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
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed November 20, 2023. As directed by the amendment, claim 13 has been amended and claims 7, 9-10, 12, 24-32 and 34-38 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13-23 and 33 are presently pending and are subject to examination on merits.
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:
coincidence detection apparatus configured to determine coincidence events by processing outputs of the plurality of detectors - claim 2;
determining, by the target coincidence determination module, whether an annihilation position corresponding to the pair of photons is located within the ROI based on the photon information of photons - claim 6;
outputting, by the output module, one of the multiple coincidence events- claim 6 ;
determining, by the candidate coincidence determination module, candidate coincidence events by processing outputs of a target pair of detectors communicating with the target coincidence detection component - claim 8;
determining, by the target coincidence determination module, at least a portion of the candidate coincidence events as the output of the target coincidence detection component- claim 8; and
outputting, by the output module, the at least a portion of the candidate coincidence events - claim 8.
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.
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 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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the coincidence window" in the second to last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kelly US 20130109964 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 33, Kelly discloses a system (Fig. 7) and associated method, comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions ([0026] , [0085]); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device ([0086]), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including: obtaining a region of interest (ROI) of an object ([0061], [0066] and illustration Fig. 2, “206” (Fig ); determining, based on the ROI of the object, one or more target pairs of detectors among a plurality of detectors of an imaging device, wherein a response of line (LOR) corresponds to each pair of the one or more target pairs of detectors passes though the ROI when the object is located in a detection region of the imaging device ([0052], [0062] and illustration Fig. 2 “204”); and obtaining, based on the one or more target pairs of detectors of the imaging device, target coincidence events corresponding to the ROI of the object (Fig. 2, “210”).
Claims 2-6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly and further as evidenced by US 20050109958 A1 to Vernon.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8 and 11, these are inherent features in Kelly in view of [0005] “coincidence emission events along line of response” and [0051] “LM data contains the true events but also some random events (events which do not correspond to a single positron disintegration, but to photons originating from separate positron disintegrations detected at the same time) and scatter events (pairs of photons for which at least one photon has been scattered by the body tissues to create an erroneous line of response)”, a coincidence detection apparatus is thus an inherent feature, see Fig. 2 and at least as evidenced by US 20050109958 A1 to Vernon, e.g., in [0004], Kelly in Fig. 2 discloses a PET scanner with a plurality of detectors that define a ring around a volume of interest, coincidence detection circuits are coupled to the detectors and record only those photons that are detected simultaneously by two detectors located on opposite sides, timing the detection of these events is used to identify the pairs of photons from a single annihilation, thus excluding or preventing remaining coincidence detection components from processing the output, Fig. 4 in Kelly, [0068] for detection of an events outside (402) the ROI and events inside (404) the ROI as candidate coincidence events is an equivalent thereof candidate coincidence determination module, [0069], list mode data 408 events outside ROI are rejected and events inside ROI (410) are accepted, is an equivalent thereof target coincidence module, the coincidence events of candidate coincidence events are output by a module of the computer wherein cumulated events within a sliding window are computed to produce the graph in Fig. 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is allowed.
Claims 13-22 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 closest prior art is Kelly and Sun et al., US 20190150877 A1 (“Sun”). Relevance of Kelly is discussed above, Sun discloses aspect of obtaining cumulative count of time delayed events, see e.g., [0156], to check quality of raw data. However, the combination of reference fails to disclose or render obvious, transmitting, based on the cumulative count of time-delayed coincidence events at the target moment in the target time period and a reference threshold for transmitting the time-delayed coincidence events, the time-delayed coincidence events at the target moment in the target time period along a data transmitting link.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797