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 Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-16 remain pending, claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 16 have been amended, and claim 8 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objections
Light of applicant’s amendments filed 11/26/2025 the previous objections to the drawings have been rendered moot and are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Light of applicant’s amendments filed 11/26/2025 the previous objections to claim 12 have been rendered moot and are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Light of applicant’s amendments filed 11/26/2025 the previous rejections of to claims have been rendered moot and are withdrawn. However, the newly filed amendments specific to claim 11 have raised new issues under 112(b), please see the rejection below.
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection has been presented. Consequently, the arguments do not apply to new references or the new combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the telescope with a plastic-scintillator has a 72x72x180 mm sensitive volume” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the plastic-scintillator of the telescope in the present claim is the same plastic-scintillator of the telescope recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 11 is dependent.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadrozinski et al. (“Development of a Head Scanner for Proton CT”, hereafter “Sadrozinski”), in view of Resconi (EP1580576).
Regarding claim 1, Sadrozinski discloses a proton Computer Tomography (pCT) system (page 205, abstract) comprising:
- a position tracker* (pages 206-208, Si chip sensors in FIGS. 4-5);
- an energy detector* (pages 208-209, FIG. 9);
wherein the position tracker comprises a plurality of sensors* (see plurality of sensors grouped into pairs located on each side of the head phantom in FIG. 1);
wherein the energy detector comprises a telescope with a plastic-scintillator comprising layers of polystyrene bars** (page 208, the detector is a polystyrene scintillator) oriented in alternate axes (see the arrangement of bars S1-Sn in FIG. 9), perpendicular to the proton beam*** (the arrangement of the bars S1-Sn is perpendicular to proton beam showed in the arrow in FIG. 9), but does not explicitly disclose the layers of polystyrene bars oriented in alternating axes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Resconi teaches a calorimeter having plastic scintillator comprised of layers of polystyrene bars oriented in alternating axes (see description, fifth paragraph, the scintillator bars are arranged in an alternating manner to make up the sampling calorimeter structure).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sadrozinski with the layers of polystyrene bars being oriented in alternating axes taught by Resconi in order for light transported from the scintillator bars may be read out by multi-anode photomultipliers (description, fifth paragraph of Resconi).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitations have been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation henceforth to mean any structure known in the imaging arts, without limitation, capable of performing “tracking”, “detection”, “sensing” and being of any number, without limitation, for performing these functions.
**For the purposes of examination, the term “bars” has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation henceforth mean a piece or pieces of material which have an elongated shape, which can have, without limitation, any differing cross-sectional shape, as known in the geometrical arts, and to be of any number and any dimension and/or arrangement with relation to one another.
Regarding claim 2, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses wherein the position tracker, able to reconstruct a proton trajectory within the body (page 206, see trajectory reconstruction within Herman/phantom head in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses wherein the energy detector is able to reconstruct a proton energy (page 206, by using the high-precision silicon sensors allows for reconstruction of the proton energy as illustrated in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses the further requirements of the plurality of sensors is four, and wherein the four sensors are placed in pairs at either side of a phantom (see plurality of sensors grouped into pairs located on each side of the head phantom in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses wherein each of two halves of the plurality of sensors is placed at either side of the phantom (see each of the two halves of the plurality are placed on either side of the head phantom as illustrated in in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses wherein the telescope is located downstream of the plurality of sensors (the telescope is illustrated downstream of the two sets of trackers on either side of the phantom in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses a Si Photo Multiplier directly coupled to the scintillator (page 208, the 4 mm plates of the scintillator have with direct read out using 3x3mm2 Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs)).
Regarding claim 12, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses a method, comprising: performing a proton computer tomography with the Proton Computer Tomography system of claim 1 (page 205, abstract, methods for calibrating the instrument in terms of WEPL and to refine image reconstruction methods), wherein the body’s relative stopping power (RSP) of the protons is previously calculated with the same pCT system using a plurality of proton events (FIG. 1 illustrates protons with kinetic energy of 200 MeV coming from the left encounter the entrance telescope, the phantom, the exit telescope and are stopped in the energy detector/range counter).
Claim(s) 5, 13-14, and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadrozinski, in view of Resconi, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Moustakas et al. (“Development in a Novel CMOS Process for Depleted Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors”, “Moustakas”).
Regarding claim 5, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, the plurality of sensors are made up of Depleted Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (DMAPS).
However, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the plurality of sensors are made up of Depleted Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (DMAPS) (see DMAPS as illustrated FIG. 1(b)),
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sadrozinski with the plurality of sensors are made up of Depleted Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (DMAPS) as taught by Moustakas in order to provide particle detection in high energy physics due to their low cost, reduced manufacturing complexity and high granularity (abstract, page 1 of Moustakas).
Regarding claim 13, Sadrozinski discloses a proton Computer Tomography (pCT) system (page 205, abstract) comprising:
- a position tracker* (pages 206-208, Si chip sensors in FIGS. 4-5) able to reconstruct the proton trajectory within the body (page 206, see trajectory reconstruction within Herman/phantom head in FIG. 3);
- an energy detector* (pages 208-209, FIG. 9), able to reconstruct the proton energy (page 206, by using the high-precision silicon sensors allows for reconstruction of the proton energy as illustrated in FIG. 3);
wherein the position tracker is comprised of four sensors* (see plurality of sensors grouped into pairs located on each side of the head phantom in FIG. 1), arranged in pairs at either side of a phantom (see plurality of sensors grouped into pairs located on each side of the head phantom in FIG. 1), and the energy detector comprises a is located downstream of the position tracker (see page 208, the telescope is a calorimeter consists of only one block [super thin compared to other bulky options with multiple blocks] and is illustrated downstream of the two sets of trackers on either side of the phantom in FIG. 1) comprising a plastic-scintillator comprising layers of polystyrene bars** (page 208, the detector is a polystyrene scintillator) oriented in alternate axis*** (see the arrangement of bars S1-Sn in FIG. 9), perpendicular to the proton beam*** (the arrangement of the bars S1-Sn is perpendicular to proton beam showed in the arrow in FIG. 9); but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of sensors are made up of Depleted Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (DMAPS).
However, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the plurality of sensors are made up of Depleted Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (DMAPS) (see DMAPS as illustrated FIG. 1(b)),
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sadrozinski with the plurality of sensors are made up of Depleted Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (DMAPS) as taught by Moustakas in order to provide particle detection in high energy physics due to their low cost, reduced manufacturing complexity and high granularity (abstract, page 1 of Moustakas).
Sadrozinski does not explicitly disclose the layers of polystyrene bars oriented in alternating axes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Resconi teaches a calorimeter having plastic scintillator comprised of layers of polystyrene bars oriented in alternating axes (see description, fifth paragraph, the scintillator bars are arranged in an alternating manner to make up the sampling calorimeter structure).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sadrozinski with the layers of polystyrene bars being oriented in alternating axes taught by Resconi in order for light transported from the scintillator bars may be read out by multi-anode photomultipliers (description, fifth paragraph of Resconi).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitations have been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation henceforth to mean any structure known in the imaging arts, without limitation, capable of performing “tracking”, “detection”, “sensing” and being of any number, without limitation, for performing these functions.
**For the purposes of examination, the term “bars” has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation henceforth mean a piece or pieces of material which have an elongated shape, which can have, without limitation, any differing cross-sectional shape, as known in the geometrical arts, and to be of any number and any dimension and/or arrangement with relation to one another.
Regarding claim 14, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses further comprising a Si Photo Multiplier directly coupled to the scintillator (page 208, the 4 mm plates of the scintillator have with direct read out using 3x3mm2 Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs)).
Regarding claim 16, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses a method, comprising: performing a proton computer tomography with the Proton Computer Tomography system of claim 1 (page 205, abstract, methods for calibrating the instrument in terms of WEPL and to refine image reconstruction methods), wherein the body’s relative stopping power (RSP) of the protons is previously calculated with the same pCT system using a plurality of proton events (FIG. 1 illustrates protons with kinetic energy of 200 MeV coming from the left encounter the entrance telescope, the phantom, the exit telescope and are stopped in the energy detector/range counter).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadrozinski, in view of Resconi, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Friedman (US20170322326).
Regarding claim 7, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the system has an energy resolution of less than 1% for protons with energies greater than 100 MeV (mega-electronvolts).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Friedman teaches wherein the system has an energy resolution of less than 1% for protons with energies greater than 100 MeV (mega-electronvolts) ([0085], FIG. 16, a 100 MeV/nucleon 132Sn ion loses less than 1% of its energy in traversing a 6 μm titanium-foil)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sadrozinski with the energy resolution of less than 1% for protons with energies greater than 100 MeV as taught by Friedmanin order to transmit the particles with only a few percent energy-loss ([0085] of Friedman).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadrozinski, in view of Resconi, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Morrocchi et al. (“Depth of interaction determination in monolithic scintillator with double side SiPM readout”, “Morrocchi”).
Regarding claim 11, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses wherein the telescope with a plastic-scintillator (page 208, the detector is a polystyrene scintillator) has a 3x3 mm2 cross-sectional sensitive readout area (see page 208, having a direct readout are 3x3mm2 by using Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs) and have good initial results) and reconstructing a 3D [volume] image using the measured stopping power (see page 205, To reconstruct the 3DS.P.map,2D images are obtained in a rotational scan having a set number of imaging steps (e.g., about the vertical axis in Fig. 1 giving a 180 degree view), and for each 180 degree view, sufficient proton histories in each 1mm3 voxel are needed to determine the value provided by each voxel to the calculated stopping power), but does not explicitly disclose the detector as having a 72x72x180 mm sensitive volume.
However, Morrocchi in the same field of endeavor, wherein the detector has a 72x72x180 mm sensitive volume (page 4, the detector is composed of a 20 × 20 × 10 mm3 monolithic LYSO scintillator coupled on the entrance and exit surfaces to two arrays of SiPMs covered with an epoxy layer).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sadrozinski with the detector having a 72x72x180 mm sensitive volume as taught by Morrocchi in order that the specific design and arrangement of the detector enables a high spatial resolution to be obtained at the center of the detector (page 19 of Morrocchi).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadrozinski, in view of Resconi and Moustakas, as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Morrocchi.
Regarding claim 15, Sadrozinski substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Sadrozinski discloses wherein the plastic-scintillator (page 208, the detector is a polystyrene scintillator) has a 3x3 mm2 cross-sectional sensitive readout area (see page 208, having a direct readout are 3x3mm2 by using Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs) and have good initial results) and reconstructing a 3D [volume] image using the measured stopping power (see page 205, To reconstruct the 3DS.P.map,2D images are obtained in a rotational scan having a set number of imaging steps (e.g., about the vertical axis in Fig. 1 giving a 180 degree view), and for each 180 degree view, sufficient proton histories in
each 1mm3 voxel are needed to determine the value provided by each voxel to the calculated stopping power), but does not explicitly disclose the detector as having a 72x72x180 mm sensitive volume.
However, Morrocchi in the same field of endeavor, wherein the detector has a 72x72x180 mm sensitive volume (page 4, the detector is composed of a 20 × 20 × 10 mm3 monolithic LYSO scintillator coupled on the entrance and exit surfaces to two arrays of SiPMs covered with an epoxy layer).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Sadrozinski with the detector having a 72x72x180 mm sensitive volume as taught by Morrocchi in order that the specific design and arrangement of the detector enables a high spatial resolution to be obtained at the center of the detector (page 19 of Morrocchi).
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 AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798