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 statement filed 01/06/25 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because:
A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent, publication, or other information listed that is not in the English language. The concise explanation may be either separate from applicant’s specification or incorporated therein.
A copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in § 1.56(c).
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the signal control unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Valentino (US 2015/0090891 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
229
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Valentino discloses a positron/gamma-ray dual detector comprising (as seen on Figure 1 attached herein showing SPECT/PET device): a scintillator unit comprising a first scintillator configured to react with positrons and emit a first scintillation, and a second scintillator disposed adjacent to the first scintillator and configured to react with gamma rays transmitted through the first scintillator and emit a second scintillation (see multiple scintillator arrays #110 adjacent to each other; see paragraph 0004); a photosensor configured to detect any one or more of the first scintillation and the second scintillation and generate and output a detection signal (see photosensor arrays #112; see paragraph 0004); a casing configured to accommodate therein the scintillator unit and the photosensor and having an inlet hole formed at one end to allow the positrons or the gamma rays to enter the first scintillator (see Figures 2 ad 4 showing the components in one structure and having a pinhole #204 in module #1081, see paragraphs 0020-0022); and a signal processing unit configured to receive the output detection signal and identify the positrons and gamma rays, which entered through the inlet hole, based on the received detection signal (see reconstructor #126 as described by paragraphs 0027-0028).
With respect to claim 2, Valentino discloses a collimator which is detachably attached to one end of the casing (see collimator #114 in Figure 1 and further seen in Figures 2-5) and has a gamma-ray passage that communicates with the inlet hole of the casing so that the gamma rays emitted in a predetermined direction are incident on the first scintillator (see Figures 2 ad 4 showing the components in one structure and having a pinhole #204 in module #1081, see paragraphs 0020-0022 wherein the predetermined direction are incident as shown in Figures 2 and 3 by showing path #208 and path #306 respectively).
With respect to claim 3, Valentino discloses one end of the casing is inserted into and screwed to the collimator, and the dual detector further comprises a ring-shaped cover sleeve that is screwed to one end of the casing after the collimator is detached (see paragraphs 0020 and 0029 and Figure 6 showing the member #118 having the collimator screwed to ring #102 since it is moveable affixed).
With respect to claim 5, Valentino discloses the second scintillator comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of GSO, GPS, LuAG, GAGG, BGO, YAP, and LYSO (see paragraph 0006 disclosing LYSO).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentino (US 2015/0090891 A1) in view of Newman (US 2020/0037635 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Valentino discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for specifying that the first scintillator comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of CaF2(Eu), plastic, and stilbene. However, Newman discloses the first scintillator comprises any one or more selected from the group consisting of CaF2(Eu), plastic, and stilbene (see paragraphs 0044-0045 disclosing all 3 material types). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was made to have use the first scintillator in any one or more selected from the group consisting of CaF2(Eu), plastic, and stilbene as a material for a scintillator as taught by Newman with Valentinos’ scintillator material for the purpose of disclosing a preferred material according to its suitability between all the known materials to form a scintillator that performs the function of producing the process of scintillation by detecting a particle, like gamma rays to converted ana analyze it (as taught in paragraphs 0039-0040) wherein the material chosen according to its suitability to be used in different medical devices to image radiation with multiple energies, including SPECT, PET gamma ray detector or multiple radiation types, such as photons and neutrons, electrons, etc. as intended and known by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentino (US 2015/0090891 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2017/0329024 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Valentino discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for a temperature sensor that detects a temperature of the photosensor and generates and outputs temperature information, wherein the signal processing unit receives the output temperature information and compensates for the detection signal. However, Yang discloses a temperature sensor that detects a temperature of the photosensor and generates and outputs temperature information, wherein the signal processing unit receives the output temperature information and compensates for the detection signal (see paragraphs 0042-0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a temperature sensor that detects a temperature of the photosensor and generates and outputs temperature information, wherein the signal processing unit receives the output temperature information and compensates for the detection signal as taught by Yang in combination with Valentino’s component for the purpose of to determine whether the electronic pulse corresponds to a neutron or gamma radiation with a look-up table and compensate the radiation counter according to the type of radiation (see paragraphs 0042-0043).
With respect to claim 8, Valentino discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for specifying that the signal control unit identifies the positrons and the gamma rays based on a waveform of the detection signal. However, Yang discloses a signal control unit identifies the positrons and the gamma rays based on a waveform of the detection signal (see paragraphs 0042-0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a signal control unit that identifies the positrons and the gamma rays based on a waveform of the detection signal as taught by Yang in combination with Valentino’s processor for the purpose of to determine whether the electronic pulse corresponds to a neutron or gamma radiation with a look-up table and compensate the radiation counter according to the type of radiation (see paragraphs 0042-0043).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentino (US 2015/0090891 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 8,880,144 B2).
With respect to claim 7, Valentino discloses a handle connected to the other end of the casing and formed to be gripped by a user (as seen on Figure 6 labeled herein as H in order to move it to a determine location as discussed in paragraphs 0020 and 0029). Furthermore, Valentino discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for a signal cable that penetrates an inside of the handle and transmits the detection signal to the signal processing unit. However, Kang discloses a signal cable that penetrates an inside and transmits the detection signal to the signal processing unit (see Figure 5 showing cable #520 passing through the device configure to include scintillator #511 and photodetector #515 to the processing unit #550). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a signal cable that penetrates an inside and transmits the detection signal to the signal processing unit as taught by Kang in combination with Valentino’s configuration for the purpose providing a known method to communicate and transmit the detection signal to the signal processing unit for processing said signal into data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art cited in the PTO 892 not relied upon discloses different configuration that includes photodetectors with scintillators with collimator and without collimators. Also, the additional prior art cited not relied upon discloses different materials for the scintillators or including cable/wire to connect with a processor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXOMARA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Raymond Keith can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/DIXOMARA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights