/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884 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 .
Claims status: amended claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 15; canceled claims 16, 23-25; new claim: 26; the rest is unchanged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new secondary reference is currently being used in the present rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 26 recites P(E1, r1/Ɵ1, E0) x …. The claim nor the specification provide a definition for P.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Claus et al. disclose: A detector system for molecular imaging of a radionuclide comprising: a three-dimensional (3D) silicon detector comprising a plurality of sensor stacks (col.1 L28-32, fig.4, col.6 L13-27), wherein each sensor stack of the plurality of sensor stacks comprises a plurality of silicon sensors each comprising a plurality of pixels (fig.4, col.6 L13-27); a read-out circuitry (fig.2A item 312) connected to the pixels in the 3D silicon detector and configured to output, for each interaction induced by an incident gamma ray in the 3D silicon detector (col.12 L9-17), a signal representative of a time, a position and an energy of the interaction in the 3D silicon detector (col.13 L27-35);
Claus et al. are silent about: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: predict, based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector and output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to a same event induced by the incident gamma ray; estimate, based on the predicted interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event, a direction of the incident gamma ray inducing the same event; and reconstruct an image based on the estimated directions of incident gamma rays.
In a similar field of endeavor Watanabe et al. disclose: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: predict, based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the detector and output by the read-out circuitry (para. [0013] teaches stacked detectors, para. [0029], [0052]) the interactions in the detector belonging to a same event induced by the incident gamma ray; estimate, based on the predicted interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event, a direction of the incident gamma ray inducing the same event; and reconstruct an image based on the estimated directions of incident gamma rays (para. [0013] teaches stacked detectors, para. [0029], [0052]) motivated by the benefits for high-definition image that can be captured in a short time (Watanabe et al. para. [0007]-[0010]).
In light of the benefits for high-definition image that can be captured in a short time as taught by Watanabe et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. with the teachings of Watanabe et al.
Regarding claim 4, Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: group interactions having a respective time, represented by the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector and output by the read-out circuitry, within a defined time interval; and predict, based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector and output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray among the grouped interactions (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Kastalsky et al. (US 2008/0191138 A1; pub. Aug. 14, 2008).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the event induced by the incident gamma ray comprises at least one Compton scatter interaction in the 3D silicon detector followed by absorption by photoelectric effect in the 3D silicon detector or escape.
In a similar field of endeavor Kastalsky et al. disclose: the event induced by the incident gamma ray comprises at least one Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector followed by absorption by photoelectric effect in the 3D detector or escape (para. [0019]) motivated by the benefits for a detector with improved efficiency (Kastalsky et al. para. [0010]).
In light of the benefits for a detector for improved efficiency as taught by Kastalsky et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Kastalsky et al.
Regarding claim 3, Kastalsky et al. disclose: the event induced by the incident gamma ray comprises multiple Compton scatter interactions in the 3D detector followed by absorption by photoelectric effect in the 3D detector or escape (para. [0019]) motivated by the benefits for a detector with improved efficiency (Kastalsky et al. para. [0010]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Gemba et al. (US 2018/0356540 A1; pub. Dec.13, 2018).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: the interactions in the 3D detector comprise at least one Compton scatter interaction; and the read-out circuitry is configured to output, for Compton scatter interaction induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D detector, the signal representative of the time, the position of a creation of a Compton recoil electron and the energy of the Compton recoil electron induced by the Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector.
In a similar field of endeavor Gemba et al. disclose: the interactions in the 3D detector comprise at least one Compton scatter interaction; and the read-out circuitry is configured to output, for Compton scatter interaction induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D detector, the signal representative of the time, the position of a creation of a Compton recoil electron and the energy of the Compton recoil electron induced by the Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector (para. [0003] teaches stacked detectors, para. [0116]-[0117]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio.
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Gemba et al.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) in view of Gemba et al. (US 2018/0356540 A1; pub. Dec.13, 2018) and further in view of Sven et al. “Directional Recoil Detection”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2021. 71, pg.189-224.
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict the position of the creation of the Compton recoil electron using straggling.
In a similar field of endeavor Sven et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict the position of the creation of the Compton recoil electron using straggling (pg.204 2nd para. pg.212 4.1., pg.215 4.4.) motivated by the benefits for improved imaging (Sven et al. pg.212 4.1).
In light of the benefits for improved imaging as taught by Sven et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nelson et al., Watanabe et al. and Gemba et al. with the teachings of Sven et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Cai et al. (US 2022/0330907 A1; pub. Oct. 20, 2022).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to sort the predicted interactions in the 3D detector belonging to the same event based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector and output by the read-out circuitry (see rejection of claim 1).
The combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to sort the predicted interactions in the 3D detector belonging to the same event in an order of consecutive interactions based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry
In a similar field of endeavor Cai et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to sort the predicted interactions in the 3D detector belonging to the same event in an order of consecutive interactions based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry (Abstract, para. [0033]-[0034]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Cai et al. para. [0033]).
In light of the benefits for improved medical imaging as taught by Cai et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Cai et al.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Furenlid et al. (US 2022/0211334 A1; pub. Jul. 7, 2022).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose: the at least one processor to predict an initial interaction of the same event induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D silicon detector based on energies in the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector and output by the read-out circuitry (see rejection of claim 1).
The combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict an initial interaction of the same event induced by the incident gamma ray track in the 3D silicon detector based on energies in the signals output by the read-out circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Furenlid et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict an initial interaction of the same event induced by the incident gamma ray track in the 3D detector based on energies in the signals output by the read-out circuitry (para. [0151]) motivated by the benefits for improved spatial resolution (Furenlid et al. para. [0151]).
In light of the benefits for improved spatial resolution as taught by Furenlid et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Furenlid et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Hindi et al. (US 2008/0210875 A1; pub. Sep. 4, 2008).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the Compton recoil electron induces at least one electron-hole pair along an electron track in the3D silicon detector; and the detector system further comprises a charge circuitry configured to estimate the energy of the Compton recoil electron based on charges induced by the at least one electron-hole pair along the electron track.
In a similar field of endeavor Hindi et al. disclose: the Compton recoil electron induces at least one electron-hole pair along an electron track in the 3D detector; and the detector system further comprises a charge circuitry configured to estimate the energy of the Compton recoil electron based on charges induced by the at least one electron-hole pair along the electron track (para. [0060]) motivated by the benefits for improved gamma ray detection (Hindi et al. para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for improved gamma ray detection as taught by Hindi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Hindi et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Clinthorne (US 6,323,492 B1; pub. Nov. 27, 2001)
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: compare an estimated energy of a gamma ray with a reference energy defined based on the radionuclide; and
reject a gamma ray as being Compton scattered in an object to be imaged if the estimated energy differs from the reference energy with more than a minimum amount.
In a similar field of endeavor Clinthorne discloses: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: compare an estimated energy of a gamma ray with a reference energy defined based on the radionuclide; and
reject a gamma ray as being Compton scattered in an object to be imaged if the estimated energy differs from the reference energy with more than a minimum amount (col.6 L61-67 – col.7 L1-7) motivated by the benefits for an improved Compton camera which increases its spatial resolution by reducing the uncertainty of the scattering angle (Clinthorne col.2 L64-66).
In light of the benefits for an improved Compton camera which increases its spatial resolution by reducing the uncertainty of the scattering angle as taught by Clinthorne, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Clinthorne
Claims 11-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Polf et al. (US 2019/0094390 A1; pub. Mar. 28, 2019).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to predict, based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector (see rejection of claim 1).
The combined references are silent about: output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D silicon detector by imposing kinematic constraints on a Compton scattered gamma ray.
In a similar field of endeavor Polf et al. disclose: output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray in the 3D silicon detector by imposing kinematic constraints on a Compton scattered gamma ray. (para. [0097]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Polf et al. para. [0009]).
In light of the benefits for improved medical imaging as taught by Polf et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Polf et al.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nelson et al., Watanabe et al. and Polf et al. disclose: the interactions in the 3D silicon detector comprise at least one Compton scatter interaction; and the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: estimate, based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector and output by the read-out circuitry and for each Compton scatter interaction in the 3D silicon detector, a momentum of a Compton recoil electron induced by the Compton scatter interaction in the 3D silicon detector; and calculate a kinematic constraint for the Compton scatter interaction based on the estimated momentum of the Compton recoil electron (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Polf et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to calculate an opening angle of a constrained cone based on the estimated momentum of the Compton recoil electron; and
the constrained cone restricts the volume in the 3D detector, within which a next interaction belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray is allowed to take place (para. [0097]) motivated by the benefits for improved medical imaging (Polf et al. para. [0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) in view of Polf et al. (US 2019/0094390 A1; pub. Mar. 28, 2019) and further in view of Suhami (US 2006/0202125 A1; pub. Sep. 14, 2006).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate, based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector (see rejection of claim 1).
The combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry and for each Compton scatter interaction in the 3D silicon detector, the momentum of the Compton recoil electron by linear fit.
In a similar field of endeavor Suhami discloses: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry and for each Compton scatter interaction in the 3D detector, the momentum of the Compton recoil electron by linear fit (para. [0312]) motivated by the benefits for a cost-effective device.
In light of the benefits for a cost-effective device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nelson et al., Watanabe et al. and Polf et al. with the teachings of Suhami.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Behar et al. (US 2022/0268953 A1; pub. Aug. 25, 2022).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate the direction of the incident gamma ray by a maximum likelihood estimation based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector (see rejection of claim 1).
The combined references are silent about: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to
estimate the direction of the incident gamma ray by a maximum likelihood estimation based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry for the predicted interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray.
In a similar field of endeavor Behar et al. disclose: the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to estimate the direction of the incident gamma ray by a maximum likelihood estimation based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry for the predicted interactions in the detector belonging to the same event induced by the incident gamma ray (para. [0062]) motivated by the benefits for reduced sampling error.
In light of the benefits for reduced sampling error, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Behar et al.
Claims 17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009).
Regarding claim 17, the combined references are silent about: the plurality of silicon sensors comprises complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) electronics comprising an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) comprising analogue to digital converts (ADCs) and the read-out circuitry.
In a similar field of endeavor Tumer et al. disclose: the plurality of silicon sensors comprises complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) electronics (para. [0073], [0084], [0176]) comprising an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) comprising analogue to digital converts (ADCs) and the read-out circuitry (para. [0073], [0084], [0176]) motivated by the benefits for a compact device (Tumer et al. para. [0176]).
In light of the benefits for a compact device as taught by Tumer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Tumer et al.
Regarding claim 20, the combined references are silent about: external field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) interconnected between i) the 3D silicon detector and/or the read-out circuitry and ii) the at least one processor and/or the at least one memory.
In a similar field of endeavor Tumer et al. disclose: external field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) interconnected between i) the 3D silicon detector and/or the read-out circuitry and ii) the at least one processor and/or the at least one memory (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for a compact device (Tumer et al. para. [0176]).
In light of the benefits for a compact device as taught by Tumer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Tumer et al.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) in view of Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009) and further in view of Schmand et al. (US 2010/0074396 A1; pub. Mar. 25, 2010).
Regarding claim 18, the combined references are silent about: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a monolithic silicon semiconductor sensor integrating the CMOS electronics and the plurality of pixels on the monolithic silicon sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor Schmand et al. disclose: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a monolithic silicon semiconductor sensor integrating the CMOS electronics and the plurality of pixels on the monolithic silicon sensor (para. [0035]-[0037]) motivated by the benefits for a compact and cost-effective device.
In light of the benefits for a compact device as taught by Tumer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nelson et al., Watanabe et al. and Tumer et al. with the teachings of Schmand et al.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) in view of Tumer et al. (US 2009/0290680 A1; pub. Nov. 26, 2009) and further in view of Orava et al. (US 2011/0095193 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2011).
Regarding claim 19, the combined references are silent about: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a hybrid silicon sensor comprising the CMOS electronics flip chipped at a side of the plurality of pixels in the silicon sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor Orava et al. disclose: each silicon sensor of the plurality of silicon sensors is a hybrid silicon sensor comprising the CMOS electronics flip chipped (fig.13 item 107, para. [0120]) at a side of the plurality of pixels (fig.13 item 106) in the silicon sensor (para. [0058]) motivated by the benefits for a detector with fast charge collection and with excellent radiation hardness (Orava et al. para. [0014]).
In light of the benefits for a detector with fast charge collection and with excellent radiation hardness as taught by Orava et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nelson et al., Watanabe et al. and Tumer et al. with the teachings of Orava et al.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Lee (US 4,529,882; pub. Jul. 16, 1985).
Regarding claim 21, the combined references are silent about: the plurality of silicon sensors has a cross section for Compton scattering of more than 40 % at 140 keV.
In a similar field of endeavor Lee discloses: the plurality of silicon sensors has a cross section for Compton scattering of more than 40 % at 140 keV (col.10 L62-68) motivated by the benefits for accurately measuring the position and energy of gamma rays.
In light of the benefits for accurately measuring the position and energy of gamma rays, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Lee.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Barrett et al. (US 2017/0343460 A1; pub. Nov. 30, 2017).
Regarding claim 22, the combined references are silent about: a field applying device configured to apply an electric field at least partly over the 3D silicon detector so that the silicon sensors in the 3D silicon detector are at least partly depleted.
In a similar field of endeavor Barrett et al. disclose: a field applying device configured to apply an electric field at least partly over the 3D silicon detector so that the silicon sensors in the 3D silicon detector are at least partly depleted (para. [0023], [0077], [0087) motivated by the benefits for a fast gamma ray camera with negligible spatial pileup (Barrett et al. para. [0022]).
In light of the benefits for a fast gamma ray camera with negligible spatial pileup as taught by Barrett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Barrett et al.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al. (US 9,116,249 B1; pub. Aug. 25, 2015) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0353808 A1; pub. Nov. 21, 2019) and further in view of Yoneda et al. “Reconstruction of multiple Compton scattering events in MeV gamma-ray Compton telescopes towards GRAMS: the physics-based probabilistic model, Journal of Latex Templates, Aug. 11, 2022, pg.1-28.
Regarding claim 26, Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. disclose: A detector system for molecular imaging of a radionuclide comprising: a three-dimensional (3D) semiconductor detector comprising a plurality of sensor stacks, wherein each sensor stack of the plurality of sensor stacks comprises a plurality of semiconductor sensors each comprising a plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of semiconductor sensors is made of a semiconductor material having an average atomic number Z below 40; a read-out circuitry connected to the pixels in the 3D semiconductor detector and configured to output, for each interaction induced by an incident gamma ray in the 3D semiconductor detector, a signal representative of a time, a position and an energy of the interaction in the 3D semiconductor detector; at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: predict, based on the signals output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D semiconductor detector belonging to a same event induced by the incident gamma ray; estimate, based on the predicted interactions in the 3D semiconductor detect belonging to the same event, reconstruct an image based on the estimated directions of incident gamma rays (see rejection of claim 1 & col.6 L49-60 of Claus ( Z for TIBr is 81).
The combined references are silent about: a direction of the incident
PNG
media_image1.png
211
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In a similar field of endeavor Yoneda et al. disclose: a direction of the incident
PNG
media_image1.png
211
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(pg.6 col.1 equation 11) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio.
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Claus et al. and Watanabe et al. with the teachings of Yoneda et al.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15, 17-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,625,285 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations claimed in claim 1 of the present application are obvious in view of the limitations claimed in claims 1 & 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,625,285 B2.
In the table below similar claim limitations are underlined.
18/631,968 (Present Application)
12,625,285 B2
Claim 1
A detector system for molecular imaging of a radionuclide comprising: a three-dimensional (3D) silicon detector comprising a plurality of sensor stacks, wherein each sensor stack of the plurality of sensor stacks comprises a plurality of silicon sensors each comprising a plurality of pixels; a read-out circuitry connected to the pixels in the 3D silicon detector and configured to output, for each interaction induced by an incident gamma ray in the 3D silicon detector, a signal representative of a time, a position and an energy of the interaction in the 3D silicon detector; at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: predict, based on the signals representative of the time, the position and the energy of the interactions in the 3D silicon detector and output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to a same event induced by the incident gamma ray; estimate, based on the predicted interactions in the 3D silicon detector belonging to the same event, a direction of the incident gamma ray inducing the same event; and reconstruct an image based on the estimated directions of incident gamma rays.
Claim 1
A detector system for molecular imaging of a radionuclide, comprising: a three-dimensional (3D) semiconductor detector comprising a plurality of sensor stacks, wherein each sensor stack of the plurality of sensor stacks comprises a plurality of semiconductor sensors each comprising a plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of semiconductor sensors is made of a semiconductor material having an average atomic number Z below 40; a read-out circuitry connected to the pixels in the 3D semiconductor detector and configured to output, for each pixel along an electron track in the 3D semiconductor detector, a pixel value representative of an energy deposited at the pixel by a Compton recoil electron along the electron track in the 3D semiconductor detector, wherein the Compton recoil electron is created by a Compton scatter interaction induced by an incident gamma ray in the 3D semiconductor detector; at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to, if an estimated energy of the Compton recoil electron is below a first threshold value, predict a position of a start of the electron track based on a center of a charge cloud in the 3D semiconductor detector by a Gaussian fit to the pixel values output by the read-out circuitry by: summing pixel values over a first dimension in the 3D semiconductor detector to obtain a first one-dimensional projection, summing pixel values over a second dimension in the 3D semiconductor detector to obtain a second one-dimensional projection, fitting a first Gaussian function to the first one-dimensional projection, fitting a second Gaussian function to the second one-dimensional projection, determining a first coordinate in the first dimension in the 3D semiconductor detector based on a mean of the first Gaussian function, determining a second coordinate in the second dimension in the 3D semiconductor detector based on a mean of the second Gaussian function, and predicting the position of a start of the electron track based on the first coordinate and the second coordinate.
Claim 17
the read-out circuitry is configured to output, for each interaction induced by an incident gamma ray in the 3D semiconductor detector, a signal representative of a time, a position and an energy of the interaction in the 3D semiconductor detector; and the at least one memory comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: predict, based on the pixel output by the read-out circuitry, the interactions in the 3D semiconductor detector belonging to a same event induced by the incident gamma ray; estimate, based on the predicted interactions in the 3D semiconductor detector belonging to the same event, a direction of the incident gamma ray inducing the same event; and reconstruct an image based on the estimated directions of incident gamma rays.
Claims 2-15, 17-22 are rejected on the same basis as independent 1 for dependency reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights