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 § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson (US 20150272522 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Robinson discloses an X-ray imaging system (Fig. 1) and method comprising: a source 12 configured to emit a broad spectrum beam; a detector 22; and a filter assembly 15, including: a filter member 58 configured to limit a transmission of the broad spectrum beam to form a limited spectrum beam, and a filter carrier 60 configured to move the filter member relative to the broad spectrum beam [0037]; wherein the detector is configured to detect the limited spectrum beam due to the filter and the broad spectrum beam from the source [0024].
With regards to claim 2, Robinson discloses wherein the broad spectrum beam is a x-ray beam that includes photons with a range of energies having a peak up to about 140 kVp [0018].
With regards to claims 3-5, Robinson discloses wherein the filter member includes a first filter member 58 and a second filter member (side of panel), wherein the first filter member limits or eliminates passage of low-energy x-ray photons to form a first energy spectra, and further wherein the second filter member limits or eliminates passage of a different proportion of low energy x-ray photons to form a second energy spectra that has a higher IIVL than the first energy spectra [0020, 0038-0040].
With regards to claim 6, Robinson discloses wherein a dual energy projection of a subject is acquired by having the broad spectrum beam occluded by the filter member [0035, 0041].
With regards to claim 7, Robinson discloses wherein the filter assembly includes a control to selectively position of the filter member in a path of the beam from the source to the detector [0036-0037].
With regards to claim 8, Robinson discloses wherein the broad spectrum beam has an x-ray with a distribution of energy of about 40 keV to about 140 keV [0018].
With regards to claim 9, Robinson discloses wherein filter member includes a first filter member 58 and a second filter member (side of panel); wherein the first filter member and the second filter member are selectively and separately placed between the source and the detector; wherein the first filter member limits or eliminates passage of a proportion of low- energy x-ray
photons; wherein the second filter member further limits or eliminates passage a second proportion
of low-energy x-ray photons [0020, 0038-0040].
With regards to claim 10, Robinson discloses an X-ray imaging system (Fig. 1) and method
comprising: a source 12 configured to emit x-rays as a whole beam with a first energy spectra; a filter
assembly 15, including: a filter member 58 configured to limit a transmission x-rays to a filtered
beam with a second energy spectra that has a different HVL than the first energy spectra [0020,
0038-0040], a filter carrier 60 configured to move the filter member relative to the whole beam
[0036]; a detector 22 configured to detect the whole beam and the filtered beam [0024]; a control
system configured to control the position of the filter member with the filter carrier to selectively
acquire projections of the subject [0037, 0039]; wherein the control system is configured to execute
instructions to control movement of the filter carrier to position the filter member in filtering
position and a non- filtering position [0037]; wherein the filter member limits the whole beam to the
filtered beam in the filtering position; wherein a selected number of projections are acquired to
reconstruct a model of the subject [0037-0043].
With regards to claim 11, Robinson discloses a reconstruction system configured to
reconstruct the model of the subject with image data acquired with the whole beam and the filtered
beam for a reduced x-ray dose image acquisition; wherein the filtered beam may include a lower
dose of x-rays relative to the whole beam [0021, 0023, 0031, 0042].
With regards to claims 13 and 14, Robinson discloses the invention according to claim 11.
Claims 13 and 14 are directed to the filtered beam and does not recite any structural limitations.
Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguished from the prior art. Claims directed to an
apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re
Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15,
USPQ2d 1525, 1528, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114.
With regards to claims 15 and 16, Robinson discloses wherein the control system is
configured to operate the source and the detector to collect acquisitions of the subject at about 360
degrees around the subject, wherein the filtered beam is active to acquire a selected number of
projections of the subject during a rotation of the source and the detector relative to the subject.
(suggested by the CT imaging system [0018]).
With regards to claim 17, Robinson discloses wherein the filter member is formed of x-ray
attenuating materials, including at least one of aluminum, copper, tin, or ceramics [0040].
With regards to claim 18, Robinson discloses an X-ray imaging system (Fig. 1) and method
comprising: acquiring image data at a plurality of positions relative to the subject [0023]; operating a
source to emit x-rays as a whole beam at a sub-plurality of positions of the plurality of positions
relative to the subject [0030, 0041, 0042, 0045, 0046]; controlling a filter assembly to move a filter
member into the emitter whole beam to form a filtered beam, detecting with a detector the whole
beam and the filtered beam [0030, 0036, 0045, 0046]; and executing instructions with a processor
module to reconstruct a model of a selected portion of the subject with image data acquisition of the
subject using both the whole beam and the filtered beam [0032, 0033, 0046].
With regards to claim 19, Robinson discloses executing instructions with a controller to
move a filter carrier; wherein the filter carrier holds the filter member and is moveable relative to the
whole beam [0036].
With regards to claim 21, Robinson discloses moving the source around the subject [0021].
With regards to claim 22, Robinson discloses wherein the sub-plurality of positions is a first
sub- plurality of positions, wherein the plurality of positions includes a second sub-plurality of positions, and wherein the low power beam is detected to acquire image data of the subject at the
second sub-plurality of positions (suggested by Robinson's dual energy CT imager)
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson.
With regards to claims 12 and 20, Robinson is silent with respect to the claimed filter
member and filtered beam HVL. However, it is noted that such a modification was known and would have been obvious depending upon the particular area of interest to be imaged. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Robinson with the claimed filter member and filtered beam HVL to optimize the beam intensity depending upon the particular arca of interest to be imaged.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120219109 A1 teaches an imaging device with a moving filter assembly.
US 20180310899 A1 teaches an imaging device with a moving filter assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights