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 .
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, a controller recited in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
FIG. 1 is objected to because suitable descriptive legends are required for an X-ray source (110), an X-ray detector (120), and an image processing unit (130) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(o).
FIG. 4 is objected to because suitable descriptive legends are required for a readout circuit (124) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(o).
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 7, line 17, “system 100” after “X-ray” should be replaced by --source 110--. See FIG. 1.
Page 7, line 18, --110-- should be inserted after “X-ray source”.
Page 7, line 24, --110-- should be inserted after “the X-ray source”.
Page 7, line 26, --120-- should be inserted after “the X-ray detector”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to page numbers and line numbers in the originally-filed specification. The page numbers and line numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) An X-ray system [[(100)]], comprising:
an X-ray source [[(110)]] configured to be sequentially operable in n spectral modes in a dependence of at least one synchronization signal [[(SYNC)]] for the a purpose of sequentially emitting X-rays with a different spectrum
an X-ray detector [[(120)]] comprising a pixel controller [[(126)]] and a plurality of active pixels [[(122)]]; and
an image processing unit [[(130)]];
wherein the plurality of active pixels comprises n pixel groups
wherein the pixel controller is configured to cause each pixel group of the n pixel groups to record signals that correspond to one or more of [[said]] the n spectral modes in dependence of [[said]] the at least one synchronization signal such that at least one pixel group of the n pixel groups records signals that correspond to a plurality of [[said]] the n spectral modes, and
wherein the image processing unit is configured to generate multi- spectrum image data based on the signals recorded by each pixel group of the n pixel groups.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 1, wherein the image processing unit is configured to determine, for each active pixel of the plurality of active pixels (a previously recited limitation in claim 1):
determine as a primary signal that is associated with the [[pixel]] n pixel group to which [[said]] each active pixel (a lack of an antecedent basis) belongs, [[the]] a signal (a lack of an antecedent basis) recorded by [[that]] each active pixel; and
for each of the remaining pixel groups of the n pixel groups to which [[said]] an active pixel (a lack of an antecedent basis) does not belong, compute a respective secondary signal by combining signals recorded by neighboring active pixels of the active pixel that belong to a same pixel group,
wherein the image processing unit is further configured to generate (claim 1) the multi-spectrum image data for [[said]] the active pixel based on the primary signal and the respective secondary signal .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 1, wherein the X- ray source, when operating in an i-th spectral mode among the n spectral modes, emits X-rays having an i-th spectrum,
wherein each spectrum among [[the]] n spectra (a lack of an antecedent basis) is preferably different.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 1,
wherein the pixel controller is further configured to cause each pixel group among the n pixel groups to record signals that correspond to a different segment of [[the]] a sequence of X-rays (a lack of an antecedent basis) with different spectra,
wherein each different segment of the sequence of X-rays (a lack of an antecedent basis) with different spectra preferably has initial X-rays and final X-rays, wherein the final X-rays for each segment are the same, and
wherein, more preferably, a temporal length of [[the]] a segment (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the sequence of X-rays corresponds to a cumulated time period in which the X-ray source operates in [[the]] corresponding spectral modes (a lack of an antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 1,
wherein [[the]] active pixels (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the plurality of active pixels are arranged in a matrix [[(121)]] of rows and columns, wherein the matrix of rows and columns comprise a regular repetition of a unit cell active pixel of each pixel group of the n pixel groups,
wherein, at least some active pixels of the same pixel group but belonging to a different unit cell are adjacently arranged, wherein each row or each column of active pixels preferably only comprises active pixels that belong to the same pixel group, or
wherein each pair of active pixels of the same pixel group but belonging to a different unit cell are not adjacently arranged.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 5,
wherein each active pixel is a 3T, 4T, or 5T pixel, preferably implemented using complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology, and
wherein each active pixel of the plurality of active pixels (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) comprises a storage capacitor [[(C)]] and a photodetector .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 6,
wherein, each pixel group are identical, and
wherein [[the]] active pixels (a lack of an antecedent basis) belonging to different pixel groups have a different area of the photosensitive area.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 7, wherein, for a pair of pixel groups among the n pixel groups of which [[the]] active pixels (a lack of an antecedent basis) have a different size of the photosensitive area:
active pixels belonging to [[the]] a pixel group (a lack of an antecedent basis) of which the active pixels have a larger photosensitive area are configured to record a smaller part of [[the]] a sequence of X-rays (a lack of an antecedent basis) with different spectra than active pixels belonging to [[the]] a pixel group of which the active pixels have a smaller photosensitive area.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 7, wherein, for a pair of pixel groups among the n pixel groups of which [[the]] active pixels (a lack of an antecedent basis) have a different size of the photosensitive area:
active pixels belonging to [[the]] a pixel group (a lack of an antecedent basis) of which the active pixels have a larger photosensitive area have a larger storage capacitor and are configured to record a larger part of [[the]] a sequence of X-rays (a lack of an antecedent basis) with different spectra when compared to active pixels belonging to [[the]] a pixel group (a lack of an antecedent basis) of which the active pixels have a smaller photosensitive area.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 6,
wherein the pixel controller is further configured to provide a separate select signal (SEL) for each row of active pixels, wherein active pixels arranged in a same column are connected to a same column line [[(123)]],
wherein the X-ray detector further comprises a readout unit [[(125)]] that includes a separate readout circuit [[(124)]] for each column line, and
wherein the pixel controller is further configured to provide different reset signals for active pixels that are arranged in the same row but belong to different pixel groups.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
11. (Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 6, wherein the pixel controller is further configured to simultaneously stop resetting all active pixels in a pixel group for allowing [[these]] active pixels in the pixel group to record signals corresponding to [[the]] a sequence of X-rays (a lack of an antecedent basis) with different spectra or to a part thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12.(Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 1,
wherein the image processing unit is integrated inside the X-ray detector, or
wherein the image processing unit is arranged separate from the X-ray detector.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The X-ray system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one synchronization signal:
is generated by the X-ray detector, and wherein the X-ray source is configured to start sequentially emitting X-rays with a different spectrum in dependence of [[said]] the at least one synchronization signal;
is generated by the X-ray source, and wherein the X-ray detector is configured to start recording the signals that correspond to the n spectral modes (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) in dependence of [[said]] the at least one synchronization signal; or
is generated by a controller, wherein the X-ray source is configured to start sequentially emitting X-rays with a different spectrum in dependence of [[said]] the at least one synchronization signal, and wherein the X-ray detector is configured to start recording the signals that correspond to the n spectral modes in dependence of [[said]] the at least one synchronization signal,
wherein [[said]] the at least one synchronization signal preferably comprises a respective synchronization signal for each of the n spectral modes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) An X-ray detector [[(120)]] as defined in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
15. (Proposed Amendments) A method for obtaining multi-spectrum X-ray image data, comprising:
sequentially operating [[(S1)]] an X-ray source in n spectral modes in a dependence of at least one synchronization signal for sequentially emitting X-rays with a different spectrum;
using [[(S2)]] each pixel group of n pixel groups of active pixels of an X-ray detector to [[each]] record signals that correspond to one or more of [[said]] the n spectral modes in dependence of [[said]] the at least one synchronization signal such that at least one pixel group records signals that correspond to a plurality of [[said]] the n spectral modes; and
generating [[(S3)]] multi-spectrum image data based on the signals recorded by each pixel group of the n pixel groups.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a 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 a 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 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 is: an image processing unit in claims 1-14.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the image processing unit is configured to generate multi-spectrum image data based on the signals recorded by each pixel group of the n pixel groups” in lines 14-15. However, the specification does not describe a unique structure configured to perform the claimed function of generating multi-spectrum image data. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claims 3-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 3 recites a limitation “each spectrum among n spectra is preferably different” in lines 3-4, which renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is ambiguous. Combining a broad range with a narrower “preferably” range in the same claim can render it indefinite if the boundaries are not discernible. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Claim 4 recites a limitation “a sequence of X-rays with different spectra preferably has initial X-rays and final X-rays” in lines 5-6, which renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is ambiguous. Combining a broad range with a narrower “preferably” range in the same claim can render it indefinite if the boundaries are not discernible. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Claim 4 recites a limitation “more preferably, a temporal length of a segment of the sequence of X-rays corresponds to a cumulated time period in which the X-ray source operates in corresponding spectral modes” in lines 8-10, which renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is ambiguous. Combining a broad range with a narrower “preferably” range in the same claim can render it indefinite if the boundaries are not discernible. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Claim 5 recites a limitation “each row or each column of pixels preferably only comprises pixels that belong to the same pixel group” in lines 7-9, which renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is ambiguous. Combining a broad range with a narrower “preferably” range in the same claim can render it indefinite if the boundaries are not discernible. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Claim 6 recites a limitation “preferably implemented using complementary metal oxide semiconductor, CMOS, technology” in lines 2-3, which renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is ambiguous. Combining a broad range with a narrower “preferably” range in the same claim can render it indefinite if the boundaries are not discernible. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Claim 13 recites a limitation “the at least one synchronization signal preferably comprises a respective synchronization signal for each of the n spectral modes” in lines 14-15, which renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is ambiguous. Combining a broad range with a narrower “preferably” range in the same claim can render it indefinite if the boundaries are not discernible. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Claim 14 recites a limitation “as defined in claim 1” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite, since claim 1 does not define an X-ray detector.
Claim limitation “the image processing unit is configured to generate multi-spectrum image data based on the signals recorded by each pixel group of the n pixel groups” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses a corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what a corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,274,235 B2).
With respect to claim 15, Kang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,274,235 B2) disclosed A method for obtaining multi-spectrum X-ray image data, comprising:
sequentially operating an X-ray source (10) in n spectral modes in a dependence of at least one synchronization signal for sequentially emitting X-rays with a different spectrum (different energy levels) (column 8, lines 6-14);
using each pixel group of n pixel groups (g1, g2, g3, and g4) of active pixels of an X-ray detector (100) to record signals that correspond to one or more of the n spectral modes in dependence of the at least one synchronization signal such that at least one pixel group records signals that correspond to a plurality of the n spectral modes (column 6, line 45 - column 8, line 5); and
generating multi-spectrum image data (a multi-energy X-ray image) based on the signals recorded by each pixel group of the n pixel groups (column 9, lines 24-42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kindt et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,585,036 B2) disclosed an X-ray system comprising an X-ray detector and a method for multi-spectrum imaging.
NIshijima (U. S. Patent No. 12,343,186 B2) disclosed an X-ray computed tomography apparatus.
Konno (U. S. Patent No. 10,751,020 B2) disclosed an X-ray CT device comprising an X-ray detector, an X-ray detection method, and an X-ray detection program.
Spahn (U. S. Patent No. 10,426,415 B2) disclosed a method for receiving energy-selective image data, and an X-ray system comprising an X-ray detector.
Cho (U. S. Patent No. 9,964,650 B2) disclosed a tomography imaging apparatus comprising a radiation detecting apparatus.
Yi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,747,703 B2) disclosed an X-ray imaging apparatus and a method of controlling an X-ray imaging apparatus.
Kang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,274,235 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus of generating an X-ray image.
Ohta et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,953,207 B2) disclosed a radiation conversion panel and a method of capturing a radiation image therewith.
Ohta et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,781,740 B2) disclosed a radiation conversion panel and a method of capturing a radiation image.
Du et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,734,076 B2) disclosed a reduction of a noise of an image by a material decomposition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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 J. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights