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 Amendment
Claims 7, 10, and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 22-24 have been newly added.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-24 are still pending for consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Laurence is directed to calibration of scintillator crystal locations and does not disclose determining corrected scintillator element identities based on the identities and DOIs of two original scintillator elements. Applicant’s argument has been considered and is persuasive with respect to the rejection based on Laurence. Accordingly, that region is withdrawn. However, the claims remain unpatentable over the newly applied art, as set forth below. In particular, Jones (US 20040069951 A1) teaches a detector-pair coincidence event stream and real-time DOI LOR-to-projection-space rebinning, wherein DOI and gamma-interaction centroid-depth knowledge about LOR positioning is applied in real time. Thus, the present rejection relies on Jones in view of Laurence, for the event-level Doi-based correction features.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 19, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 20040069951 A1) in view of Laurence et al. (US 20120278034 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Jones et al. teaches a system, comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system (see para [0009]; “The bin address output stream from the rebinner feeds a Fibre Channel PCI DMA receiver card for direct PCI DMA stream transfers controlled by the computer system operator software. The stream is useful for storage on disk or for on-line histogramming directly into PC DRAM”) for each of the plurality of coincidence events, identifying, based on the information of the coincidence event, identities of two original scintillator elements at each of which a photon of the coincidence event was detected (see para [0033]; “the detector event occurring along a line between one detector (x.sub.A, y.sub.A) in head A and another detector (x.sub.B, y.sub.B) in head B”, see also para [0028]; “The TFA feeds the detector pair coincidence event stream to the rebinner for on-line rebinning…..All DOI and gamma interaction centroid depth knowledge about LOR positioning is applied in real time”); obtaining a depth of interaction (DOI) of each photon of the coincidence event within one original scintillator element of the two original scintillator elements (see para [0007]; “The depth is measured to +/-0.01 cm for each of 4 planar arrays and applied for more accurate line of response (LOR) positioning”); and determining, based on the identities and the DOIs of the two original scintillator elements, identities of two corrected scintillator elements each of which corresponds to an original scintillator element of the two original scintillator elements (see para [0009]; “The rebinner circuit supports on-line real-time DOI LOR-to-projection-space nearest-neighbor rebinning. All DOI and gamma interaction centroid depth knowledge about LOR positioning is applied in real time”); and generating a reconstructed image based on the identities of two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events (see para [0011]; “First, the indicated rebinning look up tables are made. Next, the list mode data is rebinned. The image is then histogrammed and reconstructed”). Jones additionally disclose obtaining image data that includes information of a coincidence event (see Abstract; “Data acquisition hardware is used to feed a detector pair coincidence event stream to an online rebinner”, see also para [0009]; “The TFA feeds the detector pair coincidence event stream to the rebinner for on-line rebinning”), but does not specifically disclose a plurality of coincidence events.
In the same field of endeavor, Laurance et al. teaches to perform operations including: obtaining image data that includes information of a plurality of coincidence events (see para [0025]; “a coincidence detector 20 determines coincident pairs and the LOR defined by each coincident pair”, see also para [0010]; “A coincidence detector detects pairs of detected radiation events and determines projection data corresponding to the coincident pairs”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method for on-line DOI rebinning for LSO PET/SPECT to improve spatial resolution of Jones et al. in view of the use of method for automated crystal identification in nuclear imaging systems of Laurance et al. in order to improve image quality (see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Jones et al. in the combination further teach wherein for each of the plurality of coincidence events, a corrected DOI of each photon of the coincidence event in the corresponding corrected scintillator element is a pre-determined value (see para [0007]; “A photon timing profile is generated via the simulated photon travel for a plurality of depth of interaction (DOI) positions within the detector. A time-of-flight correction factor is determined for each DOI position of the plurality of DOI positions”, see also para [0067]; “The DOI information may be used as an index to the list or other arrangement of correction factors in the lookup table. A correction factor for the depth of interaction is determined in act 82 based on the timing profile offset data. In one embodiment, the correction factor for the depth of interaction closest to the depth indicated by the DOI information is selected”, DOI positions are fixed, discrete DOI bins i.e., pre-determined value).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Jones et al. in the combination further teach wherein the operations further include: storing the identities of two corrected scintillator elements corresponding to each of the plurality of coincidence events into corrected list-mode data or a corrected sinogram; and generating the reconstructed image based on the corrected list-mode data or the corrected sinogram (see para [0011]; “A 64-bit list mode file is collected once and read a multiple of times. The process is initiated by assuming a crystal position as the centroid for each of the heads. A sequence for varying the assumed positions is also defined at the outset. First, the indicated rebinning look up tables are made. Next, the list mode data is rebinned. The image is then histogrammed and reconstructed”, see also para [0039]; “All data collected were in 64-bit detector-pair list-mode data format from a single 2-D plane (plane 80 of 167, segment 0, span 7). Coincidence time resolution was set up to 10 ns. Energy thresholds were set to 400 & 650 keV. All data was nearest-neighbor rebinned into a 256.times.256 sinogram”).
Regarding claim 11, the scope of claim 11 is fully incorporated in claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 analysis is equally applicable here.
Regarding claim 21, the scope of claim 21 is fully incorporated in claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 analysis is equally applicable here.
Regarding claim 24, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Jones et al. in the combination further teach wherein the operations further include: in response to determining that one original scintillator element of the two original scintillator elements is located in a photon incident surface of scintillator element arrays (see para [0009]; “The TFA feeds the detector pair coincidence event stream to the rebinner for on-line rebinning”, see also claim 1; “acquiring a PET coincidence data stream from a patient scan; (b) delivering the PET coincidence data stream to an on-line rebinner to derive a bin address output stream”, and para [0007]; “each detector head in the PET/SPECT system contains two 84.times.120 planar arrays of crystals”, and para [0025]; “FIG. 11 illustrates various incident angles of gamma photons striking a detector array”, and para [0028]; “dual-level DOI isolates gamma detection only to the 1 cm long axis depth of each individual crystal”), designating the original scintillator element as the corrected scintillator element with respect to the photon; or in response to determining that a DOI of a photon corresponds to one original scintillator element of the two original scintillator elements is zero (see para [0028]; “Critical to delivery of excellent spatial resolution are additional methods to precisely characterize the depth of the centroid of the probability of gamma interaction along the long axis of the crystal”, see also para [0008]; “The depth is measured to +/-0.01 cm for each of 4 planar arrays and applied for more accurate line of response (LOR) positioning in super-fast real-time rebinding hardware”, and para [0009]; “All DOI and gamma interaction centroid depth knowledge about LOR positioning is applied in real time”), designating the original scintillator element as the corrected scintillator element with respect to the photon (see para [0028]; “The depth is measured to +/-0.01 cm for each of 4 planar arrays and applied for more accurate line of response (LOR) positioning”, see also para [0009]; “The rebinner circuit supports on-line real-time DOI LOR-to-projection-space nearest-neighbor rebinning…../ DOI and gamma interaction centroid depth knowledge about LOR positioning is applied in real time”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al.) in view of Laurence et al. as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 20120278034 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Laurence et al. in the combination further teach wherein the determining, based on the identities and the DOls of the two original scintillator elements, the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements includes: determining, based on the identities and the DOls of the two original scintillator elements, a projection line of the coincidence event (see para [0033]; “the detector event occurring along a line between one detector (x.sub.A, y.sub.A) in head A and another detector (x.sub.B, y.sub.B) in head B”). However, the combination of Jones et al. and Laurenece et al. as a whole does not teach determining two intersection points of the projection line and a scintillator element array; and determining the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements based on the two intersection points.
In the same field of endeavor, Dong et al. disclose determining two intersection points of the projection line and a scintillator element array, and determining the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements based on the two intersection points (see Abstract; “determining a line of response for an imaging apparatus, the line of response being defined by respective locations of a pair of detector crystals …..determining a depth of interaction factor dependent upon penetration of a gamma ray in the pair of detector crystals”, see also para [0033]; “a quite fine parallel beam (i.e., the distance between neighboring lines in parallel beams is in a sub-millimeter level) with the tilt angle .theta. LOR.sub.ij is used to penetrate the LOR.sub.ij for computation of the intersections of the parallel beam with two crystal individually… Each intersection is related to the sensitivity n.sub.d with a simple physical attenuation model”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method for on-line DOI rebinning for LSO PET/SPECT to improve spatial resolution of Jones et al. in view of the use of method for automated crystal identification in nuclear imaging systems of Laurance et al. and a method for determining a line of response for an imaging apparatus of Dong et al. in order to reconstruct by using statistical (iterative) or analytical reconstruction algorithms (see Abstract).
Claims 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. in view of Laurence et al. as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho (US 20130032706 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The combination of Jones et al. and Laurenece et al. as a whole does not teach wherein the generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements includes; determining a corrected time of flight (TOE) for each of the plurality of coincidence events.
In the same field of endeavor, Cho teaches wherein the generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements includes; determining a corrected time of flight (TOE) for each of the plurality of coincidence events (see para [0007]; “A photon timing profile is generated via the simulated photon travel for a plurality of depth of interaction (DOI) positions within the detector. A time-of-flight correction factor is determined for each DOI position of the plurality of DOI positions based on the simulated photon travel”); and generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of two corrected scintillator elements and the corrected TOF of each of the plurality of coincidence events (see para [0009]; “The method further includes reconstructing an image based on the corrected time of flight”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method for on-line DOI rebinning for LSO PET/SPECT to improve spatial resolution of Jones et al. in view of the use of method for automated crystal identification in nuclear imaging systems of Laurance et al. and method of configuring a time-of-flight positron emission tomography (PET) system determining a set of parameters of a detector of Cho in order to improve image quality (see para [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
Cho in the combination further teach wherein the determining the corrected TOE includes: identifying an original TOE of the coincidence event (see para [0009]; “includes receiving data indicative of a depth of a gamma interaction …a time of flight for the gamma interaction”); determining, based on the identities and the DOls of the two original scintillator elements, an estimated time difference between the original TOE and the corrected TOE (see para [0009]; “correcting, with a processor, a time of flight … based on photon detection timing profile offset data, the photon detection timing profile offset data being based on a simulation of operation of the PET detector at a plurality of depths of interaction”); and determining the corrected TOE based on the estimated time difference and the original TOE (see para [0009]; “correcting, with a processor, a time of flight for the gamma interaction based on the depth and based on photon detection timing profile offset data”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated.
Cho in the combination further teach wherein the operations further include: storing the corrected TOE into corrected list-mode data or a corrected sinogram; and generating the reconstructed image based on the corrected list-mode data or the corrected sinogram (see para [0009]; “The PET system further includes a memory in which time-of-flight correction data is stored, the time-of-flight correction data being indicative of timing offset simulation data based on an optical simulation model….. The method further includes reconstructing an image based on the corrected time of flight”).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Cho in the combination further teach wherein for each of the plurality of coincidence events, a corrected DOI of each photon of the coincidence event in the corresponding corrected scintillator element is a pre-determined value (see para [0007]; “A photon timing profile is generated via the simulated photon travel for a plurality of depth of interaction (DOI) positions within the detector. A time-of-flight correction factor is determined for each DOI position of the plurality of DOI positions”, see also para [0067]; “The DOI information may be used as an index to the list or other arrangement of correction factors in the lookup table. A correction factor for the depth of interaction is determined in act 82 based on the timing profile offset data. In one embodiment, the correction factor for the depth of interaction closest to the depth indicated by the DOI information is selected”).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
Jones et al. in the combination further teach wherein the operations further include: storing the identities of two corrected scintillator elements corresponding to each of the plurality of coincidence events into corrected list-mode data or a corrected sinogram; and generating the reconstructed image based on the corrected list-mode data or the corrected sinogram (see para [0039]; “detector-pair list-mode data format from a single 2-D plane (plane 80 of 167, segment 0, span 7). Coincidence time resolution was set up to 10 ns. Energy thresholds were set to 400 & 650 keV. All data was nearest-neighbor rebinned into a 256.times.256 sinogram”, see also para [0011]; “The image is then histogrammed and reconstructed”).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Jones et al. in the combination further teach wherein the generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements includes (see para [0028]; “The image is then histogrammed and reconstructed”, see also para [0043]; “A zoom of 10 was used in reconstruction along with a ramp filter with 0.5 cutoff and a 10 cm offset”).
Cho in the combination teach determining a corrected time of flight (TOE) for each of the plurality of coincidence events (see para [0007]; “A photon timing profile is generated via the simulated photon travel for a plurality of depth of interaction (DOI) positions within the detector. A time-of-flight correction factor is determined for each DOI position of the plurality of DOI positions based on the simulated photon travel”); and generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of two corrected scintillator elements and the corrected TOF of each of the plurality of coincidence events (see para [0009]; “The method further includes reconstructing an image based on the corrected time of flight”).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated.
Cho in the combination further teach wherein the determining the corrected TOE includes: identifying an original TOE of the coincidence event (see para [0009]; “includes receiving data indicative of a depth of a gamma interaction …a time of flight for the gamma interaction”); determining, based on the identities and the DOls of the two original scintillator elements, an estimated time difference between the original TOE and the corrected TOE (see para [0009]; “correcting, with a processor, a time of flight … based on photon detection timing profile offset data, the photon detection timing profile offset data being based on a simulation of operation of the PET detector at a plurality of depths of interaction”); and determining the corrected TOE based on the estimated time difference and the original TOE (see para [0009]; “correcting, with a processor, a time of flight for the gamma interaction based on the depth and based on photon detection timing profile offset data”).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated.
Cho in the combination further teach wherein the operations further include: storing the corrected TOE into corrected list-mode data or a corrected sinogram; and generating the reconstructed image based on the corrected list-mode data or the corrected sinogram (see para [0009]; “The PET system further includes a memory in which time-of-flight correction data is stored, the time-of-flight correction data being indicative of timing offset simulation data based on an optical simulation model….. The method further includes reconstructing an image based on the corrected time of flight”).
Claims 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. in view of Laurence et al. as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Qi et al. (US 20230260171 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The combination of Jones et al. and Laurence et al. as a whole does not teach wherein the generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events includes: determining, based on the identities of two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events, a corrected point-spread-function (PSF) of the coincidence event; and generating the reconstructed image based on the corrected PSF and the identities of two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events.
In the same field of endeavor Qi et al. teach wherein the generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events includes: determining, based on the identities of two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events, a corrected point-spread-function (PSF) of the coincidence event (see para [0023]; “Each figure shows a pair of singles (i.e. two photons of a coincidence event) that interact with one or more crystals (e.g. due to Compton Scattering)…. FIG. 1B illustrates a multi-multi event, where both 511 keV gamma photons interact with multiple crystals. FIG. 1C shows a single-multi event, where one 511 keV gamma photon interacts with one crystal, and the other 511 keV gamma photon interacts with multiple crystals…. In order to further improve PSF modeling accuracy, event-property-dependent PSF modeling can be utilized”); and generating the reconstructed image based on the corrected PSF and the identities of two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events (see para [0026]; “Step 811 is to perform image reconstruction on pairs from group 1 805, pairs from group 2 807, through pairs from group P 809 to generate images from group 1 813, images from group 2 815, through images from group P 817, respectively. Any image reconstruction technique can be used, such as filtered back projection…. Step 818 is to fit respective image domain PSF kernels for all reconstruction point sources from images from group 813, images from group 2 815, through images from group P 817, to generate image domain PSF kernel K.sup.1 819, image domain PSF kernel K.sup.2 821, through image domain PSF kernel K.sup.P 823, respectively”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method for on-line DOI rebinning for LSO PET/SPECT to improve spatial resolution of Jones et al. in view of the use of method for automated crystal identification in nuclear imaging systems of Laurance et al. and event property dependent point spread function modeling and image reconstruction for PET of Qi et al. in order to generate higher quality images (see para [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Qi et al. in the combination further teach wherein the generating the reconstructed image based on the identities of the two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events includes: determining, based on the identities of two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events, a corrected point-spread-function (PSF) of the coincidence event (see para [0023]; “Each figure shows a pair of singles (i.e. two photons of a coincidence event) that interact with one or more crystals (e.g. due to Compton Scattering)…. FIG. 1B illustrates a multi-multi event, where both 511 keV gamma photons interact with multiple crystals. FIG. 1C shows a single-multi event, where one 511 keV gamma photon interacts with one crystal, and the other 511 keV gamma photon interacts with multiple crystals…. In order to further improve PSF modeling accuracy, event-property-dependent PSF modeling can be utilized”); and generating the reconstructed image based on the corrected PSF and the identities of two corrected scintillator elements of each of the plurality of coincidence events (see para [0026]; “Step 811 is to perform image reconstruction on pairs from group 1 805, pairs from group 2 807, through pairs from group P 809 to generate images from group 1 813, images from group 2 815, through images from group P 817, respectively. Any image reconstruction technique can be used, such as filtered back projection…. Step 818 is to fit respective image domain PSF kernels for all reconstruction point sources from images from group 813, images from group 2 815, through images from group P 817, to generate image domain PSF kernel K.sup.1 819, image domain PSF kernel K.sup.2 821, through image domain PSF kernel K.sup.P 823, respectively”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method for on-line DOI rebinning for LSO PET/SPECT to improve spatial resolution of Jones et al. in view of the use of method for automated crystal identification in nuclear imaging systems of Laurance et al. and event property dependent point spread function modeling and image reconstruction for PET of Qi et al. in order to generate higher quality images (see para [0008]).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. in view of Laurence et al. as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Surti et al. (US 20100108896 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. The combination of Jones et al. and Laurence et al. as a whole does not teach wherein the pre-determined value is determined based on a location of the original scintillator element of the two original scintillator elements.
In the same field of endeavor, Surti et al. teaches wherein the pre-determined value is determined based on a location of the original scintillator element of the two original scintillator elements (see para [0082]; “the signal arrival time is plotted against the timing resolution for the two crystals as a function of interaction point in the crystal”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method for on-line DOI rebinning for LSO PET/SPECT to improve spatial resolution of Jones et al. in view of the use of method for automated crystal identification in nuclear imaging systems of Laurance et al. and time-of-flight positron emission tomography devices of Surti et al. in order to generate higher quality images (see para [0008]).
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Surti et al. in combination further teach wherein the pre-determined value is zero and each of the two corrected scintillator elements is a scintillator element on a photon incident surface of a scintillator element arrays (see para [0025]; “A real DOI position of 0-mm corresponds to the crystal edge coupled to PMT.sub.A”, see also para [0082]; “In FIG. 15, the signal arrival time is plotted against the timing resolution for the two crystals as a function of interaction point in the crystal. For these measurements a real DOI position of 0-mm corresponds to the crystal edge coupled to PMT.sub.A). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a method for on-line DOI rebinning for LSO PET/SPECT to improve spatial resolution of Jones et al. in view of the use of method for automated crystal identification in nuclear imaging systems of Laurance et al. and time-of-flight positron emission tomography devices of Surti et al. in order to generate higher quality images (see para [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINTA GEBRESLASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday9:00-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5180. 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.
/WINTA GEBRESLASSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights