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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, 12 and 17 are amended. Claims 18-21 are newly added. Claim 14 is canceled. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 USC § 112(f) and 112(b). The Applicant’s argument filed 10/06/2026 are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claims 9 and 17 to recite specific structural features of the “receiving unit”, “output unit”, “residual light amplification unit”, and “second receiving unit”. Accordingly the limitation are no longer interpreted under 112(f), and the claim rejections of 9-17 under 1129b) are withdrawn (REMARKS, 6-7).
35 USC § 103. The Applicant arguments filed 10/06/2026 with respect to claims 113---13 and 15-21 have been considered, but are moot because of the new ground of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
Applicant argues that BENTZ et al. (US 11630218 B1) does not disclose or suggest the claim claimed combinations: x-rays scattered from an irradiated examination object as the source of the detected scintillation, and output of the image during irradiation to visualize the spatial distribution of the scattered x-rays. To the extent the arguments apply to the rejection below, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the modification changes the source and physical significance of the radiation producing the scintillation. BENTZ’s system images the radioluminescence that ionizing radiation induces in the air, and BENTZ explains that the same system detects numerous types of ionizing radiation without separate sensors for each type (col. 13, ll. 43-46). Scattered x-rays are still x-rays. Imaging the radioluminescence they produce uses Bentz’s system exactly as Bentz describes. Only the radiation field differs. Flexman (US 11123031 B2) provides reasoning to image that field.
Applicant argues that Bentz describes only the acquisition of multiple UV images and reconstruction of a tomographic map. However, Bentz also describes forming a 3D image with a single camera to determine a location of an ionizing radiation (col. 13, ll. 12-29), and acquires images during irradiation, gating the intensifier to coincide with the radiation (col. 6, ll. 20-34). Bentz further describes using the system as a radiation safety system for medical applications of ionizing radiation (col. 6, l. 62 – col. 7, l. 5).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection below relies on the teachings of Flexman rather than common knowledge. Regarding claim 17, the rejection relies on Flexman’s camera that view the patient and the room. Regarding new claims 18-21, Flexman teaches displaying the radiation distribution on augmented reality glasses, with overlay of the camera scene (patient, room, etc.).
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentz et al. (US 11630218 B1) in view of Flexman et al. (US 11123031 B1).
Regarding claim 1, BENTZ discloses a method for visualizing X-rays emitted by an X-ray device, the method comprising:
irradiating the X-rays from the X-ray device thereby producing X-rays (“[t]he present invention may be used with any type of ionizing radiation” and that “[o]one type of ionizing radiation … is x-ray, both soft (having an energy less than about 10 keV) and hard (having an energy greater than about 10 keV),” and that “[s]sources of x-ray are prevalent in several technologies” (col. 8, lines 35-42);
ascertaining signals representing radiation from an initial radiation spectrum, wherein the radiation from an initial radiation spectrum has been produced by scintillation of the X-rays in a gaseous scintillator in a form of nitrogen present in ambient air (“radioluminescence is ambient air occurs as a product of the excitation and relaxation of molecular nitrogen by the ionizing radiation 130”, col. 8, ll. 52-58); and
outputting at least one image ascertained from the signals (“optical tomographic mapping system 100 includes three cameras 110A, 110B, 110C…thereby resulting in a plurality of UV images”; col. 10, ll. 3-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of BENTZ shows the 3 camera UV tomographic imaging system 100 of ionizing radiation 130 creating radioluminescence in ambient atmosphere.
BENTZ does not specifically disclose (1) irradiating an examination object with an x-ray tube so as to produce scattered x-rays, or (2) outputting the image during irradiation of the examination object to visualize the spatial distribution of the scattered x-rays during irradiation. With feature (1), BENTZ explains that “ionizing radiation can also be generated artificially by x-ray tubes” and references “medical physics applications” where “various embodiments of the present invention provide the advantage of not requiring a phantom” (col. 1, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 1-14; col. 13-50). Substitution of a known technique (x-ray tubes) to prior art elements (x-ray source emitter) to obtain predictable results (artificial ionizing radiation production from a compact source) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Regarding feature (2), in the same field of endeavor, Flexman discloses a medical x-ray imaging device (e.g. C-arm x-ray system) directing x-rays onto a patient at a table (col. 1, ll. 26-28; col. 11, ll. 39-45), where incident x-rays scatter from the table, patient and instruments, with the scattered beam causing unaccounted for dose to surrounding staff (col. 11, ll. 1-12). Flexman displays the distribution of radiation in the room in an AR arrangement, overlaying a patient dose information in a camera view of the room (col. 11, ll. 13-30), and provides real-time feedback to the distribution map during the procedure, with benefit of accounting for and reducing excessive dose. The use of a known technique (real-time distribution map of scattered radiation in an environment of Flexman) to improve a similar system (radioluminescence system of Bentz) in the same way, with predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See MPEP 2143(I); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
PNG
media_image2.png
740
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Flexman shows a process for rending real-time dose representation of a person in a location.
Regarding claim 2, BENTZ discloses wherein the radiation from an initial radiation spectrum is filtered with respect to visible residual light by at least one filter element and a radiation component formed by UV radiation is converted into visible light by at least one conversion element (each camera includes a UV filter which is converted into visible light by a wavelength conversion by an intensified relay optical system; col. 3, ll. 26-27, 41-44; col. 6, ll. 2-4, 16-19).
Regarding claim 3, BENTZ discloses wherein the radiation component converted into visible light is amplified (intensified charge coupled device (ICCD); col. 3, ll. 54-66).
Regarding claim 4, BENTZ wherein the visible light is amplified by a residual light amplification element (photocathode, microchannel plate, and phosphor screen; col. 6, ll. 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, BENTZ discloses wherein the amplified radiation component converted into visible light is imaged onto a sensor (each of the at least one camera includes a CCD sensor, an intensified CCD sensor, or an intensified relay optical system; col. 6, ll. 16-19).
Regarding claim 6, BENTZ discloses wherein the converted visible light is recorded by the sensor and converted into a 2D image or a 3D image of a radiation distribution (tomographic mapping system 100; col. 6, 39-43).
Regarding claim 7, BENTZ discloses wherein the 2D or the 3D image is displayed on a display unit, stored in a memory unit, or displayed on the display unit and stored in the memory unit (image processor includes a memory that stores instruction… [to] reconstruct a 3-D tomographic map”; col. 3, ll. 35-40). Applying known techniques (displaying stored data on a display) to a known device (2D or 3D map of BENTZ) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (displaying data for a user) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 8, BENTZ further discloses images the scene with its cameras and “spatially register the UV images” using a reference source (col. 3, ll. 27-38); recording a 2-D or 3-D image of the scene (the room). Displaying the 2D or 3D images of the scene and displaying it together would have been obvious in order to show the spatial relationship of the radiation to the scene.
Regarding claim 9, BENTZ discloses medical system for visualizing scattered X-rays, the medical system comprising:
an X-ray device including an x-ray tube to emit X-rays configured to irradiate an examination object (“[t]he present invention may be used with any type of ionizing radiation” and that “[o]one type of ionizing radiation … is x-ray, both soft (having an energy less than about 10 keV) and hard (having an energy greater than about 10 keV),” and that “[s]sources of x-ray are prevalent in several technologies” (col. 8, lines 35-42; col. 1, ll. 60-63),
a receiving unit comprising a digital camera, a digital UV camera, or digital glasses, the receiving unit configured for ascertaining signals representing radiation from an initial radiation spectrum, wherein the radiation from an initial radiation spectrum is produced by scintillation of the X-rays in a gaseous scintillator in a form of nitrogen present in ambient air (“radioluminescence is ambient air occurs as a product of the excitation and relaxation of molecular nitrogen by the ionizing radiation 130”. Cameras 110A-C are digital cameras; col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6, l. 19; col. 8, ll. 52-58), and
a display device configured to output, during irradiation of the examination object, at least one image ascertained from the signals to visualize a spatial distribution of the x-rays (“optical tomographic mapping system 100 includes three cameras 110A, 110B, 110C…thereby resulting in a plurality of UV images”; col. 10, ll. 3-21).
BENTZ does not specifically disclose (1) using an x-ray tube of an x-ray device in the specific embodiment, or (2) wherein the display device is configured to visualize a spatial distribution of the x-rays during the irradiation. With feature (1), BENTZ explains in the background that “ionizing radiation can also be generated artificially by x-ray tubes” and references “medical physics applications” where “various embodiments of the present invention provide the advantage of not requiring a phantom” (col. 1, ll. 61-63; col. 9, ll. 1-14; col. 13-50). Substitution of a known technique (x-ray tubes) to prior art elements (x-ray source emitter) to obtain predictable results (artificial ionizing radiation production from a compact source) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Regarding feature (2), in the same field of endeavor, Flexman discloses a medical x-ray imaging device (e.g. C-arm x-ray system) directing x-rays onto a patient at a table (col. 1, ll. 26-28; col. 11, ll. 39-45), where incident x-rays scatter from the table, patient and instruments, with the scattered beam causing unaccounted for dose to surrounding staff (col. 11, ll. 1-12). Flexman displays the distribution of radiation in the room in an AR arrangement, overlaying a patient dose information in a camera view of the room (col. 11, ll. 13-30), and provides real-time feedback to the distribution map during the procedure, with benefit of accounting for and reducing excessive dose. The use of a known technique (real-time distribution map of scattered radiation in an environment of Flexman) to improve a similar system (radioluminescence system of Bentz) in the same way, with predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See MPEP 2143(I); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, BENTZ discloses wherein the receiving unit has at least one filter element for filtering out residual light and a conversion element for converting UV radiation into visible light (each camera includes a UV filter which is converted into visible light by a wavelength conversion by an intensified relay optical system; col. 3, ll. 26-27, 41-44; col. 6, ll. 2-4, 16-19).
Regarding claim 11, BENTZ discloses wherein the conversion element comprises a fluorescent screen (phosphor screen; col. 6, ll. 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, BENTZ discloses wherein the receiving unit includes a residual light amplifier (ICCD, microchannel plate; col. 6, ll. 2-4).
Regarding claim 13, BENTZ discloses the receiving unit includes a sensor for recording light and converting the light into a 2D image or a 3D image of a radiation distribution (tomographic mapping system 100; col. 6, 39-43).
Regarding claim 15, BENTZ does not specify wherein the X-ray device includes an X-ray detector for recording X-ray images of the examination object. BENTZ explains that the x-ray device can comprise a medical physics application such as radiotherapy (col. 13, ll. 30-50), wherein CT, SPECT, PET, and x-ray imaging systems are well-known x-ray and gamma ray applications that comprise ionizing radiation detector for detecting x-rays from the source, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in the instant invention of BENTZ.
Regarding claim 16, BENTZ discloses a memory unit configured for storing the at least one image (image processor includes a memory that stores instruction… [to] reconstruct a 3-D tomographic map”; col. 3, ll. 35-40).
Regarding claim 17, BENTZ discloses a plurality of cameras 110A-C comprising a the second digital camera or digital glass, configured for recording a 2D image or 3D image of a room (FIG 1).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, FLEXMAN discloses wherein outputting the at least one image comprises displaying the spatial distribution of the scattered X-rays using wearable augmented-reality glasses or virtual-reality glasses during irradiation of the examination object (head-mounted display glasses; col. 2, ll. 62-65; col. 11, ll. 51-56), including real-time overlay of the dose distribution to the medical personnel (col. 10, ll. 12-14). Displaying the spatial distribution of the scattered x-rays on such augmented-reality glasses during irradiation would have been obvious in the combination for the reasons given in claim 1.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, FLEXMAN discloses displaying the spatial distribution of the scattered X-rays superimposed on an image of a spatial environment including the examination object (overlays the distribution of radiation on the camera view of the patient and room (col. 11, ll. 24-30), such that a spatial relationship between the scattered X-rays and the examination object is visually indicated during irradiation of the examination object (col. 12, ll. 38-44). Displaying the spatial distribution of the scattered x-rays distribution of the combination superimposed on an image of the room including the examination object during irradiation would have been obvious in the combination for the reasons given in claim 1.
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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 at 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
