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 amendment filed May 08, 2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 5 and 33 have been amended, claims 2-4 have been cancelled and claims 39-41 have been added. With claims 7, 9-10, 12, 24-32 and 34-38 being previously cancelled, claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 13-23, and 39-41 are presently pending.
The amendment to claim 6 is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection from the previous Office action. That rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 33;
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.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are 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 5 recites the limitation "the one or more target coincidence components" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim does not previously set forth “one or more target coincidence components”. Claims 6 and 8 are likewise rejected, because they include all limitations and deficiencies of claim 5 noted above.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Burbar et al, WO 2021141590 A1"Burbar".
Regarding claim 1, Burbar discloses a system and associated method (Fig. 1, [0011],[0023], [0028-0023] and Fig. 3), comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions ([0040]); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device ([0028], [0042-0043]), 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 (Fig. 3 @305 and associated discussion in [0030]); determining, based on whether a line connecting each pair of detectors passes through the ROI of the object, one or more target pairs of detectors among a plurality of detectors of an imaging device, wherein the line that connects 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 ([0003] and Fig. 3 @310 and associated discussion in [0031] “… a line-of-response is determined for each coincidence event. The coincidence electronics within the PET/CT system are then configured to only process a subset of the coincidence events having corresponding LORs passing through the region of interest” – see also [0023]); and obtaining, by performing coincidence processing on outputs of the one or more target pairs of detectors of the imaging device, target coincidence events corresponding to the ROI of the object (Fig. 3 @325 and associated discussion in [0032] – see also [0023]).
Regarding claim 39, see at least [0032] regarding "ring difference" refers to the maximal range of axial coincidences in 3D would require establishing an associated 3D model, to determine the LOR.
Regarding claim 40, see at least [0031] regarding “The coincidence electronics within the PET/CT system are then configured to only process a subset of the coincidence events having corresponding LORs passing through the region of interest” and continuing to [0032] “Once the PET/CT system has been configured, at step 325 a PET scan limited to a region of interest is performed to acquire raw PET data”.
Claims 6, 8 , 11 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burbar as applied to claim 1 above, and further as evidenced by previously cited Kelly US 20130109964 A1 and US 20050109958 A1 to Vernon.
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 11, these are inherent features in Burbar in view of [0003] and [0031], a coincidence detection apparatus is thus an inherent feature as evidenced by US 20050109958 A1 to Vernon, e.g., in [0004] and/or Kelly in Fig. 2, PET scanner includes 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 determination 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.
Regarding claims 33 and 40, see discussion in claim 1 for overlapping subject matter, and discussion in preceding paragraph in rejections of claims 6, 8 and 11 for further overlapping subject matter and [0031] of Burbar regarding “The coincidence electronics within the PET/CT system are then configured to only process a subset of the coincidence events having corresponding LORs passing through the region of interest” and continuing to [0032] “Once the PET/CT system has been configured, at step 325 a PET scan limited to a region of interest is performed to acquire raw PET data” which reads on the enabling and the preventing steps.
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 are Burbar, Kelly and Sun et al., US 20190150877 A1 (“Sun”). Relevance of Burbar 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100166274 A1 to Busch et al, e.g., [0028] regarding LORs that intersect a volume of interest.
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 BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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
Prosecution Insights