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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 11, the claim fails to be in proper dependent form because claim 11 is a method claim and is dependent on claim 1 which is a device claim in such a way that it is possible to infringe upon the method of claim 11 without infringing on the device of claim 1. For instance, claim 11 is silent of the method of making the collimator or the electronic processing unit. Thus one could infringe on the method of claim 11 while making a device which does not infringe on claim 1. Claim 11 then fails to further limit the subject matter upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soluri et al. EP 0917656 in view of Hernandez et al. EP 3399345.
Regarding claim 1, Soluri teaches a scintigraphic measurement device with extended area (fig. 1 para. 0001, 0020, 0026), comprising: a measurement structure (figs. 1-2 #2, 4) defining an overall measurement area and designed to receive a radiation and to convert said radiation into electrical signals, said measurement structure comprising a matrix of scintillation crystals (figs. 1-2 #2) defining said measurement area and an optoelectronic network (figs. 1-2 #4) for converting photons into electrical signals (para. 0026, 0039); a collimator (figs. 1-2 #1) made of a material with a high atomic number (para. 0039) and having a plurality of collimation channels distributed over said measurement area (figs. 1-2), said collimator being associated with the measurement structure for absorbing a lateral radiation directed towards the measurement structure and having an angle of incidence greater than a predetermined value (para. 0039); an electronic processing unit (fig. 1 #6) applied to the measurement structure (fig. 1 #2, 4) to process the electrical signals generated by the measurement structure (para. 0026, 0041-0042); wherein the optoelectronic network (fig. 1 #4) is formed by a matrix of optoelectronic conversion modules connected to each other according to a two-dimensional distribution to cover said measurement area (fig. 7; para. 0034-0035, 0040), and wherein the optoelectronic conversion modules are electrically connected to each other along two directions which are transversal to each other (fig. 7; para. 0035), by a plurality of channels for each direction and the electronic processing unit is connected to the optoelectronic network for measuring a total electric current of each channel delivered by the optoelectronic conversion modules positioned on said channel (para. 0040-0042).
Soluri fails to teach each optoelectronic conversion module comprising a two-dimensional matrix of individual "Multi Pixel Photon Counter" (MPPC) elements or individual "Silicon PhotoMultiplier" (SiPM) elements electrically interconnected and instead teaches the use of a photo-multiplier tube (PMT).
Hernandez teaches methods of replacing PMT’s with arrays of SiPM’s (para. 0009-0011) and their read network topology (para. 0038) for the purpose of having a faster response (para. 0009).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an array of SiPM’s as taught by Hernandez in place of the PMT’s of Soluri for the purpose of having a faster response.
Regarding claim 2, Soluri teaches wherein said optoelectronic conversion modules are identical to each other and/or have a same number and a same distribution of single MPPC or SiPM elements (fig. 7 para. 0035) except that Soluri discloses a PMT instead of a MPCC or SiPM. Hernandez shows that SiPM’s and PMT’s are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a SiPM for the PMT.
Regarding claim 3, Soluri teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions (fig. 7; X and Y directions) except that Soluri discloses a PMT instead of a MPCC or SiPM. Hernandez shows that SiPM’s and PMT’s are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a SiPM for the PMT.
Regarding claim 4, Soluri teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element (40) of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions (fig. 7; each PMT has its current divided into two halves each being supplied to the X and Y direction channels) except that Soluri discloses a PMT instead of a MPCC or SiPM. Hernandez shows that SiPM’s and PMT’s are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a SiPM for the PMT.
Regarding claim 5, Soluri fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold.
Hernandez teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold (para. 0013, 0065) for the purpose of reducing noise (para. 0013).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold as taught by Hernandez in the scintigraphic measurement device of Soluri for the purpose of reducing noise.
Regarding claim 6, Soluri teaches wherein each optoelectronic conversion module has a surface extension different from the surface extension of at least one scintillation crystal to which it is associated (fig. 5 a PSPMT is has a horizontal surface extension which is roughly half the horizontal surface extension of the scintillation crystal) and/or a surface extension only partly superposed on said at least one scintillation crystal to which it is associated.
Regarding claim 7, Soluri teaches wherein said electronic processing unit comprises an ASIC unit or a resistive network (para. 0005) connected to said channels for measuring said total electric current of each channel delivered by the optoelectronic conversion modules positioned on said channel (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Soluri teaches wherein each optoelectronic conversion module has a measurement area of between 4 mm2 and approximately 15 cm2 (para. 0021 the dimensions of each block is 22mm2 or less) and/or wherein said total measurement area is greater than 25 cm2 (fig. 2 shows a matrix of 10x13 collimators, para. 0026 states that the collimators has the same area as the scintillators, and fig. 5 shows that the scintillators are twice the area of the PMT which is 22mm2 or less. This means the total measurement area is ~50cm cm2 or less).
Regarding claim 11, Soluri teaches a method for making a measurement device according to claim 1, comprising: preparing a plurality of scintillation crystals defining, or designed to define, in conjunction with each other a total measurement area (figs. 1-2 #2 defines the total measurement area; para. 0026); establishing a type of optoelectronic conversion module to be used (fig. 1-2 #4; para. 0006); determining the number of optoelectronic conversion modules to be used to completely cover said measurement area (figs. 1-2 #4; the PMT’s cover the entire measurement area); connecting together said optoelectronic conversion modules in a two-dimensional configuration defining an optoelectronic network covering entirely said measurement area (fig. 7; para. 0035); applying said optoelectronic network to said plurality of scintillation crystals (figs. 1-2 the network #4 is applied to the crystals #2).
Regarding claim 12, Soluri and Hernandez does not specifically disclose wherein said threshold is defined by an electrical current value of between 10 and 100 mA. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (10-100 mA) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein said threshold is defined by an electrical current value of between 10 and 100 mA in the scintigraphic measurement device of Soluri and Hernandez for the purpose of reducing noise.
Regarding claim 16, Soluri teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is electrically connected to a single channel of the optoelectronic conversion module for each of said two directions (fig. 7; X and Y directions) except that Soluri discloses a PMT instead of a MPCC or SiPM. Hernandez shows that SiPM’s and PMT’s are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a SiPM for the PMT.
Regarding claim 17, Soluri teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element (40) of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions (fig. 7; each PMT has its current divided into two halves each being supplied to the X and Y direction channels) except that Soluri discloses a PMT instead of a MPCC or SiPM. Hernandez shows that SiPM’s and PMT’s are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a SiPM for the PMT.
Regarding claim 18, Soluri teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element (40) of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective current dividing element configured to divide the current delivered by the MPPC or SiPM element into two half-currents, each half-current being supplied to a respective channel for each of said two directions (fig. 7; each PMT has its current divided into two halves each being supplied to the X and Y direction channels) except that Soluri discloses a PMT instead of a MPCC or SiPM. Hernandez shows that SiPM’s and PMT’s are equivalent structures known in the art. Therefore, because these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a SiPM for the PMT.
Regarding claim 19, Soluri fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold.
Hernandez teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold (para. 0013, 0065) for the purpose of reducing noise (para. 0013).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold as taught by Hernandez in the scintigraphic measurement device of Soluri for the purpose of reducing noise.
Regarding claim 20, Soluri fails to teach wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold.
Hernandez teaches wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold (para. 0013, 0065) for the purpose of reducing noise (para. 0013).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein each MPPC or SiPM element of each optoelectronic conversion module is associated with a respective high-pass filter configured to eliminate current signals having an intensity less than a predetermined threshold as taught by Hernandez in the scintigraphic measurement device of Soluri for the purpose of reducing noise.
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soluri et al. EP 0917656 (hereafter Soluri 2003) and Hernandez et al. EP 3399345 in further view of Soluri et al. EP 1262796 (hereafter Soluri 2002).
Regarding claim 9, Soluri 2003 and Hernandez fails to teach wherein said total measurement area comprises a first portion defined by a plurality of first scintillation crystals and a second portion defined by a plurality of second scintillation crystals, wherein each first scintillation crystal has a respective measurement area different from the measurement area defined by each second scintillation crystal.
Soluri 2002 teaches wherein said total measurement area comprises a first portion defined by a plurality of first scintillation crystals and a second portion defined by a plurality of second scintillation crystals, wherein each first scintillation crystal has a respective measurement area different from the measurement area defined by each second scintillation crystal (fig. 10; the total measurement are comprises at least two different measurement areas defined by at least two different resolutions of scintillation crystals which make up at least two different measurement areas; para. 0048) for the purpose of being able to have multiple spatial resolutions within the same device (para. 0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein said total measurement area comprises a first portion defined by a plurality of first scintillation crystals and a second portion defined by a plurality of second scintillation crystals, wherein each first scintillation crystal has a respective measurement area different from the measurement area defined by each second scintillation crystal as taught by Soluri 2002 in the scintigraphic measurement device of Soluri 2003 and Hernandez for the purpose of being able to have multiple spatial resolutions within the same device.
Regarding claim 13, Soluri 2003 teaches the optoelectronic conversion modules being of equal dimensions (fig. 2 #4 has equal dimensions; in the combination of multiple measurement areas of Soluri 2002 they would be associated with one of the plurality of measurement areas).
Regarding claim 14, Soluri 2003 and Hernandez fails to teach wherein said first portion and second portion of the measurement area are equal to each other.
Soluri 2002 teaches wherein said first portion and second portion of the measurement area are equal to each other (fig. 10 the top right and left measurement areas are of equal area) for the purpose of being able to have multiple spatial resolutions within the same device (para. 0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein said first portion and second portion of the measurement area are equal to each other as taught by Soluri 2002 in the scintigraphic measurement device of Soluri 2003 and Hernandez for the purpose of being able to have multiple spatial resolutions within the same device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soluri et al. EP 0917656 and Hernandez et al. EP 3399345 in further view of Langenbrunner US 5514870.
Regarding claim 10, Soluri and Hernandez fails to teach wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with two or more crystals having different response times.
Langenbrunner teaches a radiation detector which uses two scintillation crystals which have different response times (fig. 1B #10, 12; col. 4 ln. 28-50) which are stacked in the vertical direction (fig. 1B; thus being associated with a single collimation channel) for the purpose of increasing the speed of the detector (col. 3 ln. 60-67)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with two or more crystals having different response times as taught by Langenbrunner in the scintigraphic measurement device of Soluri and Hernandez for the purpose increasing the speed of the detector.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with four crystals having response times different to each other and arranged according to a 2x2 distribution, along with other claim limitations.
Soluri et al. EP 0917656; Hernandez et al. EP 3399345; Soluri et al. EP 1262796; and Langenbrunner US 5514870, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest "wherein at least one of said collimation channels is associated with four crystals having response times different to each other and arranged according to a 2x2 distribution", along with other claim limitations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Dave Porta can be reached on (571)272-2444. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884