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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2024 has been made record of and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: process 300 of FIG. 3 (see ¶51). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-11, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims appear to contain a plurality of typos, such as: “relating to first background events occur during a first PET scan.” The Examiner respectfully suggests correcting such typos to: “relating to first background events occurring during a first PET scan.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rothfuss (US 2015/0241576 A1, from IDS).
Consider claims 1, 11, and 20, Rothfuss discloses a method/system for attenuation map generation (¶55; “FIG. 1 is a flow chart 100 illustrating the method for using lutetium-based Scintillator crystals background beta decay emission in a PET scanner as a transmission scan source for generating attenuation maps), comprising:
[Claim 20: A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising at least one set of instructions, wherein when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, the at least one set of instructions causes the computing device to perform a method (FIG. 2, ¶109-110), the method comprising:]
at least one storage device storing a set of instructions (FIG. 2, ¶109-110); and
at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions (FIG. 2, ¶109-110), the at least one processor is directed to perform operations including (¶7):
obtaining first positron emission tomography (PET) data relating to first background events occur during a first PET scan, the first PET scan being performed by a PET scanner with no subject within a detection tunnel of the PET scanner (¶55-57; “A blank transmission scan data is acquired without any object in the PET scanner's field of view to provide a baseline transmission data”);
obtaining second PET data relating to second background events occur during a second PET scan, the second PET scan being performed by the PET scanner with a subject within the detection tunnel (¶57; “Subsequently, a PET emission scan is performed with the scan object in the field of view. During the scan, both the PET emission scan data and the discriminated transmission type data from Lu-176 beta decay are simultaneously acquired.”); and
generating, based on the first PET data and the second PET data, a target attenuation map of the subject, wherein the first background events and the second background events occur when a first particle and a second particle are detected by crystal units of the PET scanner within a background coincident window, and the first particle and the second particle are different types of particles produced by a radioactive decay of a crystal material of the PET scanner (¶54-65; a second time window, “(e) the beta emissions events corresponding to those measured time-of-flight that are within the time window are identified as transmission source events originating from the Lu-176 beta decay, thereby discriminating the transmission type data from Lu-176 beta decay as a transmission source from emission events and random events (see block 150). The resulting transmission type data thus obtained can be used to generate attenuation maps… multiple energy windows were added to discriminate between the original emission 511 keV photons (gamma) from a positron annihilation event and the two gammas from Lu-176. These additional energy windows were centered on 307 keV and 202 keV to recognize the cascade gammas from Lu-176.… the signal from Lu-176 was measured by recording the beta emanating from the originating detector as a source of a coincidence event… If one of the 307 keV or 202 keV gammas (the 88 keV gammas are ignored) escapes the originating detector, it traverses the FOV and be absorbed by an opposing detector and recorded as a coincidental event… Using this relation provided in the look up table, a transmission coincidence time window was created for each LOR.).
Consider claims 2 and 12, Rothfuss discloses the claimed invention wherein generating, based on the first PET data and the second PET data, a target attenuation map of the subject (¶63-66) includes:
generating, based on the first PET data and the second PET data, a preliminary attenuation map, the preliminary attenuation map being an attenuation map of the subject with respect to gamma rays with a first energy level (¶63-66); and
obtaining the target attenuation map based on the preliminary attenuation map and a conversion coefficient, the target attenuation map being an attenuation map of the subject with respect to gamma rays with a second energy level (¶65-66).
Consider claims 4 and 14, Rothfuss discloses the claimed invention, further including:
obtaining a first attenuation coefficient of a reference material with respect to gamma rays with the first energy level (¶63-66);
obtaining a second attenuation coefficient of the reference material with respect to gamma rays with the second energy level (¶63-66); and
determining, based on the first attenuation coefficient and the second attenuation coefficient, the conversion coefficient (¶66).
Consider claim 8, Rothfuss discloses the claimed invention wherein the first particle includes a beta electron, the second particle includes a gamma photon (¶63-64).
Consider claims 10 and 19, Rothfuss discloses the claimed invention, the operations further including:
obtaining third PET data relating to coincident events occur during a third PET scan, the third PET scan being performed by the PET scanner on the subject who has been injected with a radioactive tracer (¶57-58, 72, 108); and
generating, based on the target attenuation map and the third PET data, a PET image of the subject (¶57-58, 72, 88, 108).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 9, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothfuss as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Mizuta (CN101530330A, from IDS).
Consider claims 3 and 13, Rothfuss discloses the claimed invention wherein generating, based on the first PET data and the second PET data, a preliminary attenuation map includes:
generating a first sinogram based on the first PET data (Rothfuss ¶65, 72, 84-86, 91);
generating a second sinogram based on the second PET data (Rothfuss ¶65, 72, 84-86, 91);
(Rothfuss ¶84; “the 307 keV transmission data and 307 keV blank scan data are automatically compared to generate a scaling mask”; ¶91; “At box 3250, the emission block-pair scattering model is added to a scaled version of the sinogram to yield a composite model.”); and
generating the preliminary attenuation map by performing an image reconstruction on the (Rothfuss ¶65, 84-88).
Rothfuss fails to specifically disclose generating a difference sinogram between the first sinogram and the second sinogram; and
generating the preliminary attenuation map by performing an image reconstruction on the difference sinogram.
In related art, Mizuta discloses generating a difference sinogram between the first sinogram and the second sinogram (Mizuta ¶102-103; Step S4); and
generating the preliminary attenuation map by performing an image reconstruction on the difference sinogram (Mizuta ¶108-110; Step S7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the conventional approach of forming a ratio (difference) sinogram (transmission/blank) of Mizuta into the method of Rothfuss to implement the comparison of Rothfuss and obtain a stable attenuation ratio. Mizuta also works toward solving the problem of deriving attenuation information without external radiation sources (Rothfuss ¶3; Mizuta ¶11). Moreover, Rothfuss discloses solving for the time scaling factor Ttransmission_scan/Tblank_scan, i.e., the ratio of the time for acquiring transmission data to the time for acquiring the blank scan data (Rothfuss ¶86).
Consider claims 9 and 18, Rothfuss discloses the claimed invention wherein each coincident event of the first background events and the second background events is determined by:
obtaining the background coincident window, (Rothfuss ¶55, 63-64);
determining whether the first particle and the second particle meet a predetermined condition based on a first energy of the first particle, a first detection time of the first particle, a second energy of the second particle, a second detection time of the second particle, and the background coincident window (Rothfuss ¶55, 63-64); and
in response to determining that the first particle and the second particle meet the predetermined condition, determining that the background event occurs (Rothfuss ¶55, 63-64, 106-108).
Rothfuss fails to explicitly disclose the background coincident window including a first energy window corresponding to the first particle. Instead, Rothfuss describes the beta event as being accepted if it has enough energy to trigger the CFD (Rothfuss ¶63). The discriminator is shown as a threshold, rather than an “energy window.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to express the beta-acceptance as an “energy window corresponding to the first particle (beta).”
In related art, Mizuta further supports implementing event/particle recognition using energy thresholds (Mizuta ¶96-101; Steps S1-S3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the window/thresholding of Mizuta into the method of Rothfuss to identify events.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothfuss as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Meikle (‘Attenuation Correction Using Count-Limited Transmission Data in Positron Emission Tomography’).
Consider claims 5 and 15, Rothfuss discloses the claimed invention wherein generating, based on the first PET data and the second PET data, a target attenuation map of the subject includes:
generating first target PET data (Rothfuss ¶63-65)
generating second target PET data (Rothfuss ¶63-65, 90-91)
generating, based on the first target PET data and the second target PET data, the target attenuation map of the subject (Rothfuss ¶57-66, 69-72, 90-91).
Rothfuss fails to specifically disclose generating target PET data by performing a noise reduction operation.
In related art, Meikle discloses generating first target PET data by performing a first noise reduction operation on the first PET data (Meikle pg. 143 “Of the methods suggested for reducing noise in transmission scans (2), sinogram smoothing is most commonly employed.”);
generating second target PET data by performing a second noise reduction operation on the second PET data (Meikle pg. 143, 148-150; “We note that the problem of mismatched resolution would not arise if the same smoothing was applied to the emission data.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the sinogram smoothing of Meikle into the method of Rothfuss before generating the attenuation map to reduce noise in the generated attenuation map (Meikle pg. 143, 148-150).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothfuss, in view of Meikle, as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Yu (‘Attenuation Correction in Positron Tomography’).
Consider claims 6 and 16, Rothfuss, as modified by Meikle, fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first noise reduction operation and the second noise reduction operation is performed based on a noise reduction model.
In related art, Yu discloses wherein at least one of the first noise reduction operation and the second noise reduction operation is performed based on a noise reduction model (Yu Ch. 4 Segmented Attenuation Correction Using ANNs in PET).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the machine learning model of Yu into the teachings of Rothfuss, as modified by Meikle, to reduce noise in the PET data and shorten the transmission scan time, due to the concern of patient discomfort (Yu 4.1, Meikle Introduction).
Consider claims 7 and 17, Rothfuss, as modified by Meikle, discloses the claimed invention wherein the noise reduction model is generated using a plurality of training samples, and each of the plurality of training samples includes first sample PET data corresponding to a first acquisition duration and second sample PET data corresponding to a second acquisition duration, wherein the first acquisition duration and the second acquisition duration are different (Yu Ch. 4 Segmented Attenuation Correction Using ANNs in PET).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitamura (‘Noise Reduction in PET Attenuation Correction Using Non-linear Gaussian Filters.’)
US 2014/217294 A1 discloses a method for using lutetium-based scintillator crystals' background beta decay emission in a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner as a transmission scan source for generating attenuation maps.
Hashimoto (‘Deep learning-based PET image denoising and reconstruction: a review.’)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY HYTREK whose telephone number is (703)756-4562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Steve Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/ASHLEY HYTREK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665