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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are amended. No claims are newly added. No claims are canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Remarks
In light of the amendments to the claims in the response filed 03/12/2026, a new grounds of rejection is made below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub # 2010/0270463) in view Li et al. (US Patent # 11409010), further in view of Andreaco et al. (US Pub # 2016/0170043).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Lee apparatus and a method of positron emission tomography (PET), comprising:
providing a detector block including a miniblock including a plurality of detector crystals, a first detector crystal and a second detector crystal of the plurality of detector crystals being separated by an inner reflector, the inner reflector having a depth-dependent transparency (Figures 6-7 show an example crystal 110 inserted into detector block 10 and forming a plurality of crystals separated by an inner reflector having a gradient film 112; [0070-0072, 0078, 0081]),
providing a first photosensor configured to detect light from a gamma ray detection event, a first intensity of the light detected by the first photosensor being dependent on the depth-dependent transparency of the inner reflector (PS-PMT 20 comprises a plurality of pixels (200) which are configured to detect light from gamma events, events detected in combination with the depth-dependent transparency of the reflectors; [0031-0032]), and
providing a second photosensor configured to detect the light from the gamma ray detection event, a second intensity of the light detected by the second photosensor being dependent on the depth-dependent transparency of the inner reflector (PS-PMT 20 comprises a plurality of pixels (200) which are configured to detect light from gamma events in combination with the depth-dependent transparency of the reflectors; [0031-0032]); and
providing a processing circuitry configured to determine, based on the first and second and the second signal, a depth of interaction (DOI) of the gamma ray detection event (FIG 11 shows that control unit 30 receives first and second output signals according to a 2D direction for each channel, and calculates a DOI of the crystal 110, and displays the result at step S500. FIG 13 shows a variance value of photon distribution detected by the PS-PMT; [0097-0104]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1076
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Lee shows a PET detector with scintillators separated by gradient reflector walls
Lee assumes that detected energies of events intensities are 511 keV based on positron-electron annihilation events within the PET system ([0067]). Lee does not specify wherein (1) the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on the detected first intensity, a first energy, and determine based on the detected second intensity, a second energy, or (2) an outer reflector is configured to keep scintillation light within the miniblock, or (3) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a TOF of the gamma ray events within the miniblock. Regarding feature (1), Li discloses a PET system comprising an array of scintillator crystals having a reflective separators between respective crystals (FIG 5), and a detector array arranged to receive scintillator light from respective crystals, wherein output information from the first or second photon-sensor may be a parameter other than the energy value, such as a signal intensity, a pulse width, and a determination module bay determine the corresponding energy value based on the output information, with the benefit of computational flexibility (col. 26, line 66 – col. 27, line 16). In light of the teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of Lee. Regarding feature (2), Andreaco discloses a scintillator block 100 comprising an outer reflector 120 formed surrounding the block along its sides, with the benefit of providing greater light capture (FIG 1; [0018]). In light of the teachings of Andreaco, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of Lee and Li. Regarding feature (3), Li discloses computing device 140 configured to determine based on the light detected a timing of flight value of the miniblock based on each pair of annihilation photons (col. 9), with the benefit of improved image quality. In light of the teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to combine with the teachings of Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the inner reflector includes a first section having a first uniform transparency and a second section having a second uniform transparency (FIG 6 shows a first transparency in a first section (first crystal side), and a second transparency in a second section (second crystal side); [0081]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the first uniform transparency is determined by a film applied to the first section of the inner reflector and the second uniform transparency is based on a second film applied to the second section of the inner reflector (FIG 6 shows first and second films applied to first and second sections of the crystal respectively).
Regarding claim 11, Lee wherein the first section is disposed towards a top of the inner reflector, the top of the inner reflector being disposed opposite a bottom of the inner reflector, the second section being disposed towards the bottom of the inner reflector, the bottom of the inner reflector being disposed proximal to the first photosensor or the second photosensor, the first uniform transparency being higher than the second uniform transparency (FIG 6).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses does not specify wherein the first uniform transparency is determined by a thickness of the first section of the inner reflector and the second uniform transparency is determined by a thickness of the second section of the inner reflector. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary a thickness of a reflective medium in a reflect layer to increase or decrease the property of reflectivity, with the benefit of selectively controlling the transmission based on the application at hand.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the inner reflector includes a top and a bottom, the top of the inner reflector being disposed opposite the bottom of the inner reflector, the bottom of the inner reflector being disposed proximal to the first photosensor or the second photosensor (FIG 6), but does not specify wherein a thickness of the inner reflector increases from the top of the inner reflector to the bottom of the inner reflector, the depth-dependent transparency being determined by the thickness of the inner reflector. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary a thickness of a reflective medium in a reflect layer to increase or decrease the property of reflectivity, with the benefit of selectively controlling the transmission based on the application at hand.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Lee discloses a prior art embodiment wherein first and second detectors are arranged at respective first and second ends of a scintillator crystal, and a DOI is determined based on a ratio of first and second signals, with the downside of additional cost of a twice the number of detectors ([0030]). Lee further discloses an embodiment wherein a processing circuitry is configured to determine the DOI based on a variance of a first and second signal of a single-sided scintillator detector combo ([0097-0104]), but does not specify wherein the DOI is determined based on a ratio of the first signal to the second signal. In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses a scintillator detector arrangement wherein a DOI information of a photon gamma interaction 1 within the crystal element 302 is determined based on the ratio of output energies from the photosensor 301a and 301b with the benefit of uniform resolution throughout the FOV (col. 2, lines 8-24). In light of the teachings of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of Li.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Li discloses the processing circuitry configured to determine time-of-flight (TOF) information associated with each pair of annihilation photons (col. 9). Li further discloses a plurality photosensors arranged in a miniblock (FIG 8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a TOF value for each of a plurality photosensors, and thus for an event within the miniblock.
Regarding claim 16, Andreaco discloses the outer reflector surround the block along sides of the block.
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses it is known to provide a number of the plurality of the detector crystals is identical to a number of the photosensors ([0014]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements, wherein the inner reflector includes a plurality of openings, the depth-dependent transparency of the inner reflector being determined by the plurality of openings.
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884