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 § 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.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al (US 9867587 B2) in view of Tanaka et al (JP WO2015/151948 A1).
Regarding claim 1, O’Donnell et al discloses an X-ray CT apparatus comprising: an X-ray source (6) that irradiates an X-ray to a subject (patient (P)) (See Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 62-col. 5, line 9); an X-ray detector (7) that detects the X-ray transmitted through the subject (patient (P)) (See Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 62-col. 5, line 9); a rotating plate that causes the X-ray source and the X-ray detector to rotate around the subject; an image generation section that generates a tomographic image of the subject based on a detection signal of the X-ray detector (col. 4, lines 62-col. 5, line 28); and a patient support plate (10) adjustable relative to a bed base (9) such that the patient support plate (10) with the patient (P) can be introduced into the opening (3) of the gantry (4) to acquire X-Ray projections of the patient (P), for example for a topogram, a non-spiral CT scan or for a spiral CT scan (col. 5, lines 10-17); and a controller (12) controlling any dosages and changes in dosage by processor by varying one or more parameters of x-ray CT system (col. 5, line 65-col. 6, line 17). O’Donnell et al is silent with regards to the controller as claimed. Tanaka et al discloses an x-ray CT apparatus and imaging method comprising: a controller (124) that controls each section, wherein the controller changes an irradiation condition of the X-ray irradiated from the X-ray source while the rotating plate rotates, such that an irradiation dose from a side on which a head holder or a top plate (head image) is disposed is increased in a range of a projection angle at which the X-ray passes through the head holder or the top plate (i.e. system controller 124 calculates an X-ray irradiation area that satisfies the inspection condition for each view angle, and calculates an optimal tube current amount for each view angle with respect to the calculated X-ray irradiation area. The position is dynamically changed and set, and the X-ray dose irradiated at each view angle is appropriately controlled based on the analysis result in the analysis line 300) (page 17). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify O’Donnell et al with the teaching of Tanaka et al, so as to preserve image quality while limiting exposure.
Regarding claim 2, O’Donnell et al in view of Tanaka et al discloses wherein the controller changes the irradiation condition such that an irradiation dose from a side opposite to the side on which the head holder or the top plate is disposed is reduced by an amount of increase in the irradiation dose from the side on which the head holder or the top plate (image head position) (204) is disposed (pages 10, 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the controller calculates the range of the projection angle at which the X-ray passes through the head holder or the top plate, based on a size of the head holder or a size of the top plate, and calculates an amount of increase in the irradiation dose from the side on which the head holder or the top plate is disposed, based on a length at which the X-ray crosses the head holder or the top plate and an X-ray attenuation coefficient of the head holder or the top plate.
Regarding claims 4-5, the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the size and the X-ray attenuation coefficient of the head holder are set based on selection in a selection screen for selecting a type of the head holder; wherein the controller estimates the size and the X-ray attenuation coefficient of the head holder based on a camera image or a registration image captured by a camera that images the subject from above.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the controller uses an AI that is generated in advance by learning a large number of the camera images or the registration images, and the size and the X-ray attenuation coefficient of the head holder as training data, in the estimation of the size and the X-ray attenuation coefficient of the head holder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coppens et al (US 9179880 B2) discloses a radiation therapy patient couch top which provides optimal fields of treatment in a high-energy radiation therapy environment. In addition, the patient couch top provides superior imaging qualities when used in a diagnostic imaging x-ray environment. All metal is eliminated from the treatment/imaging area. This ensures that no metal will be in the way of the radiation treatment beam and that no artifacting will occur when used with diagnostic imaging techniques such as Computed Tomography. By employing moveable fiber reinforced support beams, the main patient support structure can be positioned so that a minimum of electron generation will occur through Compton scattering.
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