray detector not covered by the respective partial beam field, comprising the portion of the other partial beam field.” This renders the claim indefinite because “the part of the X-ray detector not covered by the respective partial beam field” is lacking antecedent basis. Further, the wording is ambiguous, and it is unclear which portions of the beam field and detector are being referenced and their spatial relationship to each other.
For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the claim as “the reading out of each portion to obtain scatter radiation data used in a scatter radiation correction.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dennerlein (US 20120140875 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Dennerlein discloses a method for dual-energy imaging of a recording region with an X-ray system (Abstract), which has a recording arrangement with an X-ray tube assembly (Fig. 2, Q) and an X-ray detector (D) for receiving X-rays of an X-ray field emitted by the X-ray tube assembly in cone beam geometry, which field has a central beam, the method comprising:
rotating the recording arrangement around the recording region (Fig. 1);
recording projection data of different directions of projection during the rotating, the projection data recorded for two different X-ray spectra (Fig. 2, [0036]: “…one half FH1 of an X-ray fan beam designated F as a whole is transmitted to the detector half H1 (the object O not being shown in FIG. 2 for reasons of illustration simplicity). The second half FH2, on the other hand, is filtered by a filter FT so that particular frequencies are attenuated. The second half of the X-ray fan beam F, FH2 is transmitted to the second half H2 of the X-ray detector D.”), wherein the projection data of the two X-ray spectra is recorded during the rotation that covers at least 360° ([0036]: “…the control and processing device S-A initiates the taking of X-ray images through 360.degree. in 0.5.degree. increments.”); and
reconstructing a three-dimensional image dataset of the recording region for each X-ray spectrum from the respective projection data ([0034]: “…a 3D reconstruction can then be obtained”);
wherein, for each X-ray spectrum, an associated portion of the X-ray field is fixed over the rotation, and a corresponding, associated, fixed portion of the X-ray detector is used for recording (Fig. 2, [0036]: “…one half FH1 of an X-ray fan beam designated F as a whole is transmitted to the detector half H1… The second half of the X-ray fan beam F, FH2 is transmitted to the second half H2 of the X-ray detector D.”).
Regarding Claim 2: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, along a central line running perpendicular to a rotational plane through the incidence of the central beam the X-ray detector is divided into two sides, wherein the X-ray spectra are divided into the fixed portions antisymmetrically in respect of the central line (Fig. 2, [0036]: “…one half FH1 of an X-ray fan beam designated F as a whole is transmitted to the detector half H1… The second half of the X-ray fan beam F, FH2 is transmitted to the second half H2 of the X-ray detector D.”).
Regarding Claim 3: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a filtering system arranged between the X-ray tube assembly (Fig. 2, FT) and the recording region is used for the definition of the associated and fixed portions, which filtering system has a filtering structure penetrated by the X-ray field, with a first portion for providing a first X-ray spectrum of the X-ray spectra and a second portion for providing a second X-ray spectrum of the X-ray spectra (Fig. 2, FT).
Regarding Claim 15: Dennerlein discloses an X-ray system comprising:
a recording arrangement with an X-ray tube assembly (Fig. 2, Q) and an X-ray detector (D) for receiving X-rays of an X-ray field emitted by the X-ray tube assembly in cone beam geometry, which has a central beam (F); and
a controller (Fig. 1, S-A) configured to
rotate the recording arrangement around a recording region ([0036]: “…the control and processing device S-A initiates the taking of X-ray images through 360.degree. in 0.5.degree. increments.”);
record projection data of different directions of projection during the rotation, the projection data recorded for two different X-ray spectra (Fig. 2, [0036]: “…one half FH1 of an X-ray fan beam designated F as a whole is transmitted to the detector half H1…The second half FH2, on the other hand, is filtered by a filter FT so that particular frequencies are attenuated. The second half of the X-ray fan beam F, FH2 is transmitted to the second half H2 of the X-ray detector D.”), wherein the projection data of the two X-ray spectra is recorded during the rotation that covers at least 360°([0036]: “…the control and processing device S-A initiates the taking of X-ray images through 360.degree. in 0.5.degree. increments.”); and
reconstruct a three-dimensional image dataset of the recording region for each X-ray spectrum from the respective projection data ([0034]: “…a 3D reconstruction can then be obtained”);
wherein, for each X-ray spectrum, an associated portion of the X-ray field is fixed over the rotation, and a corresponding, associated, fixed portion of the X-ray detector is used to record the projection data (Fig. 2, [0036]: “…one half FH1 of an X-ray fan beam designated F as a whole is transmitted to the detector half H1… The second half of the X-ray fan beam F, FH2 is transmitted to the second half H2 of the X-ray detector D.”).
Regarding Claim 16: Dennerlein discloses the X-ray system as claimed in claim 15, wherein , along a central line running perpendicular to a rotational plane through an incidence of the central beam, the X-ray detector is divided into two sides (Fig. 2, H1 and H2), wherein the X-ray spectra are divided into the fixed portions antisymmetrically in respect of the central line (Fig. 2, [0036]: “…one half FH1 of an X-ray fan beam designated F as a whole is transmitted to the detector half H1… The second half of the X-ray fan beam F, FH2 is transmitted to the second half H2 of the X-ray detector D.”).
Regarding Claim 17: Dennerlein discloses the system as claimed in claim 15, further comprising a filtering system arranged between the X-ray tube assembly and the recording region, the filtering system defining the fixed portions (Fig. 2, FT), which filtering system has a filtering structure penetrated by the X-ray field, with a first portion for providing a first X-ray spectrum of the X-ray spectra and a second portion for providing a second X-ray spectrum of the X-ray spectra (Fig. 2, [0036]: “…one half FH1 of an X-ray fan beam designated F as a whole is transmitted to the detector half H1… The second half of the X-ray fan beam F, FH2 is transmitted to the second half H2 of the X-ray detector D.”).
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) 6, 7, 12-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennerlein.
Regarding Claim 6: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the X-ray tube assembly has two focuses associated with the different X-ray spectra (Fig. 3, Q1 and Q2), the two focuses physically spaced apart by a focal distance (Fig. 3), which focuses follow one another in a rotational plane, wherein the focuses are operated with different tube voltages ([0037]: “two X-ray sources Q1, Q2 which emit two different X-ray fan beams F1 and F2…”).
Dennerlein fails to teach partial beam fields emitted by the focuses are separated by a shading element arranged in a beam path between the focuses.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have the partial beam fields separated by a shading element (collimator) arranged in the beam path between the focuses. One would have been motivated to do so on the basis of using routine skill in the art to reduce the overlap of the illuminated areas.
Regarding Claim 7: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, but Dennerlein does not explicitly teach wherein the focal distance is 0.5 to 5 mm and/or the width of the shading element is less than the focal distance.
However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skilled in the art to derive a focal distance of 0.5 to 5 mm because focal spot separation is a result effective variable that affects geometric alignment and imaging performance. One would have been motivated to choose an appropriate separation within this range through routine optimization to achieve the desired tradeoff between accuracy and system constraints.
Regarding Claim 12: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 but fails to teach wherein, for the reconstruction of the image dataset for one of the X-ray spectra respectively, projection data of the other X-ray spectrum is taken into account.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have used the entire imaging area to derive reconstruction information such as boundary conditions and the like. One would be motivated to do so one the basis of using routine skill in the art to reduce artifacts of the cone beam geometry.
Regarding Claim 13: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, but Dennerlein fails to teach wherein a first reconstruction of preliminary datasets takes place from the respective projection image data, an item of material information describing a distribution of material in respect of the recording region is ascertained from the preliminary image datasets and the item of material information is taken into account by at least one boundary condition and/or in a target function during at least one new reconstruction from the respective projection data.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have deduced boundary conditions from preliminary dataset reconstructions. One would be motivated to do so one the basis of using routine skill in the art to reduce artifacts of the cone beam geometry and improve the reconstruction process.
Regarding Claim 14: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the projection data of the two X-ray spectra is used for ascertaining a truncation model taken into account during the reconstruction of the two image datasets.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have used the entire imaging area to ascertain a truncation model. One would be motivated to do so one the basis of using routine skill in the art to address missing data and improve the reconstruction.
Regarding Claim 18: Dennerlein discloses the system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the X-ray tube assembly has two focuses associated with the different X-ray spectra (Fig. 3, Q1 and Q2), the two focuses physically spaced apart by a focal distance (Fig. 3), which focuses follow one another in a rotational plane, wherein the focuses are operated with different tube voltages ([0037]: “two X-ray sources Q1, Q2 which emit two different X-ray fan beams F1 and F2…”).
Dennerlein fails to teach partial beam fields emitted by the focuses are separated by a shading element arranged in a beam path between the focuses.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have the partial beam fields separated by a shading element (collimator) arranged in the beam path between the focuses. One would have been motivated to do so on the basis of using routine skill in the art to reduce the overlap of the illuminated areas.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennerlein in view of Armandinger (DE 202014002844 U1).
Regarding Claim 4: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 3, but Dennerlein fails to teach wherein the first and second portions of the filtering structure comprise a plurality of regions, respectively, which are separated from each other by regions of the other of the first and second portions.
Armandinger teaches a filtering structure for dual-energy imaging wherein the first and second portions of the filtering structure comprise a plurality of regions, respectively, which are separated from each other by regions of the other of the first and second portions (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dennerlein to incorporate the filtering structure of Armandinger. One would have been motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving temporal resolution.
Regarding Claim 5: Dennerlein in view of Armandinger discloses the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the regions are strips running perpendicular to a rotational plane (Armandinger: Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennerlein in view of Inscoe (US 20230375484 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Dennerlein discloses the method as claimed in claim 6 but fails to teach wherein the focuses are generated in a same X-ray tube of the X-ray tube assembly, wherein the different tube voltages are switched sequentially.
Inscoe teaches a method for dual-energy CT wherein the focuses are generated in a same X-ray tube of the X-ray tube assembly ([0011]: “rapid kVp switching of a single x-ray tube between low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) is used to produce two polychromatic spectra.”), wherein the different tube voltages are switched sequentially ([0024]: “x-ray beams from the multiple focal spots are configured to be activated sequentially”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dennerlein to incorporate the teachings of Inscoe and generate the focuses in the same X-ray tube and switch the different tube voltages sequentially. One would be motivated to make such a modification to avoid changing the filters and provide X-ray spectrum-specific filters permanently introduced into the beam path of the respective partial beam fields.
Regarding Claim 9: Dennerlein in view of Inscoe discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the portions of the X-ray detector sequentially illuminated by the X-ray spectra are read out in a joint readout cycle (Dennerlein: Abstract: “…enabling two 3D reconstructions to be generated simultaneously”).
Regarding Claim 10: Dennerlein in view of Inscoe discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the portions of the X-ray detector sequentially illuminated by the partial beam fields are successively read out (Inscoe: [0028]: “…after exposure from each collimated x-ray beam, only a “band,” or ROI, of the x-ray detector that receives primary transmitted x-ray photons is read by the digital area x-ray detector instead of the entire detector which the amount of the data read and transmitted.”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennerlein in view of Inscoe, in further view of Regensburger (US 20240374227 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood: Dennerlein in view of Inscoe discloses the method as claimed in claim 10, but both fail to teach wherein, with the reading out of each portion, the part of the X-ray detector not covered by the respective partial beam field, comprising the portion of the other partial beam field, is also read out, obtaining scatter radiation data used in a scatter radiation correction.
Regensburger teaches a method for dual-energy CBCT comprising obtaining scatter radiation data used in a scatter radiation correction [0090]: “The volume model 11 extracted from the 2D projection images 7, 8 of the dual-energy CBCT method may also be used for further correction acts, taking account of material properties.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Dennerlein and Inscoe to incorporate the teachings of Regensburger and obtain scatter radiation data to use in a scatter radiation correction. One would be motivated to make such a modification to improve image accuracy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, David 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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights