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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/31/2025, with respect to 112 issues resolved by amendment have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 with respect to the “very compact and has simplified electronics,” “a high atomic number,” “the transversal surface,” “the electronic processing unit” and the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed, 10/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the “each optoelectronic conversion element comprising a single SiPM or MPCC element” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant fails to directly address the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection with respect to the “each optoelectronic conversion element comprising a single SiPM or MPCC element.” The Applicant alludes to the 112(b) rejection in their argument for the 103 rejection, so the Examiner will use the relevant aspects of that argument. The Applicant alleges that: “The specification consistently uses ‘SiPM or MPPC element’ to denote a discrete, single device (a packaged SiPM/MPPC), not a single pixel within a larger imaging chip. See, e.g., Spec. [0029]-[0034] (bi-unique channel ↔ element correspondence; each element is a single SiPM/MPPC; individual optical guiding toward the single device).”The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A review of the specification reveals that nowhere in the specification does it mention “a packaged SiPM” or a “single” or “discreet” SiPM or MPCC. In fact, the paragraphs of the specification the Applicant cites always refer to a “SiPM or MPCC element(s).” Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed, 10/31/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amended claim 1 the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is improper over Nishihara WO 2014/097546 in view of Bouhnik US 2019/0250285 because
Nishihara does not disclose discrete, single-device SiPM/MPCC device per channel.
Bouhnik uses condensers as optical guide which condenses multiple collimator channels are ill-suited to the 1 one-channel-per-element architecture of claim 1 and the proposed combination changed both references in non-trivial ways and is not a “simple substitution.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the argument hinges on the discrete, single-device SiPM/MPCC device, but this language is not the claim language. The claim language is “single SiPM or MPCC element.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the discrete, single-device SiPM/MPCC device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the specification fails to recite that the single SiPM or MPCC element is a discrete, single-device SiPM/MPCC device (see Response to Arguments 112(b) and Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112). Even if one were to accept the baseless narrowing of the claim language, Nishihara does teach the SiPM elements being a single, discrete device (fig. 15 #551).
Regarding argument 2, the Examiner agrees that Bouhnik uses condensers as optical guide which condenses multiple collimator channels. In the combination of references, one of ordinary skill in the art is also one of ordinary creativity and not a mindless automaton, one of ordinary creativity is able to take the teachings of various references as pieces of a puzzle and are expected to make modification to the teachings within a reasonable standard of experimentation. The teaching of Bouhnik relies on the use of a optical guide to convey the photons to the conversion element. Nishihara provides several embodiments (fig. 7B, figs. 9-12, fig. 15, fig. 16, fig. 17, 21A) where the natural method of integrating the optical guide of Bouhnik into the device of Nishihara would lead one to a one-channel-per-element architecture. This integration does not change both references in non-trivial ways, rather it modifies the waveguide of Bouhnik into the device of Nishihara in a way which does not exceed undue experimentation.
For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
A scintillation structure in claims 1 and 21-22, because it uses “structure” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “defining an overall detection area and designed to receive a radiation and to convert said radiation into photons” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “structure” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the scintillation structure, paragraphs 0024-0027 discloses:
(1) “the scintillation structure 20 comprises a single scintillation plate which extends over the entire overall detection area;”
(2) “According to a variant embodiment not illustrated, the scintillation structure 20 comprises two or more scintillation plates positioned side by side (laterally) linearly or in a two-dimensional configuration and each associated with a plurality of collimation channels;” and
(3) “According to a further variant embodiment not illustrated, the scintillation structure 20 comprises a matrix of scintillation crystals defining the overall detection area and each associated with a single respective collimation channel 11”.
Thus, for the purpose of examination, the scintillation structure is interpreted to be any of the three aforementioned configurations.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 20-22 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 21-22, the claim limitation “each optoelectronic conversion element comprising a single SiPM ot MPCC element” is indefinite insofar as the examiner is unclear about the structure of “a single SiPM ot MPCC element” and it is impossible to determine the intending scope of the structure of “a single SiPM ot MPCC element” in claim 1. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to exclude pixelated structures. For instance, it is unclear if the claim should be interpreted as: (1) including the possibility of a signle, multi-pixel SiPM or MPCC or (2) being limited to SiPM or MPCC which are only single pixles. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Also, dependent Claims 2-5, 7-15, and 20 are rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara et al. WO 2014/097546 in view of Bouhnik et al. 33US 2019/250285.
Regarding claim 1, Nishihara teaches a scintigraphic detection device (fig. 7B) comprising: a scintillation structure (fig. 7B #200; see Claim interpretation scintillation structure embodiments (1) and (3)) defining an overall detection area (the span of 200) and designed to receive a radiation (fig. 7B #182, 183) and to convert said radiation into photons (a scintillator by definition); a collimator (fig. 7B #101) having a plurality of collimation channels distributed over said detection area (fig. 7B; the collimator has a plurality of channels over the span of 200), said collimator being associated with (being associated with is being interpreted as having means for the exchange of light) the scintillation structure (fig. 7B #200) for absorbing a lateral radiation directed towards the detection structure and having an angle of incidence greater than a predetermined value (a collimator by definition); an optoelectronic unit (fig. 7B #110) associated with (being associated with is being interpreted as having means for the exchange of light) the scintillation structure (fig. 7B #200) for converting photons into electrical signals (pg. 3 final paragraph); the optoelectronic unit (figs. 15-16 #551, 555 and fig. 21A #644) comprises a plurality of optoelectronic conversion elements (figs. 15-16 #551 for the interpretation which includes multi-pixel imaging elements; fig. 15 also shows discreet devices;fig 21A #643 for the interpretation which only includes single pixel interpretation; see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) each associated with a respective collimation channel (fig. 16, 21A each imaging element, either multi-pixel or single pixel, is shown to be receiving light from a single scintillation tube which is receiving light from a single collimation channel in fig. 7B therefore the conversion elements are associated with a respective collimation channel) and having a surface lower than the transversal surface of the respective collimation channel (fig. 7B; lower being interpretated as along the axis of light propagation, in fig. 7B that is horizontal).
Nishihara fails to teach each optoelectronic conversion element comprising a single SiPM or MPPC element, and wherein it (it being the optoelectronic unit) comprises, between each optoelectronic conversion element and the scintillation structure, an optical guide configured for conveying and for converging the photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure towards the optoelectronic conversion element.
Bouhnik teaches wherein the optoelectronic unit (fig. 1) comprises a plurality of optoelectronic conversion elements (fig. 1, 5 #150), each optoelectronic conversion element comprising a single SiPM (para. 0025) or MPPC element for the purpose of improving spatial resolution and reducing the number of electronic channels (para. 0022). Additionally, Bouhnik teaches wherein the optoelectronic unit comprises, between each optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 1, 5 #150) and the scintillation structure (fig. 1 #130), an optical guide (fig. 1, 5 #160, 162) configured for conveying and for converging the photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure towards the optoelectronic conversion element (para. 0025) for the purpose of funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each optoelectronic conversion element comprising a single SiPM or MPPC element, and wherein it comprises, between each optoelectronic conversion element and the scintillation structure, an optical guide configured for conveying and for converging the photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure towards the optoelectronic conversion element as taught by Bouhnik in the scintigraphic detection device of Nishihara for the purpose of improving spatial resolution and reducing the number of electronic channels and funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution.
Regarding claim 2, Nishihara discloses wherein the scintillation structure (200) comprises a scintillation plate (pg. 3 para. 11 “The scintillator plate 200”) associated with a plurality of said collimation channels (101).
Regarding claim 3, Nishihara discloses wherein said scintillation structure (200) comprises a matrix of scintillation crystals (pg. 3 para. 11 “That is, in the scintillator plate 200, the scintillator is finely partitioned in a direction where the pixels are disposed in matrix form”) defining said detection area (fig. 7B the imaging area is defined by the span of 200).
Regarding claim 4, Nishihara discloses wherein each optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 21A #643) is positioned in a centered position relative to the corresponding collimation channel (each conversion element is centered on the corresponding scintillator tube which is associated with a collimation channel as shown in fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 5, Nishihara discloses wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements has a surface extension of between 1 mm2 and 6 mm2 and/or wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements (fig. 20A #634) has at least a linear dimension less than or equal to half the corresponding linear dimension of the respective collimation channel (fig. 20A #631; the optoelectronic conversion elements are less than half the size of the collimation channel 631 in the horizontal, thickness, direction).
Regarding claim 7, Nishihara fails to teach wherein the optical guides are independent of each other and applied individually to the respective SiPM or MPPC element or to the scintillation structure.
Bouhnik teaches wherein the optical guides (fig. 1 #160, 162) are independent of each other and applied individually to the respective SiPM (fig. 1 # 150) or MPPC element or to the scintillation structure (fig. 1 #130; para. 0033; each optical guide is independent of each other and applied individually to both the SiPM and the scintillator) for the purpose of for the purpose of funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the optical guides are independent of each other and applied individually to the respective SiPM or MPPC element or to the scintillation structure as taught by Bouhnik in the scintigraphic detection device of Nishihara for the purpose of funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution.
Regarding claim 8, Nishihara fails to teach wherein the optical guides are mounted on a shared support which is fixed to a frame of the device.
In at least figure 1, Bouhnik teaches wherein the optical guides (160, 162) are mounted on a shared support (140; para. 0033) which is fixed to a frame (136; para. 0027) of the device for the purpose of ensuring the array of optical guides remains aligned to the array of SiPM’s (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the optical guides are mounted on a shared support which is fixed to a frame of the device as taught by Bouhnik in the scintigraphic detection device of Nishihara for the purpose of ensuring the array of optical guides remains aligned to the array of SiPM’s.
Regarding claim 9, Nishihara discloses wherein each optoelectronic conversion element is associated with a single respective collimation channel and each collimation channel is associated with a single respective optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 16, 21A each imaging element, either multi-pixel or single pixel, is shown to be receiving light from a single scintillation tube which is receiving light from a single collimation channel in fig. 7B therefore the conversion elements are associated with a respective collimation channel).
Regarding claim 10, Nishihara discloses wherein the scintillation plate (fig. 1 #200) is a single scintillation plate (there is only one scintillation plate) that extends on the overall detection area (the detection area is defined by the span of 200).
Regarding claim 11, Nishihara discloses wherein each optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 21A #643) is positioned in a centered position relative to the corresponding collimation channel (each conversion element is centered on the corresponding scintillator tube which is associated with a collimation channel as shown in fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 12, Nishihara discloses wherein each optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 21A #643) is positioned in a centered position relative to the corresponding collimation channel (each conversion element is centered on the corresponding scintillator tube which is associated with a collimation channel as shown in fig. 7B).
Regarding claim 13, Nishihara discloses wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements has a surface extension of between 1 mm2 and 6 mm2 and/or wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements (fig. 20A #634) has at least a linear dimension less than or equal to half the corresponding linear dimension of the respective collimation channel (fig. 20A #631; the optoelectronic conversion elements are less than half the size of the collimation channel 631 in the horizontal, thickness, direction).
Regarding claim 14, Nishihara discloses wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements has a surface extension of between 1 mm2 and 6 mm2 and/or wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements (fig. 20A #634) has at least a linear dimension less than or equal to half the corresponding linear dimension of the respective collimation channel (fig. 20A #631; the optoelectronic conversion elements are less than half the size of the collimation channel 631 in the horizontal, thickness, direction).
Regarding claim 15, Nishihara discloses wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements has a surface extension of between 1 mm2 and 6 mm2 and/or wherein each of said optoelectronic conversion elements (fig. 20A #634) has at least a linear dimension less than or equal to half the corresponding linear dimension of the respective collimation channel (fig. 20A #631; the optoelectronic conversion elements are less than half the size of the collimation channel 631 in the horizontal, thickness, direction).
Regarding claim 20, Nishihara fails to teach wherein the optical guides are independent of each other and applied individually to the respective SiPM or MPPC element or to the scintillation structure.
Bouhnik teaches wherein the optical guides (fig. 1 #160, 162) are independent of each other and applied individually to the respective SiPM (fig. 1 # 150) or MPPC element or to the scintillation structure (fig. 1 #130; para. 0033; each optical guide is independent of each other and applied individually to both the SiPM and the scintillator) for the purpose of for the purpose of funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the optical guides are independent of each other and applied individually to the respective SiPM or MPPC element or to the scintillation structure as taught by Bouhnik in the scintigraphic detection device of Nishihara for the purpose of funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution.
Regarding claim 21, Nishihara teaches a scintigraphic detection device, comprising (fig. 7B): a scintillation structure (fig. 7B #200; see Claim interpretation scintillation structure embodiments (1) and (3)) defining an overall detection area (the span of 200) and configured to receive radiation (fig. 7B #182, 183) and convert the radiation into photons (a scintillator by definition); a collimator (fig. 7B #101) having a plurality of collimation channels distributed over the detection area (fig. 7B; the collimator has a plurality of channels over the span of 200), the collimator being associated with (being associated with is being interpreted as having means for the exchange of light) the scintillation structure (fig. 7B #200); an optoelectronic unit (figs. 15-16, 21A) associated with the scintillation structure (fig. 15-16 #160, fig 21A #642) and comprising a plurality of optoelectronic conversion elements (fig. 15-16 #551, fig 21A #643), each optoelectronic conversion element comprising exactly one SiPM or MPPC element (see Response to Arguments and Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112; figs. 15-16 show the element 551 is a single discreet multi-pixel device; fig. 21A shows the element 642 being a single pixel in a single device) and being associated with a single respective collimation channel (fig. 16, 21A each imaging element, either multi-pixel or single pixel, is shown to be receiving light from a single scintillation tube which is receiving light from a single collimation channel in fig. 7B therefore the conversion elements are associated with a respective collimation channel), and each collimation channel being associated with a single respective optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 16, 21A each imaging element, either multi-pixel or single pixel, is shown to be receiving light from a single scintillation tube which is receiving light from a single collimation channel in fig. 7B therefore the conversion elements are associated with a respective collimation channel); and wherein each optoelectronic conversion element has a surface smaller than a transversal surface of the respective collimation channel and is positioned in a centered position with respect to the corresponding collimation channel (fig. 9; the conversion element 512 is smaller than the channel 511).
Nishihara fails to teach for each optoelectronic conversion element, an optical guide positioned between the optoelectronic conversion element and the scintillation structure, the optical guide being independent of optical guides for the other optoelectronic conversion elements and configured to convey and converge photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure toward the optoelectronic conversion element.
Bouhnik teaches for each optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 1 #150), an optical guide (fig. 1 #160, 162) positioned between the optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 1 #150) and the scintillation structure (fig. 1 #130), the optical guide (fig. 1 #160, 162) being independent of optical guides (fig. 1; each optical guide 160 is independent of the other optical guided 160)for the other optoelectronic conversion elements and configured to convey and converge photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure toward the optoelectronic conversion element (para. 0025) for the purpose of funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have for each optoelectronic conversion element, an optical guide positioned between the optoelectronic conversion element and the scintillation structure, the optical guide being independent of optical guides for the other optoelectronic conversion elements and configured to convey and converge photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure toward the optoelectronic conversion element as taught by Bouhnik in the scintigraphic detection device of Nishihara for the purpose of improving spatial resolution and reducing the number of electronic channels and funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution.
Regarding claim 22, Nishihara teaches a scintigraphic detection device, comprising (fig. 7B): a scintillation structure (fig. 7B #200; see Claim interpretation scintillation structure embodiments (1) and (3)) defining an overall detection area (the span of 200) and configured to receive radiation (fig. 7B #182, 183) and convert the radiation into photons (a scintillator by definition); a collimator (fig. 7B #101) having a plurality of collimation channels distributed over the detection area (fig. 7B; the collimator has a plurality of channels over the span of 200), the collimator being associated with (being associated with is being interpreted as having means for the exchange of light) the scintillation structure (fig. 7B #200); an optoelectronic unit (figs. 15-16, 21A) associated with the scintillation structure (fig. 15-16 #160, fig 21A #642) and comprising a plurality of optoelectronic conversion elements (fig. 15-16 #551, fig 21A #643), each optoelectronic conversion element comprising exactly one SiPM or MPPC element (see Response to Arguments and Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112; figs. 15-16 show the element 551 is a single discreet multi-pixel device; fig. 21A shows the element 642 being a single pixel in a single device) and being associated with a single respective collimation channel (fig. 16, 21A each imaging element, either multi-pixel or single pixel, is shown to be receiving light from a single scintillation tube which is receiving light from a single collimation channel in fig. 7B therefore the conversion elements are associated with a respective collimation channel), and each collimation channel being associated with a single respective optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 16, 21A each imaging element, either multi-pixel or single pixel, is shown to be receiving light from a single scintillation tube which is receiving light from a single collimation channel in fig. 7B therefore the conversion elements are associated with a respective collimation channel); and wherein each optoelectronic conversion element has a surface smaller than a transversal surface of the respective collimation channel and is positioned in a centered position with respect to the corresponding collimation channel (fig. 9; the conversion element 512 is smaller than the channel 511); and wherein each SiPM or MPPC element has at least one linear dimension not greater than half of a corresponding linear dimension of the respective collimation channel (fig. 16 the SiPM element 551 has at least one linear dimension, the vertical dimension [width], which is less than half the linear dimension of the collimation channel).
Nishihara fails to teach for each optoelectronic conversion element, an optical guide positioned between the optoelectronic conversion element and the scintillation structure, the optical guide being independent of optical guides for the other optoelectronic conversion elements and configured to convey and converge photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure toward the optoelectronic conversion element.
Bouhnik teaches for each optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 1 #150), an optical guide (fig. 1 #160, 162) positioned between the optoelectronic conversion element (fig. 1 #150) and the scintillation structure (fig. 1 #130), the optical guide (fig. 1 #160, 162) being independent of optical guides (fig. 1; each optical guide 160 is independent of the other optical guided 160)for the other optoelectronic conversion elements and configured to convey and converge photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure toward the optoelectronic conversion element (para. 0025) for the purpose of funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have for each optoelectronic conversion element, an optical guide positioned between the optoelectronic conversion element and the scintillation structure, the optical guide being independent of optical guides for the other optoelectronic conversion elements and configured to convey and converge photons generated by a corresponding portion of the scintillation structure toward the optoelectronic conversion element as taught by Bouhnik in the scintigraphic detection device of Nishihara for the purpose of improving spatial resolution and reducing the number of electronic channels and funneling light toward the corresponding SiPM for improving spatial and energy resolution.
Nishihara and Bouhnik does not specifically disclose wherein each SiPM or MPPC element has a surface between 1 mm^2 and 6 mm^2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (a surface between 1 mm^2 and 6 mm^2) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein each SiPM or MPPC element has a surface between 1 mm^2 and 6 mm^2 in the scintigraphic detection device of Nishihara and Bouhnik for the purpose of having a desired detection area.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884