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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2025, 04/16/2025 and 03/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 2, the recitation “A system according to Claim 1” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 1”;
With respect to claim 3, the recitation “A system according to Claim 2” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 2”;
With respect to claim 4, the recitation “A system according to Claim 3” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 3”;
With respect to claim 5, the recitation “A system according to Claim 1” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 1”;
With respect to claim 6, the recitation “A system according to Claim 1” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 1”;
With respect to claim 8, the recitation “A method according to Claim 7” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The method according to claim 7”;
With respect to claim 9, the recitation “A method according to Claim 8” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The method according to claim 8”;
With respect to claim 10, the recitation “A method according to Claim 7” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The method according to claim 7”;
With respect to claim 11, the recitation “A method according to Claim 7” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The method according to claim 7”;
With respect to claim 12, the recitation “A method according to Claim 7” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The method according to claim 7”;
With respect to claim 14, the recitation “A system according to Claim 13” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 13”;
With respect to claim 15, the recitation “A system according to Claim 13” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 13”;
With respect to claim 16, the recitation “A system according to Claim 15” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 15”;
With respect to claim 17, the recitation “A system according to Claim 15” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 15”;
With respect to claim 18, the recitation “A system according to Claim 13” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 13”;
With respect to claim 19, the recitation “A system according to Claim 18” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 18”;
With respect to claim 20, the recitation “A system according to Claim 13” in line 1 should be rephrased/amended as “The system according to claim 13”.
Appropriate corrections are required and respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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)(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, 6, 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vija (US Patent 8,294,109 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Vija teaches a system comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21):
PNG
media_image1.png
212
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
602
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
628
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a gamma ray detector; and a control system (601)(see abstract) to: generate a first tomographic image of a subject based on first gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at a first position with respect to the subject (a first image of a subject within the gantry may be taken with multi-focal collimator in a first position with respect to the subject; see column 3, lines 35-67); generate a second tomographic image of the subject based on second gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at a second position with respect to the subject (a second image may be taken with the collimator in a second position; see column 3, lines 35-67); identify one or more structures of the subject depicted in the first tomographic image and the second tomographic image (see Fig. 5; column 5, lines 25-67); and generate a composite tomographic image based on the first tomographic image, the second tomographic image, and the identified one or more structures (see Fig. 5; column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12).
With respect to claim 6, Vija teaches a system according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21), wherein the first position and the second position are co-planar (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12).
With respect to claim 7, Vija teaches a method comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21): generating a first tomographic image of a subject based on first gamma rays detected by a detector while the detector is disposed at a first position with respect to the subject (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12); generating a second tomographic image of the subject based on second gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at a second position with respect to the subject (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12); identifying one or more structures of the subject depicted in the first tomographic image and the second tomographic image; and generating a composite tomographic image based on the first tomographic image, the second tomographic image, and the identified one or more structures (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12).
With respect to claim 12, Vija teaches the method according to claim 7 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21), wherein the first position and the second position are co-planar (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12).
With respect to claim 13, Vija teaches a system comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21): a gamma ray detector; and a control system to: generate a first tomographic image of a subject based on first gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at a first position with respect to the subject; identify a region of interest within the first tomographic image (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12); determine a second detector position based on the region of interest; move the detector to the second position; and generate a second tomographic image of the subject based on second gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at the second position (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12).
With respect to claim 14, Vija teaches a system according to claim 13 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21), the control system to: identify one or more structures of the subject depicted in the first tomographic image and the second tomographic image (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12); and generate a composite tomographic image based on the first tomographic image, the second tomographic image, and the identified one or more structures (see column 3, line 35 – column 4, line 10 and column 5, line 25 – column 6, line 12).
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vija (US Patent 8,294,109 B2).
With respect to claims 18-20, Vija teaches the system according to claim 13 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21) but fail to explicitly mention that the second detector position is closer to the subject than the first detector position; wherein a resolution of the second tomographic image is greater than a resolution of the first tomographic image.
PNG
media_image3.png
628
311
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Vija teaches and illustrates the possible types of detector motion around a gantry center, (see Fig. 3; column 2, lines 63-65). Also, it is known in the art that bringing the detector closer to the object improves resolution. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide an arrangement wherein the second detector position is closer to the subject than the first detector position as a one of the possible options to adjust/change the resolution of the tomographic image as needed, since it has been held that rearranging parts, making old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected results and discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8-11 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 2-4, the most relevant prior art, Vija teaches a system according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21), the control system to: generate a third tomographic image of the subject based on third gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at a third position with respect to the subject (see Fig. 4; column 4, lines 59-65 and column 5, lines 4 -6) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious to identify a second one or more structures of the subject depicted in the composite tomographic image and the third tomographic image; and generate a second composite tomographic image based on the composite tomographic image, the third tomographic image, and the identified second one or more structures as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 5, the most relevant prior art, Vija teaches a system according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious that generation of the composite tomographic image comprises aligning first pixels of the first tomographic image depicting the one or more structures with second pixels of the second tomographic image depicting the one or more structures as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 8-10, the most relevant prior art, Vija teaches the most relevant prior art, a method according to claim 7 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21), further comprising: generating a third tomographic image of the subject based on third gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at a third position with respect to the subject (see Fig. 4; column 4, lines 59-65 and column 5, lines 4 -6) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious identifying a second one or more structures of the subject depicted in the composite tomographic image and the third tomographic image; and generating a second composite tomographic image based on the composite tomographic image, the third tomographic image, and the identified second one or more structures as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 11, the most relevant prior art, Vija teaches a method according to claim 7 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious that generating the composite tomographic image comprises aligning first pixels of the first tomographic image depicting the one or more structures with second pixels of the second tomographic image depicting the one or more structures as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 15-17, the most relevant prior art, Vija teaches a system according to claim 13 (see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 2, lines 30-57; column 3, line 35 – column 6, line 21), the control system to: generate a third tomographic image of the subject based on third gamma rays detected by the detector while the detector is disposed at a third position with respect to the subject (see Fig. 4; column 4, lines 59-65 and column 5, lines 4 -6) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious to identify one or more structures of the subject depicted in the second tomographic image and the third tomographic image; and generate a composite tomographic image based on the second tomographic image, the third tomographic image, and the identified one or more structures as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ichihara et al. (US Patent 5,324,946; see Abstract; Figs. 1-11); Genna et al. (US Patent 4,859,852; see abstract; Figs. 1-25) and Gagnon et al. (US Patent 6,177,675 B1; see abstract; Figs. 1-6; column 5, line 62 – column 6, line 62) teaches gamma camera systems having multi-resolution detectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM. 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 J. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ December 5, 2025