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 – 19 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The limitation “coincidence unit” recited in L4 of claim 14 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (coincidence). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is: a processor, Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), a controller, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a digital signal processor, a microcomputer, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a System-on-Chip (SoC), a programmable logic unit, a microprocessor, or any other device capable of responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner as described in para. [0093]. The limitation is therefore interpreted as requiring a processor, Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), a controller, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a digital signal processor, a microcomputer, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a System-on-Chip (SoC), a programmable logic unit, a microprocessor, or any other device capable of responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner or its equivalent.
The limitation “coincidence unit” recited in L3 of claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (module) + function (control). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is: a computer, a microcontroller or an integrated circuit as described in para. [0068]. The limitation is therefore interpreted as requiring computer, a microcontroller or an integrated circuit or its equivalent.
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 1-4, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi et al. disclose: A method for estimating a rate of randomly-occurring coincidences in a counting X-ray detector (para. [0059], [107]), the X-ray detector comprising a number of detector elements (fig.1 & 2 items 3), the method comprising:
acquiring X-ray signals by the X-ray detector and converting the X-ray signals into electrical signals at the detector elements (fig.1 & 2 items 3);
passing on at least some of the electrical signals to signal inputs of a coincidence unit (fig.1 item 4), the signal inputs including a first signal input and at least one further signal input (para. [0040]),
wherein at least one of signals for the first signal input are acquired in a first of the detector elements (para. [0040]), counting coincidences of the signals passed on into the coincidence unit to determine at least one counting rate of acquired randomly-occurring coincidences (para. [0059]); and
estimating a rate of randomly-occurring coincidences based on the at least one determined counting rate (para. [0059]).
Kobayashi et al. are silent about:
signals for the at least one further signal input are each acquired in another detector element not directly adjacent to the first of the detector elements, or
the signals for the at least one further signal input or the signals for the first signal input in an electrical circuit are temporally offset by a defined time interval before they are passed on to the coincidence unit.
In a similar field of endeavor Adler discloses: signals for the at least one further signal input are each acquired in another detector element not directly adjacent to the first of the detector elements (para. [0103], [0149]), or
the signals for the at least one further signal input or the signals for the first signal input in an electrical circuit are temporally offset by a defined time interval before they are passed on to the coincidence unit motivated by the benefits for increased signal to noise ratio.
In light of the benefits for increased 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 method of Kobayashi et al. with the teachings of Adler.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi et al. and Adler disclose: the signals for the at least one further signal input are each acquired in another of the detector elements, and the signals for the at least one further signal input or the signals for the first signal input in the electrical circuit are temporally offset by a defined time interval before they are passed on to the coincidence unit (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi et al. and Adler disclose: the signals for the at least one further signal input are each also acquired in the first of the detector elements, and the signals for the at least one further signal input or the signals for the first signal input in the electrical circuit are temporally offset by a defined time interval before they are passed on to the coincidence unit (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi et al. and Adler disclose: a plurality of coincidence units is provided, at least one coincidence unit is associated with each subgroup of detector elements,
the method is applied for each of the plurality of coincidence units, and
with each of the at least one coincidence unit, a rate of randomly-occurring coincidences is estimated for the detector elements of the associated subgroup (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi et al. disclose: a number of detector elements (fig.1 item 3); and
at least one electrical circuit with at least one coincidence unit (fig.1 item 4), wherein the X-ray detector is configured to perform the method of claim 1 (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi et al. disclose: A medical imaging device comprising:
a counting X-ray detector (para. [0024], [0040]); and
a control module (fig.1 item 5), wherein the medical imaging device is configured to perform the method of claim 1 (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Adler discloses: the signals for the at least one further signal input are each acquired in a detector element directly adjacent to the first detector element (para. [0103], [0149]) motivated by the benefits for increased signal to noise ratio.
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi et al. and Adler disclose: at least one coincidence unit is associated with a subgroup of spatially adjacently arranged detector elements (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) and further in view of Stearns (US 2010/0014728 A1; pub. Jan. 21, 2010).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: the rate of randomly-occurring coincidences is estimated with the coincidence unit for a detector element to be estimated, the electrical signal of the detector element to be estimated is not fed into the coincidence unit, and
the signals for the first signal input and the signals for the at least one further signal input originate from detector
elements that are each adjacent to the detector element to be estimated.
In a similar field of endeavor Stearns discloses: the rate of randomly-occurring coincidences is estimated with the coincidence unit for a detector element to be estimated, the electrical signal of the detector element to be estimated is not fed into the coincidence unit, and
the signals for the first signal input and the signals for the at least one further signal input originate from detector
elements that are each adjacent to the detector element to be estimated (para. [0037]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio (Stearns para. [0008]-[0009]).
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio as taught by Stearns, 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 method of Kobayashi et al. and Adler with the teachings of Stearns.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) and further in view of Spahn (US 2014/0175299 A1; pub. Jun. 26, 2014).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the detector elements are divided into subgroups of detector elements,
intermediate spaces are between the subgroups, and the coincidence unit or a plurality of coincidence units is or are arranged in the intermediate spaces between the subgroups.
In a similar field of endeavor Spahn discloses: the detector elements are divided into subgroups of detector elements,
intermediate spaces are between the subgroups, and the coincidence unit or a plurality of coincidence units is or are arranged in the intermediate spaces between the subgroups (para. [0059]) motivated by the benefits for greatly improved x-ray image quality (Spahn para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for greatly improved x-ray image quality as taught by Spahn, 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 method of Kobayashi et al. and Adler with the teachings of Spahn.
Claims 7 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) and further in view of Lui et al. (US 2019/0130569 A1; pub. May 2, 2019).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: determining a coincidence of two X-ray signals acquired simultaneously according to a predetermined criterion on adjacent detector elements to establish uncorrected coincidences; and
correcting the uncorrected coincidences based on the rate of randomly-occurring coincidences to estimate a real coincidence.
In a similar field of endeavor Lui et al. disclose: determining a coincidence of two X-ray signals acquired simultaneously according to a predetermined criterion on adjacent detector elements to establish uncorrected coincidences (para. [0038], [0042]); and
correcting the uncorrected coincidences based on the rate of randomly-occurring coincidences to estimate a real coincidence (para. [0044]) 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 method of Kobayashi et al. and Adler with the teachings of Lui et al.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kobayashi et al., Adler and Lui et al. disclose: the determining includes counting a number of coincidence signals for each detector element with at least one adjacent detector element (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) in view of Lui et al. (US 2019/0130569 A1; pub. May 2, 2019) and further in view of Ooi (US 2009/0179154 A1; pub. Jul. 16, 2009).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: a coincidence unit is provided for establishing the uncorrected coincidences and for estimating the randomly- occurring coincidences, and
for each of the coincidence unit for establishing the uncorrected coincidences and the coincidence unit for estimating the randomly-occurring coincidences, a same number of signal inputs are provided for electrical signals, the coincidences of which are counted.
In a similar field of endeavor Ooi discloses: a coincidence unit is provided for establishing the uncorrected coincidences and for estimating the randomly- occurring coincidences (para. [0013, [0053], [0073]), and
for each of the coincidence unit for establishing the uncorrected coincidences and the coincidence unit for estimating the randomly-occurring coincidences, a same number of signal inputs are provided for electrical signals, the coincidences of which are counted (para. [0013, [0053], [0073]) motivated by the benefits for an accurate and precise tomogram image having high sensitivity and providing avoidance of degradation of a reconstructed image (Ooi para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio as taught by Ooi, 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 method of Kobayashi et al., Adler and Lui et al. with the teachings of Ooi.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) in view of Lui et al. (US 2019/0130569 A1; pub. May 2, 2019) in view of Ooi (US 2009/0179154 A1; pub. Jul. 16, 2009) and further in view of Gu et al. (US 2020/0107790 A1; pub. Apr. 9, 2020).
Regarding claim 9, Ooi discloses: for establishing the uncorrected coincidence and also for estimating the randomly-occurring coincidence, signals are provided for the signal inputs of the respective coincidence unit from the detector element, the real coincidence of which is to be determined, and from one or more of the adjacent detector elements (para. [0013, [0053], [0073]) motivated by the benefits for an accurate and precise tomogram image having high sensitivity and providing avoidance of degradation of a reconstructed image (Ooi para. [0005]).
The combined references are silent about:
only a subgroup of the adjacent detector elements is provided for at least one of establishing the uncorrected coincidence or estimating the randomly-occurring coincidence.
In a similar field of endeavor Gu et al. disclose: only a subgroup of the adjacent detector elements is provided for at least one of establishing the uncorrected coincidence or estimating the randomly-occurring coincidence (para. [0061], [0090]) 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 method of Kobayashi et al., Adler, Lui et al. and Ooi with the teachings of Gu et al.
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: at least one of only a subgroup of the adjacent detector elements is provided for establishing the uncorrected coincidence, or only a subgroup of next-but-one detector elements is provided for estimating the randomly-occurring coincidence.
In a similar field of endeavor Gu et al. disclose: at least one of only a subgroup of the adjacent detector elements is provided for establishing the uncorrected coincidence, or only a subgroup of next-but-one detector elements is provided for estimating the randomly-occurring coincidence (para. [0061], [0090]) 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 method of Kobayashi et al., Adler, Lui et al. and Ooi with the teachings of Gu et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) in view of Lui et al. (US 2019/0130569 A1; pub. May 2, 2019) and further in view of Lyu et al. (US 2017/0082759 A1; pub. Mar. 23, 2017).
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: the real coincidence is transferred as a count value, and at least one of the randomly-occurring coincidence or the uncorrected coincidence is also transferred as an additional count value.
In a similar field of endeavor Lyu et al. disclose: the real coincidence is transferred as a count value, and at least one of the randomly-occurring coincidence or the uncorrected coincidence is also transferred as an additional count value (para. [0053], [0132]) motivated by the benefits for improved reconstruction image quality (Lyu et al. para. [0085]).
In light of the benefits for improved reconstruction image quality as taught by Lyu 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 method of Kobayashi et al., Adler and Lui et al. with the teachings of Lyu et al.
Claims 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) in view of Lui et al. (US 2019/0130569 A1; pub. May 2, 2019) and further in view of Qi et al. (US 2021/0282732 A1; pub. Sep. 16, 2021).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: the at least one counting rate of the randomly-occurring coincidences is used to monitor a paralysis of another counter of signals.
In a similar field of endeavor Qi et al. disclose: the at least one counting rate of the randomly-occurring coincidences is used to monitor a paralysis of another counter of signals (para. [0035], paralysis is also known as deadtime) motivated by the benefits for improved count accuracy (Qi et al. para. [0035]).
In light of the benefits for improved count accuracy as taught by Qi 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 method of Kobayashi et al., Adler and Lui et al. with the teachings of Qi et al.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kobayashi et al., Adler, Lui et al. and Qi et al. disclose: the at least one counting rate of the randomly-occurring coincidences is used to correct the paralysis of the another counter of signals (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 12).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0154444 A1; pub. Jun. 1, 2017) in view of Adler (US 2020/0233099 A1; pub. Jul. 23, 2020) in view of Lui et al. (US 2019/0130569 A1; pub. May 2, 2019) and further in view of Liu et al. (1) (US 2018/0114345 A1; pub. Apr. 26, 2018).
Regarding claim 13, the combined references are silent about: a method for recording an X-ray image dataset of an object with an X-ray system, the method comprising:
counting at least one number of count signals based on incident X-ray radiation in each detector element;
performing the method of claim 7; and
generating the X-ray image dataset based on the at least one number of count signals counted in each detector element and the estimated real coincidence.
In a similar field of endeavor Liu et al. (1) disclose: a method for recording an X-ray image dataset of an object with an X-ray system, the method comprising:
counting at least one number of count signals based on incident X-ray radiation in each detector element;
performing the method of claim 7; and
generating the X-ray image dataset based on the at least one number of count signals counted in each detector element and the estimated real coincidence (para. [0063]) motivated by the benefits for improved accuracy of coincidence data distribution, improved quality of the reconstructed image and accuracy of quantitative analysis (Liu et al. (1) para. [0085]).
In light of the benefits for improved accuracy of coincidence data distribution, improved quality of the reconstructed image and accuracy of quantitative analysis as taught by Liu et al. (1), 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 method of Kobayashi et al., Adler and Lui et al. with the teachings of Liu et al. (1)
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