DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… emitters may comprise a metamaterial that is a combination of two or more primary materials. In the latter case, the combination may take the form of a heterostructure comprising several macroscopic layers (e.g., alternating layers of approximately 0.1 mm thickness), or a combination at the microscopic level in which two or more components are combined in a way not detectable to the naked eye …” in paragraph 23 serves as a glossary for the claim term “metamaterial”.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundacker et al. (Measurement of intrinsic rise times for various L(Y)SO and LuAG scintillators with a general study of prompt photons to achieve 10 ps in TOF-PET, Physics in Medicine & Biology Vol. 61 (March 2016), pp. 2802–2837) in view of Hughes et al. (US 2010/0065724).
In regard to claims 1, 7, 9, and 18, Gundacker et al. disclose a photon detector apparatus comprising multiple emitters comprising material that emits scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation in response to interaction with gamma photons (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET), scintillating crystals like L(Y)SO are commonly used to detect the 511 keV annihilation gammas and to produce scintillation photons to be sensed by photodetectors, e.g. silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) … In this paper we will extend their work using 511 keV excitation of the scintillators, which is particularly interesting for time of flight PET, and present precise measurements of the scintillation rise times and decay times for a larger amount of different LSO and LuAG type samples …” in section 1), wherein each emitter of the emitters comprises a first end and a second end disposed on opposite sides of the emitter (e.g., “… 2x2x10 mm3 crystals …” in section 7), and for each emitter of the emitters: a first photodetector coupled to the first end of the emitter and configured to detect scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation emitted by the material of the emitter toward the first end of the emitter; and a second photodetector coupled to the second end of the emitter and configured to detect scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation emitted by the material of the emitter toward the second end of the emitter, wherein the first and second photodetectors are silicon photomultipliers (SiPM) (e.g., “… photodetectors, e.g. silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) … double-sided readout of the crystal with correction for depth of interaction (DOI) …” in sections 1 and 7), wherein a first dimension of each emitter of the emitters between the first and second ends is less than 20 mm (e.g., “… 2x2x10 mm3 crystals …” in section 7) such that the emitter, the first photodetector, and the second photodetector are configured to provide a timing resolution of less than approximately 40 ps full width at half maximum (FWHM) regarding the interaction of the gamma photons with the emitters (e.g., “… CTR denotes the FWHM coincidence time resolution achieved by the system … For 2x2x10 mm3 crystals we have shown that if prompt photons are generated along with scintillation photons,∼500 such photons would be needed to improve the CTR to values near 10 ps FWHM, provided the SiPM’s SPTR can be lowered to 10 ps (sigma) … Increasing, for example, the crystal length to 20 mm deteriorates, for the same number of prompt photons produced (∼500), the CTR to 20 ps FWHM, this being due to an increased photon travel spread (PTS) and diminished light transfer efficiency (LTE). A possible way to compensate the effect of the PTS would be double-sided readout of the crystal with correction for depth of interaction (DOI) …” in sections 1 and 7). The apparatus of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… SiPMs …” such as <3 mm x 3 mm planar surface area SiPMs with additional photodetectors arranged as a matrix having at least two rows and columns are coupled to both the first and second ends. However, “… SiPMs …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… SiPMs-Silicon Photomultipliers. These devices are mentioned briefly above. In particular, their gain is very high, and the size of the sensor can also be made relatively large, for example up to 4 mm2. For applications above this size, there are a number of technical issues. It is important to have uniformity on the breakdown voltage across the large number of diodes/pixels in a SiPM, and the wafer processing control required to achieve this can become difficult for larger sensors … enables adjacent light sensing elements to sit closely together to form a close-tiled arrangement of light sensing elements and results in a large active area; this is illustrated in FIG. 6, which shows an assembled detector module having two SiPM detectors coupled to a scintillator via an intermediate layer …” in paragraphs 9 and 174 of Hughes et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional SiPM (e.g., comprising details such as 2x2 “close-tiled arrangement” of less than “4 mm2” “light sensing elements”, in order to achieve “a large active area” while avoiding “a number of technical issues”) for the unspecified SiPM of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional SiPM (e.g., comprising details such as the first plurality of photodetectors coupled to the first end of each emitter of the emitters is arranged in a matrix having at least two rows and at least two columns and/or the second plurality of photodetectors coupled to the second end of each emitter of the emitters is arranged in a matrix having at least two rows and at least two columns, wherein each photodetector of the first and second pluralities of photodetectors is planar and less than 3 mm x 3 mm in size or 9 mm2 in surface area) as the unspecified SiPM of Gundacker et al.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Gundacker et al. also disclose that a first dimension of each emitter of the emitters between the first and second ends is between 5 mm and 15 mm (e.g., “… 2x2x10 mm3 crystals …” in section 7).
In regard to claims 12 and 19, Gundacker et al. disclose a time-of-flight positron emission tomography (TOF-PET) system comprising:
(a) at least two gamma photon detector modules (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET) … ultimate goal of TOF-PET would be to give a direct determination of the point of annihilation along the line of response (LOR) by TOF. This would require a coincidence time resolution (CTR) of about 10 ps FWHM, corresponding to a precision of 1.5 mm along the LOR and hence coming close to the maximum positron range of commonly used radioisotopes. The distinct advantage would be a direct 3D image recording without the need of any image reconstruction, which could introduce a paradigm shift in PET. However, the spatial (x, y) resolution of current whole-body PET-systems is more in the order of 3-5 mm (Surti et al 2007, Bettinardi et al 2011), which in this case would relax the requirements for direct reconstruction to about 20-35 ps FWHM …” in section 1 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two or more photon detector modules in order to achieve a “direct determination of the point of annihilation along the line of response (LOR) by TOF”), wherein each detector module of the detector modules comprises: (a1) multiple emitters comprising material that emits scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation in response to interaction with gamma photons (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET), scintillating crystals like L(Y)SO are commonly used to detect the 511 keV annihilation gammas and to produce scintillation photons to be sensed by photodetectors, e.g. silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) … In this paper we will extend their work using 511 keV excitation of the scintillators, which is particularly interesting for time of flight PET, and present precise measurements of the scintillation rise times and decay times for a larger amount of different LSO and LuAG type samples …” in section 1), wherein each emitter of the emitters comprises a first end and a second end disposed on opposite sides of the emitter (e.g., “… 2x2x10 mm3 crystals …” in section 7); and (a2) for each emitter of the emitters: (a2a) a first photodetector coupled to the first end of the emitter and configured to detect scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation emitted by the material of the emitter toward the first end of the emitter; and (a2b) a second photodetector coupled to the second end of the emitter and configured to detect scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation emitted by the material of the emitter toward the second end of the emitter, wherein the first and second photodetectors are silicon photomultipliers (SiPM) (e.g., “… photodetectors, e.g. silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) … double-sided readout of the crystal with correction for depth of interaction (DOI) …” in sections 1 and 7), wherein a first dimension of each emitter of the emitters between the first and second ends is less than 20 mm (e.g., “… 2x2x10 mm3 crystals …” in section 7) such that the emitter, the first photodetector, and the second photodetector are configured to provide a timing resolution of less than approximately 40 ps full width at half maximum (FWHM) regarding the interaction of the gamma photons with the emitters (e.g., “… CTR denotes the FWHM coincidence time resolution achieved by the system … For 2x2x10 mm3 crystals we have shown that if prompt photons are generated along with scintillation photons,∼500 such photons would be needed to improve the CTR to values near 10 ps FWHM, provided the SiPM’s SPTR can be lowered to 10 ps (sigma) … Increasing, for example, the crystal length to 20 mm deteriorates, for the same number of prompt photons produced (∼500), the CTR to 20 ps FWHM, this being due to an increased photon travel spread (PTS) and diminished light transfer efficiency (LTE). A possible way to compensate the effect of the PTS would be double-sided readout of the crystal with correction for depth of interaction (DOI) …” in sections 1 and 7); and
(b) a controller that receives from the photodetectors event data regarding interactions between the gamma photons and the emitters (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET) … ultimate goal of TOF-PET would be to give a direct determination of the point of annihilation along the line of response (LOR) by TOF. This would require a coincidence time resolution (CTR) of about 10 ps FWHM, corresponding to a precision of 1.5 mm along the LOR and hence coming close to the maximum positron range of commonly used radioisotopes. The distinct advantage would be a direct 3D image recording without the need of any image reconstruction, which could introduce a paradigm shift in PET. However, the spatial (x, y) resolution of current whole-body PET-systems is more in the order of 3-5 mm (Surti et al 2007, Bettinardi et al 2011), which in this case would relax the requirements for direct reconstruction to about 20-35 ps FWHM …” in section 1 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a controller in order perform “reconstruction” so as to achieve “positron emission tomography”).
The system of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… SiPMs …” such as <3 mm x 3 mm planar surface area SiPMs with additional photodetectors arranged as a matrix having at least two rows and columns are coupled to both the first and second ends. However, “… SiPMs …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… SiPMs-Silicon Photomultipliers. These devices are mentioned briefly above. In particular, their gain is very high, and the size of the sensor can also be made relatively large, for example up to 4 mm2. For applications above this size, there are a number of technical issues. It is important to have uniformity on the breakdown voltage across the large number of diodes/pixels in a SiPM, and the wafer processing control required to achieve this can become difficult for larger sensors … enables adjacent light sensing elements to sit closely together to form a close-tiled arrangement of light sensing elements and results in a large active area; this is illustrated in FIG. 6, which shows an assembled detector module having two SiPM detectors coupled to a scintillator via an intermediate layer …” in paragraphs 9 and 174 of Hughes et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional SiPM (e.g., comprising details such as 2x2 “close-tiled arrangement” of less than “4 mm2” “light sensing elements”, in order to achieve “a large active area” while avoiding “a number of technical issues”) for the unspecified SiPM of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional SiPM (e.g., comprising details such as the first plurality of photodetectors coupled to the first end of each emitter of the emitters is arranged in a matrix having at least two rows and at least two columns and/or the second plurality of photodetectors coupled to the second end of each emitter of the emitters is arranged in a matrix having at least two rows and at least two columns, wherein each photodetector of the first and second pluralities of photodetectors is planar and less than 9 mm2 in surface area) as the unspecified SiPM of Gundacker et al.
In regard to claims 16 and 20, Gundacker et al. disclose a method of using a gamma photon detector module, the method comprising:
(a) installing two or more photon detector modules in a time-of-flight positron emission tomography (TOF-PET) system (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET) … ultimate goal of TOF-PET would be to give a direct determination of the point of annihilation along the line of response (LOR) by TOF. This would require a coincidence time resolution (CTR) of about 10 ps FWHM, corresponding to a precision of 1.5 mm along the LOR and hence coming close to the maximum positron range of commonly used radioisotopes. The distinct advantage would be a direct 3D image recording without the need of any image reconstruction, which could introduce a paradigm shift in PET. However, the spatial (x, y) resolution of current whole-body PET-systems is more in the order of 3-5 mm (Surti et al 2007, Bettinardi et al 2011), which in this case would relax the requirements for direct reconstruction to about 20-35 ps FWHM …” in section 1 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two or more photon detector modules in order to achieve a “direct determination of the point of annihilation along the line of response (LOR) by TOF”), wherein each detector module of the detector modules comprises: (a1) multiple emitters comprising material that emits scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation in response to at least one interaction with gamma photons (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET), scintillating crystals like L(Y)SO are commonly used to detect the 511 keV annihilation gammas and to produce scintillation photons to be sensed by photodetectors, e.g. silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) … In this paper we will extend their work using 511 keV excitation of the scintillators, which is particularly interesting for time of flight PET, and present precise measurements of the scintillation rise times and decay times for a larger amount of different LSO and LuAG type samples …” in section 1), wherein each emitter of the emitters comprises a first end and a second end disposed on opposite sides of the emitter (e.g., “… 2x2x10 mm3 crystals …” in section 7); and (a2) for each emitter of the emitters: (a2a) a first photodetector coupled to the first end of the emitter and configured to detect scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation emitted by the material of the emitter toward the first end of the emitter; and (a2b) a second photodetector coupled to the second end of the emitter and configured to detect scintillation light and/or Cherenkov radiation emitted by the material of the emitter toward the second end of the emitter, wherein the first and second photodetectors are silicon photomultipliers (SiPM) (e.g., “… photodetectors, e.g. silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) … double-sided readout of the crystal with correction for depth of interaction (DOI) …” in sections 1 and 7), wherein a first dimension of each emitter of the emitters between the first and second ends is less than 20 mm (e.g., “… 2x2x10 mm3 crystals …” in section 7) such that the emitter, the first photodetector, and the second photodetector are configured to provide a timing resolution of less than approximately 40 ps full width at half maximum (FWHM) regarding the interaction of the gamma photons with the emitters (e.g., “… CTR denotes the FWHM coincidence time resolution achieved by the system … For 2x2x10 mm3 crystals we have shown that if prompt photons are generated along with scintillation photons,∼500 such photons would be needed to improve the CTR to values near 10 ps FWHM, provided the SiPM’s SPTR can be lowered to 10 ps (sigma) … Increasing, for example, the crystal length to 20 mm deteriorates, for the same number of prompt photons produced (∼500), the CTR to 20 ps FWHM, this being due to an increased photon travel spread (PTS) and diminished light transfer efficiency (LTE). A possible way to compensate the effect of the PTS would be double-sided readout of the crystal with correction for depth of interaction (DOI) …” in sections 1 and 7);
(b) receiving, from opposing emitters on a line of response corresponding to a subject of a TOF-PET scan, event data describing the at least one interaction between opposing emitters of the emitters and a pair of the gamma photons (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET) … ultimate goal of TOF-PET would be to give a direct determination of the point of annihilation along the line of response (LOR) by TOF. This would require a coincidence time resolution (CTR) of about 10 ps FWHM, corresponding to a precision of 1.5 mm along the LOR and hence coming close to the maximum positron range of commonly used radioisotopes. The distinct advantage would be a direct 3D image recording without the need of any image reconstruction, which could introduce a paradigm shift in PET. However, the spatial (x, y) resolution of current whole-body PET-systems is more in the order of 3-5 mm (Surti et al 2007, Bettinardi et al 2011), which in this case would relax the requirements for direct reconstruction to about 20-35 ps FWHM …” in section 1); and
(c) from the event data, calculating a location of emission of the pair of the gamma photons within the subject (e.g., “… positron emission tomography (PET) … ultimate goal of TOF-PET would be to give a direct determination of the point of annihilation along the line of response (LOR) by TOF. This would require a coincidence time resolution (CTR) of about 10 ps FWHM, corresponding to a precision of 1.5 mm along the LOR and hence coming close to the maximum positron range of commonly used radioisotopes. The distinct advantage would be a direct 3D image recording without the need of any image reconstruction, which could introduce a paradigm shift in PET. However, the spatial (x, y) resolution of current whole-body PET-systems is more in the order of 3-5 mm (Surti et al 2007, Bettinardi et al 2011), which in this case would relax the requirements for direct reconstruction to about 20-35 ps FWHM …” in section 1).
The method of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… SiPMs …” such as <3 mm x 3 mm planar surface area SiPMs with additional photodetectors arranged as a matrix having at least two rows and columns are coupled to both the first and second ends. However, “… SiPMs …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… SiPMs-Silicon Photomultipliers. These devices are mentioned briefly above. In particular, their gain is very high, and the size of the sensor can also be made relatively large, for example up to 4 mm2. For applications above this size, there are a number of technical issues. It is important to have uniformity on the breakdown voltage across the large number of diodes/pixels in a SiPM, and the wafer processing control required to achieve this can become difficult for larger sensors … enables adjacent light sensing elements to sit closely together to form a close-tiled arrangement of light sensing elements and results in a large active area; this is illustrated in FIG. 6, which shows an assembled detector module having two SiPM detectors coupled to a scintillator via an intermediate layer …” in paragraphs 9 and 174 of Hughes et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional SiPM (e.g., comprising details such as 2x2 “close-tiled arrangement” of less than “4 mm2” “light sensing elements”, in order to achieve “a large active area” while avoiding “a number of technical issues”) for the unspecified SiPM of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional SiPM (e.g., comprising details such as the first plurality of photodetectors coupled to the first end of each emitter of the emitters is arranged in a matrix having at least two rows and at least two columns and/or the second plurality of photodetectors coupled to the second end of each emitter of the emitters is arranged in a matrix having at least two rows and at least two columns, wherein each photodetector of the first and second pluralities of photodetectors is planar and less than 9 mm2 in surface area) as the unspecified SiPM of Gundacker et al.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundacker et al. in view of Hughes et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Lecoq (Metamaterials for novel X- or γ-ray detector designs, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (October 2008), pp. 1405-1409).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, while Gundacker et al. also disclose (section 6) that “… influence to the CTR of prompt photons generated at the very beginning of the scintillation emission. These could be produced by the Cherenkov effect, intra-band emission or in a novel scintillator made of nano-crystals with properties defined by their quantum-wells (Lecoq 2008, 2015, Padilha et al 2013, Grim et al 2014) …”, the apparatus of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… novel scintillator …” such as the material is bismuth germanate (BGO). However, “… scintillator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… PET (Positron Emission Tomography) … well known heavy scintillating crystals such as BGO, LSO, LYSO [2], YAP and LuAP … novel detector designs based on metamaterials. The microstructuration of bulk materials and of their surfaces allows to consider macroscopic structures, in which light production and propagation is governed by quantum effects, giving them unusual and very attractive properties (negative refractive index, control of the direction of propagation, possibility of gating, perfect antireflection at all angles, etc … ) …” in sections 1-3 of “Lecoq 2008”). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scintillator (e.g., “well known heavy scintillating crystals such as BGO” formed as “metamaterials”, in order to achieve “very attractive properties (negative refractive index, control of the direction of propagation, possibility of gating, perfect antireflection at all angles, etc … )” for “PET”) for the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scintillator (e.g., including details such the material is bismuth germanate (BGO)) as the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al.
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, while Gundacker et al. also disclose (section 6) that “… influence to the CTR of prompt photons generated at the very beginning of the scintillation emission. These could be produced by the Cherenkov effect, intra-band emission or in a novel scintillator made of nano-crystals with properties defined by their quantum-wells (Lecoq 2008, 2015, Padilha et al 2013, Grim et al 2014) …”, the apparatus of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… novel scintillator …” such as the material is a metamaterial comprising BGO, TlCl, TlBr, and/or Lu2O3. However, “… scintillator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… PET (Positron Emission Tomography) … well known heavy scintillating crystals such as BGO, LSO, LYSO [2], YAP and LuAP … novel detector designs based on metamaterials. The microstructuration of bulk materials and of their surfaces allows to consider macroscopic structures, in which light production and propagation is governed by quantum effects, giving them unusual and very attractive properties (negative refractive index, control of the direction of propagation, possibility of gating, perfect antireflection at all angles, etc … ) …” in sections 1-3 of “Lecoq 2008”). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scintillator (e.g., “well known heavy scintillating crystals such as BGO” formed as “metamaterials”, in order to achieve “very attractive properties (negative refractive index, control of the direction of propagation, possibility of gating, perfect antireflection at all angles, etc … )” for “PET”) for the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scintillator (e.g., including details such the material is a metamaterial comprising BGO, TlCl, TlBr, and/or Lu2O3) as the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundacker et al. view of Hughes et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Shah et al. (US 10,640,705).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, the apparatus of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… scintillator …” such as the material is TlCl, TlBr, or Lu2O3. However, “… scintillator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… PET … undoped Lu2O3 (undoped) scintillator …” in the last column 3 paragraph and the third column 4 paragraph of Shah et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising details such as “Lu2O3”, in order to achieve “PET”) for the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising details such the material is thallium chloride (TlCl), thallium bromide (TlBr), or lutetium oxide (Lu2O3)) as the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al.
Claim(s) 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundacker et al. in view of Hughes et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Frach et al. (US 2012/0001075).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 1 above. The apparatus of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… scintillator …” such as one or more photonic crystal layers between the first end of each emitter of the emitters and the first plurality of photodetectors coupled to the first end of the emitter. However, “… scintillator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… positron emission tomography (PET) … At the output face of the scintillator, the optical coupling layer 54 in one embodiment includes a photonic crystal 80 … In another embodiment, the optical coupling layer 54 is a metamaterial … light transmission improved …” in paragraphs 1 and 33 of Frach et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising “light transmission improved” by “optical coupling layer” such as “photonic crystal”, in order to achieve “PET”) for the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising details such one or more photonic crystal layers between the first end of each emitter of the emitters and the first plurality of photodetectors coupled to the first end of the emitter) as the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, the system of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… PET …” such as a display for displaying results of scanning a subject while the subject emits the gamma photons. However, “… PET …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… detector heads are mounted, non-rotatably, 360° around the examination region 14 to detect the pair of γ-rays emitted by each radiation event. A time stamp circuit 30 labels each event with a time stamp and the time-stamped events are stored in a buffer 32. A coincidence detector 34 determines each pair of γ-rays that are associated with a corresponding common one of the radiation events and defines the corresponding LOR. In a time-of-flight PET scanner (TOF-PET), a time-of-flight processor 36 further analyzes the time stamps belonging to each LOR to localize the corresponding radiation event along the LOR … reconstruction processor 40 reconstructs the LORs into an image representation which is stored in an image memory 42. A video processor 44 under control of a user interface 46 selects appropriate portions of the image data in the image memory 42 to be converted into a human-readable display on a display device 48 …” in paragraph 22 of Frach et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional PET (e.g., comprising “a display device 48”, in order to achieve “PET”) for the unspecified PET of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional PET (e.g., comprising details such a display for displaying results of scanning a subject while the subject emits the gamma photons) as the unspecified PET of Gundacker et al.
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 12, the system of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… PET …” such as the controller comprising one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory that cause the controller to calculate emission location of a gamma photon pair from event data received the gamma photon pair that interacted with opposing one of the emitters along a line of response. However, “… PET …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… detector heads are mounted, non-rotatably, 360° around the examination region 14 to detect the pair of γ-rays emitted by each radiation event. A time stamp circuit 30 labels each event with a time stamp and the time-stamped events are stored in a buffer 32. A coincidence detector 34 determines each pair of γ-rays that are associated with a corresponding common one of the radiation events and defines the corresponding LOR. In a time-of-flight PET scanner (TOF-PET), a time-of-flight processor 36 further analyzes the time stamps belonging to each LOR to localize the corresponding radiation event along the LOR … reconstruction processor 40 reconstructs the LORs into an image representation which is stored in an image memory 42. A video processor 44 under control of a user interface 46 selects appropriate portions of the image data in the image memory 42 to be converted into a human-readable display on a display device 48 …” in paragraph 22 of Frach et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional PET (e.g., comprising “reconstruction processor 40 reconstructs the LORs into an image representation”, in order to achieve “PET”) for the unspecified PET of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional PET (e.g., comprising details such the controller comprises: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the controller to: receive event data, from opposing emitters of the emitters on a line of response, regarding the interaction of the emitters with a pair of the gamma photons; and from the event data, calculate a location of emission of the pair of the gamma photons) as the unspecified PET of Gundacker et al.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundacker et al. in view of Hughes et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Cosentino et al. (New developments at INFN-LNS on TOF-DOI PET based on SiPM detectors, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A Vol. 702 (Available online August 2012), pp. 10-12).
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 16, the method of Gundacker et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… scintillator …” such as each of the modules obtained by coupling the emitters each assembled with the photodetectors. However, “… scintillator …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… PET … detector pixels arranged in a 2D array and covering an area of 25 x 50 x 10 mm3. Each pixel consists of a LYSO finger scintillator with square transverse size (1.5 mm side) and 10 mm depth, read out at both ends by two Silicon Photomutipliers (SiPMs) …” in section 1 of Cosentino et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising details such as “detector pixels arranged in a 2D array” with each “pixel consists of a LYSO finger scintillator with square transverse size (1.5 mm side) and 10 mm depth, read out at both ends by two Silicon Photomutipliers (SiPMs)”, in order to achieve “PET”) for the unspecified scintillator of Gundacker et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scintillator (e.g., comprising details such as for each of the two or more photon detector modules: obtaining the multiple emitters; assembling the emitters by coupling, to each of the first and second end of each emitter of the emitters, respectively, the first plurality of photodetectors and the second plurality of photodetectors; and coupling the emitters to form the photon detector module) as the unspecified scintillator of Bisogni et al.
photons) as the unspecified PET of Gundacker et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended and new claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0187424 teaches PET.
US 2013/0306876 teaches a radiation detector.
US 2014/0151562 teaches PET.
US 2017/0184730 teaches an ionizing radiation detector.
US 2017/0263790 teaches PET.
US 2018/0275289 teaches PET/CT.
US 2020/0362238 teaches a scintillator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights