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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6, 15-20 and 30-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office action dated on 12/02/2025 the Amendment has been received on 01/27/2026. Claims 1-6, 15-20 and 30-34 have been canceled. Claims 54-59 have been newly added. Claims 38-42 and 49-59 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on 01/07/2026, with respect to claims 1-59 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
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 42 and 54-59 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.
Regarding claims 42 and 54-59, the phrase "can" render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It has been held that the recitation that an element “can” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. The rule against indefiniteness is not only a technical one, but it is to protect public and keep patentee from taking an advantage to which he is not entitled.
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 38, 39, 42, 49, and 52-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Basler (US Patent 5,401,969).
With respect to claims 38 and 53, Basler teaches an imaging setup (60) comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 2, line 13 – column 6, line 66): an HEP source emitting HEP of various energies (31-36) (see Fig. 1; column 3, lines 45-52); a scintillating device (200), comprising a plurality of stacked subregions (see Figs. 1-6; column 4, line 28 – column 5, line 64), such that different energies penetrate to different depths within the stacked subregions; and wherein each subregion comprises a patterned surface and scintillates at a specific frequency, angle and polarization (HEP detector (200) comprising of scintillator material (210) of a plurality of small crystals of scintillator material (210));
PNG
media_image1.png
674
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
749
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a detector (200 and 400) to receive emissions from each stacked subregion; and a reconstruction algorithm associated with a processing circuitry (600) to determine an original energy distribution based on a scintillation pattern received from the plurality of stacked subregions and a display (700) (see column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66).
With respect to claim 39, Basler teaches the imaging setup of claim 38 (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66), wherein each subregion is designed by calculating the HEP energy loss distribution or by inverse-design, wherein a structure of each subregion is optimized to best overlap with various HEP energy loss regions (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66).
PNG
media_image3.png
638
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
553
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 42, Basler teaches the imaging setup of claim 38 (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66), wherein spectroscopic reconstruction can be achieved can be achieved by using the processing circuit (600) (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66).
With respect to claim 49, Basler teaches the imaging setup of claim 38 (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66), wherein the reconstruction algorithm reconstructs the two- dimensional absorption map as a function of the incident energy (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66).
With respect to claim 52, Basler teaches the imaging setup of claim 38 (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; column 3, line 45 – column 5, line 66), wherein a thickness of the scintillating device is in the range of 1 micron to 10 cm (see column 4, lines 28-53).
With respect to claims 54-59, Basler teaches the imaging setup of claim 38, wherein spectroscopic reconstruction can be achieved by using the processing circuit (600).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40, 41, 50 and 51 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 40 and 41, the most relevant prior art, Basler (US Patent 5,401,969) teaches the imaging setup of claim 38 but fail to explicitly teach or make obvious that the reconstruction algorithm is selected from the group consisting of convolutional neural networks, compressed sensing solvers, and least-square error optimizers as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 50 and 51, the most relevant prior art, Basler (US Patent 5,401,969) teaches the imaging setup of claim 38 but fail to explicitly teach or make obvious that
the scintillation pattern is optimally sparse for some transform as claimed in combination with all of the remaining limitation 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. Govaert et al. (US Patent 4,831,262) teaches a scintillating device, comprising a plurality of stacked subregions
PNG
media_image5.png
278
390
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
566
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see abstract; Figs. 1-13; column 3, line 1 – column 6, line 55), such that different energies penetrate to different depths within the stacked subregions; and wherein each subregion comprises a patterned surface and scintillates at a specific frequency, angle and polarization (see abstract; Figs. 1-13; column 3, line 1 – column 6, line 55).
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./ February 6, 2026