NON-FINAL REJECTION
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
Restriction Requirement dated 10/24/2025, required Applicant to elect a species regarding variable bore size (i.e., elect one species from Species A-E) and elect a species regarding detector head movement around the bore (i.e., elect one species from Species F-H).
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 and Species H2 in the reply filed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A-E are allegedly not mutually exclusive in the sense that the features thereof are allegedly combinable in a combination; and that Species F-H are allegedly not mutually exclusive in the sense that the features thereof are allegedly combinable in a combination.
This is not found persuasive because the notion that species may allegedly be combinable (e.g., subcombinations usable together in a combination) does not necessarily preclude restriction between said species. For example, MPEP 806.04(b) recites in part “For example, two different subcombinations usable with each other may each be a species of some common generic invention. If so, restriction practice under election of species and the practice applicable to restriction between combination and subcombinations must be addressed.”
In other words, the notion that each of Species A-E allegedly may be subcombinations useable together in a combination does not necessarily preclude restriction between said species as long as the subcombinations are distinct. In this case, the Species A-E, viewed as subcombinations useable together, are distinct because (1) they do not overlap in scope (i.e., each species is defined by a unique subcombination of features), and (2) each subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (i.e., each species can be used without the others; e.g., Species A can be used without Species B-E, Species B can be used without Species A and C-E, Species C can be used with Species A, B, D, and E, etc.).
Similarly, the notion that each of Species F-H allegedly may be subcombinations useable together in a combination does not necessarily preclude restriction between said species as long as the subcombinations are distinct. In this case, the Species F-H, viewed as subcombinations useable together, are distinct because (1) they do not overlap in scope (i.e., each species is defined by a unique subcombination of features), and (2) each subcombination has utility by itself or in other combination (i.e., each species can be used without the others; e.g., Species F can be used without Species G and H, Species G can be used without Species F and H, and Species H can be used with Species F and G).
Since Applicant’s traversal is not found to be persuasive, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-5, 9-13, 20-22, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes, US Patent 6,137,109 (hereinafter “Hayes”).
Regarding claim 1: Hayes discloses a nuclear medicine tomography system comprising:
a rotatable detector carrier (gantry B, Fig. 1);
a plurality of detector modules (detectors 22, Fig. 1) mounted on said rotatable detector carrier, one or more detector module of said plurality of detector modules comprising:
a detector head (body 27 and face 25, Fig. 1); and
a detector positioning arrangement (see Fig. 2) having a controller (102, 114, and/or 116, Fig. 2) and a plurality of first actuators operable to position said detector heads at adjacent positions or at positions that overlap radially or circumferentially or axially, before and/or during performance of a scan, without interference or collision between adjacent said detector heads to establish a variable bore size and configuration for the scan (e.g., see Figs. 3A-3I and/or Fig., 4A-4F).
Regarding claim 2: Hayes further discloses the controller is configured to prevent a first one of said detector heads from obscuring a field of view of a second one of said detector heads (implied from maintaining corner-to-corner orientation such as shown in Fig. 4A, opposed to overlapping orientation such as in Fig. 4B; “The configuration of a multi-head gamma camera requires coordination between tangential and radial motions so that the detectors maintain a desired orientation, either corner to corner or overlapping.” Abstract).
Regarding claim 3: Hayes further discloses that rotatable detector carrier has an aperture with a circular shape or a partially circular shape (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4: Hayes further discloses that plurality of detector modules are attached to the rotatable detector carrier and are arranged around the aperture (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5: Hayes further discloses that the rotatable detector carrier is configured to rotate detector heads around the aperture (; “The gantry B includes stationary 18 and rotating 30 gantry portions. Detectors 22a, 22b, 22c are mounted to the rotating gantry portion 30 and define an aperture into which the anatomy of a patient may be inserted.” col. 3, lines 64-67; “As the gantry rotates about the axis of rotation 70, the rotating detectors define a generally circular imaging region, the precise shape of which may vary if the detectors are moved radially during rotation of the gantry 30.” col. 4, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 9: Hayes further discloses that the detector positioning arrangement is configured to extend at least one of said detector heads relative to said rotatable detector carrier (e.g., see Fig. 3B which shows a pair oppositely facing detector heads (at the 90- and 270-degrees position) extended compared to a third non-extended detector head (at the zero-degree position)).
Regarding claim 10: Hayes further discloses that the detector positioning arrangement is configured to extend fewer than all of said plurality of detector heads relative to said rotatable detector carrier (e.g., see Fig. 3B which shows a pair oppositely facing detector heads (at the 90- and 270-degrees position) extended compared to a third non-extended detector head (at the zero-degree position)).
Regarding claim 11: Hayes further discloses that the detector positioning arrangement is configured to extend only every other detector head relative to said rotatable detector carrier. (e.g., see Fig. 3B, starting at the 270-degree position and going clockwise, the 270-degree position detector head is extended, the zero-degree position detect head is not extended, and the 90-degree position head is extended).
Regarding claim 12: Hayes further discloses that system is configured to use all of said plurality of detector heads during the scan (implied from “utilizing the detectors to detect radiation, and generating an image indicated of the detected radiation”, col. 2, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 13: Hayes further discloses that the controller is configured to prevent collision of at least two of said detector heads with each other (implied from: Fig. 6; “If the required tangential velocity is greater than the maximum speed of the tangential drive system, or if the tangential motion would result in an impossible condition (i.e., tangential motion beyond a position limit), the radial velocity is limited or the radial motion is stopped. Note that it is not necessary to limit the radial velocity when the detectors are being moved radially outward.” col. 5, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 20: Hayes further discloses adjacent ones of said detector heads do not interfere mechanically or operationally with each other (Fig. 6; “If the required tangential velocity is greater than the maximum speed of the tangential drive system, or if the tangential motion would result in an impossible condition (i.e., tangential motion beyond a position limit), the radial velocity is limited or the radial motion is stopped. Note that it is not necessary to limit the radial velocity when the detectors are being moved radially outward.” col. 5, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 21: Hayes further discloses that the controller is configured to simulate gap filling properties of said detector heads (maintaining corner-to-corner or overlapping relationship, Fig. 8, Abstract) and to plan and/or monitor motion of said detector heads in a manner which avoids interference between detector heads (Fig. 6; “If the required tangential velocity is greater than the maximum speed of the tangential drive system, or if the tangential motion would result in an impossible condition (i.e., tangential motion beyond a position limit), the radial velocity is limited or the radial motion is stopped. Note that it is not necessary to limit the radial velocity when the detectors are being moved radially outward.” col. 5, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 22: Hayes further discloses that the controller is configured to calculate allowable paths and/or positions for at least one of said detector heads prior to or during the scan (Fig. 6; “If the required tangential velocity is greater than the maximum speed of the tangential drive system, or if the tangential motion would result in an impossible condition (i.e., tangential motion beyond a position limit), the radial velocity is limited or the radial motion is stopped. Note that it is not necessary to limit the radial velocity when the detectors are being moved radially outward.” col. 5, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 26: Hayes further discloses that the detector positioning arrangement is operable to rotate and extend at least some of said detector heads from respective first positions, in which said bore size is a first bore size, to respective second positions, in which said bore size is a second bore size, wherein said second bore size is smaller than said first bore size (see Fig. 4A; “As depicted by the radial arrows in FIG. 4a, the radial drives move the detectors 22a, 22b, 22c radially toward and away from the imaging region.” col. 4, lines 45-47).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Plummer et al., US 5,929,446 (hereinafter “Plummer”) and Matthews et al., US 6,727,502 (hereinafter “Matthews”).
Regarding claim 6: Hayes further discloses:
wherein each said detector head is configured to be extended and retracted with respect to said rotatable detector carrier to establish a variable bore size and shape (“As the gantry rotates about the axis of rotation 70, the rotating detectors define a generally circular imaging region, the precise shape of which may vary if the detectors are moved radially during rotation of the gantry 30. The detectors are mounted to the gantry 30 so as to be movable […]radially toward and away from the axis of rotation 70 […] with respect to the imaging region.” col. 4, lines 2-9);
wherein said controller is configured to:
control, based on a desired bore size and shape, extension and retraction of said detector heads to a spatial arrangement thereof as defined by said extension and retraction (col. 4, lines 10-41),
control data acquisition by said plurality of detector heads (implied from “utilizing the detectors to detect radiation, and generating an image indicated of the detected radiation”, col. 2, lines 3-5), and
control image reconstruction of data acquired by said data acquisition (implied from “utilizing the detectors to detect radiation, and generating an image indicated of the detected radiation”, col. 2, lines 3-5).
Hayes does not disclose each detector module of said plurality of detector modules comprises an arm and at least one said detector head, said at least one detector head configured to be movable relative to said arm during the scan.
Plummer teaches each detector module of a plurality of detector modules comprises an arm and at least one detector head, said at least one detector head configured to be movable relative to said arm during the scan (see Fig. 3 which illustrates the claimed arm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hayes such that each detector module of said plurality of detector modules comprises an arm and at least one said detector head, said at least one detector head configured to be movable relative to said arm during the scan, as taught by Plummer; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate radial motion of the detector heads.
Hayes does not disclose that the controller is configured to control at least one of said data acquisition and said image reconstruction, based on said spatial arrangement.
Matthews teaches a controller configured to control at least one of data acquisition and image reconstruction based on the spatial arrangement of detector heads (see Fig. 3 and associated descriptions which teach correction factors for reconstruction are based on spatial arrangement (fitting parameters) of the detector heads).
Additionally, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that reconstruction necessarily must be based on the detection geometry (including the spatial arrangement of the detector heads) in order to properly arrange lines of response (LORs) in a sinogram to be reconstructed into an image (e.g., via inverse Radon transform or other back projection algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Hayes such that the controller is configured to control at least one of said data acquisition and said image reconstruction, based on said spatial arrangement, as taught by Matthews; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to properly arrange LORs in a sinogram to be reconstructed into an image.
Claims 14-19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Kline et al., US 5,319,205 (hereinafter “Kline”).
Regarding claims 14-19: Hayes teaches the invention of claim 1 and further disclose a patient carrier (10, Fig. 1); but does not teach that:
the controller is configured to prevent collision of a said detector head with a patient positioned on said patient carrier (claim 14);
the system comprises proximity sensors configured to detect a collision of a said detector head with the patient (claim 15);
said proximity sensors include at least one of pressure sensors, acoustic sensors, and optical sensors mounted on said detector heads (claim 16);
said controller is configured to stop motion of a said detector head in case of a collision with a patient (claim 17);
said controller is configured to stop motion of said detector head before it makes contact with a patient (claim 18);
said system includes adaptive motion feedback capability to signal said system if a said detector head makes contact with the patient (claim 19).
Kline teaches:
a controller configured to prevent collision of a detector with a patient positioned on said patient carrier (“In addition, in order to move the imaging detector 18 to within a desired distance from the subject 24, the controller 60 instructs the camera motion control 68 to move the head 12 towards the subject 24. The head 12 closes in until an outside and middle beam is interrupted on one of the stack pairs 38A/40A, 38B/40B, 38C/40C e.g., the beams 50, 52). The controller 60 then instructs the camera motion control 68 to stop translating the head 12 (the rotational scan continues).” col. 5, lines 1-11).
proximity sensors configured to detect a collision of a said detector head with the patient (“The contact switch 41 provides a signal to the camera motion control 68 indicative of contact between the head 12 and the subject 24. The controller provides a fault signal 70 upon detection of a fault condition.” col. 4, lines 62-66; “If one of the "too close" beams is interrupted (e.g., the beam 54), the controller 60 instructs the camera motion control 68 to move the head 12 back from the subject 24. The head 12 pulls out until all of the "too close" and middle beams are uninterrupted.” col. 5, lines 12-17).
said proximity sensors include at least one of pressure sensors, acoustic sensors, and optical sensors mounted on said detector heads (“A pressure-sensitive or contact switch 41 is provided on the surface of the imaging detector 18.” col. 3, lines 59-60; “Each emitter stack 38A, 38B, 38C contains three light 19 emitters, which may be, for example, infrared light-emitting diodes (LED). Each detector stack 40A, 40B, 40C contains three light detectors, which may be, for example, synchronous light detectors such as Hamamatsu Photonics Model No. S4282-11.” col. 4, lines 1-6; “While a light beam proximity detector has been described, it is also possible to practice the invention with other types of proximity detection, for example, ultrasonic or radio frequency sensing.” col. 5, lines 55-58).
said controller is configured to stop motion of a said detector head in case of a collision with a patient (“The contact switch 41 provides a signal to the camera motion control 68 indicative of contact between the head 12 and the subject 24. The controller provides a fault signal 70 upon detection of a fault condition.” col. 4, lines 62-66);
said controller is configured to stop motion of said detector head before it makes contact with a patient (“In addition, in order to move the imaging detector 18 to within a desired distance from the subject 24, the controller 60 instructs the camera motion control 68 to move the head 12 towards the subject 24. The head 12 closes in until an outside and middle beam is interrupted on one of the stack pairs 38A/40A, 38B/40B, 38C/40C e.g., the beams 50, 52). The controller 60 then instructs the camera motion control 68 to stop translating the head 12 (the rotational scan continues).” col. 5, lines 1-11); and
said system includes adaptive motion feedback capability to signal said system if a said detector head makes contact with the patient (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 54; the feedback is adaptive to the motion of the detector relative to the patient which signals the system in the event of contact with the patient).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hayes such that:
the controller is configured to prevent collision of a said detector head with a patient positioned on said patient carrier,
the system comprises proximity sensors configured to detect a collision of a said detector head with the patient,
said proximity sensors include at least one of pressure sensors, acoustic sensors, and optical sensors mounted on said detector heads,
said controller is configured to stop motion of a said detector head in case of a collision with a patient,
said controller is configured to stop motion of said detector head before it makes contact with a patient,
said system includes adaptive motion feedback capability to signal said system if a said detector head makes contact with the patient,
as taught by Kline; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve safety, maintain proper distance between the detector and the patient, and/or maintain sterilization of the detector heads.
Regarding claims 23 and 24: see above regarding claims 15 and 16.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Hefetz et al., US 2008/0029704 A1 (hereinafter “Hefetz”).
Hayes does not disclose that a distal portion of each said detector module has a rounded shape.
Hefetz teaches a distal portion of each said detector module has a rounded shape (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hayes such that a distal portion of each said detector module has a rounded shape, as taught by Hefetz; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the distal end of the detector modules with atraumatic shape.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Zilberstein et al., US 2011/0026685 A1 (hereinafter “Zilberstein”).
Hayes teaches the invention of claim 4 but does not teach at least one said detector head is configured to extended to establish a bore having a diameter of as small as 20 cm.
Zilberstein teaches detector heads configured to extend to establish a bore having a diameter of as small as 20 cm (implied from Fig. 2D and ¶ [0085] which disclose a plurality of contact points with the head of patient; it is understood that a typical human head has a diameter of about 20 cm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hayes such that at least one said detector head is configured to extended to establish a bore having a diameter of as small as 20 cm, as taught by Zilberstein; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve detector sensitivity (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio) for imaging of small object such as a human head.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN T. SAKAMOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-4958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, ~9AM-5PM Pacific.
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, KEITH M. RAYMOND can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
COLIN T. SAKAMOTO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3798
/COLIN T. SAKAMOTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
30 May 2026
1 Characterized by Figs. 7A and 7B, and Specification page 20, lines 19-21, and page 53, lines 7-27
2 Characterized Fig. 13, and Specification page 21, lines 7-8, and page 58, lines 1-16
Prosecution Insights