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 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 the 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 the 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(s) 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(s) is/are: “image processor module” in claims 21-23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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 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.
Claim claims 1-3 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 limitation “image processor module”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The 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 the 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 the 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 the 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minnigh et al (US 8,213,572 B2).
Regarding claims 1, Minnigh et al discloses a system to create a reconstructed long view image (long-length x-ray image) of a subject (See Abstract), comprising: an imager having a detector (40) configured to move from at least a first position to a second position to acquire a first image at a first position relative to a subject (12) and a second image data at the second position (See Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 38-55 and col. 5, lines 6-17); an image processor module configured to execute instructions to: determine an overlap region between the first image data and the second image data (col. 5, lines 18-35); reconstruct the long view image based at least in part on the overlap region (col. 6, lines 3-12); output the reconstructed long view image of the subject (See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Minnigh et al discloses further comprising: an input system to receive an input regarding a portion of the subject to be imaged (col. 5, lines 36-42); and an imaging processor module (48) (i.e. control processor) configured to execute instructions to select at least the first position and the second position based on the input portion (col. 5, lines 6-17 and lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 3, Minnigh et al discloses wherein the imaging processor module is configured to execute further instructions to determine a motion profile to move the detector form the first position to the second position (See Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 38-55).
Regarding claim 4, Minnigh et al discloses wherein the input includes a length or number of vertebrae to be image (i.e. full-spine and full-leg exams) (col. 9, lines 48-49).
Regarding claims 12, Minnigh et al discloses a method to create a reconstructed long view image (long-length x-ray image) of a subject (See Abstract) with acquired image data, comprising: acquiring a first image data at a first position relative to a subject (12); acquiring a second image data at a second position relative to the subject (12) (See Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 38-55 and col. 5, lines 6-17); determining an overlap region between the first image data and the second image data (col. 5, lines 18-35); generating an intermediate image based on the determined overlap region (col. 6, lines 3-12); reconstructing the long view image based at least in part on the generated intermediate image (col. 6, lines 3-12); and outputting the reconstructed long view image of the subject (See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Minnigh et al discloses further comprising: receiving an input regarding a portion of the subject to be imaged (col. 5, lines 36-42); and selecting at least the first position and the second position based on the input portion (col. 5, lines 6-17 and lines 18-35).
Regarding claim 20, Minnigh et al discloses further comprising: selecting a portion of the subject; and determining a motion profile to move the detector from the first position to the second position (See Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 38-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 5-11, 14-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnigh et al (US 8,213,572 B2) in view of Jouhikainen et al (US 2016/0220207 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Minnigh et al discloses a collimator(26) (See Fig. 1) however Minnigh et al is silent with regards to filtering the beam of x-rays as claimed. Jouhikainen et al discloses panoramic imaging using a multi-spectral x-ray source comprising: filtering an emitted x-ray from the source (81) into at least a first x-ray beam portion (90) and a second x-ray beam portion (92); wherein each of acquired image data includes projections from each of first beam and second beam ([0056]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Minnigh et al so filter the x-ray beam as taught supra by Jouhikainen et al, so as to enable a plurality of projections of a subject in a linear path.
Regarding claims 6-7, Minnigh et al in view of Jouhikainen et al discloses wherein dividing the emitted x-rays from the source into at least the first x-ray beam portion (90) and the second x-ray beam portion (92) further comprises: passing the emitted x-rays through a slotted filter (112) to impinge on the image detector at least the first x-ray beam portion and the second x-ray beam portion at about 5 degrees from the first slot to 10 degrees relative to the second slot ([0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Minnigh et al in view of Jouhikainen et al discloses wherein filtering the emitted x-rays from the source into at least the first x-ray beam portion (90) and the second x-ray beam portion (92) further comprises: filtering the emitted x-rays into at least a third beam portion (97) and the first beam portion and the second beam portion; and passing the emitted x-rays through a slotted filter having at least a first slot, a second slot, and a third slot ([0056], [0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Minnigh et al discloses wherein further comprising: a detector moving system configured to move the detector (40) along a path (50) relative to the subject from the first position to the second position; wherein a plurality of image data portions are operable to be collected at a plurality of intermediate positions between the first position and the second position (See Figs. 1, 2 and col. 4, lines 38-55 and col. 5, lines 6-17).
Regarding claim 10, Minnigh et al discloses wherein collecting the plurality of image data portions at the plurality of intermediate positions, further comprises: emitting x-rays from a source (20) (See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Minnigh et al wherein the collimator (26) further includes a filter assembly configured to move the filter between first and second position (col. 5, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 14, Minnigh et al discloses a collimator(26) (See Fig. 1) however, Minnigh et al is silent with regards to filtering the beam of x-rays as claimed. Jouhikainen et al discloses panoramic imaging using a multi-spectral x-ray source comprising: filtering an emitted x-ray from the source (81) into at least a first x-ray beam portion (90) and a second x-ray beam portion (92); wherein each of acquired image data includes projections from each of first beam and second beam ([0056]). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Minnigh et al so filter the x-ray beam as taught supra by Jouhikainen et al, so as to enable a plurality of projections of a subject in a linear path.
Regarding claims 15-16, Minnigh et al in view of Jouhikainen et al discloses wherein providing the filter includes providing a filter with at least a first and second slot (slotted filter (112)); and wherein the first beam (90) of x-rays passes through the first slot and the second beam (92) of x-rays passes through the second slot; wherein the first slot is formed at an angle of about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees relative to the second slot ([0056], [0058]).
Regarding claim 17, Minnigh et al in view of Jouhikainen et al discloses providing a filter with at least a first slot, a second slot, and a third slot; providing the first slot is formed at an angle of about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees relative to the second slot; and providing the third slot is formed at an angle of about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, relative to the second slot ([0058]).
Regarding claim 18, Minnigh et al discloses further comprising: collecting a plurality of image data portions at a plurality of intermediate positions between the first position and the second position ([0056], [0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Minnigh et al discloses wherein the first image data, the second image data, and the plurality of image data portions are acquired based on emitting x-rays (90) from a source (paragraphs [0056], [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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 Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights