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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, in Applicant’s responses filed 01/23/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-11 that Mihailescu, et al., US 20160135762 A1 fails to teach a plurality of metal-oxide-semiconductors (MOS) components forming a pixel array.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph 61 discloses two gamma ray probes/position sensitive detectors 304. paragraph 22 indicates that the two detectors 304 are CMOS sensors. In reproduced fig. 3 below, the document shows the detectors 304 arranged as a 1X2 or 2X1 detector array, evidence by paragraph 13 which states that “The radiation position sensitive apparatus includes an elongated housing assembly having a longitudinal axis, a gamma ray probe at least partially enclosed within the elongated housing assembly and disposed along the longitudinal axis of the elongated housing assembly”, meaning the detectors/probes 304 are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the apparatus hence forming a 1X2 or 2X1 detector array. Examiner admits that the disclosure appears to include evidence for pixel arrays with larger number of rows and columns as depicted in fig. 1A and 1B. However, the current form of the claims do not include specifications about the size of the pixel arrays.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 with respect to Wendler are moot as the rejection no longer relies on Wendler regarding the array of detectors/pixel array.
Applicant further remarks on pages 12-13 that Raylman (US 5,932,879 A), relied upon for the teaching of discrimination between gamma and charged particles, teaches away from using a plurality of detectors because col. 2, lines 34-44 state that “While the use of a second detector to measure the background contamination is somewhat effective, this addition unfortunately results in a probe tip which is always physically larger than a single detector. Therefore, the practical application of this type of probe is problematic where space is a premium, such as with intraluminal probes and other situations where the surgical field is small. Moreover, the reduction of the surgical field continues to increase as minimally invasive surgical procedures are developed, and therefore a useful alternative to the two-detector method is needed”. However, Raylman also states in col. 9, lines 27-32 that “While the present invention is not limited to a particular configuration of the multiple-detector system, in one embodiment two detectors are set forth such that the first detector can detect beta particles and gamma radiation, while the second detector is shielded from beta particles but is exposed to gamma radiation”. It appears that Raylman merely suggests a preferred arrangement of the apparatus, which does not teach away or preclude the use of a multiple detector apparatus. Furthermore, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant asserts on pages 13-14 with respect to the rejection of claim 2, that Mihailescu teaches away from the use of a collimator because Mihailescu discloses collimator-less arrangements in paragraphs 67-68. However, these indications of Mihailescu appear to be preferred or alternative arrangements that do not preclude the use of a collimator in Mihailescu. In fact, claim 21 of the document states that “21. The apparatus of claim 20, wherein the sensor is a collimated gamma imaging sensor with a divergent field of view”. Hence, none of the modifications to Mihailescu would render Mihailescu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as indicated by Applicant.
Applicant also notes on page 14 that Cui does not provide appropriate motivation for introducing a collimator in Mihailescu, because paragraph 60 of Cui discloses using the probe to characterize a 55-gallon radioactive and mixed-waste containers. However, Cui directs to using the probe in several medical settings including tumor localization (paragraph 53), prostate imaging (paragraph 56), and diagnosing of heart disease (paragraph 58), which relate to the teachings of Mihailescu within the field of radiation detections within the body such as tumor localization disclosed in paragraph 42 of Mihailescu.
Applicant also asserts that the combination of the references in the rejections amounts to improper hindsight, however, the combination is no mere kludge of prior art references, but instead, the rejection properly demonstrates how the references are relate to one another, and in all instances, notes how one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention. Furthermore, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 7-9, 12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “charge particles” without referring back to the recitation of “received charged particles” in claim 1. The claims should be amended to refer back to the initial recitation of charged particles. For instance, claim 2 should be amended to recite --a collimator operable to filter out the charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that “wherein the pixels of the pixel array are of a size such that…the created interaction charge carriers in the depletion layer are detectable across multiple pixels”. It is unclear if the sizing of the pixels refer to a sizing in a depth direction or in a length X width direction or both. For purpose of the examination, the limitation is being interpreted to mean that the sizing comprises any sizing in the depth direction, planar direction, or both depth and planar direction of the pixel array that allows the created interaction charge carriers in the depletion layer to be detectable across multiple pixels.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the depletion depth is an optimal depletion layer depth”. The term “optimal” in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither the claims nor the disclosure does not provide any measure for ascertaining the recited “optimal” depletion layer depth as it patterns to the MOS components. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being interpreted to mean that any depth of the depletion layer that allows the interaction for an energy spectrum of the charged particles particular to the radiopharmaceutical is an optimal depletion layer depth.
Claims 13 and 20 recite “determining that the radiation sensor has received at least one or more charged particles”, meanwhile claim 1 from which claims 13 and 20 depend recites “received charged particles”. Hence it is unclear if the “one or more charged particles” of claims 13 and 20 refer to the “charged particles” of claim 1 or different charged particles. For purposes of the examination, the limitations of claims 13 and 20 are being interpreted to mean that the recitation of one or more charged refers back to the received charged particles of claim 1 from which claims 13 and 20 depend.
Claims 2-4, 6-20, and 22 are rejected based on their respective dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 3-4, 6, 12-14, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu, et al., US 20160135762 A1 in view of Barrett, et al., US 20170010369 A1 and Wendler, T., WO 2015185665 A1, as evidenced by Wang et al. (Development of a Depleted Monolithic CMOS Sensor in a 150 nm CMOS Technology for the ATLAS Inner Tracker Upgrade").
Regarding claim 1, Mihailescu teaches a laparoscopic probe (paragraphs 61-62 and fig. 3 disclose a medical navigation apparatus) for detecting radiation from a radiopharmaceutical administered to a subject (paragraph 68 discloses “Image reconstruction of tracer distribution can be done by using Compton imaging, self-collimation effects and/or proximity imaging”), the laparoscopic probe comprising a detection device (medical navigation apparatus 300 of reproduced fig. 1 below and paragraph 61) comprising:
a probe head (apparatus 300 including an elongated housing assembly 302 of paragraph 61) configured to be inserted into the subject (paragraph 62),
the probe head comprising: a radiation sensor (position sensitive detector 304 of fig. 3 and paragraph 61) having a plurality of metal-oxide-semiconductors (MOS) components providing a pixel array (paragraph 61 discloses gamma ray probe/position sensitive detectors 304, shown as a 1X2 or 2X1 detector array, and paragraph 22 indicates that the detectors 304 are CMOS sensors. Of note, paragraph 13 states that “The radiation position sensitive apparatus includes an elongated housing assembly having a longitudinal axis, a gamma ray probe at least partially enclosed within the elongated housing assembly and disposed along the longitudinal axis of the elongated housing assembly”, meaning the detectors/probes 304 are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the apparatus hence forming a 1X2 or 2X1 detector array),
a semiconductor (paragraph 64 discloses semiconductor detectors including the CMOS of paragraph 22) of the plurality of MOS components configured for interaction charge carriers to be created in a depletion layer of the semiconductor in response to direct interaction with received charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical (paragraph 64 states that the position sensitive detectors 304 are made using “semiconductor detectors such as silicon (Si) detectors, silicon lithium (Si(Li)) detectors, germanium (Ge) detectors, germanium lithium (GeLi) detectors, cadmium zinc tellurium (CdZnTe) detectors, cadmium tellurium (CdTe) detectors, mercuric iodide (HgI.sub.2), lead iodide (PbI.sub.2), a position sensitive scintillator crystal, multiple position sensitive scintillator crystals, segmented Si detectors, pixelated electrodes, parallel strip electrodes, co-planar strip electrodes, depleted CCD sensors, depleted CMOS sensors” and hence inherently teaches the limitation by virtue of the detectors being MOS and configured for detecting gamma radiation as evidenced by Wang1 which discloses, see pages 2-3 and fig. 1, that a typical CMOS sensor functionally includes an interaction of charge carriers that occur in a depletion zone/depth of the pixel); and
a light sealing (elongated housing assembly 302 of paragraph 61) covering arranged to prevent light from impinging on the pixel array (elongated housing 302 can be seen as including an optical window 307 for a camera. Hence the portion of the elongated housing surrounding the detectors are light sealing).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mihailescu does not teach wherein the semiconductor of the plurality of MOS components has a depletion depth matching an interaction depth of the charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical, wherein pixels of the pixel array (that is, the plurality of MOS components forming a pixel array) are of a size such that, in response to interaction with received charged particles emitted from radiopharmaceutical, the created interaction charge carriers in the depletion layer are detectable across multiple pixels.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Barrett teaches methods and systems for 3D imaging of in vivo and ex vivo tissues, the disclosed systems and methods employing an autoradiographic approach where particles emitted by a radioactive composition within the tissue are detected according the abstract, wherein the method and systems applied in endoscopy according to paragraphs 106 and 162. Barrett teaches wherein the semiconductor of the plurality of MOS components has a depletion depth matching an interaction depth of the charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical (paragraph 6 states that “a charged particle track detector is used to independently detect particles at a plurality of positions along their respective trajectories. For example, suitable track detectors include scintillator-based detectors, microchannel plate-based image intensifiers coupled to a thick scintillation material or a CCD or other video camera type detector where the sensitive region, active region or depletion region is thick enough to stop the particle. The recorded track can be analyzed to determine features of each track such as the point at which the charged particle entered the thick detector, the particle's direction at that point and the total energy deposited in that track. In embodiments, these features are used in an iterative tomographic reconstruction algorithm for accurate determination of a 3D image of the distribution of the source of particles within the tissue, for example, by determining positions and directions of the detected particles interacting with a charged particle track detector”. That is, the sensitive/active/depletion region of the detectors (CMOS sensors according to paragraph 77) are thick enough such that all of the charged particles interactions occur within the sensitive/active/depletion region), wherein the pixels of the pixel array are of a size such that, in response to interaction with received charged particles emitted from radiopharmaceutical, the created interaction charge carriers in the depletion layer are detectable across multiple pixels (figs. 6a-6c disclose a 2 dimensional array of pixels overlaid on a particle generating object 550 and tissue 551, the tissue having been administered with radiopharmaceutical according to paragraph 6. Paragraph 92 then states that “After a plurality of particles are interacted with a system for measuring particle tracks, such as described herein, the interaction points and directions of travel for the particles can be used to reconstruct an image of the particle generating object, here represented as an activity distribution”. That is, the interaction points and direction of travel is detected across different pixels as shown. And in a case where the array of pixels is a 3-dimensional pixel array or voxel grid, the interaction points and direction of travel are detected across pixels in both a thickness/depth direction and a planar direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
656
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, wherein the semiconductor of the plurality of MOS components has a depletion depth matching an interaction depth of the charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical; and wherein the pixels of the pixel array are of a size such that, in response to interaction with received charged particles emitted from radiopharmaceutical, the created interaction charge carriers in the depletion layer are detectable across multiple pixels, as taught by Barrett, as such modification would provide a clinically practical, less labor intensive, high-resolution 3D imaging of in vivo tissue (paragraph 4), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned with providing a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Mihailescu in view of Barrett does not teach a grip configured to be at least partially inserted into the subject and to manipulate the probe head inside the subject.
However, Wendler teaches a device (7) for detecting a nuclear radiation distribution in a patient comprises: a robot arm (20) with a plurality of joints (22, 24) and an end effector (25) movable about at least three degrees of freedom by way of the joints (22, 24) (see abstract), the device further comprising a grip (see gripper 230 of figs. 6a and 6b reproduced below) configured to be at least partially inserted into the subject (the end effector 25 and preferably also the distal joint 24 are completely insertable into the body 2 of the patient, paragraph 5 of page 7, and the gripper as seen in fig. 6c is distal to the distal joint 24 and hence the gripper is also completely insertable into the body 2) and to manipulate the probe head inside the subject (the last paragraph of page 4 indicates that the distal articulation unit of the robotic arm, that is the end effector and distal articulation including the gripper 230, allows rotational movement about three spatial axes of the nuclear probe).
PNG
media_image3.png
481
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barrett, to include an array of detectors; a grip configured to be at least partially inserted into the subject and to manipulate the probe head inside the subject, as taught by Wendler, which would allow high flexibility of movement, even in the presence of obstacles, of the nuclear probe (last paragraph of page 4) and hence provide improved image quality through access to the region of interest (paragraph 3 of page 3), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned with providing a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 3, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the radiation sensor comprises an image sensor (paragraph 61 states that “Medical navigation apparatus 300 contains an elongated housing assembly 302, gamma ray probes 304 disposed at a distal end of the housing assembly, and a tracking camera 306 having a tracking field of view 305 that is lateral to the longitudinal axis of the housing assembly, the tracking camera 306 having a known proximity to the position sensitive detectors 304”, the position sensitive detectors 304 being CMOS according to paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 4, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the laparoscopic probe is operable in a first mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to enable detection by the radiation sensor of a radiation imaging effect (paragraph 68 discloses the position sensitive detectors 304, provide electron track information, so that “the shape of an least one electron track per detected event can be used to reconstruct the direction and energy of the incident radiation. Electron tracks can be used to image gamma rays as well as beta rays emitted in close proximity to the sensor”. This comprises the first mode, that is an image reconstruction mode), and wherein the laparoscopic probe is operable in a second mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to enable detection by the radiation sensor of the presence of charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical (paragraph 7 states that “Generally, the embodiments of the present invention relate to a scanning sufficiency device that is able to instantaneously report to a user how well a particular area of a subject's body has been scanned. The devices described herein improve scanning quality and reduce errors by better defining the precise location of a detected signal”, and paragraph 67 states that “the position sensitive detector is a collimator-less gamma ray probe with a 4 pi field of view. The memory of this radiation position sensitive apparatus includes instructions for execution by a processor to convert scanning data collected by the gamma ray probe into a reconstructed diagram identifying the location of a radiation source relative to a fiducial”. The identifying of a location of a detected signal comprises the second mode of operation of the apparatus as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Mihailescu further teaches a gamma radiation detector configured to detect gamma radiation (paragraph 68 states that “Image reconstruction of tracer distribution can be done by using Compton imaging, self-collimation effects and/or proximity imaging. If the position sensitive detector can provide electron track information, the shape of an least one electron track per detected event can be used to reconstruct the direction and energy of the incident radiation. Electron tracks can be used to image gamma rays as well as beta rays emitted in close proximity to the sensor”, meaning the gamma ray probes 304 of paragraph 61 detect gamma and beta rays).
Regarding claim 12, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the depletion depth is an optimal depletion layer depth for an energy spectrum of charged particles particular to the radiopharmaceutical (paragraph 68 states that “Image reconstruction of tracer distribution can be done by using Compton imaging, self-collimation effects and/or proximity imaging. If the position sensitive detector can provide electron track information, the shape of an least one electron track per detected event can be used to reconstruct the direction and energy of the incident radiation”. Meaning that the detectors 304 comprise an optimal layer depth which allows the detection of the charged particles such that a reconstruction of the direction and energy of the incident radiation is possible. This is teaching is view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 12 above, that outlines the claims failure to define the “optimal depletion layer depth”. Of note, Mihailescu teaches interaction of charge carriers that occur in a depletion zone/depth of the pixel as evidenced by Wang above).
Regarding claim 13, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Modified Mihailescu further teaches a method of operating the laparoscopic probe (paragraphs 61-62 and fig. 3 disclose a medical navigation apparatus) of claim 1 (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a detection signal from the radiation sensor of the laparoscopic probe, the detection signal being representative of the interaction charge carriers being created in the depletion layer of the semiconductor of the plurality of MOS components providing the pixel array (paragraph 68 discloses resolving gamma ray interactions within the sensor and paragraph 64 states that the position sensitive detectors 304 are made using “semiconductor detectors such as silicon (Si) detectors, silicon lithium (Si(Li)) detectors, germanium (Ge) detectors, germanium lithium (GeLi) detectors, cadmium zinc tellurium (CdZnTe) detectors, cadmium tellurium (CdTe) detectors, mercuric iodide (HgI.sub.2), lead iodide (PbI.sub.2), a position sensitive scintillator crystal, multiple position sensitive scintillator crystals, segmented Si detectors, pixelated electrodes, parallel strip electrodes, co-planar strip electrodes, depleted CCD sensors, depleted CMOS sensors” and hence inherently teaches the limitation by virtue of the detectors being MOS and configured for detecting gamma radiation as evidenced by Wang2 which discloses, see pages 2-3 and fig. 1, that a typical CMOS sensor functionally includes an interaction of charge carriers that occur in a depletion zone/depth of the pixel);
determining whether the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array (paragraph 68 discloses resolving at least one electron track per detected event by the detectors 304, which are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the apparatus hence forming a 1X2 or 2X1 detector array and hence the detect signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the 1X2 or 2X1 pixel array shown in fig. 3); and
if a determination is made that the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received at least one or more charged particles (paragraph 68 indicates detecting beta rays, stating that “If the position sensitive detector can provide electron track information, the shape of an least one electron track per detected event can be used to reconstruct the direction and energy of the incident radiation. Electron tracks can be used to image gamma rays as well as beta rays emitted in close proximity to the sensor”. Meaning that for the detection events, a determination is made that the detection signal is indicative of gamma or beta event, which is a charged particle. Note also that paragraph 68 discloses “Image reconstruction of tracer distribution can be done by using Compton imaging, self-collimation effects and/or proximity imaging”). NB: while Mihailescu has been demonstrated above as teaching all the limitations above, the “if…” limitations are contingent limitations and hence are not further limiting of the process. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Regarding claim 14, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the radiation sensor comprises an image sensor and wherein receiving a detection signal from the radiation sensor comprises receiving image data from the image sensor, the image data being representative of a radiation imaging effect sensor (paragraph 61 states that “Medical navigation apparatus 300 contains an elongated housing assembly 302, gamma ray probes 304 disposed at a distal end of the housing assembly, and a tracking camera 306 having a tracking field of view 305 that is lateral to the longitudinal axis of the housing assembly, the tracking camera 306 having a known proximity to the position sensitive detectors 304”, the position sensitive detectors 304 being CMOS according to paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 19, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Mihailescu further teaches operating the laparoscopic probe in a first mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to enable detection by the radiation sensor of a radiation imaging effect (paragraph 68 discloses the position sensitive detectors 304, provide electron track information, so that “the shape of an least one electron track per detected event can be used to reconstruct the direction and energy of the incident radiation. Electron tracks can be used to image gamma rays as well as beta rays emitted in close proximity to the sensor”. This comprises the first mode, that is an image reconstruction mode); and operating the laparoscopic probe in a second mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to enable detection by the radiation sensor of the presence of charged particles (paragraph 7 states that “Generally, the embodiments of the present invention relate to a scanning sufficiency device that is able to instantaneously report to a user how well a particular area of a subject's body has been scanned. The devices described herein improve scanning quality and reduce errors by better defining the precise location of a detected signal”, and paragraph 67 states that “the position sensitive detector is a collimator-less gamma ray probe with a 4 pi field of view. The memory of this radiation position sensitive apparatus includes instructions for execution by a processor to convert scanning data collected by the gamma ray probe into a reconstructed diagram identifying the location of a radiation source relative to a fiducial”. The identifying of a location of a detected signal comprises the second mode of operation of the apparatus as claimed).
Regarding claim 20, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Modified Mihailescu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable instructions thereon which, when executed by a processor (paragraph 10 states “at least one processor and a memory operatively coupled with the sensor and the tracking system, the memory having instructions for execution by the at least one processor”), cause the processor to:
receiving a detection signal from the radiation sensor of the laparoscopic probe, the detection signal being representative of the interaction charge carriers being created in the depletion layer of the semiconductor of the plurality of MOS components providing the pixel array (paragraph 68 discloses resolving gamma ray interactions within the sensor and paragraph 64 states that the position sensitive detectors 304 are made using “semiconductor detectors such as silicon (Si) detectors, silicon lithium (Si(Li)) detectors, germanium (Ge) detectors, germanium lithium (GeLi) detectors, cadmium zinc tellurium (CdZnTe) detectors, cadmium tellurium (CdTe) detectors, mercuric iodide (HgI.sub.2), lead iodide (PbI.sub.2), a position sensitive scintillator crystal, multiple position sensitive scintillator crystals, segmented Si detectors, pixelated electrodes, parallel strip electrodes, co-planar strip electrodes, depleted CCD sensors, depleted CMOS sensors” and hence inherently teaches the limitation by virtue of the detectors being MOS and configured for detecting gamma radiation as evidenced by Wang3 which discloses, see pages 2-3 and fig. 1, that a typical CMOS sensor functionally includes an interaction of charge carriers that occur in a depletion zone/depth of the pixel);
determining whether the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array (paragraph 68 discloses resolving at least one electron track per detected event by the detectors 304, which are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the apparatus hence forming a 1X2 or 2X1 detector array and hence the detect signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the 1X2 or 2X1 pixel array shown in fig. 3); and
if a determination is made that the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received at least one or more charged particles (paragraph 68 indicates detecting beta rays, stating that “If the position sensitive detector can provide electron track information, the shape of an least one electron track per detected event can be used to reconstruct the direction and energy of the incident radiation. Electron tracks can be used to image gamma rays as well as beta rays emitted in close proximity to the sensor”. Meaning that for the detection events, a determination is made that the detection signal is indicative of gamma or beta event, which is a charged particle. Note also that paragraph 68 discloses “Image reconstruction of tracer distribution can be done by using Compton imaging, self-collimation effects and/or proximity imaging”). NB: while Mihailescu has been demonstrated above as teaching all the limitations above, the “if…” limitations are contingent limitations and hence are not further limiting of the process. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Regarding claim 22, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett fails to teach wherein the grip is deployable or retractable.
However, Wendler further teaches wherein the grip (see gripper 230 of figs. 6a and 6b reproduced below) is deployable or retractable (third paragraph of page 9 states that “The inner grippers 250 shown in Figs. 10c and 1d0 are variations of the grippers of Figs. 10a and 10b in which the nuclear probe 100 is fixed by moving the fingers 252a, 252b apart from each other. For this purpose, the coupling element 130 is designed as an opening with two zuwei nanderwei [sic] send gripping portions, and the inner hook 250 is designed to retract into the opening and by moving apart the fingers 252 a, 252 b can be pressed from the inside against the gripping portions”).
PNG
media_image3.png
481
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barrett and Wendler, wherein the grip is deployable or retractable, as taught by Wendler, which would allow high flexibility of movement, even in the presence of obstacles, of the nuclear probe (last paragraph of page 4) and hence provide improved image quality through access to the region of interest (paragraph 3 of page 3), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned with providing a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cui, et al., US 20110286576.
Regarding claim 2, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler fail to teach wherein the laparoscopic probe further comprises: a collimator operable to filter out charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical that impinge upon the collimator at an angle above a threshold angle of incidence, thereby to cooperate with the light sealing covering and the radiation sensor to enable detection by the radiation sensor of a radiation imaging effect.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Cui teaches radiation imaging probe (paragraph 7), for endocavity insertion (paragraph 28), the radiation imaging probe, defined by a detector module that, preferably, comprises a plurality of semiconductor radiation detectors with a specific electrode configuration for imaging (paragraph 8), and the detector module of the present invention may be further defined by a collimator positioned on top of the plurality of semiconductor radiation detectors wherein the endoscopic probe further comprises: a collimator (collimator of paragraph 10) operable to filter out charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical that impinge upon the collimator at an angle above a threshold angle of incidence (paragraph 10 describes the collimator as apertures in a predefined angle which guide incidence of photons), thereby to cooperate with the light sealing covering and the radiation sensor (figs. 2A-2C portray the arrangement of the collimator, tube/sheath/sleeve, which is the light sealing cover, and the pixel array, which is the radiation sensor) to enable detection by the radiation sensor of a radiation imaging effect (the arrangement in figs. 2A-2B allow the accomplishment of the intended purpose of enabling detection by the radiation sensor of a radiation imaging effect, stating in 57 that “by using a trans-rectal probe, the imaging detector array can be very close to the prostate gland, thereby greatly increasing its efficiency in detecting and imaging the gamma rays emitted from the radioactive tracer(s), e.g., Indium-111 or other gamma emitting isotope, taken up in the gland as compared to large Anger cameras placed outside the body”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu as modified by Barrett and Wendler, such that the laparoscopic probe further comprises: a collimator operable to filter out charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical that impinge upon the collimator at an angle above a threshold angle of incidence, thereby to cooperate with the light sealing covering and the radiation sensor to enable detection by the radiation sensor of a radiation imaging effect, as taught by Cui, as such modification would improve the accuracy of the detection of the photons (paragraph 6), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raylman, et al., US 5,932,879 A and Kojima, et al., US 20030108147.
Regarding claim 7, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler fails to teach wherein the laparoscopic probe is configured for a first mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to detect charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceuticals, and a second mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to use the gamma radiation detector to detect gamma radiation.
However, Raylman further teaches wherein the laparoscopic probe is configured to be operate in a first mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to detect charged particles (see col. 11, lines 53-57 for the discriminating means col. 12, lines 7-9 for the detection of Beta particles, which is considered a first mode of radiation detection), and
a second mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to use the gamma radiation detector to detect gamma radiation (col. 12, lines 10-12 for the detection of gamma radiation, which is considered a second mode of radiation detection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barret and Wendler such that the laparoscopic probe is configured to operate in a first mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to detect charged particles and a second mode, in which the laparoscopic probe is configured to use the gamma radiation detector to detect gamma radiation to include a gamma radiation detector configured to detect gamma radiation, as taught by Raylman, to improve the detection sensitivity of the system (see col. 2, lines 50-55), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Raylman fail to teach that the system is switchable between the first and second mode of radiation detection.
However, Kojima teaches a radiological imaging apparatus including radiation detectors for alpha, beta, gamma and x-ray radiation (see abstract), whereby the system includes a signal discriminator 61 of fig. 1 and a selector switch 62 configured to switch between conveying gamma ray detection signal output and X-ray detection signal output from a radiation detector 4 (see paragraph 109 includes receiving gamma ray detection signals and X-rays, and paragraph 110 discloses “the .gamma.-ray detection signal output from a second radiation detector 4 in the first layer is conveyed to a .gamma.-ray discriminator 8, and the X-ray detection signal output from a first radiation detector 4 is conveyed to the X-ray signal processor 66. These detection signal transmission operations are performed in accordance with a switching operation of the selector switch 62 of the signal discriminator 61”. That is, here, Kojima explicitly mentions a switch for performing detections of both X-ray and gamma rays).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu as modified by Wendler and Raylman, such that the system is switchable between the first and second mode of radiation detection, as taught by Kojima, allowing the improvement of measurement accuracy by the detection and correcting for gamma ray radiation that may impact image quality (see abstract and paragraphs 4-5), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Claims 8-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Raylman (US 5,932,879).
Regarding claim 8, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Mihailescu further teaches a computing device comprising a processor for processing detection events and for signaling a detection to a user (paragraph 10 discloses “at least one processor to show an instantaneous image, at least one processor and a memory operatively coupled with the sensor and the tracking system, the memory having instructions for execution by the at least one processor”),
Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendel does not teach wherein the processor is configured to distinguish detection events resulting from charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical from detection events resulting from gamma radiation.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Raylman teaches an intraoperative system for preferentially detecting beta radiation over gamma radiation emitted from a radiopharmaceutical, the system comprising ion-implanted silicon charged-particle detectors for generating signals in response to received beta particles; a preamplifier located in proximity to the detector filters which amplifies the signal (see abstract). Raylman teaches wherein a processor (means for processing 13 col. 13, lines 7-11) is configured to distinguish detection events resulting from charged particles from detection events resulting from gamma radiation (col. 19, lines 37-41 state that “the gamma ray or photon component of the signal from the front detector will be substantially reduced or eliminated after subtraction of the signal from the rear detector, resulting in a more accurate reading of the beta emissions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barrett and Wendler, such that the processor is configured to distinguish detection events resulting from charged particles from detection events resulting from gamma radiation, as taught by Raylman, to improve the detection sensitivity of the system (see col. 2, lines 50-55), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 9, Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Raylman teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Modified Mihailescu above teaches wherein, to distinguish detection events resulting from charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical from detection events resulting from gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical (see rejection of claim 1 above), the processor (paragraph 10 discloses “at least one processor to show an instantaneous image, at least one processor and a memory operatively coupled with the sensor and the tracking system, the memory having instructions for execution by the at least one processor”) is configured to:
receive a signal from the radiation sensor, the signal being representative of interaction charge carriers being created in the depletion layer of the semiconductor of the plurality of MOS components providing the pixel array (paragraph 68 discloses resolving gamma ray interactions within the sensor and paragraph 64 states that the position sensitive detectors 304 are made using “semiconductor detectors such as silicon (Si) detectors, silicon lithium (Si(Li)) detectors, germanium (Ge) detectors, germanium lithium (GeLi) detectors, cadmium zinc tellurium (CdZnTe) detectors, cadmium tellurium (CdTe) detectors, mercuric iodide (HgI.sub.2), lead iodide (PbI.sub.2), a position sensitive scintillator crystal, multiple position sensitive scintillator crystals, segmented Si detectors, pixelated electrodes, parallel strip electrodes, co-planar strip electrodes, depleted CCD sensors, depleted CMOS sensors” and hence inherently teaches the limitation by virtue of the detectors being MOS and configured for detecting gamma radiation as evidenced by Wang4 which discloses, see pages 2-3 and fig. 1, that a typical CMOS sensor functionally includes an interaction of charge carriers that occur in a depletion zone/depth of the pixel);
determine whether the signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array (paragraph 68 discloses resolving at least one electron track per detected event by the detectors 304, which are arranged along a longitudinal axis of the apparatus hence forming a 1X2 or 2X1 detector array and hence the detect signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the 1X2 or 2X1 pixel array shown in fig. 3); and
if a determination is made that the signal is indicative of detection events, determine that the radiation sensor has received at least one charged particle of the received charged particles emitted from the radiopharmaceutical (paragraph 68 indicates detecting beta rays, stating that “If the position sensitive detector can provide electron track information, the shape of an least one electron track per detected event can be used to reconstruct the direction and energy of the incident radiation. Electron tracks can be used to image gamma rays as well as beta rays emitted in close proximity to the sensor”. Meaning that for the detection events, a determination is made that the detection signal is indicative of gamma or beta event, which is a charged particle. Note also that paragraph 68 discloses “Image reconstruction of tracer distribution can be done by using Compton imaging, self-collimation effects and/or proximity imaging”). NB: while Mihailescu has been demonstrated above as teaching all the limitations above, the “if…” limitations are contingent limitations and hence are not further limiting of the process. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Regarding claim 10, Mihailescu in view of Barratt, Wendler, Raylman teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: if a determination is made that that signal is not indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical.
However, Raylman further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: if a determination is made that that signal is not indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical (col. 3, lines 1-5 state that “the step of discriminating a component of an electrical signal produced by said detector when struck by said beta particles and said gamma radiation. Said component of said electrical signal may be produced by said detector when struck by said gamma radiation”. And col. 16 lines 15-21 state that “the photon sensitivity was calculated by dividing the pure photon count rate by the amount of activity on the disk. The ability of the detector to distinguish between positron events and photon events, or its "selectivity," was determined by dividing the pure positron sensitivity by the photon sensitivity”, meaning that for all events, the detector distinguishes positron, that is charged particle events, from photon events, that gamma events).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barret and Wendler wherein the processor is further configured to: if a determination is made that that signal is not indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical, as taught by Raylman, to improve the detection sensitivity of the system (see col. 2, lines 50-55), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87). NB: while modified Mihailescu has been demonstrated above as teaching all the limitations above, the “if…” limitations are contingent limitations and hence are not further limiting of the process. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Regarding claim 11, Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Raylman teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler fails to teach wherein the processor (paragraph 10 discloses “at least one processor to show an instantaneous image, at least one processor and a memory operatively coupled with the sensor and the tracking system, the memory having instructions for execution by the at least one processor”) is further configured to: discard detection events resulting from gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical.
However, Raylman further teaches wherein the processor (means for processing 13 col. 13, lines 7-11) is further configured to: discard detection events resulting from gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical(col. 19, lines 37-41 state that “the gamma ray or photon component of the signal from the front detector will be substantially reduced or eliminated after subtraction of the signal from the rear detector, resulting in a more accurate reading of the beta emissions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barrett and Wendler wherein the processor (paragraph 10) is further configured to: discard detection events resulting from gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical, as taught by Raylman, to improve the detection sensitivity of the system (see col. 2, lines 50-55), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 18, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler fail to teach if a determination is made that that signal is not indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received gamma radiation.
However, Raylman further teaches if a determination is made that that signal is not indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received gamma radiation (col. 3, lines 1-5 state that “the step of discriminating a component of an electrical signal produced by said detector when struck by said beta particles and said gamma radiation. Said component of said electrical signal may be produced by said detector when struck by said gamma radiation”. And col. 16 lines 15-21 state that “the photon sensitivity was calculated by dividing the pure photon count rate by the amount of activity on the disk. The ability of the detector to distinguish between positron events and photon events, or its "selectivity," was determined by dividing the pure positron sensitivity by the photon sensitivity”, meaning that for all events, the detector distinguishes positron, that is charged particle events, from photon events, that gamma events).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barret and Wendler wherein the processor is further configured to: if a determination is made that that signal is not indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array, determining that the radiation sensor has received gamma radiation emitted from the radiopharmaceutical, as taught by Raylman, to improve the detection sensitivity of the system (see col. 2, lines 50-55), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87). NB: while modified Mihailescu has been demonstrated above as teaching all the limitations above, the “if…” limitations are contingent limitations and hence are not further limiting of the process. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Barret and Wendler, as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Kobayashi, T., US 20150363918.
Regarding claim 15, Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler teaches all the limitations of claim 14.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett and Wendler fails to teach wherein determining whether the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array comprises: comparing the received image data with fixed pattern noise data to produce a corrected image, the fixed pattern noise data derived from an average of a plurality of dark noise images collected using the laparoscopic probe.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches a system for acquiring and processing radiation information from a subject (paragraph 24 discloses “The radiographic apparatus 100 includes a radiation generation apparatus 101,…a detection apparatus 104 which outputs image data according to radiation having passed through the subject 102. The detection apparatus 104 is an imaging unit which includes an imaging device in which a plurality of image sensors (pixels) are two-dimensionally arranged, generates image data by detecting radiation for each image sensor (pixel), and outputs the generated image data”); the system further including performance of dark imaging, where an average image of the obtained dark images is used as a dark image (step S201 of fig. 2 and paragraph 30) is used in a dark correction step (Step S203 of fig. 2 and paragraph 32) of acquired radiographic data (Step S202 of fig. 2 and paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu as modified by Barrett and Wendler, to compare the received image data with fixed pattern noise data to produce a corrected image, the fixed pattern noise data derived from an average of a plurality of dark noise images collected using the laparoscopic probe, as taught by Kobayashi, to attain highly accurate results (see paragraph 32), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Kobayashi, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Miyamoto, US 20120250974.
Regarding claim 16, Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Kobayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 15.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Kobayashi fails to teach wherein determining whether the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array further comprises: comparing pixel values of pixels of the corrected image with a threshold value to produce a binary image, wherein the pixel value of each pixel of the binary image is representative of whether the pixel value of a corresponding pixel of the corrected image is above the threshold value.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Miyamoto teaches a method of generating a binary image for contrast image generation of a region of interest (see fig. 6 and abstract) whereby, according to paragraph 53, a binary live image and a binary mask image are obtained by comparing all pixels in a live image and a mask image with the corresponding binarization thresholds, so that images include 0 indicative of pixel values equal to or larger than the thresholds and 1 indicative of the other pixel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barrett, Wendler and Kobayashi, to compare pixel values of pixels of the corrected image with a threshold value to produce a binary image, wherein the pixel value of each pixel of the binary image is representative of whether the pixel value of a corresponding pixel of the corrected image is above the threshold value, as taught by Miyamoto, to improve the accuracy of information from the contrast based imaging. (see paragraph 61), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 17, Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Kobayashi, Miyamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
Mihailescu in view of Barrett, Wendler and Kobayashi fail to teach wherein determining whether the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array further comprises: for at least one pixel of the binary image, determining how many adjacent pixels have the same value as the pixel.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Miyamoto further teaches wherein determining whether the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array further comprises: for at least one pixel of the binary image, determining how many adjacent pixels have the same value as the pixel (See step S602 of fig. 6 and paragraphs 51 and 56 which provide examples of regions that are excluded due to the thresholding step from inclusion in the binary image because the pixels do not meet the threshold requirement. These regions are defined for groups of pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Barrett, Wendler and Kobayashi, such that determining whether the detection signal is indicative of detection events at multiple neighboring pixels of the pixel array further comprises: for at least one pixel of the binary image, determining how many adjacent pixels have the same value as the pixel, as taught by Miyamoto, to improve the accuracy of information from the contrast based imaging (see paragraph 61), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Mihailescu is also concerned accurately determining the sources of radiation (paragraph 42), which then provides a gamma radiation detector with improved resolution, contrast and lower noise levels (paragraph 87).
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 on (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 3793
1 Wang, et al., Development of a Depleted Monolithic CMOS Sensor in a 150 nm CMOS Technology for the ATLAS Inner Tracker Upgrade", Journal of Instrumentation, Vol. 12 C01039, pp. 1-9.
2 Wang, et al., Development of a Depleted Monolithic CMOS Sensor in a 150 nm CMOS Technology for the ATLAS Inner Tracker Upgrade", Journal of Instrumentation, Vol. 12 C01039, pp. 1-9.
3 Wang, et al., Development of a Depleted Monolithic CMOS Sensor in a 150 nm CMOS Technology for the ATLAS Inner Tracker Upgrade", Journal of Instrumentation, Vol. 12 C01039, pp. 1-9.
4 Wang, et al., Development of a Depleted Monolithic CMOS Sensor in a 150 nm CMOS Technology for the ATLAS Inner Tracker Upgrade", Journal of Instrumentation, Vol. 12 C01039, pp. 1-9.
Prosecution Insights