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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 8 – 10, 12 – 14, and 16 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roos (EP 0948930 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Roos teaches in Fig. 2 A portable computed tomography (CT) system comprising:
an O-shaped gantry 10 defining an opening for a to-be-imaged object 26 to be placed;
an x-ray source 18 operably coupled to the O-shaped gantry;
a flat panel detector (FPD) 20; see paragraph [0016] operably coupled to the O-shaped gantry,
wherein the FPD comprises an x-ray absorbing sensor layer and a detector pixel array 20; see paragraph [0022]; and
an antiscatter grid (ASG) 58 operably coupled see paragraph [0024] and Fig. 2 to a side of the FPD facing the opening of the O-shaped gantry, wherein:
the ASG comprises a plurality of vertical walls defining open-ended channels and formed of a radiation-absorbing material this limitation should be taught by Roos because Roos teaches ASG 20; and the open-ended channels are arranged in a geometric pattern pointed toward the x- ray source to receive x-rays in an x-ray emission path from the x-ray source this limitation should be taught by Roos because Roos teaches ASG 20.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Roos should have wherein the ASG is a two-dimensional ASG because of flat panel detector disclosed in paragraph [0022].
With respect to dependent claim 4, since Roos teaches ASG 20, and therefore inherently teaches (or anticipates) wherein: a footprint of the ASG introduces a pattern of signal intensity variations in projections of images of the object acquired by the detector pixel array; and the ASG is configured to correct the signal intensity variations introduced by the footprint of the ASG see paragraph [0024].
With respect to dependent claim 8, Roos teaches in Fig. 2 wherein the portable CT system further comprises at least one controller or computer 38 operably coupled to the FPD that is configured to receive, from the FPD, data representative of an image of the object to facilitate an x-ray image of at least a portion of the object to be generated based on the data representative of the image of the object.
With respect to dependent claims 9 – 10, Roos teaches in paragraph [0024] wherein the portable CT system further comprises at least one controller or computer operably coupled to the FPD that is configured to estimate a residual scatter intensity reaching the FPD and wherein the portable CT system further comprises at least one controller or computer operably coupled to the FPD that is configured to: measure signal intensity variations in the FPD or the detector pixel array; detect residual scatter intensity from the measured signal intensity variations; and correct the residual scatter intensity and artifacts caused by the ASG.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Roos teaches in Fig. 2 with wherein: the O-shaped gantry is rotatable about a center axis; and the portable CT system further comprises a motor configured to rotate the O-shaped gantry about the center axis.
With respect to independent claim 13, Roos teaches in Fig. 2 a computed tomography (CT) scanner system comprising:
an x-ray source 18 configured to emit x-rays along x-ray emission paths;
a flat panel detector (FPD) 20 comprising an antiscatter grid (ASG) 58 comprising a plurality of open-ended channels positioned to align at least a subset of the open-ended channels with the x-ray emission paths of the x-rays emitted by the x-ray source,
wherein an object to-be-imaged 26 is positioned between the x-ray source and the FPD; and a controller 38 in operable communication with the FPD to: receive data representative of an x-ray image of at least a portion of the object being imaged positioned between the x-ray source and the FPD; and generate a corrected x-ray image from the data representative of the x-ray image of the object being imaged see paragraph [0024].
With respect to dependent claim 14, Roos teaches in paragraph [0024] wherein to generate the corrected x-ray image, the controller is further configured to: estimate a residual scatter intensity of x-ray radiation reaching the FPD from the x-ray source.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Roos teaches in paragraph [0024] wherein to generate the corrected x-ray image, the controller is further configured to: measure signal intensity variations in the FPD based on the received data representative of the x-ray image; detect residual scatter intensity from the measured signal intensity variations; and correct the residual scatter intensity to generate the corrected x-ray image.
With respect to dependent claim 17, Roos teaches in Fig. 2 wherein: the CT scanner system further comprises: an O-shaped gantry defining an opening into which at least a portion of the object to-be-imaged is positioned; and a motor 22 configured to rotate the O-shaped gantry about the center axis; and the controller 30 is further configured to operably communicate with the motor to maintain radial alignment of the x-ray source and the FPD during the rotation of the O-shaped gantry about the center axis.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos and further in view of Ruimi (US 2011/0065190 A1).
The teaching of Roos has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Roos is silent with wherein the ASG is a one-dimensional ASG.
Ruimi, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0128] one dimensional antiscatter grid. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Roos in order to accurate measure total scattered radiation by a known ASG. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos.
The teaching of Roos has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Roos teaches in Fig. 2 wherein the ASG is placed directly on the x-ray absorbing sensor layer, but is silent with wherein the x-ray absorbing sensor layer is continuous. However, continuous X-ray absorbing sensor layer is well-known at the time of the claimed invention was filed. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Roos in order to have desired flat panel detector with desired configured X-ray absorbing sensor layer. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Roos teaches wherein the ASG is on the FPD in Fig. 2 but is silent with wherein the ASG is on the FPD in the absence of the plurality of vertical walls being aligned with pixels of the detector pixel array. However, such a configuration in claim 7 would be obvious choice as an engineering design choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the limitation of “wherein to maintain radial alignment of the x-ray source and the FPD the controller is further configured to regulate a magnitude and/or polarity of an electrical current of the motor” would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to rotate the FPD and X-ray source in the same direction with the same direction.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos and further in view of Wieczorek (US 2010/0322498 A1).
The teaching of Roos has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Roos is silent with a gap between the ASG and the x- ray absorbing sensor layer.
In paragraph [0037], Wieczorek teaches anti-scatter grid is between the detector 22 and the patient. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Roos in order to have ASG in a desired location. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos and further in view of Fugita (JP 2014 – 42559; see provided a translation copy).
The teaching of Roos has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Roos is silent with wherein a pitch between the vertical walls of the ASG is larger than a pitch of the detector pixel array.
Fugita, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0014] the limitation of claim 11. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Roos in order to obtain an approximate image by extracting detection signal values of pixels not affected by the grid. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 19 – 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein: the ASG is a two-dimensional antiscatter grid (2D ASG); and to generate the corrected x-ray image, the controller is further configured to: determine a change in a ratio of an image intensity underneath a footprint of the 2D ASG to an image intensity in the open-ended channels of 2D ASG in the absence of the object being imaged positioned between the x-ray source and the FPD; and determine a change in a ratio of an image intensity underneath a footprint of the 2D ASG to an image intensity in the open-ended channels of 2D ASG in the presence of the object being imaged positioned between the x-ray source and the FPD.
With respect to dependent claim 19 and its dependent claim 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the detector is arranged in an offset geometry from the x-ray source, wherein the offset geometry is defined by: a tilt of the detector towards the x-ray source; and a lateral offset position of the detector from the x-ray source defined by a first distance, x.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights