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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“time difference calculation unit” in claim 1,
“signal waveform processing unit” in claim 1,
“error estimation unit” in claim 1,
“γ-ray pair generation position calculation unit” in claim 1,
“image creation unit” in claim 1, and
“training unit” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 recite limitations which invoke 112(f), as set forth above under “Claim Interpretation”. However, the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. MPEP 2181(III) explains that when the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associated the disclosure structural material or acts to the claimed function, the claims lack clarity. The disclosure is silent regarding the structure and merely refers to each of the claimed “units” as units throughout the disclosure. Thus, the disclosure is unclear on whether the “units” are software or hardware, or what hardware they would be constructed as. Accordingly, the claims are unclear.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 recite limitations which invoke 112(f), as set forth above under “Claim Interpretation”. However, the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. MPEP 2181(IV) explains that when the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associated the disclosure structural material or acts to the claimed function, the claims lack written description. The disclosure is silent regarding the structure and merely refers to each of the claimed “units” as units throughout the disclosure. The disclosure is unclear on whether the “units” are software or hardware, or what hardware they would be constructed as. Accordingly, the claims lack written description.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art, Cho (US Pub # 2013/0032706), discloses a system and method for creating a tomographic image of a subject based on information of a plurality of γ-ray pair coincidence events collected for the subject placed in a measurement space of a PET detection device including a plurality of radiation detectors (FIG 1) comprising:
providing a time difference calculation unit for calculating, for each of the plurality of γ-ray pair coincidence events, a time difference tled of a timing at which a value of each of a first signal and a second signal output from two radiation detectors which detect a pair of γ-rays in coincidence out of the plurality of radiation detectors reaches a threshold value;
a γ-ray pair generation position calculation unit for calculating a γ-ray pair generation position on a coincidence detection line connecting the two radiation detectors to each other; and
an image creation unit for creating the tomographic image of the subject based on the γ-ray pair generation position calculated by the γ-ray pair generation position calculation unit for each of the plurality of γ-ray pair coincidence events.
PNG
media_image1.png
1214
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Cho shows the γ-ray coincidence detection, timing retrieval, timing correction, and image reconstruction units/steps.
However, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed steps, a performing a signal waveform processing step for relatively shifting the waveform of the first signal or the waveform of the second signal by the time difference tled in the direction of approaching each other in the time axis direction; and an error estimation step for estimating, by using the deep neural network, an error terr of the time difference tled on the basis of the respective waveforms of the first signal and the second signal shifted by the signal waveform processing step. Claim 5 is allowed based on dependence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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, DAVID MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884