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
In response to the Office action dated on 01/07/2026 the Amendment has been received on 02/04/2026. Claims 1, 4 and 44 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 19, 26, 28, 29, 31, 43, 44, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 68 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Newly added limitations “wherein the first detector head or the second detector head is located close to the analysis region to allow for proximity imaging of the sample” does not overcome the rejections provided in the previous Office action and renders the newly amended claim 1 indefinite. The term “located close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “located close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “located close” is a relative term and it does not define a specific, fixed distance, but rather implies a proximity that depends on the context, scale and perspective. In addition, the added limitations “to allow for proximity (another relative term) imaging of the sample” is only an intended use that is claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. The prior art, Rodrigues (US PAP 2021/0290196 A1), teaches a gamma camera wherein “the first detector head or the second detector head is located close to the analysis region to allow for proximity imaging of the sample” (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135)). The Rejection provided in the prior Office action is correct and stands.
In addition, upon further consideration necessitated by amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is also made in view of Teshigawara (US PAP 2022/0104781 A1).
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 1-4, 8, 10-12, 19, 26, 28, 29, 31, 43, 44, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 68 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.
The term “located close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “located close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “located close” is a relative term and it does not define a specific, fixed distance, but rather implies a proximity that depends on the context, scale and perspective. Claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 19, 26, 28, 29, 31, 43, 44, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 68 are rejected by virtue of their dependence. Rule against indefiniteness is not only a technical one, but is to protect public and keep patentee from taking an advantage to which he is not entitled.
In addition, the added limitations “to allow for proximity (“proximity” is another relative term) imaging of the sample” seems only an intended use that is claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
The prior art, Rodrigues (US PAP 2021/0290196 A1), teaches a gamma camera wherein “the first detector head or the second detector head is located close to the analysis region to allow for proximity imaging of the sample”. The Rejections provided in the prior Office action appear correct and stand.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Teshigawara (US PAP 2000/0104781 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Teshigawara teaches a gamma camera comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-8; paragraphs 0003-0005, 0011-0026, 0030-0046, 0050, 0052, 0053-0057, 0062, 0067-0101): an analysis region comprising a spatial area (see Figs. 1, 6A and 6B; paragraph 0019) disclosing a top plate (103)) configured to receive a sample (P) (see Figs. 1, 6A and 6B); a first detector head positioned to receive gamma radiation from the analysis region (see abstract; paragraphs 0003-0005, 0011-0026, 0030-0046, 0050, 0052, 0053-0057, 0062, 0067-0101), the first detector head comprising a first scatterer (1) and a first absorber (2) (see paragraph 0053 disclosing PET detector (2) as an absorber; paragraph 0030 discloses that PET detector (2) as conversion detector using a semiconductor such as CZT (cadmium zinc telluride)) parallel to the first scatterer (1) (see Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6A and 6B; paragraphs 0003-0005, 0011-0026, 0030-0046, 0050, 0052, 0053-0057, 0062, 0067-0101); and a second detector head positioned on the opposite side of the analysis region relative to the first detector head, the second detector head comprising: a second scatterer (1) and a second absorber (2) parallel to the second scatterer (1) (see Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6A and 6B; paragraphs 0003-0005, 0011-0026, 0030-0046, 0050, 0052, 0053-0057, 0062, 0067-0101);
PNG
media_image1.png
542
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
277
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
403
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and wherein the first detector head or the second detector head is located close to the analysis region to allow for proximity imaging of the sample (see Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6A-6B and 8; paragraphs 0003-0005, 0011-0026, 0030-0046, 0050, 0052, 0053-0057, 0062, 0067-0101).
Claims 1-4, 19, 26, 29, 43, 44, 51, 54, 57 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rodrigues (US PAP 2021/0290196 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Rodrigues teaches a gamma camera comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135): an analysis region (60) comprising a spatial area configured to receive a sample (see Fig. 14 showing a patient bed (60); paragraph 0071); a first detector head (11) (see Fig. 14) positioned to receive gamma radiation from the analysis region (60) (see paragraphs 0033 and 0071),
PNG
media_image4.png
528
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
280
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the first detector head (11) comprising a first scatterer (12) and a first absorber (13) parallel to the first scatterer (12) (see Figs. 1 and 4C; paragraphs 0034 and 0043);
PNG
media_image6.png
532
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and a second detector head (11) (see Fig. 4 showing another module (11) that is opposite to the module (11) being marked) positioned on the opposite side of the analysis region (60) relative to the first detector head (11), the second detector (11) head comprising a second scatterer (12) and a second absorber (13) parallel to the second scatterer (12) wherein the first detector head or the second detector head is located close to the analysis region to allow for proximity imaging of the sample (see Figs. 1 and 4C; paragraphs 0034 and 0043).
With respect to claim 2, Rodrigues teaches the gamma camera according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the gamma camera does not include a collimator (see paragraph 0050).
PNG
media_image7.png
524
479
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
529
497
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
555
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
532
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Rodrigues teaches the gamma camera according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the first and second scatterers (12) are comprised of a high-z material (see paragraphs 0045, 0051 and 0135).
With respect to claim 4, Rodrigues teaches the gamma camera according to claim 3 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the first and second scatterers (12) or the first and second absorbers (13) are semiconductor detectors (see paragraphs 0045, 0051 and 0135).
With respect to claim 8, Rodrigues teaches the gamma camera according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the first scatterer (12) is positioned between the first absorber (13) and the analysis region (60), and wherein the second scatterer (12) is positioned between the second absorber (13) and the analysis region (60) (see paragraphs 0045, 0051 and 0135).
With respect to claim 19, Rodrigues teaches a system comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135): the gamma camera of claim 1 and a processor (19) in a signal-receiving relationship with the gamma camera (see Fig. 11; paragraphs 0059, 0060, 0074, 0097 and 0105), wherein the processor (19) is configured to construct an image based on signals received from the gamma camera (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135).
With respect to claim 26, Rodrigues teaches the system according to claim 19 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the processor (19) is in a signal-receiving relationship with the first and second absorbers (13), wherein the processor (19) is configured to construct the image based on signals received from Compton scattering (see Fig. 11; paragraphs 0059, 0060, 0074, 0097 and 0105).
With respect to claim 29, Rodrigues teaches the system according to claim 19 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the processor (19) is in a signal-receiving relationship with the first and second scatterers (12), wherein the processor (19) is configured to construct the image based on signals received from photoelectric absorption by the first and second scatterers (12) (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135).
With respect to claim 43, Rodrigues teaches the system according to claim 19 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), further comprising a display (21) configured to depict the image constructed by the processor (19) (see Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 44, Rodrigues teaches a method of radionuclide imaging, the method comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135): introducing a radioactive sample into a system comprising: the system of claim 19 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135) and receiving the constructed image from a processor (19) (see Fig. 11; paragraphs 0059, 0060, 0074, 0097 and 0105).
With respect to claim 51, Rodrigues teaches the method according to claim 44 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the processor (19) is in a signal-receiving relationship with the first and second absorbers (13), wherein the processor (19) is configured to construct the image based on signals received from Compton scattering (see Fig. 11; paragraphs 0059, 0060, 0074, 0097 and 0105).
With respect to claim 54, Rodrigues teaches the method according to claim 44 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the processor (19) is in a signal-receiving relationship with the first and second scatterers (12), wherein the processor (19) is configured to construct the image based on signals received from photoelectric absorption by the first and second scatterers (12) (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135).
With respect to claim 57, Rodrigues teaches the method according to claim 44 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the first scatterer(12) is positioned between the first absorber (13) and the analysis region (60), and wherein the second scatterer (12) is positioned between the second absorber (13) and the analysis region (60) (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135).
With respect to claim 68, Rodrigues teaches the method according to claim 44 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the radioactive sample comprises 225Ac or 227Th (see paragraphs 0030 and 0033).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues (US PAP 2021/0290196 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Rodrigues teaches the gamma camera according to any of the preceding claims claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein choosing the distance between the first and second scatterer depends on the need to improve the image quality and/or improve sensitivity (see paragraph 0117) but fail to explicitly mention that, wherein the first scatterer is separated from the second scatterer by a distance ranging from 20 mm to 40 mm; wherein the first scatterer is separated from the first absorber by a distance ranging from 10 mm to 40 mm; and wherein the second scatterer is separated from the second absorber by a distance ranging from 10 mm to 40 mm.
It 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 to provide the arrangement: wherein the first scatterer is separated from the second scatterer by a distance ranging from 20 mm to 40 mm; wherein the first scatterer is separated from the first absorber by a distance ranging from 10 mm to 40 mm; and wherein the second scatterer is separated from the second absorber by a distance ranging from 10 mm to 40 mm in order to adjust improve the image quality and/or improve sensitivity in the gamma camera of Rodrigues, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Rodrigues teaches the gamma camera according to claim 10 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135), wherein the distance between the first and second scatterers is adjustable (see paragraph 0117).
With respect to claim 12, Rodrigues teaches the gamma camera according to claim 11 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135) but fail to explicitly mention that at least one of the first and second scatterers (12) is configured to be positioned in direct contact with the sample. However, positioning at least one of the first and second scatterers (12) is in direct contact with the sample seem like one of the straightforward possibilities.
Therefore, it 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 to provide the arrangement wherein at least one of the first and second scatterers (12) is configured to be positioned in direct contact with the sample to improve sensitivity in the gamma camera of Rodrigues, since it has been that the provision of adjustability, where needed, without producing any new and unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 28, 31, 53 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues (US PAP 2021/0290196 A1) as applied to claims 26, 29, 51 and 54 above, and further in view of Petrak (US PAP 2021/0173096 A1).
With respect to claim 28, Rodrigues teaches the system according to claim 26 (see abstract; Figs. 1, 4B, 4C and 11-14; paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0043, 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0071, 0077, 0103, 0104, 0109, 0122, 0125 and 0129-0135) but fail to explicitly mention that the processor is configured to construct the image using a ListWode Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (LM-OSEM) reconstruction algorithm and/or an Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (OSEM) reconstruction algorithm.
Petrak discloses a system and method for measuring gamma radiation (see abstract; paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0057 and 0102; claims 23) which explicitly teaches that using a ListWode Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (LM-OSEM) reconstruction algorithm and/or an Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (OSEM) reconstruction algorithm are common statics image reconstruction methods to acquiring measurement values, associating coincidence events with an Identification number, calculating a functional value, acquiring coincidence events in frequency distributions, and calculating one or more direction distributions from the frequency distributions in Compton scattering process (see abstract; paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0057 and 0102; claims 23).
Rodrigues and Petrak disclose similar methods/apparatuses for measuring gamma radiation.
It 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 to provide teachings of using a ListWode Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (LM-OSEM) reconstruction algorithm and/or an Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (OSEM) reconstruction algorithm are common statics image reconstruction methods to acquiring measurement values as suggested by Petrak in the method and apparatus of Rodriques, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to calculating one or more direction distributions from the frequency distributions in Compton scattering process.
It would have been obvious to treat Rodrigues and Petrak as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 28, 31, 53 and 56 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Conclusion
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 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./ March 16, 2026