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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang et al. (US 2022/0397688; hereinafter Qiang) in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0168169; hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Qiang discloses a detector module for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (par. 74), comprising: a semi-monolithic crystal including a plurality of monolithic crystal plates (fig. 5d:90) configured to receive gamma rays (par. 74), the plurality of monolithic crystal plates being arranged side by side along a thickness direction of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (fig. 5d:90); and a plurality of silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) photodetectors forming a photodetector array (30), the photodetector array including a plurality of columns arranged side by side along the thickness direction of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (fig. 5d), wherein for each of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (90), the monolithic crystal plate (90) is in optical communication (fig. 5d) with one or more columns of SiPM photodetectors in the photodetector array (30), and the one or more columns of SiPM photodetectors (30) are configured to necessarily detect scintillation light produced by gamma ray interactions in the monolithic crystal plate (par. 74), and a material of the semi-monolithic crystal includes a material (of 90).
However, Qiang fails to disclose at least one of cesium iodide (CsI) or sodium iodide (NaI).
Liu teaches at least one of cesium iodide (CsI) or sodium iodide (NaI) (par. 65).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Liu, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability (Liu: par. 65). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for using whatever is cheaper or more readily available.
Regarding claim 2, Qiang discloses wherein the detector module is electronically connected to a processing device (207), and the processing device is configured to: receive, from one or more target columns of SiPM photodetectors in the photodetector array (30) that are in optical communication with a target monolithic crystal plate among the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (90), readout signals (par. 22); and determine, based on the readout signals, that a target gamma ray interaction occurs in the target monolithic crystal plate (par. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Qiang discloses wherein the one or more target columns of SiPM photodetectors include a plurality of rows arranged along a length direction of the target monolithic crystal plate, and the processing device is further configured to: determine, based on the readout signals, a total signal intensity detected by each row of the plurality of rows; and determine, based on the total signal intensity received by each row of the plurality of rows, position information of the target gamma ray interaction in the target monolithic crystal plate (pars. 38-64).
Regarding claim 4, Qiang discloses wherein to determine, based on the total signal intensity received by each row of the plurality of rows, position information of the target gamma ray interaction in the target monolithic crystal plate, the processing device is configured to: determine, based on the total signal intensity received by each row of the plurality of rows, a signal intensity distribution in the plurality of rows; and determine, based on the signal intensity distribution, at least one of first position information or second position information, the first position information relating to the position of the target gamma ray interaction along the length direction of the target monolithic crystal plate, and the second position information relating to the position of the target gamma ray interaction along a depth direction of the target monolithic crystal plate (pars. 38-64).
Regarding claim 11, Qiang discloses wherein a size of each column in the photodetector array along the thickness direction of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates is greater than a thickness of the monolithic crystal plate being in optical communication with the each column (fig. 5d).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang and Li as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lerche et al. (US 2016/0084974).
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 4. Qiang further discloses wherein to determine, based on the signal intensity distribution, at least one of first position information or second position information, the processing device is configured to: determine the at least one of the first position information or the second position information by processing the signal intensity distribution (pars. 38-64).
However, Qiang fails to disclose using a position information determination model.
Lerche teaches using a position information determination model (par. 59).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Lerche, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more reliable analysis (Lerche: par. 8).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang, Li, and Lerche as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2020/0211209; hereinafter Liao).
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 5. Lerche further teaches modeling (pars. 70 and 72) and wherein the position information determination is generated by a process comprising: obtaining a plurality of samples each of which includes a sample signal intensity distribution corresponding to a gamma ray interaction and position information of the sample gamma ray interaction; and generating the position information determination by using the plurality of samples (pars. 38-64).
However, Qiang fails to disclose wherein the model is generated by a model training process comprising: obtaining a plurality of training samples and a reference sample; and generating the model by training a preliminary model using the plurality of training samples.
Liao teaches wherein the model is generated by a model training process comprising: obtaining a plurality of training samples and a reference sample; and generating the model by training a preliminary model using the plurality of training samples (par. 6).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art with the teaching of Liao, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for faster and more accurate processing (Liao: par. 3).
Furthermore, since the Examiner finds that the prior art contained a “base” upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” (with machine learning), and since the Examiner finds that the prior art (i.e., Liao) contained a “comparable” system that has been improved as recited in the claimed invention (with machine learning), the Examiner thus finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique to the “base” and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2017/0146672).
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 1. Qiang further discloses wherein the detector module further includes light disposed between the semi-monolithic crystal and the photodetector array, with the scintillation light from the semi-monolithic crystal to the photodetector array (fig. 5D).
However, Qiang fails to disclose a light guide disposed between and configured to guide the scintillation light.
Chen teaches a light guide (314) disposed between (312 and 314) and configured to guide the scintillation light (from 312).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Chen, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more control.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cucarella et al. (“Timing evaluation of a PET detector block based on semi-monolithic LYSO crystals”; hereinafter Cucarella).
Regarding claim 9, Qiang as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Qiang fails to disclose wherein a thickness of each of at least a portion of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates is smaller than 1.3 millimeters.
Cucarella teaches wherein a thickness of each of at least a portion of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates is smaller than 1.3 millimeters (p. 8011, col. 2, par. 2).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Cucarella, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for resolvability (Cucarella: p. 8011, col. 2, par. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Cucarella teaches wherein a distance between adjacent monolithic crystal plates among the plurality of monolithic crystal plates is smaller than 0.1 millimeters (p. 8011, col. 2, last paragraph, with a distance of 0.1 mm is within 0.2 mm).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baeumer et al. (US 2011/0017918; hereinafter Baeumer).
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 1.
However, Qiang fails to disclose wherein a signal readout sampling rate of each of the plurality of SiPM photodetectors is in a range from 20 MHz to 150 MHz.
Baeumer teaches wherein a signal readout sampling rate of each of the plurality of SiPM photodetectors is in a range from 20 MHz to 150 MHz (par. 41).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Baeumer, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for faster sampling (Baeumer: par. 41).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldenberg et al. (US 2003/0198595; hereinafter Goldenberg).
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 1. Qiang further discloses wherein an energy that the detector module focuses on is within a range from 20 kev to 1000 kev (par. 3).
However, Qiang fails to disclose a range from 20 kev to 1000 kev.
Goldenberg teaches a range from 20 kev to 1000 kev (par. 182).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Goldenberg, since where the general conditions of a claim are in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (Goldenberg: par. 182). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for more useful diagnostic agents (Goldenberg: par. 182).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang in view of Li (US 2019/0099149) and Liu.
Regarding claim 14, Qiang discloses a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) device (par. 74), comprising: a detector module configured to detect photons (fig. 5d), wherein the detector module includes: a semi-monolithic crystal including a plurality of monolithic crystal plates (90) configured to receive gamma rays, the plurality of monolithic crystal plates being arranged side by side along a thickness direction of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (fig. 5d); and a plurality of silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) photodetectors forming a photodetector array (30), the photodetector array including a plurality of columns arranged side by side along the thickness direction of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (fig. 5d), wherein for each of the plurality of monolithic crystal plates, the monolithic crystal plate is in optical communication with one or more columns of SiPM photodetectors in the photodetector array (fig. 5d), and the one or more columns of SiPM photodetectors are configured to detect scintillation light produced by gamma ray interactions in the monolithic crystal plate (par. 74), wherein a material of the semi-monolithic crystal includes a material (of 90).
However, Qiang fails to disclose a collimator configured to limit a range of photons entering the detector module, and at least one of cesium iodide (CsI) or sodium iodide (NaI).
Li teaches a collimator (207) configured to limit a range of photons entering the detector module (206). Liu teaches at least one of cesium iodide (CsI) or sodium iodide (NaI) (par. 65).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Li, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing scatter (Li: par. 7), which will produce better signal quality.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Liu, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability (Liu: par. 65). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for using whatever is cheaper or more readily available.
Regarding claim 15, Qiang discloses wherein the detector module is electronically connected to a processing device (207), and the processing device is configured to: receive, from one or more target columns of SiPM photodetectors in the photodetector array (30) that are in optical communication with a target monolithic crystal plate among the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (90), readout signals (par. 22); and determine, based on the readout signals, that a target gamma ray interaction occurs in the target monolithic crystal plate (par. 10).
Regarding claim 16, Qiang discloses wherein the one or more target columns of SiPM photodetectors include a plurality of rows arranged along a length direction of the target monolithic crystal plate, and the processing device is further configured to: determine, based on the readout signals, a total signal intensity detected by each row of the plurality of rows; and determine, based on the total signal intensity received by each row of the plurality of rows, position information of the target gamma ray interaction in the target monolithic crystal plate (pars. 38-64).
Regarding claim 17, Qiang discloses wherein to determine, based on the total signal intensity received by each row of the plurality of rows, position information of the target gamma ray interaction in the target monolithic crystal plate, the processing device is configured to: determine, based on the total signal intensity received by each row of the plurality of rows, a signal intensity distribution in the plurality of rows; and determine, based on the signal intensity distribution, at least one of first position information or second position information, the first position information relating to the position of the target gamma ray interaction along the length direction of the target monolithic crystal plate, and the second position information relating to the position of the target gamma ray interaction along a depth direction of the target monolithic crystal plate (pars. 38-64).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang, Li, and Liu as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lerche.
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 17. Qiang further discloses wherein to determine, based on the signal intensity distribution, at least one of first position information or second position information, the processing device is configured to: determine the at least one of the first position information or the second position information by processing the signal intensity distribution (pars. 38-64).
However, Qiang fails to disclose using a position information determination model.
Lerche teaches using a position information determination model (par. 59).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Lerche, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more reliable analysis (Lerche: par. 8).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang, Li, and Liu as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chen.
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 14. Qiang further discloses wherein the detector module further includes light disposed between the semi-monolithic crystal and the photodetector array, with the scintillation light from the semi-monolithic crystal to the photodetector array (fig. 5D).
However, Qiang fails to disclose a light guide disposed between and configured to guide the scintillation light.
Chen teaches a light guide (314) disposed between (312 and 314) and configured to guide the scintillation light (from 312).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Chen, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more control.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solf (US 2022/0342089; hereinafter Solf).
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 1. Qiang further discloses wherein for each of at least one monolithic crystal plate among the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (fig. 5d:90), multiple SIPM photodetectors of the plurality of SiPM photodetectors (par. 36) are coupled to the monocrystalline plate along both a length direction (fig. 5d) and a SiPM photodetector coupled in the thickness direction of the monocrystalline plate (fig. 5d).
However, Qiang fails to disclose multiple photodetectors coupled along both a length direction and in a thickness direction.
Solf teaches multiple photodetectors coupled along both a length direction and in a thickness direction (fig. 2: with sub-pixels SP1-SP4).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Solf, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for better resolution.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang, Li, and Liu as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Solf.
Qiang as modified above suggests claim 14. Qiang further discloses wherein for each of at least one monolithic crystal plate among the plurality of monolithic crystal plates (fig. 5d:90), multiple SIPM photodetectors of the plurality of SiPM photodetectors (par. 36) are coupled to the monocrystalline plate along both a length direction (fig. 5d) and a SiPM photodetector coupled in the thickness direction of the monocrystalline plate (fig. 5d).
However, Qiang fails to disclose multiple photodetectors coupled along both a length direction and in a thickness direction.
Solf teaches multiple photodetectors coupled along both a length direction and in a thickness direction (fig. 2: with sub-pixels SP1-SP4).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Qiang with the teaching of Solf, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for better resolution.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the other pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references (i.e., Liu) individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (Qiang and Liu). Furthermore, in response to Applicant's argument that Liu only discloses crystal columns of CsI or Ni, but no crystal plates of CsI or NaI, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Qiang discloses crystal plates (fig. 5d:90). Liu teaches that crystals can be at least one of cesium iodide (CsI) or sodium iodide (NaI) (par. 65). Therefore, the combination of references suggests that crystal plates that can be made of cesium iodide (CsI) or sodium iodide (NaI). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to change materials, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability (Liu: par. 65). See also Gonzalez Martinez et al. (US 2024/0427031) showing that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability (par. 29: NaI and/or CSI; for semi-monolithic crystal plate scintillators (abstract; fig. 1)). In light of the multiple reasons why it would be obvious to have CsI or NaI crystal plates, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights