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- 20 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 1-6, 8-10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trousset et al. (US 2012/0106708 A1; pub. May 3, 2012) in view of Sowards-Emmerd et al. (US 2012/0121062 A1; pub. May 17, 2012).
Regarding claim 1, Trousset et al. disclose: A scanning apparatus, including a gantry (fig.1 item 1), a controller (fig.1 item 8), a C-shaped arm (fig.1 item 20), a radiation source (fig.1 item 3), and a detector (fig.1 item 4), wherein
the radiation source (fig.1 item 3) and the detector (fig.1 item 4) are arranged at both ends of the C-shaped arm (fig.1 item 2),
the C-shaped arm is connected to the gantry, the controller is configured to control a motion of the gantry to drive the C- shaped arm to move so as to scan a target object (para. [0005], [0021]), and
the gantry has a deflection mode in which the gantry drives the radiation source and the detector to deflect around a target point by a deflection angle (para. [0034], shifting movement), the target point is different from a center of interest of the target object (fig.3 trajectories T1, T2, T3, para. [0034]).
Trousset et al. are silent about: a scanning view of the radiation source and the detector after the deflection covers at least half of a target reconstruction field of view (FOV) corresponding to the scan of the target object.
In a similar field of endeavor Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: a scanning view of the radiation source and the detector after the deflection covers at least half of a target reconstruction field of view (FOV) corresponding to the scan of the target object (para. [0037]-[0038], [0043] teach the FOV can be tailored to any size) motivated by the benefits for reduced radiation dose (Sowards-Emmerd et al. para. [0068]).
In light of the benefits for reduced radiation dose as taught by Sowards-Emmerd 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 Trousset et al. with the teachings of Sowards-Emmerd et al.
Regarding claim 2, Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: the target point is located on a line connecting a focal point of the radiation source before the deflection and a rotation center of the scanning apparatus (the claim does not recite any additional structure that further limits claim 1, the claim is therefore rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 3, Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: the deflection angle is within a target angle range, a span of the target angle range is negatively correlated with a distance between a rotation center of the scanning apparatus and the target point (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, especially see fig.3 & para. [0034] of Trousset et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Trousset et al. disclose: the target point is different from a focal point of the radiation source (para. [0034], fig.3).
Regarding claim 5, Trousset et al. disclose: the target point is a center point of the detector (para. [0034], fig.3).
Regarding claim 6, Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: the target reconstruction FOV is defined in a scanning protocol of the scan of the target object. (para. [0037]-[0038], [0043] teach the FOV can be tailored to any protocol) motivated by the benefits for reduced radiation dose (Sowards-Emmerd et al. para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: the gantry further has a rotation mode in which the gantry drives the radiation source and the detector to rotate around the center of interest of the target object to scan the target object and obtain scanning data of the target object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: the radiation source and the detector have a first reconstruction FOV before the deflection, the radiation source and the detector have a second reconstruction FOV after the deflection, the second reconstruction FOV is larger than the first reconstruction FOV, and the second reconstruction FOV is greater than or equal to the target reconstruction FOV (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: a boundary of the scanning view after the deflection passes through the center of interest of the target object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: A method for obtaining a medical image, wherein the method is implemented by a scanning apparatus, the scanning apparatus includes a radiation source and a detector; and the method comprises:
deflecting the radiation source and the detector around a target point by a deflection angle, the target point being different from a center of interest of a target object; and
rotating the deflected radiation source and the deflected detector around the center of interest of the target object to scan the target object and obtain scanning data of the target object,
wherein a scanning view of the radiation source and the detector after the deflection covers at least half of a target reconstruction field of view (FOV) corresponding to the scan of the target object (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. disclose: the radiation source and the detector have a first reconstruction FOV before the deflection, the radiation source and the detector have a second reconstruction FOV after the deflection, the second reconstruction FOV is larger than the first reconstruction FOV, and the second reconstruction FOV is equal to or greater than the target reconstruction FOV (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 13).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trousset et al. (US 2012/0106708 A1; pub. May 3, 2012) in view of Sowards-Emmerd et al. (US 2012/0121062 A1; pub. May 17, 2012) and further in view of Elenbaas et al. (US 2017/0148180 A1; May 25, 2017).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: the target point is defined in a scanning protocol of the scan of the target object, and different scanning protocols correspond to different target points.
In a similar field of endeavor Elenbaas et al. disclose: the target point is defined in a scanning protocol of the scan of the target object, and different scanning protocols correspond to different target points (para. [0010], [0013]) motivated by the benefits for improved image registration (Elenbaas et al. para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for improved image registration as taught by Elenbaas 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 Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. with the teachings of Elenbaas et al.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trousset et al. (US 2012/0106708 A1; pub. May 3, 2012) in view of Sowards-Emmerd et al. (US 2012/0121062 A1; pub. May 17, 2012) and further in view of West et al. (US 2017/0296137 A1; pub. Oct. 19, 2017).
Regarding claim 11, the combined references are silent about: the scanning apparatus is a cone- beam computed tomography scanning apparatus.
In a similar field of endeavor West et al. disclose: the scanning apparatus is a cone- beam computed tomography scanning apparatus (para. [0024], [0026]-[0028]) motivated by the benefits for high diagnostic accuracy at reduced radiation exposure.
In light of the benefits for high diagnostic accuracy at reduced radiation exposure, 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 Trousset et al. and Sowards-Emmerd et al. with the teachings of West et al.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Trousset et al., Sowards-Emmerd et al. and West et al. disclose: the cone-beam computed tomography scanning apparatus is a digital subtraction angiography scanner or a mobile C-shaped arm machine (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 11).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyama (US 2006/0256926 A1; pub. Nov. 16, 2006).
Regarding claim 17, Hiyama discloses in a first embodiment: A lift assembly for an X-ray device (fig.3 item 3), the lift assembly comprising: a shell (item 3 of fig.3 is inside of a shell); a driving assembly accommodated in the shell (para. [0026]-[0027]).
In the first embodiment Hiyama is silent about: an arm adjustment assembly, the arm adjustment assembly moving under a driving of the driving assembly; wherein, the arm adjustment assembly includes an intermediate arm section, a target arm section, and a linkage assembly disposed between the intermediate arm section and the target arm section, the target arm section is connected to a detector or a radiation source, the intermediate arm section moves in a first direction under the driving of the driving assembly, the first direction being perpendicular to a flat panel of the detector, when the intermediate arm section moves in the first direction, the target arm section is driven to move in the first direction by the linkage assembly, projections of the intermediate arm section and the target arm section in the first direction at least partially overlap.
In a further embodiment Hiyama discloses: an arm adjustment assembly, the arm adjustment assembly (fig.7B items 31, 33a & 33b) moving under a driving of the driving assembly; wherein, the arm adjustment assembly includes an intermediate arm section (fig.7B item 33a), a target arm section (fig.7B item 32), and a linkage assembly disposed (fig.7B item 33a) between the intermediate arm section and the target arm section, the target arm section is connected to a detector (fig.7B item 2) or a radiation source, the intermediate arm section (the intermediate arm section 33a moves in a direction perpendicular to 2, that can be seen in the spacing d6 from fig7A & fig.7B) in a first direction under the driving of the driving assembly, the first direction being perpendicular to a flat panel of the detector, when the intermediate arm section moves in the first direction, the target arm section is driven to move in the first direction by the linkage assembly, projections of the intermediate arm section and the target arm section in the first direction at least partially overlap (from fig.7A to fig.7B the detector was moved by a distance d6 using pulleys 312, 331, belts 313, 332) motivated by the benefits for a scalable detector movement (Hiyama para. [0015]).
In light of the benefits for a scalable detector movement as taught by Hiyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two embodiments of Hiyama.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16, 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 15, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the second reconstruction FOV includes a repeatedly scanned area, and the method further comprises:
reconstructing the scanning data of the target object to obtain a reconstruction image of the target object, wherein the reconstruction image includes an image region corresponding to the repeatedly scanned area, and the image region is reconstructed by weighting the scanning data of the repeatedly scanned area based on a preset weight curve.
Claims 16 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 15 for dependency reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Hiyama discloses: the linkage assembly includes a first support component (fig.7B item 331) and a second support component (fig.7B item 331) arranged on the intermediate arm section.
Yesudhas discloses: a lifting assembly (fig.5 item 11) for lifting a detector (fig.5 item 111), wherein the lifting assembly comprises: a first support component (fig.5 item 106), a second support component (fig.5 item 108), a flexible traction component (fig.5 item 110).
Ura discloses: a lifting assembly (fig.1 items 1, 2, 3) for lifting a source (fig.1 13), wherein the lifting assembly comprises: a target arm (fig.1 item 3), a linkage assembly (fig.1 item 2), an intermediate arm (fig.1 item 1).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: a first flexible traction component connected to the first support component, and a second flexible traction component connected to the second support component; one end of the first flexible traction component is connected to the shell, the other end of the first flexible traction component is connected to the target arm section, one end of the second flexible traction component is connected to the shell, and the other end of the second flexible traction component is connected to the target arm section.
Regarding claim 18, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the linkage assembly includes a first support component and a second support component arranged on the intermediate arm section, a first flexible traction component connected to the first support component, and a second flexible traction component connected to the second support component;
one end of the first flexible traction component is connected to the shell, the other end of the first flexible traction component is connected to the target arm section, one end of the second flexible traction component is connected to the shell, and the other end of the second flexible traction component is connected to the target arm section.
Claims 19 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 18 for dependency reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the linkage assembly further includes:
a first sliding block, and
a first guiding rail matched with the first sliding block, wherein the first sliding block is
arranged on one of the intermediate arm section and the target arm section, and the first guiding rail is arranged on the other one of the intermediate arm section and the target arm section.
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
