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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “energy information” in line 5 should read “the energy information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the corrected the data subsets” in line 4 should read “the corrected data subsets”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 18 recites in line 2 “a to-be-detected object” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear as to what is the scope of “a to-be-detected object” is ?. As recited in the claims it raises indefiniteness if an object is detected in the current tense? Or whether the object will be detected in future i.e “a to-be-detected object” as recited in the claims. Examiner further notes that the scope of “a to-be-detected object” although being broad is indefinite (because it is too much broad or undue breadth, see MPEP 2173.04) and do not draw clear metes and bounds of the claim. Also, the specification merely repeats “to-be-detected object” in various paragraphs and figs does not further delineate the scope of “a to-be-detected object” as to what object?? is to be detected? Is it brain, heart, phantom---, ---- etc so on? making claims 1 and 18 indefinite. Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 2-17 and 19-20 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 9 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 9 recites at line 4 “dividing the PET raw data in to at least two data subsets---”. The BRI of at least two means two or more. Claim 9 further recites at line 6 “performing physical correction on the data subsets respectively------“. The above recital renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to which of the above “at least two data subsets” recited in line 4, the correction is performed on “the data subsets” recited at line 6?. Is it on two? Or more than two?. Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 10-17 depends directly or indirectly on claim 9, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the data quality rule” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends from claim 11, therefore it is rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the scattering sequence recovery event” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 depends from claim 13, therefore it is rejected.
Claim 18 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 18 recites at line 8 “dividing the PET raw data in to at least two data subsets---”. The BRI of at least two means two or more. Claim 18 further recites at line 10 “performing physical correction on the data subsets respectively------“. The above recital renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to which of the above “at least two data subsets” recited in line 8, the correction is performed on “the data subsets” recited at line 10?. Is it on two? Or more than two?. Amendments/clarification are required.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YOSHIDA et al. (US20140061483) hereafter YOSHIDA.
1. Regarding claim 1 as best understood by the examiner, YOSHIDA discloses a positron emission computed tomography (PET) imaging method (figs 1, 5-7 shows and discloses a PET imaging method/system), comprising:
determining a target coincidence event of a to-be-detected object (figs 1, 5 and paras 0005-0008, 0048-0060 shows and discloses determining/output by a “coincidence circuit 26” a data LD (i.e coincidence time window or target coincidence event) of a nuclide 12 in the body of the patient 10 (i.e a to-be-detected object) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of determining (i.e how a target coincidence event is determined?), “a target coincidence event (i.e what a target coincidence event is?) and a to-be-detected object (i.e what object will be (to-be) detected?) are not required by the current claim); and
performing image reconstruction based on PET raw data corresponding to the target coincidence event, to obtain a reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object (figs 1, 5 and paras 0048-0062 shows and discloses “subsequently the reconstructed image reconstructed by image reconstruction device 30 (i.e performing an image reconstruction) is displayed by an image display device 32 based on the raw PET data (i.e measured data of the radiations 14a and 14b detected by the detector rings 20a, 20b meeting the limitations of PET raw data) and the coincidence data LD information data determined by the coincidence circuit (i.e the target coincidence event) meeting the claim limitations).
2. Regarding claim 2, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object comprises: determining, based on a first energy window and a second energy window that are asymmetrical to each other, the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object (figs 6-7, paras 0048-0062 shows and discloses wherein determining the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object comprises: determining, based on a first energy window (fig 6 shows coincidence data with wide first window) and a second energy window (fig 6 shows coincidence data with a narrower second window) that are asymmetrical to each other (i.e first window is wider than the second window or asymmetrical), the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object (fig 7 last step coincidence data) meeting the claims limitations).
3. Regarding claim 3, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the first energy window comprises a low energy-level discriminator (LLD) threshold (Figs 6, 7 shows a first window with a 100KeV LLD threshold (step 100) and the second energy window with a 425 KeV (step 130) HLD threshold meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of LLD threshold and the HLD threshold are not required by the current claim and due to the recital of and/or only or is being considered and also because of the or recital only one is required to be met meeting the claim limitations).
4. Regarding claim 4, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the first energy window comprises a first low energy-level discriminator (LLD) threshold; the second energy window comprises a second LLD threshold; and wherein the first LLD is different from the second LLD (Figs 6, 7 shows a first window with a 100KeV LLD threshold (step 100) and the second energy window with a 425 KeV (step 130) HLD threshold meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the LLD is different than the HLD meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of LLD threshold and the HLD threshold are not required by the current claim and due to the recital of and/or only or is being considered and also because of the or recital only one is required to be met meeting the claim limitations).
5. Regarding claim 5, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the first LLD threshold and the second LLD threshold are determined by the following process: acquiring a first low energy-level initial threshold and a second low energy-level initial threshold (fig 7 shows acquiring a first low energy-level initial threshold 100 KeV at step 100 and 425 KeV at step 130 meeting the above claim limitations); adjusting the first low energy-level initial threshold and the second low energy-level initial threshold according to a preset condition (fig 7 shows adjusting the first threshold to a 1000KeV value at step 100 and also show the adjustment of the second energy level threshold to 575Kev meeting the claims limitations, examiner notes that the specific values/details of the threshold are not required by the current claim), to obtain the first LLD threshold and the second LLD threshold that are different from each other (Figs 6, 7 shows a first window with a 100KeV LLD threshold (step 100) and the second energy window with a 425 KeV (step 130) HLD threshold meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the LLD is different than the HLD meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of LLD threshold and the HLD threshold are not required by the current claim and due to the recital of and/or only or is being considered and also because of the or recital only one is required to be met meeting the claim limitations).
6. Regarding claim 6, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a scattering correction coefficient; and correcting the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object according to the scattering correction coefficient (fig 6 step 130 and para 0060 discloses the coincidence event determination to a photopeak by removing noise components (i.e random coincidence and the scatter coincidence (obtaining a scattering correction coefficient) meeting the above claims limitations).
7. Regarding claim 8, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises: performing, in response to a trigger instruction of an asymmetrical energy window mode, the step of determining the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object based on the first energy window and the second energy window that are asymmetrical to each other (fig 6 shows performing, in response to a trigger instruction of an asymmetrical energy window mode, the step of determining the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object based on the first energy window (wide energy window) and the second energy window that are asymmetrical to each other (narrower energy window) that are asymmetrical (different) to each other meeting the claim limitations).
8. Regarding claim 9 as best understood by the examiner, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein performing image reconstruction based on the PET raw data corresponding to the target coincidence event, to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object comprises: dividing the PET raw data into at least two data subsets according to a data characteristic of the PET raw data (figs 1, 5 shows a data characteristics of the at least two data subsets (i.e single event data SD 24); performing physical correction on the data subsets respectively (fig 6 shows removing noise component (i.e performing physical correction)); and performing image reconstruction based on the corrected data subsets to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object (figs 5- 6 shows the remove noise component (i.e corrected data subsets) to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object meeting the claim limitations).
9. Regarding claim 10, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the data characteristic of the PET raw data comprises one or (fig 5 and para 0055-0056 shows and discloses event information of the PET raw data (i.e single event data SD 24 from the two detectors 20a and 20b) meeting the above claim limitations).
10. Regarding claim 11 as best understood by the examiner, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the data quality rule comprises a data information rule, the data information rule comprising energy information; and dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to the data characteristic of the PET raw data comprises: dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to energy information of the PET raw data (figs 5, 6 paras 0058-0060 shows and discloses wherein the data quality rule comprises a data information rule, the data information rule comprising energy information; and dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to the data characteristic of the PET raw data comprises: dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to energy information (wide energy and narrow energy) of the PET raw data).
11. Regarding claim 12 as best understood by the examiner, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the PET raw data comprises first data and second data obtained from a pair of detectors at two ends of the target coincidence event; and dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to the energy information of the PET raw data comprises: dividing the PET raw data into a first data subset when energies of the first data and the second data are both greater than a preset energy; and dividing the PET raw data into a second data subset when the energy of the first data or the energy of the second data is less than or equal to the preset energy (figs 5, 6 and paras 0058-0060 shows and disclose wherein the PET raw data comprises first data and second data obtained from a pair of detectors at two ends of the target coincidence event; and dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to the energy information of the PET raw data comprises: dividing the PET raw data into a first data subset when energies of the first data and the second data are both greater than a preset energy; and dividing the PET raw data into a second data subset when the energy of the first data or the energy of the second data is less than or equal to the preset energy).
12. Regarding claim 13, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to the data characteristic of the PET raw data comprises: dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to whether to be the scattering sequence recovery event (figs 1, 2A-2B, 5 and 6 shows dividing the PET raw data into the at least two data subsets according to whether to be the scattering sequence recovery (noise removed) event meeting the claim limitations).
13. Regarding claim 15, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein performing physical correction on the data subsets respectively comprises: performing physical correction on the data subsets respectively by using a delay coincidence window method (fig 1 shows the coincidence data correction with the time delay window as seen in the graph (coincidence time width) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of the a delay coincidence window are not required by the current claim).
14. Regarding claim 16, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein performing image reconstruction based on the corrected data subsets to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object comprises: performing image reconstruction based on the corrected the data subsets and according to an image reconstruction iterative algorithm to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object (figs 1, 5-7, paras 0048-0062 shows and discloses wherein performing image reconstruction based on the corrected data subsets to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object comprises: performing image reconstruction based on the corrected the data subsets and according to an image reconstruction iterative algorithm (flowcharts) to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object).
15. Regarding claim 18, as best understood by the examiner, YOSHIDA discloses a PET imaging method (figs 1, 5-7 shows and discloses a PET imaging method/system), comprising:
determining a target coincidence event of a to-be-detected object (figs 1, 5 and paras 0005-0008, 0048-0060 shows and discloses determining/output by a “coincidence circuit 26” a data LD (i.e coincidence time window or target coincidence event) of a nuclide 12 in the body of the patient 10 (i.e a to-be-detected object) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of determining (i.e how a target coincidence event is determined?), “a target coincidence event (i.e what a target coincidence event is?) and a to-be-detected object (i.e what object will be (to-be) detected?) are not required by the current claim), comprising: determining, based on a first energy window and a second energy window that are asymmetrical to each other, the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object (figs 6-7, paras 0048-0062 shows and discloses wherein determining the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object comprises: determining, based on a first energy window (fig 6 shows coincidence data with wide first window) and a second energy window (fig 6 shows coincidence data with a narrower second window) that are asymmetrical to each other (i.e first window is wider than the second window or asymmetrical), the target coincidence event of the to-be-detected object (fig 7 last step coincidence data) meeting the claims limitations); and performing image reconstruction based on the PET raw data corresponding to the target coincidence event, to obtain a reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object (figs 1, 5 and paras 0048-0062 shows and discloses “subsequently the reconstructed image reconstructed by image reconstruction device 30 (i.e performing an image reconstruction) is displayed by an image display device 32 based on the raw PET data (i.e measured data of the radiations 14a and 14b detected by the detector rings 20a, 20b meeting the limitations of PET raw data) and the coincidence data LD information data determined by the coincidence circuit (i.e the target coincidence event) meeting the claim limitations), comprising: dividing the PET raw data into at least two data subsets according to a data characteristic of the PET raw data (figs 1, 5 shows a data characteristics of the at least two data subsets (i.e single event data SD 24); performing physical correction on the data subsets respectively (fig 6 shows removing noise component (i.e performing physical correction)); and performing image reconstruction based on the corrected data subsets to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object (figs 5- 6 shows the remove noise component (i.e corrected data subsets) to obtain the reconstructed image of the to-be-detected object meeting the claim limitations).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA in view of NPL5 (Comparison of Coincidence Identification Techniques for High Resolution PET, Josep F. Oliver et al., IEEE, 2008, Pages 4732-4735) hereafter NPL5.
16. Regarding claim 7, YOSHIDA discloses the method according to claim 6. YOSHIDA discloses the scatter correction as seen in fig 6. YOSHIDA is silent and however fails to disclose, wherein the scattering correction coefficient is determined by performing Monte Carlo simulation on a simulated detection object.
NPL5 discloses wherein the scattering correction coefficient is determined by performing Monte Carlo simulation on a simulated detection object (Page 4733 section C discloses wherein the scattering correction coefficient is determined by performing Monte Carlo simulation on a simulated detection object meeting the claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, YOSHIDA and NPL5 are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and analogous art of PET data processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a high performance and efficient method/system on page 4735 section V. therefore it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of NPL5 in the method of YOSHIDA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA in view of YOSHIDA (single reference 103 as the claimed limitations, “An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program (non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program), and the processor, when executing the computer program” as claimed in claims 19-20 would be obvious in view of the flowchart/algorithm and device as seen in figs 1,5-7).
17. Claim 19 is a corresponding device claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Examiner notes that “An electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory (non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program) storing a computer program, and the processor, when executing the computer program, implementing the PET imaging method according to claim 1.” as claimed in claim 19 would be obvious in view of the flowchart/algorithm as seen in figs 1,5-7 and the device disclosed in paras 0023, 0029). The suggestion/motivation would be a higher performance system at para 0067.
18. Claim 20 is a corresponding non-transitory medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Examiner notes that “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein, wherein the PET imaging method according to claim 1 is implemented when the computer program is executed by a processor.” as claimed in claim 20 would be obvious in view of the flowchart/algorithm as seen in figs 1,5-7). The suggestion/motivation would be a higher performance system at para 0067.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights