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 .
Withdrawal of Allowability of Claims
The indicated allowability of claims 1-18 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Lemaitre, et al., US 2019/0320994 A1, US-20120018627-A1, and US-1704267-A. Rejections based on the newly cited references follow.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
First calibration data acquisition unit in line 2 of claim 14.
Partial calibration data acquisition unit in line 4 of claim 14.
Second complete calibration data calculation unit in line 7 of claim 14.
For the means-plus-function of First calibration data acquisition, Partial calibration data acquisition unit, and Second complete calibration data calculation unit, the originally filed specification (07/31/2025), discloses a computer 205 in paragraph 31 for performing the functions of the respective units.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 should be amended to recite --wherein the calculating second complete calibration data is performed based on the first calibration data and the partial calibration data--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention, namely, claims 1-13 are drawn to a process (i.e., a method) and claims 14-18 are drawn to a device (i.e., a machine). As such, claims 1-18 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories. However, the inquiry does not end there.
Step 2A (Prong One)
Independent claim 1 recites the following step which is an abstract ideas (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept):
“calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube, wherein calculating second complete calibration data is performed based on the first calibration data and the partial calibration data”. A review of the disclosure reveals that this calculating step includes i) calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data (e.g., see Equations 1-1 and/or 1-2 and paras. [0038]-[0042]) and ii) calculating the second complete calibration data according to the calibration coefficient and the first calibration data (e.g., see Equations 1-3 and/or 1-4 and pars. [0043]-[0046]), with the calculations being basic multiplication and/or division which one skilled in the art would be able to perform in their mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent claim 8 recites the following step which is an abstract ideas (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept):
“calculating second complete calibration data of the calibrated tube, wherein calculating second complete calibration data is performed based on of the first calibration data and the partial calibration data”. A review of the disclosure reveals that this calculating step includes i) calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data (e.g., see Equations 2-1 and/or 2-2 and paras. [0055]-[0058]) and ii) calculating the second complete calibration data according to the calibration coefficient and the first calibration data (e.g., see Equations 2-3 and/or 2-4 and pars. [0058]-[0062]), with the calculations being basic multiplication and/or division which one skilled in the art would be able to perform in their mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent claim 14 recites the following step which is an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept):
“calculating second complete calibration data based on the partial calibration data of the new tube and the first calibration data of the replaced tube or based on the partial calibration data of the calibrated tube and the historical first calibration data thereof”. As previously noted above with respect to independent claims 1 and 8, the disclosure reveals that these calculations are basic multiplication and/or division which one skilled in the art would be able to perform in their mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent claim 1 recites the additional steps of acquiring first calibration data of a replaced tube and acquiring partial calibration data of a new tube, wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a calibration scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by the new tube, which are insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., necessary data gathering). Claim 8 recites the additional steps of acquiring historical first calibration data of a calibrated tube and acquiring current partial calibration data of the calibrated tube, wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by the calibrated tube, which are insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., necessary data gathering). Similarly, independent claim 14 recites the additional steps of acquiring historical first calibration data of a replaced tube or a calibrated tube and acquiring partial calibration data acquired by performing a scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by a new tube or the calibrated tube, which are insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., necessary data gathering).
Independent claims 1 and 8 do not recite any particular element which is performing the method or which the method takes place upon (e.g., no express recitation of the calculating steps being performed by a particular device). A review of the disclosure reveals that any number of generic computers or computing devices may perform the calibration methods (e.g., see para. [0009] “a computer, for performing any X-ray tube calibration method”; [0025] “The X-ray tube calibration method may be implemented by a medical imaging apparatus, or may be implemented by a separate calibration apparatus connected to a medical imaging apparatus, or may be implemented a local or remote computer that communicates with a medical imaging apparatus via the Internet. For example, the X-ray tube calibration method may be a software as a service (SaaS) application on a cloud computing platform, and a medical imaging apparatus is connected to the Internet in a wired or wireless manner. When X-ray tube calibration is implemented, a remote cloud platform computer communicates with the medical imaging apparatus, acquires imaging data of a calibration scan, then runs an X-ray tube calibration application, and returns calibration data to the medical imaging apparatus. The X-ray tube calibration apparatus described in this specification may be the medical imaging apparatus described above, and X-ray tube calibration is a function of the medical imaging apparatus. The X-ray tube calibration apparatus may also be a separate calibration apparatus, e.g., a separate local or remote computer or a handheld calibration apparatus, and the separate calibration apparatus can communicate with a medical imaging apparatus to acquire calibration scan data, and provide calibration data to the medical imaging apparatus”).
Similarly, while claim 14 does recite the additional elements of “ a first calibration data acquisition unit”, “a partial calibration data acquisition unit”, and “a second complete calibration data calculation unit”, again, these units are disclosed as being any number of generic computers or computing devices which perform the acquiring and calculating steps, as noted above.
Step 2A (Prong Two)
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
As noted above, independent claims 1 and 8 do not recite any particular additional elements which perform the method steps or which the method takes place upon (e.g., no express recitation of the calculating steps being performed by a particular device). The specification does disclose the steps being performed/taking place upon any number of generic computers or computing devices (e.g., see at least paras. [0009] and [0025], as cited above). As previously noted, independent claims 1 and 8 recite the steps of acquiring first calibration data of a replaced tube, acquiring partial calibration data of a new tube, wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a calibration scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by the new tube, acquiring historical first calibration data of a calibrated tube and acquiring current partial calibration data of the calibrated tube, wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by the calibrated tube, which are insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., necessary data gathering). Independent claims 1 and 8 do recite that the data gathered is of a “replaced tube”, a “new tube”, and a “calibrated tube”, however, these elements are only sources for the gathered data and are recited at a high level of generality, only serving to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because they are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to implement or perform the steps of the abstract idea. The additional elements when considered alone and in combination amount to no more than using generic components, computing or otherwise, to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Similarly, as noted above, claim 14 does recite the additional elements of “ a first calibration data acquisition unit”, “a partial calibration data acquisition unit”, and “a second complete calibration data calculation unit”, however, again, these units are disclosed as being any number of generic computers or computing devices which perform the acquiring and calculating steps, as noted above. Further, independent claim 14 also recites the additional steps of acquiring historical first calibration data of a replaced tube or a calibrated tube and acquiring partial calibration data acquired by performing a scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by a new tube or the calibrated tube, which, similar to that discussed above, are insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., necessary data gathering). These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, are not integrated into a practical application because they are all recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to implement or perform the steps of the abstract idea. The additional elements when considered alone and in combination amount to no more than using generic components, computing or otherwise, to apply the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. There is no technical solution to a technical problem disclosed for which the claims could reflect and using a plurality of computing devices, recited at a high level of generality, to implement the abstract idea, is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Data gathering and data output does not add a meaningful limitation to the method or device.
Step 2B
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A - Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the insignificant extra-solution activity of activities of acquiring data is necessary data gathering, and the recitations of tubes do no more than be sources for the gathered data and are recited at a high level of generality, only serving to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, x-ray tubes are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional, as evidenced by at least US 1,704,267, US 2,058,992, US 2,536,306 (“a conventional X- ray tube”) and acquiring calibration data of an X-ray tube is also well-understood, routine, and/or conventional, as evidenced by at least US 4134018 A (“calibrating cycle can take place prior to initiation of a patient radiograph”) and US 4811373 A (“determining calibration data”).
Additionally, as previously noted, the claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. There is no technical solution to a technical problem disclosed for which the claims could reflect and using a plurality of computing devices, recited at a high level of generality, to implement the abstract idea, is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Data gathering and data output does not add a meaningful limitation to the method or device. The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional with evidence provided above and the combination of additional elements adds nothing that is not already present when considered separately.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
The dependent claims only further limit or define the abstract idea or additional elements, without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or reciting significantly more. Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 16 only further define the data being collected. Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 17 further define the calculation(s) of the calculating step(s) and have been addressed above. Claim 17 recites the additional element of a calibration coefficient calculation unit which, as similarly detailed above with respect to the other recited units is any number of generic computers or computing devices. Claim 17 recites an additional step of calculating which is similarly an abstract idea like those calculating steps detailed above.
Thus, in light of the above, the claims recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lemaitre, et al., US 2019/0320994 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lamaitre teaches an X-ray tube calibration method (e.g., see at least para. [0047] “a process 500 for calibrating the X-ray source or X-ray tube 14 within the imaging system”), comprising:
acquiring first calibration data of a replaced tube (e.g., see at least para. [0047] “Configuration parameters are stored in the form of an X-ray tube look up table (LUT) 1001 that is found in a suitable electronic storage medium disposed on an X-ray tube interface (TIF) board (not shown) formed as part of the source 14 and operably interconnected to the system 10 upon engagement of the source 14 to the system 10, thereby enabling access to the X-ray tube LUT 1001 by the system 10. These parameters…are determined during initial testing of the source 14…the system 10 accesses these parameters…”; also see para. [0046] “…The first aspect/step (Sweeper) is employed after initial manufacture of the X-ray tube 14 and generates the necessary magnet current seed values and sensitivity/gradient coefficients that are required for any later calibration of the X-ray tube 14 needed in the field…” and para. [0051] “…The data associated with each scan technique stored in the X-ray tube LUT is determined during the initial testing/calibration of the source 14 and stored in the X-ray tube LUT to be accessed by the system 10 during the calibration process, e.g., data generated during manufacturing of the source at nominal alignment, or zero deflection currents in the dipoles…”);
acquiring partial calibration data of a new tube, wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a calibration scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by the new tube(e.g., see at least para. [0050] “if either the source 14 has not been recently calibrated or a related component of the system 10 has recently been replaced, as shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 4A the system 10 moves to block 1010 to perform a preliminary, first stage calibration process. In the first stage 1010, a limited number of scans are performed…”, para. [0052] “Once the scan techniques for the first stage 1010 have been determined from the X-ray tube LUT 1001, which can be as few as six (6) in an exemplary embodiment, the system 10 proceeds in block 1012 to operate the source 14 to perform those scans and obtain actual or measured MTFW and MTFL values from each scan.”); and
calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube, wherein calculating second complete calibration data is performed based on the first calibration data and the partial calibration data (e.g., see at least para. [0055] “…if the measured focal spots fall within the stored tolerances, the system 1000 updates all of the stored QC and QT values for all scan techniques in the X-ray tube LUT 1001 with the offset in block 1023…and then proceeds to block 1024 to perform a more detailed, second stage calibration procedure. This second stage procedure is performed similarly to the first stage procedure in block 1010 but with the addition of multiple scan techniques associated with techniques associated with approximately three hundred (300) focal spots that establish a complete characterization of all focal spot sizes over the full performance range of the source 14”, para. [0062] “…After the initial scan and necessary subsequent iterations thereof have been performed, the updated calibration information is copied over the CT-LUT present within the storage 38 on the system 10 in block 1040…”; Also see para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 2, Lamaitre further teaches wherein the first calibration data comprises complete calibration data acquired by performing scans under all calibration scan conditions of the replaced tube (e.g., see at least para. [0047] “Configuration parameters are stored in the form of an X-ray tube look up table (LUT) 1001 that is found in a suitable electronic storage medium disposed on an X-ray tube interface (TIF) board (not shown) formed as part of the source 14 and operably interconnected to the system 10 upon engagement of the source 14 to the system 10, thereby enabling access to the X-ray tube LUT 1001 by the system 10. These parameters…are determined during initial testing of the source 14…the system 10 accesses these parameters…”; also see para. [0046] “…The first aspect/step (Sweeper) is employed after initial manufacture of the X-ray tube 14 and generates the necessary magnet current seed values and sensitivity/gradient coefficients that are required for any later calibration of the X-ray tube 14 needed in the field…” and para. [0051] “…The data associated with each scan technique stored in the X-ray tube LUT is determined during the initial testing/calibration of the source 14 and stored in the X-ray tube LUT to be accessed by the system 10 during the calibration process, e.g., data generated during manufacturing of the source at nominal alignment, or zero deflection currents in the dipoles…”);
Regarding claim 3, Lamaitre further teaches wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a scan in a maximum coverage range in a widthwise direction of the X-ray beam of the new tube ([0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 7, Lamaitre further teaches wherein the calibration method comprises air calibration of an X-ray tube (see abstract and [0012] which discloses a system and method for calibrating an X-ray tube is provided in which the X-ray tube includes an electronic storage medium associated with the X-ray tube on which calibration information for the X-ray tube is stored. The calibration information includes values representing the operating parameters for the focusing elements of the X-ray tube for desired focal spots that are determined during the initial testing of the X-ray tube after manufacture of the X-ray tube, as well as tolerance limits for variations in the focal spots and [0048] discloses These pre-requisites include, but are not limited to confirming the emitter and/or extractor calibration and source alignment are complete, performing a number of air scans at various voltages, current, and/or focal spot sizes defined within the X-ray tube LUT 1001 on the X-ray tube interface (TIF) board, and employing preset adaptive source warmup or cooldown procedures to ensure the source 14 is within set cathode and target track temperature requirements located within the X-ray tube LUT 1001 on the TIF board).
Regarding claim 8, Lemaitre discloses an X-ray tube calibration method (e.g., see at least para. [0047] “a process 500 for calibrating the X-ray source or X-ray tube 14 within the imaging system”), comprising:
acquiring historical first calibration data of a calibrated tube (e.g., see at least para. [0047] “Configuration parameters are stored in the form of an X-ray tube look up table (LUT) 1001 that is found in a suitable electronic storage medium disposed on an X-ray tube interface (TIF) board (not shown) formed as part of the source 14 and operably interconnected to the system 10 upon engagement of the source 14 to the system 10, thereby enabling access to the X-ray tube LUT 1001 by the system 10. These parameters…are determined during initial testing of the source 14…the system 10 accesses these parameters…”; also see para. [0046] “…The first aspect/step (Sweeper) is employed after initial manufacture of the X-ray tube 14 and generates the necessary magnet current seed values and sensitivity/gradient coefficients that are required for any later calibration of the X-ray tube 14 needed in the field…” and para. [0051] “…The data associated with each scan technique stored in the X-ray tube LUT is determined during the initial testing/calibration of the source 14 and stored in the X-ray tube LUT to be accessed by the system 10 during the calibration process, e.g., data generated during manufacturing of the source at nominal alignment, or zero deflection currents in the dipoles…”);
acquiring current partial calibration data of the calibrated tube, wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by the calibrated tube (e.g., see at least para. [0050] “if either the source 14 has not been recently calibrated or a related component of the system 10 has recently been replaced, as shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 4A the system 10 moves to block 1010 to perform a preliminary, first stage calibration process. In the first stage 1010, a limited number of scans are performed…”, para. [0052] “Once the scan techniques for the first stage 1010 have been determined from the X-ray tube LUT 1001, which can be as few as six (6) in an exemplary embodiment, the system 10 proceeds in block 1012 to operate the source 14 to perform those scans and obtain actual or measured MTFW and MTFL values from each scan.”); and
calculating second complete calibration data of the calibrated tube, wherein calculating second complete calibration data is performed based on of the first calibration data and the partial calibration data (e.g., see at least para. [0055] “…if the measured focal spots fall within the stored tolerances, the system 1000 updates all of the stored QC and QT values for all scan techniques in the X-ray tube LUT 1001 with the offset in block 1023…and then proceeds to block 1024 to perform a more detailed, second stage calibration procedure. This second stage procedure is performed similarly to the first stage procedure in block 1010 but with the addition of multiple scan techniques associated with techniques associated with approximately three hundred (300) focal spots that establish a complete characterization of all focal spot sizes over the full performance range of the source 14”, para. [0062] “…After the initial scan and necessary subsequent iterations thereof have been performed, the updated calibration information is copied over the CT-LUT present within the storage 38 on the system 10 in block 1040…”; Also see para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Lamaitre further teaches wherein the first calibration data comprises complete calibration data acquired by performing scans under all calibration scan conditions of the calibrated tube (e.g., see at least para. [0047] “Configuration parameters are stored in the form of an X-ray tube look up table (LUT) 1001 that is found in a suitable electronic storage medium disposed on an X-ray tube interface (TIF) board (not shown) formed as part of the source 14 and operably interconnected to the system 10 upon engagement of the source 14 to the system 10, thereby enabling access to the X-ray tube LUT 1001 by the system 10. These parameters…are determined during initial testing of the source 14…the system 10 accesses these parameters…”; also see para. [0046] “…The first aspect/step (Sweeper) is employed after initial manufacture of the X-ray tube 14 and generates the necessary magnet current seed values and sensitivity/gradient coefficients that are required for any later calibration of the X-ray tube 14 needed in the field…” and para. [0051] “…The data associated with each scan technique stored in the X-ray tube LUT is determined during the initial testing/calibration of the source 14 and stored in the X-ray tube LUT to be accessed by the system 10 during the calibration process, e.g., data generated during manufacturing of the source at nominal alignment, or zero deflection currents in the dipoles…”).
Regarding claim 10, Lamaitre further teaches wherein the partial calibration data is acquired by performing a scan in a maximum coverage range in a widthwise direction of the X-ray beam of the calibrated tube ([0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 14, Lemaitre discloses an X-ray tube calibration device, comprising:
a first calibration data acquisition unit (e.g., see Table 1 “Sweeper”), for acquiring historical first calibration data of a replaced tube or a calibrated tube (e.g., at least a calibrated tube, see at least para. [0047] “Configuration parameters are stored in the form of an X-ray tube look up table (LUT) 1001 that is found in a suitable electronic storage medium disposed on an X-ray tube interface (TIF) board (not shown) formed as part of the source 14 and operably interconnected to the system 10 upon engagement of the source 14 to the system 10, thereby enabling access to the X-ray tube LUT 1001 by the system 10. These parameters…are determined during initial testing of the source 14…the system 10 accesses these parameters…”; also see para. [0046] “…The first aspect/step (Sweeper) is employed after initial manufacture of the X-ray tube 14 and generates the necessary magnet current seed values and sensitivity/gradient coefficients that are required for any later calibration of the X-ray tube 14 needed in the field…” and para. [0051] “…The data associated with each scan technique stored in the X-ray tube LUT is determined during the initial testing/calibration of the source 14 and stored in the X-ray tube LUT to be accessed by the system 10 during the calibration process, e.g., data generated during manufacturing of the source at nominal alignment, or zero deflection currents in the dipoles…”);
a partial calibration data acquisition unit (e.g., see Table 1 “Calibrator”), for acquiring partial calibration data acquired by performing a scan in a particular coverage range of an X-ray beam emitted by a new tube or the calibrated tube (e.g., see at least para. [0050] “if either the source 14 has not been recently calibrated or a related component of the system 10 has recently been replaced, as shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 4A the system 10 moves to block 1010 to perform a preliminary, first stage calibration process. In the first stage 1010, a limited number of scans are performed…”, para. [0052] “Once the scan techniques for the first stage 1010 have been determined from the X-ray tube LUT 1001, which can be as few as six (6) in an exemplary embodiment, the system 10 proceeds in block 1012 to operate the source 14 to perform those scans and obtain actual or measured MTFW and MTFL values from each scan.”); and
a second complete calibration data calculation unit (e.g., see Table 1 “Calibrator” and “Tabulator”), for calculating second complete calibration data based on the partial calibration data of the new tube and the first calibration data of the replaced tube or based on the partial calibration data of the calibrated tube and the historical first calibration data thereof (e.g., see at least para. [0055] “…if the measured focal spots fall within the stored tolerances, the system 1000 updates all of the stored QC and QT values for all scan techniques in the X-ray tube LUT 1001 with the offset in block 1023…and then proceeds to block 1024 to perform a more detailed, second stage calibration procedure. This second stage procedure is performed similarly to the first stage procedure in block 1010 but with the addition of multiple scan techniques associated with techniques associated with approximately three hundred (300) focal spots that establish a complete characterization of all focal spot sizes over the full performance range of the source 14”, para. [0062] “…After the initial scan and necessary subsequent iterations thereof have been performed, the updated calibration information is copied over the CT-LUT present within the storage 38 on the system 10 in block 1040…”; Also see para. [0068] “…the system 1000 proceeds to block 1040 to record the second stage calibration data within the CT-LUT on the system. This data can subsequently be utilized by the system 10 during a patient scan…”).
Regarding claim 15, Lamaitre teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above.
Lamaitre further teaches wherein the first calibration data comprises complete calibration data acquired by performing scans under all calibration scan conditions of the replaced tube or the calibrated tube (e.g., see at least para. [0047] “Configuration parameters are stored in the form of an X-ray tube look up table (LUT) 1001 that is found in a suitable electronic storage medium disposed on an X-ray tube interface (TIF) board (not shown) formed as part of the source 14 and operably interconnected to the system 10 upon engagement of the source 14 to the system 10, thereby enabling access to the X-ray tube LUT 1001 by the system 10. These parameters…are determined during initial testing of the source 14…the system 10 accesses these parameters…”; also see para. [0046] “…The first aspect/step (Sweeper) is employed after initial manufacture of the X-ray tube 14 and generates the necessary magnet current seed values and sensitivity/gradient coefficients that are required for any later calibration of the X-ray tube 14 needed in the field…” and para. [0051] “…The data associated with each scan technique stored in the X-ray tube LUT is determined during the initial testing/calibration of the source 14 and stored in the X-ray tube LUT to be accessed by the system 10 during the calibration process, e.g., data generated during manufacturing of the source at nominal alignment, or zero deflection currents in the dipoles…”).
Regarding claim 16, Lamaitre further teaches wherein the partial calibration data acquisition unit acquires partial calibration data acquired by performing a scan in a maximum coverage range in a widthwise direction of the X-ray beam of the new tube or the calibrated tube ([0050]-[0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamaitre in view of Tredwell, et al., US 20120018627 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Lamaitre teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Lamaitre fails to teach wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tredwell teaches a radiographic array, flat detector panel and/or X-ray imaging apparatus including the same and/or methods for using the same or calibrating the same (see abstract), wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data ([0076] discloses different type of calibration pixels can be used in combination in the array 80. For example, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640 of calibration pixels. As shown in FIG. 24, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640a, 640b and 640c of calibration pixels. According to present teachings, different correction coefficients can be assigned to each different type of calibration pixels in the column 640, which can be used to combine the overall correction generated by the calibration pixels (e.g., 650, 650a, 650b, 650c, 650') and combinations thereof in the array 80 and claim 22 which recites The method of calibrating the imaging array of claim 19, comprising: multiplying a sum of a set of correction coefficients by a calibration signal to obtain a corrected signal; and subtracting the corrected signal from a signal in the optically sensitive pixels to determine a calibrated signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data, as taught by Tredwell, improve the accuracy of the calibration ([0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Lamaitre teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Lamaitre fails to teach wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the calibrated tube comprises calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tredwell teaches a radiographic array, flat detector panel and/or X-ray imaging apparatus including the same and/or methods for using the same or calibrating the same (see abstract), wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the calibrated tube comprises calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data ([0076] discloses different type of calibration pixels can be used in combination in the array 80. For example, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640 of calibration pixels. As shown in FIG. 24, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640a, 640b and 640c of calibration pixels. According to present teachings, different correction coefficients can be assigned to each different type of calibration pixels in the column 640, which can be used to combine the overall correction generated by the calibration pixels (e.g., 650, 650a, 650b, 650c, 650') and combinations thereof in the array 80 and claim 22 which recites The method of calibrating the imaging array of claim 19, comprising: multiplying a sum of a set of correction coefficients by a calibration signal to obtain a corrected signal; and subtracting the corrected signal from a signal in the optically sensitive pixels to determine a calibrated signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the calibrated tube comprises calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data, as taught by Tredwell, improve the accuracy of the calibration ([0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Lamaitre teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above.
Lamaitre fails to teach wherein the second complete calibration data calculation unit comprises a calibration coefficient calculation unit for calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Tredwell teaches a radiographic array, flat detector panel and/or X-ray imaging apparatus including the same and/or methods for using the same or calibrating the same (see abstract), wherein the second complete calibration data calculation unit comprises a calibration coefficient calculation unit for calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data ([0076] discloses different type of calibration pixels can be used in combination in the array 80. For example, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640 of calibration pixels. As shown in FIG. 24, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640a, 640b and 640c of calibration pixels. According to present teachings, different correction coefficients can be assigned to each different type of calibration pixels in the column 640, which can be used to combine the overall correction generated by the calibration pixels (e.g., 650, 650a, 650b, 650c, 650') and combinations thereof in the array 80 and claim 22 which recites The method of calibrating the imaging array of claim 19, comprising: multiplying a sum of a set of correction coefficients by a calibration signal to obtain a corrected signal; and subtracting the corrected signal from a signal in the optically sensitive pixels to determine a calibrated signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, wherein the second complete calibration data calculation unit comprises a calibration coefficient calculation unit for calculating a calibration coefficient of the partial calibration data with respect to corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data, as taught by Tredwell, improve the accuracy of the calibration ([0062]-[0063]).
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamaitre, et al., US 20190320994 A1 in view of Tredwell, et al., US 20120018627 A1, as applied to claims 3, 10, and 16, respectively above, and further in view of US 4134018 A.
Regarding claim 5, Lamaitre in view of Tredwell teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Lamaitre in view of Tredwell fails to teach wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Weinkauf teaches radiation detectors that are associated with respective signal processing channels which have components subject to errors which vary in the course of time because of external influences such as temperature and aging effects. Each signal channel is subjected to a calibration cycle by introducing an impulse change in the supply voltage common to the respective detectors (abstract), wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data (col. 3, lines 45-67 discloses that for calibration purposes, two different measurements in immediate succession are first required prior to putting the tomographic X-ray apparatus into operation. First a measurement is taken with an X-ray calibration pulse which produces a signal proportional to the detector volume. A second measurement follows immediately thereafter with a voltage pulse at the high voltage of detector operation, which supplies a signal proportional to the detector capacity. This measurement therefore need be effected once only, expediently by the manufacturer of the apparatus, since the change in gas volume and capacity of a detector over a period of time is negligible. The quotient of the two signals at the channel outputs 19, 20, i.e., of one signal at the channel output which is produced by an X-ray calibration pulse, and one signal at the channel output which is produced by a high voltage pulse, results in a constant K, specific to the detector, which is determined in this manner once for each detector and stored. Col. 4, lines 25-40 discloses that The calibration signal E is formed according to FIG. 2 in a multiplier 22 to which the constant K is supplied by the constant memory 21, and the voltage U.sub.2 is supplied by a signal memory 23 for the voltage U.sub.2 at the output 19. Thus, the calibration signal lies at the output of the multiplier 22. This calibration signal is compared in a divider 24 with a reference signal, lying at an input 25, which is the same for all channels; i.e. the divider 24 forms a quotient from the reference signal and the calibration signal and thus forms a calibration factor. A signal corresponding to the calibration factor lies at the output of the divider 24 and is supplied to a multiplier 26 in which it is multiplied with the measurement signal lying at the input 27 in the case of an X-ray pulse. In this way, the output signal of the multiplier 26 is free of the described errors at the output 28 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, as modified by Tredwell, wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data, as taught by Weinkauf, as such modification would reduce errors of the output of the system (col. 4, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 6, Lamaitre in view of Tredwell and Weinkauf teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Lamaitre fails to teach wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient.
However, Tredwell further teaches wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient ([0076] discloses different type of calibration pixels can be used in combination in the array 80. For example, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640 of calibration pixels. As shown in FIG. 24, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640a, 640b and 640c of calibration pixels. According to present teachings, different correction coefficients can be assigned to each different type of calibration pixels in the column 640, which can be used to combine the overall correction generated by the calibration pixels (e.g., 650, 650a, 650b, 650c, 650') and combinations thereof in the array 80 and claim 22 which recites The method of calibrating the imaging array of claim 19, comprising: multiplying a sum of a set of correction coefficients by a calibration signal to obtain a corrected signal; and subtracting the corrected signal from a signal in the optically sensitive pixels to determine a calibrated signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Lamaitre wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient, as taught by Tredwell, improve the accuracy of the calibration ([0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Lamaitre in view of Tredwell teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above.
Lamaitre in view of Tredwell fails to teach wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Weinkauf teaches radiation detectors that are associated with respective signal processing channels which have components subject to errors which vary in the course of time because of external influences such as temperature and aging effects. Each signal channel is subjected to a calibration cycle by introducing an impulse change in the supply voltage common to the respective detectors (abstract), radiation detectors are associated with respective signal processing channels which have components subject to errors which vary in the course of time because of external influences such as temperature and aging effects. Each signal channel is subjected to a calibration cycle by introducing an impulse change in the supply voltage common to the respective detectors (col. 3, lines 45-67 discloses that for calibration purposes, two different measurements in immediate succession are first required prior to putting the tomographic X-ray apparatus into operation. First a measurement is taken with an X-ray calibration pulse which produces a signal proportional to the detector volume. A second measurement follows immediately thereafter with a voltage pulse at the high voltage of detector operation, which supplies a signal proportional to the detector capacity. This measurement therefore need be effected once only, expediently by the manufacturer of the apparatus, since the change in gas volume and capacity of a detector over a period of time is negligible. The quotient of the two signals at the channel outputs 19, 20, i.e., of one signal at the channel output which is produced by an X-ray calibration pulse, and one signal at the channel output which is produced by a high voltage pulse, results in a constant K, specific to the detector, which is determined in this manner once for each detector and stored. Col. 4, lines 25-40 discloses that The calibration signal E is formed according to FIG. 2 in a multiplier 22 to which the constant K is supplied by the constant memory 21, and the voltage U.sub.2 is supplied by a signal memory 23 for the voltage U.sub.2 at the output 19. Thus, the calibration signal lies at the output of the multiplier 22. This calibration signal is compared in a divider 24 with a reference signal, lying at an input 25, which is the same for all channels; i.e. the divider 24 forms a quotient from the reference signal and the calibration signal and thus forms a calibration factor. A signal corresponding to the calibration factor lies at the output of the divider 24 and is supplied to a multiplier 26 in which it is multiplied with the measurement signal lying at the input 27 in the case of an X-ray pulse. In this way, the output signal of the multiplier 26 is free of the described errors at the output 28 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, as modified by Tredwell, wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data, as taught by Weinkauf, as such modification would reduce errors of the output of the system (col. 4, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 13, Lamaitre in view of Tredwell and Weinkauf teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Lamaitre fails to teach wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient.
However, Tredwell further teaches wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient ([0076] discloses different type of calibration pixels can be used in combination in the array 80. For example, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640 of calibration pixels. As shown in FIG. 24, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640a, 640b and 640c of calibration pixels. According to present teachings, different correction coefficients can be assigned to each different type of calibration pixels in the column 640, which can be used to combine the overall correction generated by the calibration pixels (e.g., 650, 650a, 650b, 650c, 650') and combinations thereof in the array 80 and claim 22 which recites The method of calibrating the imaging array of claim 19, comprising: multiplying a sum of a set of correction coefficients by a calibration signal to obtain a corrected signal; and subtracting the corrected signal from a signal in the optically sensitive pixels to determine a calibrated signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, wherein the calculating second complete calibration data of the new tube comprises calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient, as taught by Tredwell, improve the accuracy of the calibration ([0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 18, Lamaitre in view of Tredwell teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above.
Lamaitre fails to teach wherein the second complete calibration data calculation unit further comprises a calibration coefficient calculation unit for calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient.
However, Tredwell further teaches wherein the second complete calibration data calculation unit further comprises a calibration coefficient calculation unit for calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient ([0076] discloses different type of calibration pixels can be used in combination in the array 80. For example, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640 of calibration pixels. As shown in FIG. 24, different type of capacitive elements are used in different columns 640a, 640b and 640c of calibration pixels. According to present teachings, different correction coefficients can be assigned to each different type of calibration pixels in the column 640, which can be used to combine the overall correction generated by the calibration pixels (e.g., 650, 650a, 650b, 650c, 650') and combinations thereof in the array 80 and claim 22 which recites The method of calibrating the imaging array of claim 19, comprising: multiplying a sum of a set of correction coefficients by a calibration signal to obtain a corrected signal; and subtracting the corrected signal from a signal in the optically sensitive pixels to determine a calibrated signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, wherein the second complete calibration data calculation unit further comprises a calibration coefficient calculation unit for calculating a product of the first calibration data and the calibration coefficient, as taught by Tredwell, improve the accuracy of the calibration ([0062]-[0063]).
Lamaitre in view of Tredwell fails to teach wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Weinkauf teaches radiation detectors that are associated with respective signal processing channels which have components subject to errors which vary in the course of time because of external influences such as temperature and aging effects. Each signal channel is subjected to a calibration cycle by introducing an impulse change in the supply voltage common to the respective detectors (abstract), wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data (col. 3, lines 45-67 discloses that for calibration purposes, two different measurements in immediate succession are first required prior to putting the tomographic X-ray apparatus into operation. First a measurement is taken with an X-ray calibration pulse which produces a signal proportional to the detector volume. A second measurement follows immediately thereafter with a voltage pulse at the high voltage of detector operation, which supplies a signal proportional to the detector capacity. This measurement therefore need be effected once only, expediently by the manufacturer of the apparatus, since the change in gas volume and capacity of a detector over a period of time is negligible. The quotient of the two signals at the channel outputs 19, 20, i.e., of one signal at the channel output which is produced by an X-ray calibration pulse, and one signal at the channel output which is produced by a high voltage pulse, results in a constant K, specific to the detector, which is determined in this manner once for each detector and stored. Col. 4, lines 25-40 discloses that The calibration signal E is formed according to FIG. 2 in a multiplier 22 to which the constant K is supplied by the constant memory 21, and the voltage U.sub.2 is supplied by a signal memory 23 for the voltage U.sub.2 at the output 19. Thus, the calibration signal lies at the output of the multiplier 22. This calibration signal is compared in a divider 24 with a reference signal, lying at an input 25, which is the same for all channels; i.e. the divider 24 forms a quotient from the reference signal and the calibration signal and thus forms a calibration factor. A signal corresponding to the calibration factor lies at the output of the divider 24 and is supplied to a multiplier 26 in which it is multiplied with the measurement signal lying at the input 27 in the case of an X-ray pulse. In this way, the output signal of the multiplier 26 is free of the described errors at the output 28 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Lamaitre, as modified by Tredwell, wherein the calibration coefficient is a quotient of the partial calibration data and the corresponding calibration data in the first calibration data, as taught by Weinkauf, as such modification would reduce errors of the output of the system (col. 4, lines 38-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights