DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-16 and 18 are amended.
Claims 3 and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-16, and 18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited art does not teach or suggest a first portion and a second portion that provide different filtering properties. However, as shown in Dennerlein (US 20120140875 A1) Fig. 4, filter Ff has a first portion that filters beam portion FH1 and a second portion that filters beam portion FH2.
Therefore, Examiner believes Dennerlein to read on claim 1.
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. 4, 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. 4,), wherein the projection data of the two different 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, fixed portion of the X-ray detector is used for recording (Fig. 4, [0039]: “…an asymmetrical shaping filter Ff can be provided for two X-ray fan beams such that one X-ray fan beam can be filtered differently from the other by shaping filtering. FIG. 4 shows how the shaping filter Ff, which is symmetrical with respect to the plane E and consists of homogeneous material, is slightly less thick toward the outside with respect to the first half FH1 of the X-ray fan beam than with respect to the second half FH2. This enables different filtering objectives for the two halves to be achieved. “),
wherein a filtering system arranged between the X-ray tube assembly and the recording region is used for definitions of the associated portion and fixed portion, wherein the 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 two different X-ray spectra and a second portion for providing a second X-ray spectrum of the two different X-ray spectra (Fig. 4; [0039]: “…an asymmetrical shaping filter Ff can be provided for two X-ray fan beams such that one X-ray fan beam can be filtered differently from the other by shaping filtering. FIG. 4 shows how the shaping filter Ff, which is symmetrical with respect to the plane E and consists of homogeneous material, is slightly less thick toward the outside with respect to the first half FH1 of the X-ray fan beam than with respect to the second half FH2. This enables different filtering objectives for the two halves to be achieved”), and
wherein the first portion and the second portion provide different filtering properties (Fig. 4).
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 two different X-ray spectra are divided into the fixed portions antisymmetrically in respect of the central line (Fig. 4; [0039]).
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 different 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. 4; [0039]), and
a filtering system arranged between the X-ray tube assembly and the recording region configured to be used for definitions of the associated portion and the fixed portion, wherein the 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 two different X-ray spectra and a second portion for providing a second X-ray spectrum of the two different X-ray spectra (Fig. 4, Ff),
wherein the first portion and the second portion provide different filtering properties (Fig. 4; [0039]).
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 two different X-ray spectra are divided into the fixed portions antisymmetrically in respect of the central line (Fig. 4; [0039]).
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 in a range of 0.5 to 5 mm and/or a 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 X-ray spectrum of the two different 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 image 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 different 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 1, 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 David (US 7680241 B2).
Regarding Claim 11: 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, the method further comprises reading out a portion of an additional partial beam field, for a part of the X-ray detector not covered by the respective partial beam fields, therein obtaining scatter radiation data used in a scatter radiation correction.
David teaches obtaining scatter data used in a scatter radiation correction (Col. 3, lines 39-41: “…radiation can be detected by the detectors 24 corresponding to the x-ray source 14 emitting radiation while cross scatter radiation is detected by the other detectors 24”).
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 David 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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