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
The present application, filed on 04/15/2026 have been entered in full. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 9, 13-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun et al “Algorithms and Analyses for Joint Spectral Image Reconstruction in Y-90 Bremsstrahlung” (included in the IDS)(hereinafter “Chun”) which incorporates by reference Chun et al. “On Parameter Selection for Joint Spectral Reconstruction in Y90 SPECT” (hereinafter “Lim”).
Regarding claim 13, Chun teaches a method, comprising:
receiving projection data representing emissions detected from a subject (see page 1370 § II. B, “For a given Y-90 distribution in the body, there are certain bremsstrahlung photons associated with the Y-90 beta decay that are emitted within any given energy window and only some of which are recorded by the detector. Define ∈ R.sup.N (in units of counts) as emitted “primary” (the desired unscattered) bremsstrahlung photons within the energy range of the eth energy window that are recorded by the detector”, see also page 1371 § III. A, equation (6) x prior to division on the basis of energy windows e, x.sub.e, etc.,);
formatting the projection data into energy-resolved data (see page 1371 § III. A, interpreted under BRI in view of a plain meaning reading MPEP 2111.01 to require a binning/ grouping/ partitioning – as is accomplished by designating via index e, e.g. measured projection data y.sub.e into one or more associated energy windows e);
determining contribution coefficients (see page 1371 § III. A. and Equation (7), bremsstrahlung photon model for multiple energy windows (7), page 1371 § III. A. “where tau.sub.e is a scale parameter describing the ratio of emitted photons in the eth energy window to total emitted photons in all energy ranges …. One can estimate all tau.sub.e’s by measuring primary counts ye−se in each energy window [13]”) corresponding to one or more isolated components (the ‘isolated’ component being those “primary” (the desired un-scattered) photons within the associated energy range e, ‘isolated’ in that these primary photon contributions are distinct from e.g. ‘scatter’ contributions) of the emissions based on the energy-resolved data (see page 1371 § II. B and page 1372 § III. C, page 1371 § II. B. “In this work, we divided a wide energy window into 6 narrow windows indicated in Fig. 1 (105-135, 135-165, 165-195, 195-225, 225-255, 255-285 keV) where the indices for energy windows are e = 1, . . . , 6”, page 1732 § III. C. “We empirically found that it is advantageous to divide energy windows into subsets so that each subset contains similar number of counts. For our 6 narrow energy windows in Fig. 1, we used 3 energy subsets”, etc.,); and
reconstructing an image of the subject using the contribution coefficients (see page 1370 Table 1, “All evaluated reconstruction methods used OSEM with 4 ordered subsets. JSR-ES used additional 3 energy subsets”, page 1379, § VII Conclusion “We proposed JSR, a novel Y-90 SPECT reconstruction method that uses a wide energy spectrum with accurate forward modeling”, in view of page 1371 § III. B. JSR with Multiple Energy Windows “By combining the forward model for a single energy window (1) and our emitted bremsstrahlung photon model for multiple energy windows (7), we can stack up all forward models for multiple energy windows to create a joint forward model as follows [13]”).
Regarding claim 14, Chun teaches the method of claim 13 wherein formatting the projection data into the energy-resolved data comprises framing the projection data into multiple non- overlapping energy windows (see page 1370 Figure 1, the vertical dashed lines are used to depict six energy range windows. The use of dashed boundary lines in graphs is use for exclusive, thus the windows are non-overlapping).
Regarding claim 17, Chun teaches the method of claim 13 wherein determining the contribution coefficients comprises performing Maximum-Likelihood Expectation-Maximization Algorithm (MLEM) (see page 1371 § III. A, “One can estimate all tau.sub.e’s by measuring primary counts ye−se in each energy window [13] or by a simple MC simulation with a point source [17]”. In Lim, § II. C, the MC point source simulation includes ordered subsets expectation maximization [OS-EM] (OS-EM is closely related to ML-EM in SPECT) to estimate the scale parameters. Chun additionally teaches, page 1371 § II. A, the use of ML-EM to estimate a value for the purpose of reconstruction).
Regarding claim 1, this claim is the system claim corresponding to the method of claim 13 and is rejected accordingly. In response to any argument/assertion that Chun fails to explicitly disclose a generic non-transitory memory device and a processor device, Examiner would assert a reasonable reading of Chun at least implies if not inherently requires at least such structural components.
Regarding claim 2, Chun teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 1 wherein the emissions have a continuous energy spectrum (see page 1371 § II. A, the emission are bremsstrahlung photons that are associated Y-90, which have a continuous energy spectrum [page 1369 § I]).
PNG
media_image1.png
70
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chun teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 2 wherein the emissions are detected from bremsstrahlung radiation (see page 1371 § II. A, the emission are bremsstrahlung photons that are associated Y-90).
Regarding claim 4, this claim is the system claim corresponding to the method of claim 14 and is rejected accordingly. In response to any argument/assertion that Chun fails to explicitly disclose a generic non-transitory memory device and a processor device, Examiner would assert a reasonable reading of Chun at least implies if not inherently requires at least such structural components.
Regarding claim 6, Chun teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 4.
Chun does not explicitly disclose at least one of the non-overlapping energy windows is represented by an image size of 64 pixels by 64 pixels. However, it would be a matter of design choice not affecting the overall scope and intention of the invention as to the size of the window. Thus, it would be obvious to set the window size to 64x64 pixels.
Regarding claim 9, Chun teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 1 wherein the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code to determine the contribution coefficients of the one or more isolated components of the emissions by performing Maximum-Likelihood Expectation-Maximization Algorithm (MLEM) (see page 1371 § III. A, determine a scale parameter tau.sub.e describing the ratio of emitted photons in the eth energy window to the total emitted in all the energy ranges. The scale parameter is estimated by measuring primary counts y.sub.e -s.sub.e in each energy window. The ‘isolated’ component being “primary” photons within the energy range e that are distinct from the ‘scatter’ contributions. In Lim, § II. C, the MC point source simulation includes ordered subsets expectation maximization [OS-EM] (OS-EM is closely related to ML-EM in SPECT) to estimate the scale parameters. Chun additionally teaches, page 1371 § II. A, the use of ML-EM to estimate a value for the purpose of reconstruction). In response to any argument/assertion that Chun fails to explicitly disclose a generic non-transitory memory device and a processor device, Examiner would assert a reasonable reading of Chun at least implies if not inherently requires at least such structural components.
Claim 20 is analogous to claims 1 and 13, thus analyzed and rejected similar to claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of Tsukagoshi US20250182881 (hereinafter “Tsukagoshi”).
Regarding claim 5, Chun teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 4.
Chun does not teach at least one of the non-overlapping energy windows corresponds to an energy band of 5 keV.
Tsukagoshi teaches at least one of the non-overlapping energy windows corresponds to an energy band of 5 keV (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0052, pattern 2 bin number 2 and 3 show range of 61-65 keV and 66-70 keV [width of 5 keV and the bins do not overlap]).
Chun and Tsukagoshi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of image reconstruction based on emissions by using multiple narrow windows for energy ranges.
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chun to include the use of windows corresponds to an energy band of 5 keV as taught by Rong. The motivation for doing so would have been to specify the energy range of bin and for use when energy bin ranges are uneven (Tsukagoshi, paragraphs 0050 and 0052).
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 5, thus is analyzed and rejected similar to claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of Yang US20200134885 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 7, Chun teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 4 wherein the multiple non-overlapping energy windows comprise 20 or more non-overlapping energy windows (see page 1370 Figure 1, the vertical dashed lines are used to depict multiple energy range windows. The use of dashed boundary lines in graphs is use for exclusive, thus the windows are non-overlapping).
Chun does not teach multiple non-overlapping energy windows comprise 20 or more non-overlapping energy windows.
Yang teaches 20 or more energy windows (see 0105, each bin corresponds to an energy range, the energy spectrum may be divided into 20 bins [windows]).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of Rong US10772580 (hereinafter “Rong”).
Regarding claim 8, Chun teaches the image reconstruction system of claim 1. Chun teaches the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code to determine the contribution coefficients of the one or more isolated components of the emissions by performing non-negative least squares regression (LSR) analysis on the energy-resolved data (see paragraph 1371 § III. A, determine a scale parameter tau.sub.e describing the ratio of emitted photons in the eth energy window to the total emitted in all the energy ranges. The scale parameter is estimated by measuring primary counts y.sub.e -s.sub.e in each energy window. The ‘isolated’ component being “primary” photons within the energy range e that are distinct from the ‘scatter’ contributions). In response to any argument/assertion that Chun fails to explicitly disclose a generic non-transitory memory device and a processor device, Examiner would assert a reasonable reading of Chun at least implies if not inherently requires at least such structural components.
Chun does not teach performing non-negative least squares regression (LSR) analysis on the energy-resolved data.
Rong teaches the processor device is operative with the computer readable program code performing non-negative least squares regression (LSR) analysis on the energy-resolved data (see col 4 lines 57-63, the use of non-negative least squares in the reconstruction method. see figure 3 and col 10 lines 6-12, processor 12 which executes the instructions stored in the memory).
Chun and Rong are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of SPECT image reconstruction based on emissions of differing energy ranges.
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chun to include the use of a non-negative least squares method as taught by Rong. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform iterative reconstruction including the effects on photons (Rong, col 4 lines 57-63).
Claim 16 is analogous to claim 8, thus is analyzed and rejected similar to claim 8.
Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun in view of Persson US20180252657 (hereinafter “Persson”).
Regarding claim 18, Chun teaches the method of claim 13.
Chun does not teach determining the contribution coefficients comprises performing a conjugate gradient method.
Persson teaches determining the contribution coefficients comprises performing a conjugate gradient method (see paragraph 0147, the use of conjugate gradient method as an iterative optimization method for use of minimization of the coefficient line integrals [0125, the coefficient line integrals are a line integral of linear attenuation coefficients or a set of coefficients that contain necessary information or image representation, interpreted as contribution coefficients]).
Chun and Persson are analogous art because the are from the same field of endeavor of SPECT image reconstruction based on emissions of differing energy ranges.
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chun to include the use of a conjugate gradient method as taught by Persson. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for the iterative optimization of the coefficients (Persson, paragraphs 0147).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 19 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:
Claims 10-11 and 19 are allowable subject matter due to the amendments and the persuasive arguments to the pending claims
Claim 12 is allowable subject matter as previously stated in office action mailed on 02/04/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R. HAUK whose telephone number is (571)272-5966. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/EMILY ROSE HAUK/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights