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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 01/16/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
• In claim 1, line 7-8, "volume data set" should be “volume dataset".
• In claim 3, line 8-9, "claim 1 ," should be “claim 1,".
• In claim 9, line 6, "volume data set" should be “volume dataset".
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.
Claim 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “using the analytical volume data set to generate analytical forward projection data and to correct the analytical forward projection data” is not adequately supported by the specification.
Although the specification includes the paragraph [0012] reciting that the analytical volume data set is used to generate and correct analytical forward projection data, the paragraph merely recites the claimed functionality and is not accompanied by a disclosure describing how the analytical forward projection data is corrected. The paragraph [0059] separately describes forward projecting the reconstruction volume and describes correcting an image volume estimate based on a comparison between estimated and measured projection data. It also describes correcting the original projections based on an estimate of the sample from the FDK analytical reconstruction volume. However, these disclosures do not reasonably convey possession of correcting the analytical forward projection data by using the analytical volume dataset as claimed.
In claim 6, the limitation “the forward-projected data and the original projections are filtered with a box filter to reduce noise” is not adequately supported by the specification.
Although the paragraph [0015] states that the forward-projected data and the original projections are filtered with a box filter, the paragraph [0022] describing the filtering operation only describes filtering the analytical projections to reduce noise and does not describe filtering the original projections. Accordingly, the specification does not clearly and substantively convey possession of filtering both the forward-projected data and the original projections with a box filter as claimed.
In claim 7, the limitation “the analytical projections and the original projections are filtered and their ratio is used to scale the projection data” is not adequately supported by the specification.
The specification includes the paragraph [0016] reciting that the analytical projections and the original projections are filtered and that their ratio is used to scale the projection data. However, the paragraph merely recites the claimed relationship and is not supported by the more detailed disclosure of the filtering and scaling operation. The paragraph [0023] describes filtered analytical projections being used with the original projections to scale the original projection data, but does not describe filtering the original projections. Thus, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed combination in which both the analytical projections and the original projections are filtered before their ratio is used to scale the projection data.
In claim 8, the limitation “the analytical projections and the original projections are filtered and their difference is then subtracted from the projection data” is not adequately supported by the specification.
The specification includes the paragraph [0016] reciting that the analytical projections and the original projections are filtered and their difference is subtracted from the projection data. However, the paragraph merely recites the claimed relationship and is not supported by the more detailed disclosure of the filtering. The paragraph [0024] describes filtered analytical projections and the original projections are subtracted from the original projection data, but does not describe filtering the original projections. Thus, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed combination in which both the analytical projections and the original projections are filtered before subtracting operation.
In claim 9, the limitation “using the analytical forward projections and the projection data to generate corrected analytical projection data” is not adequately supported by the specification.
Although the specification includes the paragraph [0017] reciting that analytical forward projections and projection data are combined to generate corrected analytical projection data, the paragraph merely recites the claimed functionality and lacks a disclosure describing how the analytical projection data is corrected. The paragraphs [0016], [0023] and [0024] describe using analytical projections and original projection data to scale or subtract the projection data to produce corrected projection data. However, the specification does not describe that the resulting corrected projection data is corrected analytical projection data. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed corrected analytical projection data.
With respect to claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6, are applicable.
With respect to claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7, are applicable.
With respect to claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8, are applicable.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 the limitation "the whole sample" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the whole sample” is referring back to “a sample” in line 4 or something else.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the analytically reconstructed volume” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the forward-projected data" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the forward-projected data” is referring back to “analytical forward projection data” in line 8 in claim 1 or something else.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the original projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the analytical projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the original projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the projection data" in line 2. It is unclear if “the projection data” is referring back to “projection data” in line 4 at claim 1, “analytical forward projection data” in line 8 at claim 1 or something else.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the corrected projection data" in line 2-3. It is unclear if “the corrected projection data” is referring back to “the corrected analytical forward projection data” in line 9-10 at claim 1 or something else.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the analytical projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the original projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the projection data" in line 2. It is unclear if “the projection data” is referring back to “projection data” in line 4 at claim 1, “analytical forward projection data” in line 8 at claim 1 or something else.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the corrected projection data" in line 2-3. It is unclear if “the corrected projection data” is referring back to “the corrected analytical forward projection data” in line 9-10 at claim 1 or something else.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the analytical forward projections" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the projection data" in line 10. It is unclear if “the projection data” is referring back to “projection data” in line 4, “analytical forward projection data” in line 8-9 or something else.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "corrected analytical projection data" in line 11. It is unclear if “corrected analytical projection data” is referring back to “the projection data” in line 6-7, “analytical forward projection data” in line 8-9 or something else.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the corrected analytical forward projection data" in line 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the corrected analytical forward projection data” is referring back to “corrected analytical projection data” in line 11 or something else.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the forward-projected" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the forward-projected” is referring back to “analytical forward projection data” in line 8-9 in claim 9 or something else.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the original projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the analytical projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the analytical projections” is referring back to “the analytical forward projections” in line 10 in claim 9 or something else.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the original projections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the projection data" in line 2. It is unclear if “the projection data” is referring back to “projection data” in line 4 at claim 9, “analytical forward projection data” in line 8-9 at claim 9 or something else.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the corrected projection data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the corrected projection data” is referring back to “the corrected analytical forward projection data” in line 13-14 at claim 9 or something else.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the analytical forward projections" in line 1. It is unclear if “the analytical forward projections” is referring back to “analytical forward projection data” in line 8-9 at claim 9, “the analytical forward projections” in line 10 at claim 9 or something else.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the projection data" in line 2. It is unclear if “the projection data” is referring back to “projection data” in line 4 at claim 9, “analytical forward projection data” in line 8-9 at claim 9 or something else.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "corrected analytical projection data" in line 2. It is unclear if “corrected analytical projection data” is referring back to “the corrected analytical forward projection data” in line 13-14 at claim 9 or something else.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the analytical projection data" in line 3. It is unclear if “the analytical projection data” is referring back to “analytical forward projection data” in line 8-9 at claim 9 or something else.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the result" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the original projection data" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the corrected projection data" in line 4. It is unclear if “the corrected projection data” is referring back to "corrected analytical projection data" in line 11 at claim 9, “the corrected analytical forward projection data” in line 13-14 at claim 9 or something else.
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 (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.
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.
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028130) (hereafter, "Andrew") in view of SCHÄFER (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0085389).
Regarding claim 1, Andrew teaches an X-ray micro tomography system, comprising ([0002] X-ray micro tomography systems provide high-resolution, non-destructive imaging of internal structures in samples): an X-ray microscopy system including an X-ray source system for generating an X-ray beam and a detector system for detecting the X-ray beam after transmission through a sample to generate projection data ([0012] The x-ray tomography system includes an x-ray microscopy system including an x-ray source system for generating an x-ray beam and a detector system for detecting the x-ray beam after transmission through a sample to generate projection data) for interior tomographies ([0002] X-ray micro tomography systems provide high-resolution, non-destructive imaging of internal structures in samples) … a computer system for executing analytical reconstruction to create an analytical volume data set using the projection data and ([0004] The computer system of the x-ray micro tomography system accesses the projection data, and applies image reconstruction modalities to the projection data to reconstruct slices and volume datasets of the sample. A slice is a two dimensional (2D) cross-sectional image of the sample, and a volume dataset is a three dimensional (3D) representation of the entire sample; [0020] the x-ray microscopy system generates x-ray projection data of a sample, and where a reconstruction application that resides within a computer system of the x-ray tomography system generates 2D and 3D image reconstructions of the sample from the projection data) using the analytical volume data set to generate analytical forward projection data and ([0101] the application 126 executes one or more convergent iterative reconstructions on a central region of the volume dataset until a value of the smoothing parameter 20 yields a reconstruction having a signal/noise of 22+/−1, varying the value of the smoothing parameter 20 with each additional iterative reconstruction; [0006] Iterative reconstruction is another approach that reconstructs slices from successive estimates of the projection data forming each slice. Multiple iterations of the estimated projection data for each slice are executed … During each iteration, the estimated projection data are compared to the actual (e.g. measured) projection data. The result of each comparison is used to make corrections to the current estimate, thereby creating a new estimate of the projection data) to correct the analytical forward projection data and ([0006] During each iteration, the estimated projection data are compared to the actual (e.g. measured) projection data. The result of each comparison is used to make corrections to the current estimate, thereby creating a new estimate of the projection data) executing iterative reconstruction using the corrected analytical forward projection data ([0101] the application 126 executes one or more convergent iterative reconstructions on a central region of the volume dataset until a value of the smoothing parameter 20 yields a reconstruction having a signal/noise of 22+/−1, varying the value of the smoothing parameter 20 with each additional iterative reconstruction; [0006] During each iteration, the estimated projection data are compared to the actual (e.g. measured) projection data. The result of each comparison is used to make corrections to the current estimate, thereby creating a new estimate of the projection data).
Andrew does not expressly teach where the whole sample is not fully visible at every projection view; and.
However, SCHÄFER teaches where the whole sample is not fully visible at every projection view; and ([0010] The asymmetric positioning of the detector leads to truncated projections, since the fan beam as incident onto the detector does not illuminate the whole object on one side of the central ray. However, the object can be completely sampled when two short scans are carried out in which the X-ray source travels on overlapping arcs and when the detector offset with respect to the central ray is switched from one side to the other between the two short scans).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Andrew to incorporate the step/system of using truncated projections and a beam that does not illuminate the whole object (which mean that parts of the sample are not fully visible during those specific projection views) taught by SCHÄFER.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reconstruction quality ([0013] Since the redundancy weighting of projection values acquired in the first and second rotational pass is made on the basis of a uniform redundancy weighting function, which is determined on the basis of the union of the arcs traversed by the focus point of the X-ray beam in the first and second rotational passes, high-quality images can be reconstructed). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Andrew with SCHÄFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Andrew and SCHÄFER teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Andrew teaches wherein the analytical reconstruction implements filtered backprojection ([0005] The most commonly used algorithm for analytical reconstruction is filtered back projection (FBP). In FBP, each slice of the sample is typically created in a single reconstruction step).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028130) (hereafter, "Andrew") in view of SCHÄFER (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0085389) and further in view of Siewerdsen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0238897) (hereafter, "Siewerdsen").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Andrew and SCHÄFER teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Andrew and SCHÄFER does not teach wherein the analytical reconstruction includes FDK reconstruction.
However, Siewerdsen teaches wherein the analytical reconstruction includes FDK reconstruction ([0011] A Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) three-dimensional, volumetric reconstruction is performed; [0050] Image reconstruction was performed with a modified FDK algorithm (i.e., filtered backprojection, FBP), where the backprojection geometry for each projection was defined using PMs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Andrew and SCHÄFER to incorporate the step/system of performing an FDK algorithm (filtered back-projection) taught by Siewerdsen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the image quality for tomographic imaging systems ([0035] The present invention is directed to a method for enabling volumetric image reconstruction from unknown projection geometry of tomographic imaging systems, including CT, cone-beam CT (CBCT), and tomosynthesis systems. The invention enables image reconstruction in cases where it was not previously possible (e.g., custom-designed trajectories on robotic C-arms, or systems using uncalibrated geometries), and more broadly offers improved image quality (e.g., improved spatial resolution and reduced streak artifact) and robustness to patient motion (e.g., inherent compensation for rigid motion) in a manner that does not alter the patient setup or imaging workflow for practitioners ... The invention was demonstrated for a C-arm CBCT system and shown to substantially improve image quality over conventional geometric calibration methods). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Andrew and SCHÄFER with Siewerdsen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028130) (hereafter, "Andrew") in view of SCHÄFER (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0085389) and further in view of Lippert et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0153560) (hereafter, "Lippert").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Andrew and SCHÄFER teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Andrew and SCHÄFER does not teach wherein a region of interest of the sample is extended in Z direction.
However, Lippert teaches wherein a region of interest of the sample is extended in Z direction ([0025] in a step e) a first sample volume V1 is determined in the sample coordinate system from the position of the image field centre of the projection image and the set of coordinates which describes the first region of interest ROI1. This first sample volume V1 is determined in the detection coordinate system by the dimensions of the first region of interest ROI1 in the XY plane and perpendicular thereto by the detection direction, thus it is in principle infinite along the detection direction, but in any case very much further extended than in the plane perpendicular to the detection direction D).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Andrew and SCHÄFER to include the axially extended volume system taught by Lippert. Lippert states that the sample volume is determined by the ROI and is in principle infinite along the detection direction and further extended than in the plane perpendicular to the detection direction.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of the section volume calculation ([0019] The object of the present invention is therefore to make it easier to prepare for and carry out multiview acquisitions, wherein as extensive as possible an automation is regarded as advantageous; [0024] The set of coordinates contains at least as many values as are sufficient for clearly defining the position and the dimension of the first region of interest ROI1 in the image field and thus in the detection coordinate system; [0037] This can be advantageous for example when the determination of the section volume is to take place with high precision, as the information which results if three and more orientation angles are used is partially redundant). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Andrew and SCHÄFER with Lippert to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028130) (hereafter, "Andrew") in view of SCHÄFER (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0085389) and further in view of Chu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0087062) (hereafter, “Chu").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Andrew and SCHÄFER teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Andrew and SCHÄFER does not teach wherein the analytically reconstructed volume is clipped based on a field of view.
However, Chu teaches wherein the analytically reconstructed volume is clipped based on a field of view ([0036] A clipped profile, containing a value of 1 to describe that volume/area inside the extent and a value of 0 to describe that volume/area outside the extent, can then be created for each projection image. The clipped profiles can then be back-projected into the FOV using either a ray-driven or pixel-driven back-projection technique. The intersection of the back-projections can then be computed and expanded by a small number of pixels by repeated morphological dilations to prepare a reconstruction support region 150 substantially describing a transverse extent of the cylinder of interest within the FOV; [0037] preparing a reconstruction support region using detector orbit data ... the region of the FOV that is visible from the detector. That is, using detector view angle and radial distance information, data corresponding to region 210 of the FOV including the cylinder can be retained and used to prepare a reconstruction support region. By contrast, regions 220 of the FOV that lay behind the detector or beyond its transverse extent can be discarded).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Andrew and SCHÄFER to incorporate the step/system of discarding (clipping) the parts of the volume that lie beyond the extent within the FOV taught by Chu.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of iterative reconstruction techniques by limiting the process to the object of interest within the detector's field of view ([0005] What is needed then is a method for improving iterative reconstruction techniques so as to increase computational efficiency and reduce the time required to perform such techniques; [0021] the detailed description that follows describes methods for specifically confining iterative reconstruction to an object of interest, or region of interest within a FOV of a detector, which results in a more efficient use of time and computational resources). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Andrew and SCHÄFER with Chu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028130) (hereafter, "Andrew") in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0133719) (hereafter, "Wu").
Regarding claim 9, Andrew teaches a method for an X-ray micro tomography system, comprising ([0002] X-ray micro tomography systems provide high-resolution, non-destructive imaging of internal structures in samples): generating an X-ray beam ([0012] generating an x-ray beam); detecting the X-ray beam after transmission through at least a part of a sample to generate projection data; and ([0012] The x-ray tomography system includes an x-ray microscopy system including an x-ray source system for generating an x-ray beam and a detector system for detecting the x-ray beam after transmission through a sample to generate projection data) a computer system executing analytical reconstruction to generate an analytical volume data set using the projection data ([0004] The computer system of the x-ray micro tomography system accesses the projection data, and applies image reconstruction modalities to the projection data to reconstruct slices and volume datasets of the sample. A slice is a two dimensional (2D) cross-sectional image of the sample, and a volume dataset is a three dimensional (3D) representation of the entire sample; [0020] the x-ray microscopy system generates x-ray projection data of a sample, and where a reconstruction application that resides within a computer system of the x-ray tomography system generates 2D and 3D image reconstructions of the sample from the projection data), using the analytical volume dataset to generate analytical forward projection data ([0101] the application 126 executes one or more convergent iterative reconstructions on a central region of the volume dataset until a value of the smoothing parameter 20 yields a reconstruction having a signal/noise of 22+/−1, varying the value of the smoothing parameter 20 with each additional iterative reconstruction; [0006] Iterative reconstruction is another approach that reconstructs slices from successive estimates of the projection data forming each slice. Multiple iterations of the estimated projection data for each slice are executed … During each iteration, the estimated projection data are compared to the actual (e.g. measured) projection data. The result of each comparison is used to make corrections to the current estimate, thereby creating a new estimate of the projection data) … generate an interior tomography corrected volume dataset of at least the part of the sample by executing iterative reconstruction using the corrected analytical forward projection data ([0002] X-ray micro tomography systems provide high-resolution, non-destructive imaging of internal structures in samples; [0004] The computer system of the x-ray micro tomography system accesses the projection data, and applies image reconstruction modalities to the projection data to reconstruct slices and volume datasets of the sample; [0006] Iterative reconstruction is another approach that reconstructs slices from successive estimates of the projection data forming each slice. Multiple iterations of the estimated projection data for each slice are executed for this purpose. During each iteration, the estimated projection data are compared to the actual (e.g. measured) projection data. The result of each comparison is used to make corrections to the current estimate, thereby creating a new estimate of the projection data. When the estimated projection data no longer require corrections, a volume dataset is reconstructed from the estimated projection data; [0100] the operator directs the computer system 124 to create at least portions of the sample 114 using iterative reconstruction and different smoothing parameters until a “smoothing” target signal to noise ratio is obtained; [0101] the application 126 executes one or more convergent iterative reconstructions on a central region of the volume dataset until a value of the smoothing parameter 20 yields a reconstruction having a signal/noise of 22+/−1, varying the value of the smoothing parameter 20 with each additional iterative reconstruction).
Andrew does not expressly teach using the analytical forward projections and the projection data to generate corrected analytical projection data.
However, Wu teaches using the analytical forward projections and the projection data to generate corrected analytical projection data, ([0005] acquiring projection data of an object from a plurality of pixels, reconstructing the acquired projection data from the plurality of pixels into a reconstructed image, and performing material characterization and decomposition of the image volume of the reconstructed image to reduce a number of materials analyzed in the image volume to two basis materials. The acts to be performed also include generating a re-mapped image volume for at least one basis material of the two basis materials, and performing forward projection on at least the re-mapped image volume for the at least one basis material to produce a material-based projection. The acts to be performed further include generating multi-material corrected projections based on the material-based projection and a spectrally corrected total raw projection attenuated by the object, which represents both of the two basis materials, wherein the multi-material corrected projections include linearized projections).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Andrew to incorporate the step/system of taking raw projection data, processing it into an image volume, breaking it down into basis materials, analytically forward projecting the materials, and combining them to output a corrected projection data taught by Wu.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reconstruction image quality ([0015] a multi-material correction (MMC) approach is employed to compensate for artifacts within the reconstructed images. In particular, the MMC approach (e.g., algorithm) is designed to deal with the different sources of beam-hardening related issues described above with a single linearization correction to minimize artifacts that are not corrected by water-based spectral calibration and correction ... the MMC approach linearizes the detection of all the materials present to eliminate beam hardening from its root cause, regardless of the material type, thus, resulting in more accurate and consistent CT values of bone, soft tissue, and contrast agent for better clinical diagnosis). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Andrew with Wu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2, are applicable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028130) (hereafter, "Andrew") in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0133719) (hereafter, "Wu") and further in view of Siewerdsen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0238897) (hereafter, "Siewerdsen") and of Lippert et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0153560) (hereafter, "Lippert").
With respect to claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 and 4, are applicable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0028130) (hereafter, "Andrew") in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0133719) (hereafter, "Wu") and further in view of Chu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0087062) (hereafter, “Chu").
With respect to claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5, are applicable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan S. Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/DANIEL C CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
