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(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 5 step S560
Fig. 8 elements 840, 842, 844, and 846
Fig. 10 element 1010 is mentioned as image 1000.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For consistency across claims “a coincidence time” should be changed to “coincidence time”
Claim 1 lines 11 and 14
Claim 3 line 3
Claim 6 line 4
Claim 9 line 5
Claim 16 line 5
“the positron emission tomography scanner” should be “a positron emission tomography scanner”
Claim 12 line 3
Claim 18 line 4
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,990. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of ‘990 U.S. Patent obviously encompasses the present claimed invention and differ only in the terminology [‘990 U.S. Patent is narrower than the present application]. Accordingly, in respect to above discussions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the teachings of claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-30 of ‘990 U.S. Patent as general teachings for a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for modifying PET data to remove regions of motion during times of motion as claimed by the present application. The claimed invention of ‘357 U.S. Patent obviously encompasses the present claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,990 in view of Wang (Wang J, Dong Y, Li H, Feng T. An image reconstruction method with a locally adaptive gating scheme for PET data. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2018 Aug 1;63(16):165010.). Claim 1 does not explicitly disclose or fairly suggest “wherein the positron emission tomography scanner is a long axial field of view positron emission tomography scanner.”
However, Wang discloses wherein the positron emission tomography scanner is a long axial field of view positron emission tomography scanner. (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶ 4- found on p. 3 and Section 2.3. Validation using simulated large FOV data ¶1; long axial FOV scanner is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of ‘990 U.S. Patent claim 1 with teachings of Wang by implementing the method on a long axial field of view positron emission tomography scanner in order to avoid unnecessary over-gating (Wang Section 1. Introduction ¶3 – found on p. 2).
Claims 11 and 17 of the instant application are the correspond method and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims to claim 4. They are rejected for similar reasons for non-statutory double patenting as not being patentably distinct from claims 8 and 15 of ‘990 U.S. Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (Wang J, Dong Y, Li H, Feng T. An image reconstruction method with a locally adaptive gating scheme for PET data. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2018 Aug 1;63(16):165010.).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses A system comprising: a positron emission tomography scanner to scan an object and generate first data describing a plurality of coincidences, each of the plurality of coincidences associated with a coincidence time and a line of response; and (Wang Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation ¶1; List-mode PET data is disclosed. List-mode date includes lines of response with position and timing associated with it.) a processing unit to: (Wang Section 4. Discussion ¶3 – found on p. 9; reconstruction is implemented on a PC with a CPU core.) determine a region of the object; (Wang Section 2.2 Image reconstruction with spatially variant number of gates - ¶5-6 – found on p.5-7 and Fig. 4; motion information determines regions of the object that need to be gated. The top graph shows how differing spatial coordinates have different amounts of motion (i.e. regions are selected).) determine lines of response of the positron emission tomography scanner which pass through the region; (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; counts per gate show how many lines of response pass through that specific region. (Section 2.2. Image reconstruction with a spatially variant number of gates - ¶1 – found on p. 5; counts refer to photon counts corresponding to lines of response.) determine time periods of motion of the region; (Wang Section 2.2 Image reconstruction with spatially variant number of gates - ¶5-6 – found on p.5-7 and Fig. 4; motion information determines regions of the object that need to be gated. Each gate represents different phases of motion/ time periods of motion. See also Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation - ¶1 – found on p. 4) modify the first data to remove coincidences which are associated with the determined lines of response and which are associated with a coincidence time during the determined time periods of motion of the region, the modified first data including coincidences which are not associated with the determined lines of response and which are associated with a coincidence time during the determined time periods of motion of the region; (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; each region has a region specific number of gates (blocks of motion time). It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the heart and lung regions have more gates than the lower limbs. The lower limbs have visually higher SNR than the heart and lung region. The counts per gate graph shows that counts are removed/ not used in every gate in the heart and lung regions. While all of the counts are used in the lower limb region (not a region of motion). ) reconstruct an image of the object based on the modified first data; and display the image. (Wang Fig. 2, 5 and 6; adaptive gating result is displayed and compared to conventional gating and no gating (in fig. 5 and 6).)
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the claim limitations with respect to claim 1, as described above. Wang further discloses wherein modification of the first data comprises ignoring the coincidences which are associated with the determined lines of response and which are associated with a coincidence time during a time period of motion of the region during list mode replay. (Wang Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation ¶1; binning list-mode data into time frames based on respiratory motion is disclosed.)
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the claim limitations with respect to claim 1, as described above. Wang further discloses wherein the positron emission tomography scanner is a long axial field of view positron emission tomography scanner. (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶ 4- found on p. 3 and Section 2.3. Validation using simulated large FOV data ¶1; long axial FOV scanner is disclosed.)
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the claim limitations with respect to claim 1, as described above. Wang further discloses further comprising: the processing unit further to: determine a second region of the object; determine second lines of response of the positron emission tomography scanner which pass through the second region; and determine second time periods of motion of the second region, (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; Multiple regions are created based on amplitude of motion. (Section 2.2. Image reconstruction with a spatially variant number of gates - ¶1 – found on p. 5; counts refer to photon counts corresponding to lines of response.) See also Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation - ¶1 – found on p. 4. It can be seen in Fig. 2 that a different number of gates correspond to different regions of the body. There is a peak number of gates with the number reducing to one outside regions of motion. It can also be seen that the counts per gate increase outside of the region of motion. Therefore, multiple regions are created with differing time periods of motion (otherwise there would be the same number of gates).) wherein modification of the first data comprises removal of coincidences which are associated with the determined second lines of response and which are associated with coincidence time during the second determined time periods of motion of the second region. (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; each region has a region specific number of gates (blocks of motion time). It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the heart and lung regions have more gates than the lower limbs. The lower limbs have visually higher SNR than the heart and lung regions. The counts per gate graph shows that counts are removed/ not used in every gate in the heart and lung regions. While all of the counts are used in the lower limb region (not a region of motion). )
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the claim limitations with respect to claim 1, as described above. Wang further discloses wherein modifying the first data comprises scaling the first data which is associated with the determined lines of response based on the removed coincidences associated with the determined lines of response. (Wang Section 4. Discussion ¶ 5-6 – found on p. 11; a sensitivity normalization factor is disclosed.)
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses A method comprising: acquiring first data describing a plurality of coincidences detected during a scan of an object, each of the plurality of coincidences associated with a coincidence time and a line of response; (Wang Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation ¶1; List-mode PET data is disclosed. List-mode date includes lines of response with position and timing associated with it.) acquiring a motion signal associated with motion of the object during the scan; (Wang Abstract; motion amplitude is approximated using registration of 2D maximum intensity projections.) determine a region of the object; (Wang Section 2.2 Image reconstruction with spatially variant number of gates - ¶5-6 – found on p.5-7 and Fig. 4; motion information determines regions of the object that need to be gated. The top graph shows how differing spatial coordinates have different amounts of motion (i.e. regions are selected).) determining lines of response which pass through a region of the object; (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; counts per gate show how many lines of response pass through that specific region. (Section 2.2. Image reconstruction with a spatially variant number of gates - ¶1 – found on p. 5; counts refer to photon counts corresponding to lines of response.) determine time periods of motion of the region; (Wang Section 2.2 Image reconstruction with spatially variant number of gates - ¶5-6 – found on p.5-7 and Fig. 4; motion information determines regions of the object that need to be gated. Each gate represents different phases of motion/ time periods of motion. See also Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation - ¶1 – found on p. 4) modify the first data to remove coincidences which are associated with the determined lines of response and which are associated with coincidence time during the determined time periods of motion of the region, the modified first data including coincidences which are not associated with the determined lines of response and which are associated with a coincidence time during the determined time periods of motion of the region; (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; each region has a region specific number of gates (blocks of motion time). It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the heart and lung regions have more gates than the lower limbs. The lower limbs have visually higher SNR than the heart and lung region. The counts per gate graph shows that counts are removed/ not used in every gate in the heart and lung regions. While all of the counts are used in the lower limb region (not a region of motion). ) reconstruct an image of the object based on the modified first data; and display the image. (Wang Fig. 2, 5 and 6; adaptive gating result is displayed and compared to conventional gating and no gating (in fig. 5 and 6).)
Regarding claims 11-12, and 14, they are the correspond method claims to claims 4-5, and 7 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 15, 17-18, and 20 they are the correspond method claims to claims 1, 4-5, and 7 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 9-10, 13, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Wang J, Dong Y, Li H, Feng T. An image reconstruction method with a locally adaptive gating scheme for PET data. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2018 Aug 1;63(16):165010.) in view of Feng (Feng T, Wang J, Sun Y, Zhu W, Dong Y, Li H. Self-gating: an adaptive center-of-mass approach for respiratory gating in PET. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 2017 Dec 14;37(5):1140-8.).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the claim limitations with respect to claim 1, as described above.
Wang does not explicitly state where each of the plurality of coincidences is associated with time-of-flight information, and the processing unit is to: determine coincidences which are associated with the determined lines of response, with time-of-flight information associated with the region, and with coincidence time occurring during the determined time periods of motion of the region, and wherein modification of the first data comprises removal of the determined coincidences.
Feng, however, discloses Feng, however, discloses where each of the plurality of coincidences is associated with time-of-flight information, and the processing unit is to: determine coincidences which are associated with the determined lines of response, with time-of-flight information associated with the region, and with coincidence time occurring during the determined time periods of motion of the region, and wherein modification of the first data comprises removal of the determined coincidences. (Feng Section 1. Introduction ¶4 and 7 and Section II. Methods – A. System Geometry and Signal Extraction ¶1-5 – found on p. 1141; utilizing time of flight data in gating is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang with teachings of Feng by utilizing time-of-flight information as in Feng because time of flight data improves signal quality through more accurate event localization (Feng Section 1. Introduction ¶7 – found on p. 1140-1141).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the claim limitations with respect to claim 5, as described above. Wang further discloses and the processing unit is to: determine first coincidences which are associated with the determined lines of response, (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; counts per gate show how many lines of response pass through that specific region. Section 2.2 Image reconstruction with spatially variant number of gates - ¶5-6 – found on p.5-7 and Fig. 4; motion information determines regions of the object that need to be gated. Each gate represents different phases of motion/ time periods of motion. See also Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation - ¶1 – found on p. 4) determine second coincidences which are associated with the second determined lines of response, (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; Multiple regions are created based on amplitude of motion. (Section 2.2. Image reconstruction with a spatially variant number of gates - ¶1 – found on p. 5; counts refer to photon counts corresponding to lines of response.) See also Section 2.1 Motion amplitude estimation - ¶1 – found on p. 4. It can be seen in Fig. 2 that a different number of gates correspond to different regions of the body. There is a peak number of gates with the number reducing to one outside regions of motion. It can also be seen that the counts per gate increase outside of the region of motion. Therefore, multiple regions are created with differing time periods of motion (otherwise there would be the same number of gates).) wherein modification of the first data comprises removal of the first and second coincidences. (Wang Section 2. Methods and materials ¶5 and Fig. 2 ; each region has a region specific number of gates (blocks of motion time). It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the heart and lung regions have more gates than the lower limbs. The lower limbs have visually higher SNR than the heart and lung region. The counts per gate graph shows that counts are removed/ not used in every gate in the heart and lung region. While all of the counts are used in the lower limb region (not a region of motion). )
Wang does not explicitly state where each of the plurality of coincidences is associated with time-of-flight information.
Feng, however, discloses where each of the plurality of coincidences is associated with time-of-flight information, (Feng Section 1. Introduction ¶4 and 7 and Section II. Methods – A. System Geometry and Signal Extraction ¶1-5 – found on p. 1141; utilizing time of flight data in gating is disclosed.)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang with teachings of Feng by utilizing time-of-flight information as in Feng because time of flight data improves signal quality through more accurate event localization (Feng Section 1. Introduction ¶7 – found on p. 1140-1141).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13 they are the corresponding method claims to claims 2-3, and 6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, they are the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claims to claims 2 and 6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US 20190133542 A1) Systems and methods for data-driven respiratory gating in positron emission tomography (PET) are provided. In some aspects, a provided method for generating motion information from PET imaging includes receiving time-of-flight (TOF) data acquired using a PET system, and selecting, using at least one image reconstructed from the TOF data, a region of interest (ROI) having tissues subject to motion. The method also includes generating a TOF sinogram mask by projecting an image mask corresponding to the ROI into a sinogram space, and applying the TOF sinogram mask to a TOF sinogram, produced using the TOF data, to identify data in the TOF sinogram associated with motion. The method further includes generating motion information using the data identified.
Jansen (US 20210196219 A1) Methods and systems are provided for medical imaging systems. In one embodiment, a method for a medical imaging system comprises acquiring emission data during a positron emission tomography (PET) scan of a patient, reconstructing a series of live PET images while acquiring the emission data, and tracking motion of the patient during the acquiring based on the series of live PET images. In this way, patient motion during the scan may be identified and compensated for via scan acquisition and/or data processing adjustments, thereby producing a diagnostic PET image with reduced motion artifacts and increased diagnostic quality.
Hu (US 9262844 B2) Methods and systems for processing data for medical imaging are disclosed. The method includes obtaining a set of continuous bed motion (CBM) data from a first imaging modality. The set of CBM data includes a plurality of gating signals. A CBM normalization matrix is calculated. The CBM normalization matrix calculation includes the plurality of gating signals. An image is reconstructed from the CBM data and the CBM normalization matrix. The first imaging modality can be a PET imaging device.
Oliver (US 20130287278 A1) A PET scanner (20, 22, 24, 26) generates a plurality of time stamped lines of response (LORs). A motion detector (30) detects a motion state, such as motion phase or motion amplitude, of the subject during acquisition of each of the LORs. A sorting module (32) sorts the LORs by motion state and a reconstruction processor (36) reconstructs the LORs into high spatial, low temporal resolution images in the corresponding motion states. A motion estimator module (40) determines a motion transform which transforms the LORs into a common motion state. A reconstruction module (50) reconstructs the motion corrected LORs into a static image or dynamic images, a series of high temporal resolution, high spatial resolution images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-5805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/MEREDITH TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights