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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 18 are presented for examination.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan et al. (US 7,826,587 B1; pub. Nov. 2, 2010).
Regarding claim 1, Langan et al. disclose in a first embodiment: A system, comprising:
a processor (fig.2 item 36) for processing a detection signal of radiation transmitted through an imaging subject to generate a radiological image (col.4 L46-61), wherein
the radiation is irradiated toward the imaging subject while a radiation tube rotates around the imaging subject (col.4 L46-61);
the radiation includes low-energy radiation generated by applying a low tube voltage to the radiation tube and high-energy radiation generated by applying a high tube voltage to the radiation tube (col.3 L20-44).
In the first embodiment Langan et al. are silent about:
application of the low tube voltage and the high tube voltage to the radiation tube are alternately switched during rotation of the radiation tube, to form a tube voltage waveform having a rising part from the low tube voltage to the high tube voltage, a falling part from the high tube voltage to the low tube voltage, a high steady-state interval between the rising part and the falling part, and a low steady-state interval between the falling part and the rising part; and
the processer to execute the following: receives input for rotation speed and/or number of views per rotation, identifies a tube voltage waveform corresponding to the rotation speed and/or the number of views per rotation using a waveform identification model, calculates a low-energy average value of the radiation corresponding to a low voltage interval including the low steady-state interval of the tube voltage waveform and a part of the falling part of the tube voltage waveform, and a high-energy average value of the radiation corresponding to a high voltage interval including the high steady-state interval of the tube voltage waveform and another part of the falling part of the tube voltage waveform, and sets a parameter used for creating the radiological image in accordance with the low-energy average value and the high-energy average value.
In an additional embodiment Langan et al. disclose: application of the low tube voltage (fig.6 item 226) and the high tube voltage (fig.6 item 220) to the radiation tube are alternately switched during rotation of the radiation tube, to form a tube voltage waveform having a rising part (fig.6 items 218 – 222) from the low tube voltage to the high tube voltage, a falling part (fig.6 items 224 – 228) from the high tube voltage to the low tube voltage, a high steady-state interval between the rising part and the falling part (fig.6 items 222 – 224), and a low steady-state interval between the falling part and the rising part (fig.6 items 228 – 230); and calculates a low-energy average value of the radiation corresponding to a low voltage interval including the low steady-state interval of the tube voltage waveform and a part of the falling part of the tube voltage waveform (col.8 L26-54), and a high-energy average value of the radiation corresponding to a high voltage interval including the high steady-state interval of the tube voltage waveform and another part of the falling part of the tube voltage waveform, and sets a parameter used for creating the radiological image in accordance with the low-energy average value and the high-energy average value (col.8 L26-54) motivated by the benefits for no delay between high KVp and low KVp integration (col.8 L14-15).
In light of the benefits for no delay between the high KVp and low KVp integration as taught by Langan et al., it would have been obvious to combine the two embodiments for Langan et al.
In the additional embodiment Langan et al. are silent about
the processer to execute the following: receives input for rotation speed and/or number of views per rotation, identifies a tube voltage waveform corresponding to the rotation speed and/or the number of views per rotation using a waveform identification model.
In a further embodiment Langan et al. disclose: the processer to execute the following: receives input for rotation speed and/or number of views per rotation, identifies a tube voltage waveform corresponding to the rotation speed and/or the number of views per rotation using a waveform identification model (fig.5 items 104 & 106) motivated by the benefits for obtaining fast KVp switching data (Langan et al. col.6 L54-55).
In light of the benefits for obtaining fast KVp switching data as taught by Langan et al., it would have been obvious to combine the different embodiments for Langan et al.
Regarding claim 2, Langan et al. disclose: a table (fig.1 item 46) on which the imaging subject (fig.1 item 22) is placed; a gantry (fig.1 item 12) for rotatably supporting the radiation tube (fig.1 item 14) and a detector (fig.1 item 18) that detects the radiation transmitted through the imaging subject;
a storing medium (fig.1 items 36 & 38) for storing the waveform identification model; a user interface (fig.5 item 104) for inputting the rotation speed and/or the number of views per rotation; and
an image reconstructing device (fig.1 item 34) including the processor (fig.1 item 36).
Regarding claim 10, Langan et al. disclose: A program for processing a detection signal of radiation transmitted through an imaging subject in order to generate a radiological image, wherein
the radiation is irradiated toward the imaging subject while a radiation tube rotates around the imaging subject,
the radiation includes low-energy radiation generated by applying a low tube voltage to the radiation tube and high-energy radiation generated by applying a high tube voltage to the radiation tube;
application of the low tube voltage and the high tube voltage to the radiation tube are alternately switched during rotation of the radiation tube, to form a tube voltage waveform having a rising part from the low tube voltage to the high tube voltage, a falling part from the high tube voltage to the low tube voltage, a high steady-state interval between the rising part and the falling part, and a low steady-state interval between the falling part and the rising part; and
the program causes a processor to execute the following: receiving input for rotation speed and/or number of views per rotation; identifying a tube voltage waveform corresponding to the rotation speed and/or the number of views per rotation using a waveform identification model; calculating a low-energy average value of the radiation corresponding to a low voltage interval including the low steady-state interval of the tube voltage waveform and a part of the falling part of the tube voltage waveform, and a high-energy average value of the radiation corresponding to a high voltage interval including the high steady-state interval of the tube voltage waveform and another part of the falling part of the tube voltage waveform; and setting a parameter used for creating the radiological image in accordance with the low-energy average value and the high-energy average value (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Langan et al. disclose: the imaging subject is placed on a table, the radiation transmitted through the imaging subject is detected by a detector,
the detector and the radiation tube are rotatably supported by a gantry, the waveform identification model is pre-stored in a storing medium, and the rotation speed and/or the number of views per rotation are input via a user interface (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Claims 3-4, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan et al. (US 7,826,587 B1; pub. Nov. 2, 2010) in view of Matsuura et al. (US 2023/0404514 A1; pub. Dec. 21, 2023).
Regarding claim 3, Langan et al. are silent about: the parameter includes a beam hardening correction coefficient.
In a similar field of endeavor Matsuura et al. disclose: the parameter includes a beam hardening correction coefficient (para. [0063]-[0064]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio.
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Langan et al. with the teachings of Matsuura et al.
Regarding claim 4, Langan et al. are silent about: the parameter includes an X-ray absorption coefficient and/or an X-ray scattering coefficient.
In a similar field of endeavor Matsuura et al. disclose: the parameter includes an X-ray absorption coefficient and/or an X-ray scattering coefficient (para. [0063]-[0064]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio.
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Langan et al. with the teachings of Matsuura et al.
Regarding claim 12, Langan et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose: the parameter includes a beam hardening correction coefficient (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 3).
Regarding claim 13, Langan et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose: the parameter includes an X-ray absorption coefficient and/or an X-ray scattering coefficient (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Claims 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan et al. (US 7,826,587 B1; pub. Nov. 2, 2010) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2020/0413525 A1; pub. Dec. 31, 2020) and further in view of Takasaki et al. (US 2024/0053497 A1; pub. Feb. 15, 2024).
Regarding claim 5, Langan et al. disclose: the low voltage (fig.6 item 204) interval includes a part of a rising part of the tube voltage waveform (fig.6 item 212).
Langan et al. are silent about: the high voltage interval includes another part of a rising part of the tube voltage waveform, and the waveform identification model makes the voltage falling part relatively gradual when a current value of the power applied to the radiation tube is low and makes the voltage falling part relatively steep when the current value is high, while not significantly changing the voltage rising part when the current value is low or high.
In a similar field of endeavor Zhu et al. disclose: the high voltage interval includes another part of a rising part of the tube voltage waveform (fig.7B Trise) motivated by the benefits for reduced scan dose (Zhu et al. para. [0123]).
In light of the benefits for reduced scan dose as taught by Zhu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Langan et al. with the teachings of Zhu et al.
Zhu et al. are silent about: the waveform identification model makes the voltage falling part relatively gradual when a current value of the power applied to the radiation tube is low and makes the voltage falling part relatively steep when the current value is high, while not significantly changing the voltage rising part when the current value is low or high.
In a similar field of endeavor Takasaki et al. disclose: the waveform identification model makes the voltage falling part relatively gradual when a current value of the power applied to the radiation tube is low and makes the voltage falling part relatively steep when the current value is high (para. [0072]), while not significantly changing the voltage rising part when the current value is low or high (obvious in view of the teachings of para. [0072]) motivated by the benefits for suppressing a degradation in quality of an image caused by a change of a radiation generation condition (Takasaki et al. para. [0004]).
In light of the benefits for suppressing a degradation in quality of an image caused by a change of a radiation generation condition as taught by Takasaki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Langan et al. and Zhu et al. with the teachings of Takasaki et al.
Regarding claim 14, Langan et al., Zhu et al. and Takasaki et al. disclose: the low voltage interval includes a part of a rising part of the tube voltage waveform,
the high voltage interval includes another part of a rising part of the tube voltage waveform, and
the waveform identification model makes the voltage falling part relatively gradual when a current value of the power applied to the radiation tube is low and makes the voltage falling part relatively steep when the current value is high, while not significantly changing the voltage rising part when the current value is low or high (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 5).
Claims 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan et al. (US 7,826,587 B1; pub. Nov. 2, 2010) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2009/0262997 A1; pub. Oct. 22, 2009).
Regarding claim 6, Langan et al. disclose: the tube voltage waveform is acquired by measuring power applied to the radiation tube (see rejection of claim 1).
Langan et al. are silent about: in the waveform identification model, a curve of a voltage falling part of a measured waveform is expressed by an approximation of a polynomial.
In a similar field of endeavor Zhou et al. disclose: in the waveform identification model, a curve of a voltage falling part of a measured waveform is expressed by an approximation of a polynomial (para. [0011]) motivated by the benefits for rapid optimization.
In light of the benefits for rapid optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Langan et al. with the teachings of Zhou et al.
Regarding claim 15, Langan et al. and Zhou et al. disclose: the tube voltage waveform is acquired by measuring power applied to the radiation tube, and
in the waveform identification model, a curve of a voltage falling part of a measured waveform is expressed by an approximation of a polynomial (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6).
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langan et al. (US 7,826,587 B1; pub. Nov. 2, 2010) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2009/0262997 A1; pub. Oct. 22, 2009) and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2020/0413525 A1; pub. Dec. 31, 2020).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: the processor divides the tube voltage waveform into the low voltage interval and the high voltage interval by a prescribed threshold value,
sampling for generating the detection signal is performed a first number of times in each of the low voltage intervals and a second number of times in each of the high voltage intervals, and
the first number of times is the same as the second number of times.
In a similar field of endeavor Zhu et al. disclose: the processor divides the tube voltage waveform into the low voltage interval and the high voltage interval by a prescribed threshold value (fig.7B, para. [0124]),
sampling for generating the detection signal is performed a first number of times in each of the low voltage intervals and a second number of times in each of the high voltage intervals (fig.7B, para. [0124]), and
the first number of times is the same as the second number of times (fig.7B, para. [0124]) motivated by the benefits for reduced scan dose (Zhu et al. para. [0123]).
In light of the benefits for reduced scan dose as taught by Zhu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Langan et al. and Zhou et al. with the teachings of Zhu et al.
Regarding claim 16, Langan et al., Zhou et al. and Zhu et al. disclose: the program causes the processor to execute dividing the tube voltage waveform into the low voltage interval and the high voltage interval using a prescribed threshold value,
sampling for generating the detection signal is performed a first number of times in each of the low voltage intervals and a second number of times in each of the high voltage intervals, and
the first number of times is the same as the second number of times (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 17-18 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 8, Langan et al. disclose: the detector includes a plurality of detector elements (fig.2 item 18) extending in a circumferential direction of the gantry (fig.1 item 12),
the radiation tube irradiates the detector with a fan beam or a cone beam diverging in the circumferential direction as the radiation (col.1 L10-16).
Wu et al. disclose: the detector detects the radiation transmitted through a phantom to generate a phantom detection signal (para. [0004]-[0005]),
a first phantom-based beam hardening correction coefficient corresponding to the low- energy radiation is generated on the basis of the phantom detection signal (para. [0004]-[0005]),
the first phantom-based beam hardening correction coefficient is generated for each of the plurality of detector elements (para. [0004]-[0005]).
Nishide et al. disclose: the parameter includes a first model-based beam hardening correction coefficient corresponding to the low voltage interval (para. [0076]).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the radiological image is reconstructed using a first difference between the first model- based beam hardening correction coefficient and the first phantom-based beam hardening correction coefficient.
Claim 9 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 8 for dependency reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the radiological image is reconstructed using a first difference between the first model- based beam hardening correction coefficient and the first phantom-based beam hardening correction coefficient.
Claim 18 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 17 for dependency reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights