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
A preliminary amendment filed July 15, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 21-29 are newly added. Claims 1-29 are now pending in this application for examination.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 21-22, 25, and 28-29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollenweber, (US-PGPUB 20160135768) in view of Gu et al, (US-PGPUB 2018/0308264)
Regarding claim 1, Wollenweber et al discloses a system, (Fig. 2), comprising:
an input device to receive a selection of a region of a patient, (see at least: Par.
0056, regions of interest and/or the select range, for example, may be selected by the clinician through the operator workstation 234, using an input device 244); and
a positron emission tomography (PET) imaging system, (see at least: Fig. 2),
comprising a plurality of PET detectors, (see at least: Fig. 2, where elements 223, 225, 227, 229, correspond to the plurality of PET detectors); the PET imaging system configured to:
determine, from the plurality of PET detectors, a first subset of PET detectors associated with the region, (see at least: Par. 0028, coincidence may be determined based on the LOR (e.g., 217, 219) formed between the detectors (e.g., 223 and 225, 227 and 229); and further on Par. 0032, selecting a subset 312 of the acquired PET coincidence event data corresponding to an initial time window 310, [i.e., determine, from the plurality of PET detectors, “detectors 223 and 225, 227 and 229), a first subset of PET detectors, “subset 312 of the acquired PET coincidence event data”, associated with the region, “the region of interest 215”]);
perform a PET scan to acquire raw PET data using only the first subset of PET detectors associated with the region, (see at least: Par. 0028-0029, PET coincidence event pairs are located and recorded as a PET coincidence event data packet, “i.e., acquiring raw PET data”, such that the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, and events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., perform a PET scan to acquire raw PET data, “implicit by recording PET coincidence event pairs as a PET coincidence event data packet”, using only the first subset of PET detectors associated with the region, “implicit by discarding events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274”]);
Wollenweber does not expressly disclose generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data.
However, Gu et al discloses generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data, (see at least: Par. 0067-0068, a PET image may be reconstructed based on the PET image data, (raw data), of the first part, where the first part may be a portion of the whole body, “i.e., region”, [i.e., generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data]).
Wollenweber and Gu et al are combinable because they are all concerned with PET imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify Wollenweber, to use the reconstruction module 420, as though by Gu et al, in order to reconstruct the PET image based on the raw data, (Gu et al, Par. 0068)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses wherein determination of the first subset of PET detectors associated with the region comprises identification of a second subset of the plurality of PET detectors that do not correspond to the region, (see at least: Par. 0028, detecting the PET coincidence event that pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, as well as the events that cannot be paired, [i.e., identification of a second subset of the plurality of PET detectors that do not correspond to the region, “:the events that cannot be paired”]; and wherein performance of the PET scan to acquire the raw PET data from the region comprises disabling of the second subset of PET detectors during the acquisition of the raw PET data, (see at least: Par. 0028, events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., disabling of the second subset of PET detectors during the acquisition of the raw PET data, “implicit by discarding events that cannot be paired”]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses wherein performance of the PET scan to acquire the raw PET data from the region comprises: identification of coincidences from events detected by first pairs of PET detectors of the first subset of PET detectors, (see at least: Par. 0028-0029, PET coincidence event pairs are located and recorded as a PET coincidence event data packet); and not identifying coincidences from events detected by second pairs of PET detectors of the PET imaging system, where at least one PET detector of each of the second pairs of PET detectors is not in the first subset of PET detectors, (see at least: Par. 0028, the PET coincidence events are detected using the two detectors 227 and 229, while the events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., at least one PET detector of each of the second pairs of PET detectors, “the detector 274”, is not in the first subset of PET detectors, “the detector 274 is not in the first subset of PET detectors 227 and 229”]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses wherein performance of the PET scan to acquire the raw PET data from the region comprises: identification of coincidences from events associated with lines of response defined by first pairs of PET detectors of the first subset of PET detectors; and not identifying coincidences from events associated with lines of response defined by second pairs of PET detectors of the PET imaging system, where at least one PET detector of each of the second pairs of PET detectors is not in the first subset of PET detectors, (see at least: Par. 0028, the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200. Events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., identification of coincidences from events associated with lines of response defined by first pairs of PET detectors of the first subset of PET detectors, “implicit by forming LOR 217 by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229”; and not identifying coincidences from events associated with lines of response defined by second pairs of PET detectors of the PET imaging system, “implicit by discarding events that cannot be paired by the coincidence detector 274”, where at least one PET detector of each of the second pairs of PET detectors is not in the first subset of PET detectors, “the detector 274 is not part of two detectors 227 and 229”]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses that the PET imaging system further comprising a coincidence detection system to detect coincidences, (see at least: Par. 0028, coincidence may be determined based on the LOR (e.g., 217, 219), “i.e., gantry 220 corresponds to the coincidence detection system”, wherein performance of the PET scan to acquire the raw PET data from the region comprises:
passing of events detected by the first subset of PET detectors to the coincidence detection system, (see at least: Par. 0028, implicit by communicating the PET coincidence event data packet through a physical communication link 264 to a sorter/ histogrammer circuit 280 in the image reconstruction controller 262); and not passing events detected by ones of the plurality of PET detectors which are not in the first subset of PET detectors to the coincidence detection system, (see at least: Par. 0028, the events that cannot be paired are implicitly not in the PET coincidence events, and are not packet through a physical communication link 264 , as they are discarded by the coincidence detector 274).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses wherein an axial length of the plurality of PET detectors
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial length of the plurality of PET detectors, that is greater than 50 cm, and the axial length of the first subset of PET detectors, that is equal to or less than 26 cm. Applicant has not disclosed that the fact of having the axial length of the plurality of PET detectors, that is greater than 50 cm, and the axial length of the first subset of PET detectors, that is equal to or less than 26 cm, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. A person of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either using the LOR (e.g., 217, 219), as though by Wollenweber, or the claimed axial lengths, because both systems perform the same function of reconstructing one or more PET images.
Regarding claim 10, Wollenweber discloses a method for scanning a region of a patient, the method comprising:
performing a positron emission tomography (PET) scan using a PET imaging system to acquire raw PET data comprising a plurality of coincidence events, the raw PET data comprising a first one or more portions corresponding to the region and a second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, (see at least: Par. 0028-0029, PET coincidence event pairs are located and recorded as a PET coincidence event data packet, “i.e., acquiring raw PET data”, such that the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, and events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., perform a PET scan to acquire raw PET data, “implicit by recording PET coincidence event pairs as a PET coincidence event data packet”. Further, on Par. 0032-0033, subset 312 corresponds to cells of the PET list data 306 or, specifically, PET coincidence event data that is within the initial time window 310, [i.e., where the raw PET data comprising a first one or more portions, ““a subset 312 of the acquired PET coincidence event data”, corresponding to the region, “ corresponding to an initial time window 310 relative to specific region”, and a second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, “implicitly the subsets of events that cannot be paired”]);
determining the first one or more portions corresponding to the region, (see at least: Par. 0032-0033, selects a subset 312 of the acquired PET coincidence event data corresponding to an initial time window 310, [i.e., determining the first one or more portions, “Implicit by selecting a subset 312 of the acquired PET coincidence event data”, corresponding to the region, “the time window 310 is implicitly relative to specific region”]); and
Although, disclosing acquiring raw PET scan using the first one or more portions of the raw PET data corresponding to the region and not the second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, (see at least: Par. 0032-0033, “see the remarks above with respect to first limitation of the claim 10”); Wollenweber does not expressly disclose generating a PET image of the region using the raw PET scan.
However, Gu et al discloses generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data, (see at least: Par. 0067-0068, a PET image may be reconstructed based on the PET image data, (raw data), of the first part, where the first part may be a portion of the whole body, “i.e., region”, [i.e., generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data]).
Wollenweber and Gu et al are combinable because they are all concerned with PET imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify Wollenweber, to use the reconstruction module 420, as though by Gu et al, with the Wollenweber’s one or portions of the raw PET data corresponding to the region, in order to reconstruct the PET image based on the raw data, (Gu et al, Par. 0068).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 10.
Wollenweber further discloses receiving a selection of the region from a user, (see at least: Par. 0033, initial time window 310 may be determined by a multivariate data analysis module (MDAM) 294 based on inputs received from the clinician through the operator workstation 234, “i.e., receiving a selection of the region, “implicit be determining the initial time window 310”, from a user, “inputs received from the clinician”]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 10.
Wollenweber further discloses the raw PET data comprising a sinogram including the first one or more portions corresponding to the region and the second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, (see at least: Par. 0029, the PET coincidence events may be stored in the form of a sinogram based on corresponding LORs within the PET list data 290, [i.e., the raw PET data, “PET coincidence events”, implicitly comprising a sinogram”]. Further, on Par. 0028, Par. 0028, detecting the PET coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, as well as the events that cannot be paired, [i.e., the PET coincidence events stored in the form of a sinogram implicitly including the first one or more portions corresponding to the region, “coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET”, and the second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, “the events that cannot be paired”]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 10.
Wollenweber further discloses the raw PET data comprising listmode data including the first one or more portions corresponding to the region and the second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, (see at least: Par. 0029, the detected PET coincidence events may be recorded in the PET list data 290, [i.e., the raw PET data, “PET coincidence events”, comprising listmode data, “implicit by recording PET coincidence events in the PET list data 290”]. Further, on Par. 0028, detecting the PET coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, as well as the events that cannot be paired, [i.e., the PET coincidence events recorded in the PET list data 290, implicitly including the first one or more portions corresponding to the region, “coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET”, and the second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, “the events that cannot be paired”]).
Regarding claim 21, Wollenweber discloses a method comprising:
determining, from PET data, a first portion of the PET data corresponding to a region and a second portion of the PET data not corresponding to the region, (see at least: Fig. 2, Par. 0028, where the plurality of LOR’s (217, 219, 221) corresponds to the PET data. The LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, where the events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., a first portion of the PET data corresponding to a region, “the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view”, and a second portion of the PET data not corresponding to the region, “the events that cannot be paired”]); and
generating a event pairs as a PET coincidence event data packet, using the PET coincidence event that pass through a field of view, and discarding the events that cannot be paired).
Wollenweber does not expressly disclose generating a PET image of the region based on the first portion of the PET data corresponding to the region and not on the second portion of the PET data not corresponding to the region.
However, Gu et al discloses generating a PET image of the region based on the PET image data, (see at least: Par. 0067-0068, a PET image may be reconstructed based on the PET image data, (raw data), of the first part, where the first part may be a portion of the whole body, “i.e., region”, [i.e., generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data]).
Wollenweber and Gu et al are combinable because they are all concerned with PET imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify Wollenweber, to app the reconstruction module 420, as though by Gu et al, on the Wollenweber’s PET image data, in order to reconstruct the PET image based on the raw data, (Gu et al, Par. 0068).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses wherein the PET data comprises a plurality of coincidence events corresponding to lines-of-response (LORs), and determining the first portion of the PET data comprises: determining the LORs which pass through the region, (see at least: Par. 0025, 0028-0029, the plurality of LOR’s (217, 219, 221) corresponds to the PET data, and the PET scanner acquire PET coincidence events along various LORs 217, 219, 221), “i.e., the LORs 217, 219, 221 are implicitly detected by the PET imaging system”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses wherein the PET data comprises a plurality of coincidence events corresponding to lines-of-response (LORs), and determining the first portion of the PET data comprises: determining the LORs which pass through the region, (see at least: Par. 0025, 0028-0029, the plurality of LOR’s (217, 219, 221) corresponds to the PET data, and the PET scanner acquire PET coincidence events along various LORs 217, 219, 221), “i.e., the LORs 217, 219, 221 are implicitly detected by the PET imaging system”).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses the PET data comprising a sinogram including the first portion corresponding to the region and the second portion not corresponding to the region, (see at least: Par. 0029, the PET coincidence events may be stored in the form of a sinogram based on corresponding LORs within the PET list data 290, [i.e., the raw PET data, “PET coincidence events”, implicitly comprising a sinogram”]. Further, on Par. 0028, Par. 0028, detecting the PET coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, as well as the events that cannot be paired, [i.e., the PET coincidence events stored in the form of a sinogram implicitly including the first one or more portions corresponding to the region, “coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET”, and the second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, “the events that cannot be paired”]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 21.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses the PET data comprising listmode data including the first portion corresponding to the region and the second portion not corresponding to the region, (see at least: Par. 0029, the detected PET coincidence events may be recorded in the PET list data 290, [i.e., the raw PET data, “PET coincidence events”, comprising listmode data, “implicit by recording PET coincidence events in the PET list data 290”]. Further, on Par. 0028, detecting the PET coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, as well as the events that cannot be paired, [i.e., the PET coincidence events recorded in the PET list data 290, implicitly including the first one or more portions corresponding to the region, “coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET”, and the second one or more portions not corresponding to the region, “the events that cannot be paired”]).
Claims 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollenweber and Gu, as applied to claim 1 above; and further in view of Ji et al, (US-PGPUB 20200000425)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Wollenweber further discloses wherein performance of the PET scan to acquire the raw PET data from the region comprises disabling a second subset of PET detectors corresponding to the selected blocks during the acquisition of the raw PET data, (see at least: Par. 0028, the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200. Events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [which the coincidence detector 274 is technically disable when detecting the PET coincidence event by the two detectors 227 and 229).
The combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole does not expressly disclose wherein receipt of the selection of the region comprises: selection of one or more displayed blocks extending axially along at least one side of a displayed image of the patient.
Ji et al discloses wherein receipt of the selection of the region comprises: selection of one or more displayed blocks extending axially along at least one side of a displayed image of the patient, (see at least: Par. 0134-0135, operator may manually mark a region including the chest of the patient in the 3D image and/or the topogram image, [i.e., the operator implicitly selects one or more displayed blocks extending axially along at least one side of a displayed image of the patient, “implicitly by manually mark a region including the chest of the patient in the 3D image and/or the topogram image”]).
Wollenweber, Gu et al, and Ji et al are combinable because they are all concerned with medical imaging processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify the combination of Wollenweber and Gu, to manually marking an anatomical region of the patient in the topogram image, by the user, as though by Ji et al, in order generate a DOM profile 910 associated with an anatomical region of an object on which a CT scan is performed, (Ji, Par. 0134)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole does not expressly disclose wherein receipt of the selection of the region comprises: selection of one or more displayed blocks extending axially along at least one side of a displayed image of the patient, and wherein determination of the first subset of PET detectors associated with the region comprises determination of PET detectors corresponding to the selected blocks.
Ji et al discloses selection of one or more displayed blocks extending axially along at least one side of a displayed image of the patient, (Par. 0056, a topogram image of an object may be segmented into a plurality of regions, and identifying a reference topogram image for each of the plurality of regions, [i.e., implicitly segmenting the topogram image of an object into series of blocks extending axially along at least one side of the topogram image], and on Par. 0134-0135, operator may manually mark a region including the chest of the patient in the 3D image and/or the topogram image, [i.e., selection of one or more displayed blocks extending axially along at least one side of a displayed image of the patient, “implicit by the operator manually marking a region including the chest of the patient, including a series of blocks extending axially along at least one side of the 3D image and/or the topogram image]).
Wollenweber, Gu et al, and Ji et al are combinable because they are all concerned with medical imaging processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify the combination of Wollenweber and Gu, to manually marking an anatomical region of the patient in the topogram image, by the user, as though by Ji et al, in order generate a DOM profile 910 associated with an anatomical region of an object on which a CT scan is performed, (Ji, Par. 0134).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole does not expressly disclose presenting a series of blocks extending axially along at least one side of an image of the patient, wherein the selection of the region of interest comprises a selection of one or more of the blocks.
Ji et al discloses presenting a series of blocks extending axially along at least one side of an image of the patient, wherein the selection of the region of interest comprises a selection of one or more of the blocks, (see at least: Par. 0056, a topogram image of an object may be segmented into a plurality of regions, and identifying a reference topogram image for each of the plurality of regions, [i.e., implicitly segmenting the topogram image of an object into series of blocks extending axially along at least one side of an image of the patient]; and on Par. 0134-0135, the operator may manually mark a region including the chest of the patient in the 3D image and/or the topogram image, [i.e., presenting a series of blocks extending axially along at least one side of an image of the patient, “the region is implicitly displayed to the operator using the display 320, to enable the user to manually mark the region”, wherein the selection of the region of interest comprises a selection of one or more of the blocks, “implicit by the operator manually marking a region including the chest of the patient, including a series of blocks extending axially along at least one side of the 3D image and/or the topogram image”]).
Wollenweber, Gu et al, and Ji et al are combinable because they are all concerned with medical imaging processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify the combination of Wollenweber and Gu, to manually marking an anatomical region of the patient in the topogram image, by the user, as though by Ji et al, in order generate a DOM profile 910 associated with an anatomical region of an object on which a CT scan is performed, (Ji, Par. 0134).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollenweber and Gu, as applied to claim 1 above; and further in view of Panin et al, (US-PGPUB 20150036789 )
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Wollenweber discloses a computed tomography (CT) imaging system configured to: perform a CT scan of the region, (see at least: Par. 0056, the regions of interest and/or the select range may be based on computer tomography (CT) preliminary scans, [i.e., implicitly using computer tomography (CT) system to perform scan on the region]).
The combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole does not expressly disclose wherein an axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm.
However, Panin et al discloses defining an axial length of the CT scan, (see at least: Par. 0026, the axial length of image reconstruction is defined by the CT scan).
Wollenweber, Gu et al, and Panin are combinable because they are all concerned with medical imaging processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify the combination of Wollenweber and Gu, to define the axial length of image reconstruction by the CT scan, as though by Panin, in order to deliver an axial extent-dependent radiation dose, in the PET/CT system, (Par. 0026).
The combination of Wollenweber, Gu et al, and Panin as whole does not expressly disclose that the axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the axial length of the CT scan to be equal to or less than 26 cm. Applicant has not disclosed that using the axial length of the CT scan, that is equal to or less than 26 cm, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. A person of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the axial length of image reconstruction, that is defined by the CT scan, as though by Panin, or the claimed axial length of the CT scan, that is equal to or less than 26 cm, because both axial lengths of the CT scan, perform the same function of delivering an axial extent-dependent radiation dose to the PET/CT device, (Panin, Par. 0026).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole discloses the limitations of claim 10.
Wollenweber further discloses an axial field of view of the PET imaging system, (see at least: Par. 0028, “a field of view in the PET imaging system 200”, and on Par. 0045, “field of view of the PET detector 200”), and an axial length of the region, (see at least: Fig. 2, Par. 0025, where the line of response (LOR) 217 implicitly has a length and corresponds to the axial length of the region); and performing a CT scan of the region, (see at least: Par. 0056, the regions of interest and/or the select range may be based on computer tomography (CT) preliminary scans, [i.e., implicitly using computer tomography (CT) system to perform scan on the region]).
The combination of Wollenweber and Gu as whole does not expressly disclose wherein an axial field of view of the PET imaging system is greater than 50 cm and an axial length of the region is equal to or less than 26 cm, wherein an axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm
However, Panin et al discloses an axial length of the CT scan, (see at least: Par. 0026, the axial length of image reconstruction is defined by the CT scan).
Wollenweber, Gu et al, and Panin are combinable because they are all concerned with medical imaging processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify the combination of Wollenweber and Gu, to define the axial length of image reconstruction by the CT scan, as though by Panin, in order to deliver an axial extent-dependent radiation dose, in the PET/CT system, (Par. 0026).
The combination of Wollenweber, Gu et al, and Panin as whole does not expressly disclose wherein an axial field of view of the PET imaging system is greater than 50 cm and an axial length of the region is equal to or less than 26 cm, and wherein an axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial field of view of the PET imaging system to be greater than 50 cm and an the axial length of the region to be equal to or less than 26 cm, and wherein the axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm. Applicant has not disclosed that have an axial field of view of the PET imaging system to be greater than 50 cm and the axial length of the region to be equal to or less than 26 cm, and wherein the axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. A person of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either using field of view in the PET imaging system 200, the line of response (LOR) 217, as though by Wollenweber, and the axial length of image reconstruction is defined by the CT scan, though by Panin, because these systems perform the same function of reconstructing one or more PET images.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollenweber, (US-PGPUB 20160135768), in view of Fuchs et al, (US-PGPUB 20210074036)
Regarding claim 16, Wollenweber discloses a method comprising:
performing a positron emission tomography (PET) scan using a PET imaging system to acquire raw PET data comprising a first plurality of coincidence events corresponding to a region of interest and a second plurality of coincidence events not corresponding to the region of interest, (see at least: Par. 0028-0029, PET coincidence event pairs are located and recorded as a PET coincidence event data packet, “i.e., acquiring raw PET data”, such that the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, and events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., performing a positron emission tomography (PET) scan using a PET imaging system to acquire raw PET data, “implicit by recording PET coincidence event pairs as a PET coincidence event data packet”]. Further, on Par. 0032-0033, subset 312 corresponds to cells of the PET list data 306 or, specifically, PET coincidence event data that is within the initial time window 310, [i.e., a first plurality of coincidence events corresponding to a region of interest, “a subset 312 of the acquired PET coincidence event data”, corresponding to a region of interest, “ corresponding to an initial time window 310 relative to specific region”, and a second plurality of coincidence events not corresponding to the region of interest, “implicitly the subsets of events that cannot be paired”]);
histogramming the raw PET datasorter/histogrammer circuit 280. During operation, the sorter/histogrammer circuit 280 generates a PET list data 290 or a histogram, which may be stored on the memory 282, … the PET coincidence events may be stored in the form of a sinogram based on corresponding LORs within the PET list data 290, [i.e., histogramming, “implicit by using the sorter/histogrammer circuit 280”, the raw PET data, “PET coincidence events”, implicitly comprising a sinogram”, which implicit the creating the sinogram. Further, on Par. 0028, Par. 0028, detecting the PET coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, as well as the events that cannot be paired, [i.e., the sinogram comprising the first plurality of coincidence events corresponding to the region of interest, ““coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET”, and not comprising the second plurality of coincidence events not corresponding to the region of interest, ““the events that cannot be paired”]).
Wollenweber does not expressly disclose generating a PET image of the region of interest from the sinogram.
However, Fuchs discloses also the histogramming the raw PET data to create a sinogram, (see at least: Par. 0060, the raw PET tomographic data is typically stored in 2D histograms called sinograms, [i.e., implicitly histogramming the raw PET data to create a sinogram]; and generating a PET image of the region of interest from the sinogram, (see at least: Fig. 1B, Par. 0079-0081, using a convolutional encoder-decoder (CED) architecture 145, where the encoder 150 and decoder 155 may include a series of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) 160A-F. The sinogram input data is of size 288×269×1, and encoder 150 outputs feature maps data, where each feature is a non-linear function of an extensive portion of the input image (sinogram projection data); and the decoder 155 upsamples the contracted feature representation from the encoder 150 into PET images, [i.e., generating a PET image of the region of interest, “decoder 155 implicitly output one or more PET images”, from the sinogram, “sinogram input data that is input to the encoder 150”]. Note that the region of interest is already disclosed by Wollenweber, “Fig. 2, region of interest 215”).
Wollenweber and Fuchs are combinable because they are both concerned with medical imaging processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify Wollenweber, to apply the deep convolutional encoder-decoder network, as though by Fuchs, to the Wollenweber’s region of interest 215, in order to generate PET images, by using the deep convolutional encoder-decoder network, (Fuchs, Par. 0059).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wollenweber and Fuchs as whole discloses the limitations of claim 16.
Wollenweber further discloses wherein the first plurality of coincidence events are associated with first lines of response which pass through the region of interest and the second plurality of coincidence events are associated with second lines of response which do not pass through the region of interest, (see at least: Par. 0028, the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, [i.e., wherein the first plurality of coincidence events are associated with first lines of response which pass through the region of interest]. Events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., the second plurality of coincidence events are associated with second lines of response which do not pass through the region of interest]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wollenweber and Fuchs as whole discloses the limitations of claim 16.
wherein the first plurality of coincidence events are associated with first pairs of PET detectors associated with the region of interest and the second plurality of coincidence events are associated with second pairs of PET detectors not associated with the region of interest, (see at least: Par. 0025-0028, the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200. Events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., wherein the first plurality of coincidence events are associated with first pairs of PET detectors associated with the region of interest, “implicit by forming LOR 217 by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 associated with the region of interest 215”; the second plurality of coincidence events are associated with second pairs of PET detectors not associated with the region of interest, “implicit by discarding events that cannot be paired by the coincidence detector 274 not associated with the region of interest 215”]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollenweber and Fuchs et al, as applied to claim 16 above; and further in view of Panin et al, (US-PGPUB 20150036789 )
The combination of Wollenweber and Fuchs as whole discloses the limitations of claim 16.
Wollenweber further discloses an axial field of view of the PET imaging system, (see at least: Par. 0028, “a field of view in the PET imaging system 200”, and on Par. 0045, “field of view of the PET detector 200”), and an axial length of the region, (see at least: Fig. 2, Par. 0025, where the line of response (LOR) 217 implicitly has a length and corresponds to the axial length of the region); and performing a CT scan of the region, (see at least: Par. 0056, the regions of interest and/or the select range may be based on computer tomography (CT) preliminary scans, [i.e., implicitly using computer tomography (CT) system to perform scan on the region]).
The combination of Wollenweber and Fuchs as whole does not expressly disclose wherein an axial field of view of the PET imaging system is greater than 50 cm and an axial length of the region is equal to or less than 26 cm, wherein an axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm
However, Panin et al discloses an axial length of the CT scan, (see at least: Par. 0026, the axial length of image reconstruction is defined by the CT scan).
Wollenweber, Fuchs, and Panin are combinable because they are all concerned with medical imaging processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art, to modify the combination of Wollenweber and Fuchs, to define the axial length of image reconstruction by the CT scan, as though by Panin, in order to deliver an axial extent-dependent radiation dose, in the PET/CT system, (Par. 0026).
The combination of Wollenweber, Fuchs, and Panin as whole does not expressly disclose wherein an axial field of view of the PET imaging system is greater than 50 cm and an axial length of the region is equal to or less than 26 cm, and wherein an axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an axial field of view of the PET imaging system to be greater than 50 cm and an the axial length of the region to be equal to or less than 26 cm, and wherein the axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm. Applicant has not disclosed that have an axial field of view of the PET imaging system to be greater than 50 cm and the axial length of the region to be equal to or less than 26 cm, and wherein the axial length of the CT scan is equal to or less than 26 cm, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. A person of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either using field of view in the PET imaging system 200, the line of response (LOR) 217, as though by Wollenweber, and the axial length of image reconstruction is defined by the CT scan, though by Panin, because these systems perform the same function of reconstructing one or more PET images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 23-24, and 26-27 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.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach or suggest, the following underlined limitation(s), (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
“determining radial offset values and a restricted ring difference associated with the region of interest, wherein the first plurality of coincidence events are associated with first lines of response having the radial offset values and satisfying the restricted ring difference, and wherein the second plurality of coincidence events are associated with second lines of response which do not have the radial offset values or satisfy the restricted ring difference.
The relevant prior art of record, Wollenweber, (US-PGPUB 20160135768), discloses a method comprising:
performing a positron emission tomography (PET) scan using a PET imaging system to acquire raw PET data comprising a first plurality of coincidence events corresponding to a region of interest and a second plurality of coincidence events not corresponding to the region of interest, (see at least: Par. 0028-0029, PET coincidence event pairs are located and recorded as a PET coincidence event data packet, “i.e., acquiring raw PET data”, such that the LOR 217 formed by a straight line joining the two detectors 227 and 229 that detect the PET coincidence event should pass through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, and events that cannot be paired may be discarded by the coincidence detector 274, [i.e., performing a positron emission tomography (PET) scan using a PET imaging system to acquire raw PET data, “implicit by recording PET coincidence event pairs as a PET coincidence event data packet”]. Further, on Par. 0032-0033, subset 312 corresponds to cells of the PET list data 306 or, specifically, PET coincidence event data that is within the initial time window 310, [i.e., a first plurality of coincidence events corresponding to a region of interest, “a subset 312 of the acquired PET coincidence event data”, corresponding to a region of interest, “ corresponding to an initial time window 310 relative to specific region”, and a second plurality of coincidence events not corresponding to the region of interest, “implicitly the subsets of events that cannot be paired”]); and
sinogram based on corresponding LORs within the PET list data 290, [i.e., the raw PET data, “PET coincidence events”, implicitly comprising a sinogram”, which implicit the creating the sinogram. Further, on Par. 0028, Par. 0028, detecting the PET coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET imaging system 200, as well as the events that cannot be paired, [i.e., the sinogram comprising the first plurality of coincidence events corresponding to the region of interest, ““coincidence event that passes through a field of view in the PET”, and not comprising the second plurality of coincidence events not corresponding to the region of interest, ““the events that cannot be paired”]).
However, Wollenweber fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, determining radial offset values and a restricted ring difference associated with the region of interest, wherein the first plurality of coincidence events are associated with first lines of response having the radial offset values and satisfying the restricted ring difference, and wherein the second plurality of coincidence events are associated with second lines of response which do not have the radial offset values or satisfy the restricted ring difference.
A further prior art of record, Fuchs et al, (US-PGPUB 20210074036), discloses histogramming the raw PET data to create a sinogram, (see at least: Par. 0060, the raw PET tomographic data is typically stored in 2D histograms called sinograms, [i.e., implicitly histogramming the raw PET data to create a sinogram]; and generating a PET image of the region of interest from the sinogram, (see at least: Fig. 1B, Par. 0079-0081, using a convolutional encoder-decoder (CED) architecture 145, where the encoder 150 and decoder 155 may include a series of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) 160A-F. The sinogram input data is of size 288×269×1, and encoder 150 outputs feature maps data, where each feature is a non-linear function of an extensive portion of the input image (sinogram projection data); and the decoder 155 upsamples the contracted feature representation from the encoder 150 into PET images, [i.e., generating a PET image of the region of interest, “decoder 155 implicitly output one or more PET images”, from the sinogram, “sinogram input data that is input to the encoder 150”]. Note that the region of interest is already disclosed by Wollenweber, “Fig. 2, region of interest 215”).
However, Fuchs fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, determining radial offset values and a restricted ring difference associated with the region of interest, wherein the first plurality of coincidence events are associated with first lines of response having the radial offset values and satisfying the restricted ring difference, and wherein the second plurality of coincidence events are associated with second lines of response which do not have the radial offset values or satisfy the restricted ring difference.
Another prior art of record, Gu et al (US-PGPUB 2018/0308264), discloses the generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data, (see at least: Par. 0067-0068, a PET image may be reconstructed based on the PET image data, (raw data), of the first part, where the first part may be a portion of the whole body, “i.e., region”, [i.e., generating a PET image of the region based on the raw PET data]); but fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the other cited references, the above limitations (as combined with the other claimed limitations).
With respect to claim 23, the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach or suggest, the following underlined limitation(s), (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
“wherein determining the LORs which pass through the region comprises: determining LORs having radial offset values associated with the region and satisfying a restricted ring difference associated with the region”
The prior art of records, Wollenweber, (US-PGPUB 20160135768), and Gu et al (US-PGPUB 2018/0308264), stated above with respect to claim 19, apply also to claim 23; but none, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest all the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is in condition for allowance based at least on its dependency from claim 23.
With respect to claim 26, the prior art of record, alone or in reasonable combination, does not teach or suggest, the following underlined limitation(s), (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
“wherein determining the LORs which pass through the region comprises: determining LORs having radial offset values associated with the region and satisfying a restricted ring difference associated with the region”
The prior art of records, Wollenweber, (US-PGPUB 20160135768), and Gu et al (US-PGPUB 2018/0308264), stated above with respect to claim 19, apply also to claim 26; but none, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest all the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is in condition for allowance based at least on its dependency from claim 23.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights