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 .
Notice to Applications
This communication is in response to the Application filed on August 30, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on August 30, 2024 and October 19, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 27 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered and attached by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
The certified copies have been filed as Application No. CN202311110336.9, filed on August 30, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 in line 1 recite the phrase “PET”, which is in an abbreviation form that has not been followed by the full explanation of the term, and hence needs to be clarified and defined within the claim. Applicant is respectfully suggested to include – “Positron Emission Tomography” – followed by its abbreviated form “PET”, such as disclosed in the specification of the instant application, Para. [0002].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Sowards-Emmerd et al., US 20170234990 A1, (hereinafter “Sowards-Emmerd”) in view of Perkins et al., US 20160192896 A1, (hereinafter “Perkins”) in further view of Dong et al., US 20190049605 A1, (hereinafter “Dong”).
Regarding claim 1, Sowards-Emmerd teaches a correction method for a PET system, wherein the correction method is applied to a PET system comprising depth of interaction (DOI) information, and the correction method comprises:
obtaining ([0032] “The DOI calibration unit 40 uses a ratio of the sensed luminescence from the two diagonal crystals receiving shared light or shared luminescence from the scintillating crystal at a calibrated depth determined by a radiation beam 42 beam directed from the source at the side of the scintillating crystal.”);
determining, based on the DOI information, a target LOR corresponding to the pair of coincident detector crystals ([0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs) ([0032] “The DOI calibration unit 40 uses a ratio of the sensed luminescence from the two diagonal crystals receiving shared light or shared luminescence from the scintillating crystal at a calibrated depth determined by a radiation beam 42 beam directed from the source at the side of the scintillating crystal.”);
obtaining ([0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs); and
obtaining([0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs).
Sowards-Emmerd does not specifically disclose an initial normalization correction (NC) factor of an initial line of response (LOR); the initial LOR being unrelated to the DOI information; and a target NC factor.
However, Perkins teaches an initial normalization correction (NC) factor of an initial line of response (LOR); the initial LOR being unrelated to the DOI information; and a target NC factor ([0040] “The normalization correction includes a correction factor for each of the detectors, which are calculated to give uniform responses to all detectors. During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.”) ([0040] “During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.” wherein the initial LOR is the LOR defined by the normalization correction factors) ([0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a normalization correction factor of a line of response of Perkins in the PET system correction method of Sowards-Emmerd because each line of response (LOR) have different sensitivity due to various factors that often cause quantitative errors and image artifacts in image reconstruction. The normalization correction factor of a line of response of Perkins reduces artifacts and ensures accurate quantitative imaging.
Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins does not specifically disclose a compensating coefficient for the NC factor.
However, Dong teaches a compensating coefficient for the NC factor ([0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a compensating coefficient for the NC factor of Dong in the PET system correction method of Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins to restore uniform sensitivity across each line of response (LOR), thereby enhancing the accuracy of quantitative imaging.
Regarding claim 2, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining the initial NC factor of the initial LOR corresponding to the pair of coincident detector crystals in the PET system comprises:
obtaining, based on a preset NC method, the initial NC factor of the initial LOR corresponding to the pair of coincident detector crystals in the PET system (Perkins - [0040] “The normalization correction includes a correction factor for each of the detectors, which are calculated to give uniform responses to all detectors. During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0032] “The DOI calibration unit 40 uses a ratio of the sensed luminescence from the two diagonal crystals receiving shared light or shared luminescence from the scintillating crystal at a calibrated depth determined by a radiation beam 42 beam directed from the source at the side of the scintillating crystal.”) (Perkins - [0040] “During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.” wherein the initial LOR is the LOR defined by the normalization correction factors).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 2, wherein the preset NC method includes a direct NC method and/or a component NC method (Perkins - [0040] “The normalization correction includes a correction factor for each of the detectors, which are calculated to give uniform responses to all detectors. During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein parameters of the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor include one or more of: DOI information, crystal ring difference, radial index of the target LOR, or transaxial angular index of the target LOR (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) (Dong - [0097] see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein values of parameters of the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor are obtained from sinusoidal data corresponding to the target LOR (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0029] “Each optical sensor 30 generates a signal indicative of the sensed luminescence independently through a separate input 32 to a signal processing unit 34. The optical sensors 30 of each die 20 connect to one time-to-digital converter (TDC) 36 of the signal processing unit 34”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0030] “The signal processing unit, processor, circuitry, or means 34 receives signals from the optical sensors 30 and generates a total energy value, a time value, a location indicator including the pixel or the detector location for each detected event or photon scintillation.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 4, wherein a parameter dimension of the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor is simplified by utilizing symmetry of the PET system (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) (Perkins - [0033] “In other embodiments, different source geometries can be used with respect to the model 41, including, for example, rotating line source geometries, cylindrical annulus geometries, etc.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 4, wherein the parameters of the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor include at least the transaxial angular index of the target LOR, and different target LORs with annular rotational symmetry share a same transaxial angular index (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) (Dong - [0097] see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 4, wherein the parameters of the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor include at least the crystal ring difference, and different target LORs with axial translation symmetry share a same crystal ring difference (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) (Dong - [0097] see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining, based on the initial NC factor and the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor, the target NC factor corresponding to the target LOR to correct the PET system comprises:
determining a product of the initial NC factor and the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor, and using the product as the target NC factor to correct the PET system (Perkins - [0040] “The normalization correction includes a correction factor for each of the detectors, which are calculated to give uniform responses to all detectors. During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.”) (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Dong - [0099] “In some embodiments, the PET data corrected based on the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor (also referred to as “component-scaled PET data”) may be obtained by multiplying or dividing the PET data by the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining a DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor of the target LOR relative to the initial LOR comprises:
calculating the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor of the target LOR relative to the initial LOR through an analytical calculation, the analytical calculation being based on at least one of crystal geometry, an attenuation coefficient, or an incidence direction of ray (Perkins - [0040] “The normalization correction includes a correction factor for each of the detectors, which are calculated to give uniform responses to all detectors. During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.”) (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs) (Dong - [0097] see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor of the target LOR relative to the initial LOR comprises:
obtaining a total count of initial LORs unrelated to the DOI information corresponding to the pair of coincident detector crystals (Perkins - [0040] “During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.” wherein the initial LOR is the LOR defined by the normalization correction factors);
obtaining a total count of target LORs related to the DOI information corresponding to the pair of coincident detector crystals (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs); and
obtaining, based on the total count of the initial LORs and the total count of the target LORs, the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor of the target LOR relative to the initial LOR (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 11, wherein the step of obtaining, based on the total count of the initial LORs and the total count of the target LORs, the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor of the target LOR relative to the initial LOR comprises:
calculating a ratio of the total count of the initial LORs to the total count of the target LORs, and using the ratio as the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Perkins - [0040] “During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.” wherein the initial LOR is the LOR defined by the normalization correction factors) (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein the correction method further comprises:
obtaining a spatial position corresponding to each target LOR (Sowards-Emmerd - [Claim 11] “receive outputs from the optical sensors, determine coincident pairs of scintillations that define line-of-responses, identify the photon detectors that identify ends of each LOR, a time value for each scintillation of the photon detectors that identify ends of each LOR, and the depth of interaction for each photon detectors that identify ends of each LOR, adjusts end locations of each LOR based on the DOI,”);
merging a plurality of target LORs located within a same preset spatial position range into a same virtual reconstructed LOR (Perkins - [0049] “The system normalization correction factors are stored, e.g., in a lookup table. When imaging a patient, radiation events are detected. Coincident pairs of the detected events define LORs which are reconstructed into an image. During reconstruction, each LOR is weighted with the corresponding system normalization correction factor from an LOR-based system normalization lookup table or from the system normalization correction factors of the two detectors 14 which detected the coincident pair.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [Claim 11] “receive outputs from the optical sensors, determine coincident pairs of scintillations that define line-of-responses, identify the photon detectors that identify ends of each LOR, a time value for each scintillation of the photon detectors that identify ends of each LOR, and the depth of interaction for each photon detectors that identify ends of each LOR, adjusts end locations of each LOR based on the DOI,”);
obtaining, based on target NC factors corresponding to the plurality of target LORs, respectively, a reconstructed NC factor corresponding to the virtual reconstructed LOR (Dong - [0099] “In some embodiments, the PET data corrected based on the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor (also referred to as “component-scaled PET data”) may be obtained by multiplying or dividing the PET data by the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor.”) (Perkins - [0047] “Although determining the models 39 and 41 and normalization correction factors has been described with reference to detectors 14, it is to be appreciated that the models 39 and 41 and/or the normalization correction factors can be determined based on LORs. That is, a geometric correction factor can be mathematically simulated for each of the geometrically possible LORs. Similarly, the detector efficiency normalization correction factors can be determined for each of the possible LORs.”) (Perkins - [0049] “The system normalization correction factors are stored, e.g., in a lookup table. When imaging a patient, radiation events are detected. Coincident pairs of the detected events define LORs which are reconstructed into an image. During reconstruction, each LOR is weighted with the corresponding system normalization correction factor from an LOR-based system normalization lookup table or from the system normalization correction factors of the two detectors 14 which detected the coincident pair.”); and
correcting, based on the reconstructed NC factor, the PET system (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the correction method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining, based on the initial NC factor and the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor, the target NC factor corresponding to the target LOR to correct the PET system comprises:
obtaining, based on the initial NC factor and the DOI compensating coefficient for the NC factor, the target NC factor corresponding to the target LOR (Perkins - [0040] “The normalization correction includes a correction factor for each of the detectors, which are calculated to give uniform responses to all detectors. During PET imaging, pairs of coincidently detected radiation define a line of response (LOR). As the LORs are reconstructed, each is weighted in accordance with normalization correction factors of the pair of detectors 14 that define it.”) (Dong - [0120] “In 904, a scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts at a time interval. The scale factor may be determined by, for example, the determination unit 520. The scale factor may be determined based on the LOR counts at the time interval and the component-normalized counts corresponding to LOR counts. In some embodiments, the scale factor may be a ratio between the LOR counts and the component-normalized counts.”) (Dong - [0099] “In some embodiments, the PET data corrected based on the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor (also referred to as “component-scaled PET data”) may be obtained by multiplying or dividing the PET data by the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor.”) (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs); and
reconstructing, based on the target NC factor, a PET image to correct the PET system (Perkins - [0046] “In one embodiment, the detector geometry correction component (geometric normalization) and the crystal efficiency component (detector efficiency corrections) are combined into system normalization correction factors.”) Dong - [0099] “In some embodiments, the PET data corrected based on the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor (also referred to as “component-scaled PET data”) may be obtained by multiplying or dividing the PET data by the component-norm coefficient and the scale factor.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs.” wherein a target LOR is based on the DOIs).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches a PET system, comprising an electronic device, a housing and detector crystals, wherein the electronic device is configured to perform the correction method for a PET system of claim 1 (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “A reconstruction unit, processor or means 46 receives the list mode data 44 and reconstructs one or more images, which are displayed on a display device 48 of a computing device 50, such as a workstation, desktop computer, laptop, tablet, mobile computing device, network connected distributed computing devices, and the like. In addition to normal image reconstruction processing, the reconstruction unit 46 adjusts the end points of each LOR and/or the time values for the end points based on the DOIs. The computing device 50 includes a data processor 52, such as an electronic data processor, optical processor, and the like, and one or more input devices 54, such as a mouse, keyboard, touch screen, microphone, and the like.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0010] “Each detector includes four scintillation crystals that are each partially optically coupled with two adjacent scintillation crystals.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the PET system according to claim 16, wherein the PET system comprises a plurality of rings, each of the rings has a certain number of detector crystals, and each of the detector crystals includes a plurality of layers (Sowards-Emmerd - [0028] “Each detector ring 14 includes detector tiles 20 arranged circumferentially around the imaging region 16. Each detector tile 20 includes a two-dimensional arrangement of dies 22 shown in an exploded center facing view. Each die 22 includes a scintillator array 24 of four substantially identical scintillator crystal bars 26, such as LYSO (lutetium-yttrium oxy-orthosilicate), Lutetium Oxy-Orthosilicate (LSO), Lutetium Gadolinium Oxy-Orthosilicate (LGSO), Lutetium Gadolinium Yttrium Oxy-Orthosilicate (LGYSO), Lanthanum Bromide (LaBr), or Bismuth Germanate (BGO), shown in a further exploded perspective view. Each substantially identical scintillator crystal bar 26 corresponds to one pixel or detector location.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches the PET system according to claim 17, wherein detector crystals in different rings have a same total number of layers (Sowards-Emmerd - [0028] “Each detector ring 14 includes detector tiles 20 arranged circumferentially around the imaging region 16. Each detector tile 20 includes a two-dimensional arrangement of dies 22 shown in an exploded center facing view. Each die 22 includes a scintillator array 24 of four substantially identical scintillator crystal bars 26, such as LYSO (lutetium-yttrium oxy-orthosilicate), Lutetium Oxy-Orthosilicate (LSO), Lutetium Gadolinium Oxy-Orthosilicate (LGSO), Lutetium Gadolinium Yttrium Oxy-Orthosilicate (LGYSO), Lanthanum Bromide (LaBr), or Bismuth Germanate (BGO), shown in a further exploded perspective view. Each substantially identical scintillator crystal bar 26 corresponds to one pixel or detector location.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches an electronic device comprising a memory and a processor, and a computer program executable by the processor is stored on the memory, wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the correction method for a PET system of claim 1 is implemented (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “The computing device 50 includes a data processor 52, such as an electronic data processor, optical processor, and the like, and one or more input devices 54, such as a mouse, keyboard, touch screen, microphone, and the like. The processors of the signal processing unit 34, DOI calibration unit 40, and the reconstruction unit 46 can include non-transitory storage medium storing instructions (e.g., software) readable by the data processor 52 and executable by the data processor 52.”) (Sowards-Emmerd - [0033] “The computer memory of the LUTS 38 and the list mode data 44 are suitably embodied by non-transitory computer storage mediums, such as solid state storage, disk storage, local storage, cloud storage, server storage, and the like.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Sowards-Emmerd in view of Perkins and Dong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored therein, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the correction method for a PET system of claim 1 is implemented (Sowards-Emmerd - [0034] “The processors of the signal processing unit 34, DOI calibration unit 40, and the reconstruction unit 46 can include non-transitory storage medium storing instructions (e.g., software) readable by the data processor 52 and executable by the data processor 52.”).
The motivation for combining Sowards-Emmerd, Perkins, and Dong is the same motivation as used for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA PEARSON whose telephone number is (703)-756-5786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on (571)- 270-3717. 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.
/AMANDA H PEARSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights