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
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 10 April 2026 wherein: the title is amended; claims 1-2, 4-12, 18-20, 24, and 27 are amended; claims 3, 13-17, 21-23, and 28-31 are canceled; claims 1-2, 4-12, 18-20, and 24-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 10, first line through page 15, last line), filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered, and in parts are persuasive, moot, and not persuasive, as explained below.
Specification
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amended title is acceptable.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Examiner acknowledges claim 1 no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) due to amendment.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant’s arguments regarding the duplicate claims warning are persuasive. The warning has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments are persuasive and the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are provided below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 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. The new ground of rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are provided below.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Numbering
The numbering of the claims is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g) which states in part “all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.” See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). Claims 10-11 are unnecessarily separated from claim 2. The numbering of the claims should not be changed now. Examiner will correct the numbering of the claims if still necessary if the application is allowed. Due to the irregular numbering of the claims, the following rejections of the claims may not necessarily be in numerical order.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4-5
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites dependence on claim 3. However, claim 3 is cancelled. Examiner has considered claim 4 to depend upon claim 1.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected due to its dependence on claim 4.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 C.F.R. § 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 18, 20, 24, and 27
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 18, 20, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prekas (US 2020/0116874 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Prekas discloses an apparatus, comprising: a rotatable gantry (¶ 33: “rotating gantry”) positioned at least partially around a patient support (¶ 28: support structure 105, wherein the object 10 supported may be a patient); a first source of radiation (110) coupled to the rotatable gantry, the first source of radiation (110) configured to emit x-ray radiation after pausing for a time interval between periodic emissions (in a pulsed mode, the time interval is the time between pulses, and the pulses are periodic emissions); a radiation detector (120) comprising a semiconductor material (e.g., CdZnTe) configured to receive x-ray radiation from the first radiation source (110) and generate tomographic (CT) data from the received radiation, wherein the radiation detector (120) is subject to a transient effect caused at least in part by polarization and charge trapping by the semiconductor material; and the time interval is sufficiently long for the transient effect to substantially dissipate (¶¶ 6, 19, 28-39, 65; Fig. 1; ¶ 6: “the source of ionizing radiation is configured to emit radiation in a series of pulses”; ¶ 19: “By causing X-rays to be pulsed at a pulse duration of a between a few tens of a microsecond to milliseconds, faster than that compared to the rate of the onset of dynamic polarization and E-field relaxation, the space charge formation caused by charge carrier trapping may be significantly suppressed”).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Prekas discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the radiation detector comprises an energy-resolved photon-counting detector (¶¶ 2, 6, 38).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Prekas discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the radiation detector is configured to analyze energies of detected x-ray photons in the received radiation to generate the tomographic data (¶¶ 2, 6, 38).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Prekas discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: a bias voltage is provided to the semiconductor material when the radiation detector is receiving x-ray radiation; and the bias voltage is modified (turned off) during the time interval between periodic emissions (¶¶ 6, 19, 28-39, 65; ¶ 19: “By causing X-rays to be pulsed at a pulse duration of a between a few tens of a microsecond to milliseconds, faster than that compared to the rate of the onset of dynamic polarization and E-field relaxation, the space charge formation caused by charge carrier trapping may be significantly suppressed. Combining this pulsed X-rays mode with bias power supply pulsing at a high rate may allow recombination of space charges, thus retaining a uniform E-field that is not influenced by memory (relaxation) from previous X-ray exposures.”; ¶ 65: “the imaging device further comprise a bias power supply (130) configured to selectively apply a voltage to the radiation detector and alternate between on-periods in which an operating voltage is applied to the radiation detector and off-periods in which no voltage is applied to the radiation detector”).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Prekas discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein modification of the applied bias includes at least one of voltage reduction, nullification, and reversal (i.e., nullification, or not applying a null voltage; see rejection of claim 6 above).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Prekas discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein modification of the bias voltage facilitates the dissipation of the transient effect (see rejection of claim 6 above).
Claims 18 and 24
Regarding claims 18 and 24, see the rejections of claims 1, 6, and 9 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, for the energy options, see the rejections of claims 4-5 above.
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, for the energy options and the CdZnTe option, see the rejection of claims 1 and 4-5 above.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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 2, 10-12, 19, and 25-26
Claims 2, 10-12, 19, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Prekas as applied to claims 1, 18, and 24 above, and further in view of La Riviere (US 2022/0395243 A1).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Prekas discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Prekas does not expressly disclose a second source of radiation coupled to the rotatable gantry, the second source of radiation configured for at least one of imaging radiation or therapeutic radiation, wherein the second source of radiation has an energy level more than the first source of radiation.
La Riviere discloses a treatment (radiotherapy) apparatus (shown in Figs. 1-2B and described in ¶¶ 59-93), comprising: a rotatable gantry (12) positioned at least partially around a patient support (18); a first source of radiation (30) coupled to the rotatable gantry (12), the first source of radiation (30) configured to emit imaging x-ray radiation; and a radiation detector (34) configured to receive x-ray radiation from the first radiation source (30) and generate tomographic data from the received radiation (¶¶ 59-61, Figs. 1-2A); and
a second source of radiation (20) coupled to the rotatable gantry (12), the second source of radiation (20) configured for at least one of imaging radiation or therapeutic radiation (i.e., both options), wherein the second source of radiation 20) has an energy level (greater than 1 MeV) more than the first source of radiation (less than 150 keV; ¶¶ 59-61, 70-73; 91-93; Figs. 2A-B; in particular, ¶ 72: “the high-energy radiation source 20 is utilized as a source of therapeutic radiation and a source of imaging radiation. As discussed in detail below, sources of radiation 20, 30 may be used in conjunction with one another to provide higher quality and better utilized images. References to the therapeutic radiation source 20 herein are to distinguish the high-energy radiation source 20 from the low-energy radiation source 30”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Prekas, in view of the teachings of La Riviere, to include a second source of radiation coupled to the rotatable gantry system, the second source of radiation configured for at least one of imaging radiation or therapeutic radiation, wherein the second source of radiation has an energy level more than the first source of radiation.
One would have been motivated to do so be able to perform the well-known procedure of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) as recited in La Riviere (¶¶ 5-6) to permit tracking of a therapy target, using a second higher energy source for both imaging and therapy “to provide higher quality and better utilized images” as recited in La Riviere (¶ 72).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Prekas modified teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the semiconductor material comprises at least one of silicon (Si), cadmium (Cd), tellurium (Te), and zinc (Zn; see rejection of claim 1 above, Prekas, ¶ 19: CdZnTe).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Prekas modified teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the radiation detector comprises at least one of a cadmium zinc telluride (CdZnTe) detector and a cadmium telluride (CdTe) pixel detector (see rejections of claims 1 and 10 above, Prekas, ¶ 19: CdZnTe).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Prekas modified teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein at least: the first source of radiation comprises a kilo-electron volt peak photon energy (keV) up to 150 keV and the second source of radiation comprises a mega-electron volt peak photon energy (MeV) of 1 MeV or greater (see rejection of claim 2 above, La Riviere, ¶¶ 70-71; the first source energies are also less than 150 keV in Prekas, see ¶ 38).
Claims 19 and 25
Regarding claims 19 and 25, see the rejection of claim 2 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 26
Regarding claim 26, see the rejection of claim 12 above.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Prekas as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sako (US 2017/0153190 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Prekas discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the modification of the bias voltage is substantially applied to the interval between the periodic x-ray emission of x-ray radiation (see rejection of claim 6 above) and x-ray radiation is restarted (i.e., pulsed; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Prekas does not expressly disclose the modified can be initiated while the x-ray radiation is still on and continue while the x-ray radiation is restarted.
However, beginning the reset process of a detector during the tail end of x-ray emission, with the reset process continuing while x-ray emission has stopped, was well-known and routinely practiced in the art. For example, Sako discloses, and describes as conventional, x-ray detection signal processing wherein a detector is reset during the tail end of x-ray emission, with the reset process continuing while x-ray emission has stopped (¶ 8, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Prekas, in view of the teachings of Sako, so that the modification can be initiated while the first source is still emitting x-rays continue while the first source is restarted.
One would have been motivated to do so to begin the resetting process earlier as compared to waiting for x-ray emission to completely cease between pulses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spartiotis (US 2006/0011853 A1) discloses polarization or charge trapping were known issues in CdTe or CdZnTe X-ray detectors (¶ 8), and that bias voltage switching of the X-ray detector prevents excessive polarization or charge trapping (¶ 39).
Hoffman (US 2006/0056581 A1) discloses “Direct conversion detectors are susceptible to a phenomenon called "polarization" where charge trapping inside the material changes the internal electric field, alters the detector count and energy response in an unpredictable way, and results in hysteresis where response is altered by previous exposure history. In particular, photon counting, direct conversion detectors, saturate due to the intrinsic charge collection time (i.e. dead time) associated with each x-ray photon event” (¶ 10), including CdTe and CdZnTe detectors (¶¶ 14, 60), wherein the detector is a “CT detector capable of energy discrimination and direct conversion” (¶ 20) and photon counting (¶ 22).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights