DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Election/Restrictions 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5
Conclusion 11
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-3, 5-7, in the reply filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged.
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 4/2/24. Claims 1-7 are currently pending. Claim 4 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claims 1 and 5 are a method and system that recite and abstract idea since the limitations cite mathematical calculations and data modeling. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The hardware that implements the limitations are routine, well-understood and conventional and do not add significantly more. For claims 2 and 6, again the same determination calculations are cited within constitute an abstract idea. Both claims do not integrate into a practical application, use well-understood, routine elements and do not provide an inventive concept. Thus the claims are non-statutory subject matter.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.(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)(1) as being anticipated by Beekman et al (PMB: “Positron range-free and multi-isotope tomography of positron emitters”). Regarding claim 1, Beekman discloses a method of reconstructing a positron emission tomography (PET) scan image from a PET scan list mode data that was acquired by scanning a subject body containing a quantity of radioisotope (see section 2.1; Images were acquired as list mode data meaning that estimated energy of each detected photon was stored), the method comprising: accounting for prompt gamma photons emitted by the radioisotope, in addition to coincidence annihilation gamma photon pairs (see abstract; Here we realize multi-isotope and sub-mm resolution PET of isotopes with several mm positron range by utilizing prompt gamma photons that are commonly neglected), to improve sensitivity and more accurately determine location of the radioisotope (see abstract; 603 keV prompt gammas… were selected to resconstruct images that are unaffected by positron range); and reconstructing the PET scan image from the list mode data (see section 2.4, abstract; Images were reconstructed iteratively using an energy dependent matrix for each isotope), wherein the reconstruction accounts for the prompt gamma photon associated events by forward and back projecting along the prompt gamma rays (see 2.4; Dual-matrix image reconstruction uses different matrices for forward projection and back projection to accelerate reconstruction), thus improving the PET scan image’s resolution by reducing effects of positron range (see results; By only using the prompt gammas for 124I-NaI reconstruction, the 3.4 mm average positron range of 124I can be avoided and structures smaller than a mm in the mouse thyroid can be easily resolved).
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 claimedinvention 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beekman et al (PMB: “Positron range-free and multi-isotope tomography of positron emitters”) in view of Manjeshwar et al (US 7,381,959 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Beekman teaches a method comprising: accounting for prompt gamma photons emitted by the radioisotope, in addition to coincidence annihilation gamma photon pairs (see abstract; Here we realize multi-isotope and sub-mm resolution PET of isotopes with several mm positron range by utilizing prompt gamma photons that are commonly neglected), to improve sensitivity and more accurately determine location of the radioisotope (see abstract; 603 keV prompt gammas… were selected to resconstruct images that are unaffected by positron range); and reconstructing the PET scan image from the list mode data (see section 2.4, abstract; Images were reconstructed iteratively using an energy dependent matrix for each isotope), wherein the reconstruction accounts for the prompt gamma photon associated events by forward and back projecting along the prompt gamma rays (see 2.4; Dual-matrix image reconstruction uses different matrices for forward projection and back projection to accelerate reconstruction), thus improving the PET scan image’s resolution by reducing effects of positron range (see results; By only using the prompt gammas for 124I-NaI reconstruction, the 3.4 mm average positron range of 124I can be avoided and structures smaller than a mm in the mouse thyroid can be easily resolved). Beekman does not teach expressly an imaging system comprising: a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner; a memory having instructions stored thereon; a processor configured to read the instructions to perform a process of reconstructing a PET scan image from a PET scan list mode data that was acquired by scanning a subject body containing a quantity of radioisotope, wherein the method comprises.
Manjeshwar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an imaging system comprising: a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner (see abstract; PET scanner); a memory having instructions stored thereon (see col. 6, lines 1-15; a computer readable medium having code for causing a processor to reconstruct TOF-PET scan images. The computer readable medium comprises: code adapted to detecting a plurality of coincidence events in a TOF-PET scanner; code adapted to store data associated with the plurality of coincidence events in a chronological list based on a detection time for each of the plurality of coincidence events; code adapted to generate correction data based on scatter coincidence events and random coincidence events in the plurality of coincidence events; and code adapted to reconstruct one or more TOF-PET scan images based at least in part on the chronological list of data and the correction data); a processor configured to read the instructions to perform a process of reconstructing a PET scan image from a PET scan list mode data that was acquired by scanning a subject body containing a quantity of radioisotope, wherein the method comprises (see fig. 5, col. 10, lines 46-col. 11, lines 20; processor).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beekman to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Manjeshwar. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more practical and efficient solution for PET image reconstruction (see col. 5, lines 35-40). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Beekman, while the teaching of Manjeshwar continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beekman et al (PMB: “Positron range-free and multi-isotope tomography of positron emitters”) in view of Binder et al (FP: “Component characterization and commissioning of a gamma-PET prototype detector system”).
Regarding claim 2, Beekman teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Beekman does not teach expressly identifying the two coincidence annihilation gamma photons and associated prompt gamma events to determine direction of the corresponding prompt gamma ray.
Binder, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying the two coincidence annihilation gamma photons and associated prompt gamma events to determine direction of the corresponding prompt gamma ray (see introduction, pg. 5-8).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beekman to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Binder. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the overall geometrical efficiency (see summary and conclusion). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Beekman, while the teaching of Binder continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beekman et al (PMB: “Positron range-free and multi-isotope tomography of positron emitters”) with Manjeshwar et al (US 7,381,959 B2), and further in view of Binder et al (FP: “Component characterization and commissioning of a gamma-PET prototype detector system”).
Regarding claim 6, Beekman with Manjeshwar teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 5. Beekman with Manjeshwar does not teach expressly identifying the two coincidence annihilation gamma photons and associated prompt gamma events to determine direction of the corresponding prompt gamma ray.
Binder, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying the two coincidence annihilation gamma photons and associated prompt gamma events to determine direction of the corresponding prompt gamma ray (see introduction, pg. 5-8).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beekman with Manjeshwar to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Binder. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the overall geometrical efficiency (see summary and conclusion). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Beekman with Manjeshwar, while the teaching of Binder continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7 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.
Regarding claims 3, 7, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein identifying the associated prompt gamma events to determine the direction of the corresponding prompt gamma ray involves reconstruction of prompt gamma ray using a method that comprises: 1) identifying the prompt gamma ray using time correlation with coincidence annihilation gamma photons and/or using energy windowing; 2) using a most-likely annihilation point of time-of-flight (TOF) bin, in the list mode data, of the coincidence annihilation gamma photons as a point needed to determine direction for forward projection and back projection during reconstruction; 3) estimating a positron range kernel for the radioisotope used to generate the PET scan list mode data; 4) estimating TOF uncertainty (TOF-U) kernel using the PET scanner’s TOF resolution, wherein size of the TOF-U kernel is determined by TOF resolution of the PET scanner; 5) estimating randoms rate and scatter rate for the prompt gamma photons, resulting in prompt gamma randoms rate and prompt gamma scatter rate; 6) creating a sensitivity image utilizing positron range, normalization, and attenuation; 7) initializing a prompt gamma photon image to a value 1; 8) iterating the following steps a) through i) for a specified number of times or until converged, where the specified number is determined by the PET scanner system and the desired image quality: a) applying the positron range kernel to the prompt gamma photon image to obtain an updated image; b) applying the TOF uncertainty kernel to the updated image to obtain a further updated image; c) forward projecting along the further updated image for each prompt gamma photon event in the list mode data to generate forward projected data; d) adding the prompt gamma randoms rate and the prompt gamma scatter rate for corresponding prompt gamma rays in the forward projected data; e) back projecting reciprocal of the forward projected data corresponding to all prompt gamma events to obtain a back projected image; f) apply the positron range kernel to the back projected image data to obtain an updated back projected image; g) apply the TOF-U kernel to the updated back projected image to obtain a further updated back projected image; h) divide the further updated back projected image with the sensitivity image to obtain prompt gamma update image and then multiply this prompt gamma update image with current prompt gamma image to obtain an updated prompt gamma photon image; and i) outputting the updated prompt gamma-ray image after a calibration for quantification.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected. Claims 3, 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666