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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 15-19 have been renumbered 16-20.
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) A computer-implemented method for providing exposure distribution data for radiation from a radiation source of an imaging system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving setting data of the imaging system;
receiving a radiation exposure parameter associated with the setting data of the imaging system;
receiving data associated with the setting data of the imaging system and relating to an intensity distribution of the radiation on a radiation detector of the imaging system;
applying a first trained function to the setting data of the imaging system, the radiation exposure parameter and the intensity distribution data as first input data for the first trained function,
wherein the exposure distribution data is generated as first output data from the first trained function; and
providing the exposure distribution data;
wherein the intensity distribution data is provided by a second trained function being applied to the setting data of the imaging system as second input data for the second trained function, and
wherein the intensity distribution data is generated as second output data from the second trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second trained function is provided by a second computer-implemented training method, the second computer-implemented training method comprising:
receiving second input training data comprising setting data of the imaging system;
receiving second output training data comprising intensity distribution data, wherein the second output training data is related to the second input training data;
training a second function on a basis of the second input training data and the second output training data by second output data being generated by an application of the second function to the second input training data and by parameters of the second function being adapted on a basis of a comparison of the second output data with the second output training data; and
providing the second trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the radiation exposure parameter (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) is provided by a third trained function being applied to the setting data of the imaging system as third input data for the third trained function, and
wherein the radiation exposure parameter is generated as third output data from the third trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the third trained function is provided by a third computer-implemented training method, the third computer-implemented training method comprising:
receiving third input training data comprising setting data of the imaging system;
receiving third output training data comprising exposure parameters,
wherein the third output training data is related to the third input training data;
training a third function on a basis of the third input training data and the third output training data by third output data being generated by an application of the third function to the third input training data and by parameters of the third function being adapted on a basis of a comparison of the third output data with the third output training data; and
providing the third trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the radiation exposure parameter (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) is a dose area product or a variable dependent on the dose area product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the exposure distribution data is a two-dimensional image of [[the]] an exposure distribution (a lack of an antecedent basis) at an interventional reference point of the imaging system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the imaging system is an X-ray-based imaging system, and the radiation source is an X-ray source.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) A computer-implemented training method for providing a first trained function that generates data relating to an exposure distribution for radiation from a radiation source of an imaging system, and for providing a trained function that generates data relating to an intensity distribution for radiation from the radiation source of the imaging system, the computer-implemented training method comprising:
receiving first input training data comprising: setting data of the imaging system, radiation exposure parameters associated with the setting data of the imaging system, and data associated with the setting data of the imaging system and relating to an intensity distribution of the radiation on a radiation detector of the imaging system;
receiving first output training data comprising exposure distribution data,
wherein the first output training data is related to the first input training data;
training a first function on a basis of the first input training data and the first output training data by first output data being generated by an application of the first function to the first input training data and by parameters of the first function being adapted on a basis of a comparison of the first output data with the first output training data;
providing the first trained function;
receiving second input training data comprising setting data of the imaging system;
receiving second output training data comprising intensity distribution data,
wherein the second output training data is related to the second input training data;
training a second function on a basis of the second input training data and the second output training data by second output data being generated by an application of the second function to the second input training data and by parameters of the second function being adapted on a basis of a comparison of the second output data with the second output training data; and
providing the second trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) An imaging system for providing exposure distribution data for radiation from a radiation source
[[the]] a radiation source for generating radiation;
a radiation detector for detecting parts of the radiation; and
a data processing device configured to:
receive setting data of the imaging system;
receive a radiation exposure parameter associated with the setting data of the imaging system;
receive data associated with the setting data of the imaging system and relating to an intensity distribution of the radiation on [[a]] the radiation detector
apply a first trained function to the setting data of the imaging system, the radiation exposure parameter and the intensity distribution data as first input data for the first trained function,
wherein the exposure distribution data is generated as first output data from the first trained function; and
provide the exposure distribution data;
wherein the intensity distribution data is provided by a second trained function being applied to the setting data of the imaging system as second input data for the second trained function, and
wherein the intensity distribution data is generated as second output data from the second trained function
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The imaging system of claim 12, wherein the second trained function is provided by a second computer-implemented training method, the second computer-implemented training method comprising:
receiving second input training data comprising setting data of the imaging system;
receiving second output training data comprising intensity distribution data,
wherein the second output training data is related to the second input training data;
training a second function on a basis of the second input training data and the second output training data by second output data being generated by an application of the second function to the second input training data and by parameters of the second function being adapted on a basis of a comparison of the second output data with the second output training data; and
providing the second trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The imaging system of claim 12,
wherein the radiation exposure parameter (a previously recited limitation in claim 12) is provided by a third trained function being applied to the setting data of the imaging system as third input data for the third trained function, and
wherein the radiation exposure parameter is generated as third output data from the third trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
15. (Proposed Amendments) The imaging system of claim 14, wherein the third trained function is provided by a third computer-implemented training method, the third computer-implemented training method comprising:
receiving third input training data comprising setting data of the imaging system;
receiving third output training data comprising exposure parameters,
wherein the third output training data is related to the third input training data;
training a third function on a basis of the third input training data and the third output training data by third output data being generated by an application of the third function to the third input training data and by parameters of the third function being adapted on a basis of a comparison of the third output data with the third output training data; and
providing the third trained function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
16. (Proposed Amendments) The imaging system of claim 12, wherein the radiation exposure parameter (a previously recited limitation in claim 12) is a dose area product or a variable dependent on the dose area product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
18. (Proposed Amendments) The imaging system of claim 12, wherein the exposure distribution data is a two-dimensional image of [[the]] an exposure distribution (a lack of an antecedent basis) at an interventional reference point of the imaging system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Proposed Amendments) The imaging system of claim 12, wherein the imaging system is an X-ray-based imaging system, and the radiation source is an X-ray source.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-9 and 11-20 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 1 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in lines 7-8, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in lines 5-6.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in line 12, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in lines 5-6.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in line 14, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in lines 5-6.
Claim 6 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in lines 5-6.
Claim 11 recites a limitation “the output training data” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the first output training data or the second output training data.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in lines 10-11, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 12 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in line 8.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in line 15, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 12 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in line 8.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in line 17, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 12 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in line 8.
Claim 17 recites a limitation “the intensity distribution data” in line 1, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 12 previously recites a limitation “an intensity distribution” in line 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biniazan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,675,882 B2) disclosed methods for providing second key elements of an examination region in an X-ray image.
Birkhold et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,674,897 B2) disclosed estimating a radiation load quality for an imaging system having a radiation source.
Hebert et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,580,065 B2) disclosed an image quality related to machine-learning data.
Li et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,446,846 B2) disclosed an apparatus for a management of a radiation exposure dose, a method for a management of a radiation exposure dose, and a storage medium.
Birkhold (U. S. Patent No. 12,303,318 B1) disclosed a computer-implemented method for determining spatially resolved radiation exposure information, an X-ray device, a computer program, and an electronically readable data storage medium.
Hoernig et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,220,267 B2) disclosed a computer-implemented method for determining an abnormal structure.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,067,715 B2) disclosed a patient anatomy and task-specific automatic exposure control in computed tomography.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,002,204 B2) disclosed a patient anatomy and task specific automatic exposure control in computed tomography.
Vija et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,790,526 B2) disclosed a neural network-assisted dose assessment on an activity image.
Bai et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,510,641 B2) disclosed a non-spectral computed tomography (CT) scanner configured to generate spectral volumetric image data.
Badjatiya et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,423,264 B2) disclosed a generation of entropy-based synthetic data for training data of an augmenting classification system.
Zhao et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,726,587 B2) disclosed a system and a method for an image conversion.
Sato et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,538,977 B2) disclosed an X-ray diagnosis apparatus and a dose distribution data generation method.
Feuerlein et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,480,443 B2) disclosed a method for selecting a radiation form filter and an X-ray imaging system.
Breckenridge et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,342,798 B2) disclosed customized predictive analytical model training.
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