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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 and 9-14, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The dependent claims recite the system, method, and medium previously recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, e.g., “[a] system according to claim 1,” “[a] method according to Claim 8,” and “[a] medium according to Claim 15.” The words “a” should be changed to “the” to establish a proper referral of anteceding claims, e.g., “[t]he system according to claim 1, …” etc.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claim 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17302347 (publication number US20220350037A1).
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 of the instant application are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17302347 (publication number US20220350037A1) in view of Panin (Panin VY, Smith AM, Hu J, Kehren F, Casey ME. Continuous bed motion on clinical scanner: design, data correction, and reconstruction. Phys Med Biol. 2014 Oct 21;59(20):6153-74. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/20/6153).
Regarding claim 1, representative of Claims 8 and 15, of the instant application, see table below.
Application 18933042
Application 17302347
Claim 1
Claim 1
A system comprising:
a positron emission tomography scanner comprising a plurality of crystals, the positron emission tomography scanner to perform a scan of an object and generate list mode data describing true coincidences and delay coincidences detected by the positron emission tomography scanner during the scan
A system comprising:
a positron emission tomography scanner comprising a plurality of crystals, the positron emission tomography scanner to perform a scan of an object and generate list mode data describing true coincidences and delay coincidences detected by the positron emission tomography scanner during the scan
a processing unit to:
determine a plurality of time periods of the scan based on a distance moved by a bed supporting the object during each of the plurality of time periods
and, a bed to support the object and to move during the scan, wherein a duration of each of the plurality of the time periods depends on a speed of bed movement during the scan
note: this limitation appears at the end of the claim but is placed here for visual mapping
(a processing unit to:)
for each crystal, determine, from the list mode data, a number of delay coincidences which include the crystal for each of the plurality of time periods of the scan
a processing unit to:
for each crystal, determine, from the list mode data, a number of delay coincidences which include the crystal for each of the plurality of time periods of the scan
for each crystal, determine a singles rate associated with each time period based on the number of delay coincidences determined for all of the plurality of crystals for the time period
for each crystal, determine a singles rate associated with each time period based on the number of delay coincidences determined for all of the plurality of crystals for the time period
for each time period, determine estimated mean randoms for each of a plurality of pairs of the crystals based on the singles rate associated with the time period for each crystal of the crystal pair, where estimated mean randoms determined for a pair of the crystals for a first time period are different from estimated mean randoms determined for the pair of the crystals for a second time period
for each time period, determine estimated mean randoms for each of a plurality of pairs of the crystals based on the singles rate associated with the time period for each crystal of the crystal pair, where estimated mean randoms determined for a pair of crystals for a first time period are different from estimated mean randoms determined for the pair of the crystals for a second time period
for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals, determine a composite estimated mean randoms based on the estimated mean randoms determined for the crystal pair for each time period
for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals, determine a composite estimated mean randoms based on the estimated mean randoms determined for the crystal pair for each time period
and reconstruct an image of the object based on the composite estimated mean randoms for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals and the detected true coincidences
and reconstruct an image of the object based on the composite estimated mean randoms for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals and the detected true coincidences.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference in limitations is merely a wording that dictates that the time periods depend on a speed of bed movement in 17302347 and that the time periods are determined by a distance moved by the bed during the time period in 18933042, effectively describing the same dependency on a speed of bed movement as the definition of speed known to one of ordinary skill in the art is distance over time.
Regarding claim 2, representative of Claims 9 and 16, of the instant application, see the table below
Application 18933042
Application 17302347
Claim 2
Claim 17
A system according to claim 1, wherein the distances moved by the bed during each of the plurality of time periods are equal.
A system according to Claim 1, wherein the duration is based on a time required for the bed to move 5cm during the scan.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference in limitations is merely that of a wording. 17302347 describes a narrower limitation where the duration of each time period is based on the time required for the bed is to move 5cm, however it still reads on the broader limitation recited in 18933042, of moving an equal distance during each time period.
Regarding claim 3, representative of Claims 10 and 17, of the instant application, see table below.
Application 18933042
Application 17302347
Claim 3
Claim 3
A system according to Claim 1, wherein the determination of a singles rate comprises determination of
s
i
=
∑
j
d
i
j
∑
j
s
j
for each crystal i, where
∑
j
d
i
j
is equal to the delay coincidences determined for the crystal i over the time period.
A system according to Claim 1, wherein the determination of a singles rate comprises determination of
s
i
=
∑
j
d
i
j
∑
j
s
j
for each crystal i, where
∑
j
d
i
j
is equal to the delay coincidences determined for the crystal i over the time period.
The limitations of claim 3 are identical, adding no patentably distinct subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, representative of Claims 11 and 18, of the instant application, see table below.
Application 18933042
Application 17302347
Claim 4
Claim 4
A system according to Claim 1, wherein determination of a singles rate associated with a time period for a crystal comprises determination of
s
i
(
n
+
1
)
=
-
B
i
(
n
)
+
B
i
(
n
)
2
+
4
N
i
C
i
2
N
i
, for each crystal i, where
B
i
(
n
)
=
∑
j
s
j
(
n
)
-
N
i
s
i
(
n
)
,
C
i
=
∑
j
d
i
j
,
and
∑
j
d
i
j
is equal to the delay coincidences determined for the crystal i over the time period.
A system according to Claim 1, wherein determination of a singles rate associated with a time period for a crystal comprises determination of
s
i
(
n
+
1
)
=
-
B
i
(
n
)
+
B
i
(
n
)
2
+
4
N
i
C
i
2
N
i
, for each crystal i, where
B
i
(
n
)
=
∑
j
s
j
(
n
)
-
N
i
s
i
(
n
)
,
C
i
=
∑
j
d
i
j
,
and
∑
j
d
i
j
is equal to the delay coincidences determined for the crystal i over the time period.
The limitations of claim 4 are identical, adding no patentably distinct subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, representative of Claims 12 and 19, of the instant application, see table below.
Application 18933042
Application 17302347
Claim 5
Claim 15
A system according to Claim 1, the positron emission tomography scanner to perform a second scan of a second object and generate a second list mode data describing second true coincidences and second delay coincidences detected by the positron emission tomography scanner during the second scan
A medium according to claim 11, the positron emission tomography scanner to perform a second scan of a second object and generate a second list mode data describing second true coincidences and second delay coincidences detected by the positron emission tomography scanner during the second scan
and the processing unit to: determine a plurality of second time periods of the second scan based on a second distance moved by the bed during each of the plurality of second time periods
wherein a duration of each of the plurality of the time periods depends on a speed of bed movement during the scan
note: this limitation appears at the end of the claim but is placed here for visual mapping
for each crystal, determine, from the second list mode data, a second number of second delay coincidences which include the crystal for each of the plurality of second time periods
for each crystal, determine, from the second list mode data, a second number of second delay coincidences which include the crystal for each of the plurality of second time periods
for each crystal, determine a second singles rate associated with each second time period based on the second number of second delay coincidences determined for all of the plurality of crystals for the second time period
for each crystal, determine a second singles rate associated with each second time period based on the second number of second delay coincidences determined for all of the plurality of crystals for the second time period
for each second time period, determine second estimated mean randoms for each of a plurality of pairs of the crystals based on the second singles rate associated with the second time period for each crystal of the crystal pair, where second estimated mean randoms determined for the pair of the crystals for a second time period is different from second estimated mean randoms determined for the pair of the crystals for another second time period
for each second time period, determine second estimated mean randoms for each of a plurality of pairs of the crystals based on the second singles rate associated with the second time period for each crystal of the crystal pair, where second estimated mean randoms determined for the pair of the crystals for a second time period is different from second estimated mean randoms determined for the pair of the crystals for another second time period
for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals, determine a second composite estimated mean randoms based on the second estimated mean randoms determined for the crystal pair for each second time period
for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals, determine a second composite estimated mean randoms based on the second estimated mean randoms determined for the crystal pair for each second time period
and reconstruct an image of the second object based on the second composite estimated mean randoms for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals and the detected second true coincidences.
and reconstruct an image of the second object based on the second composite estimated mean randoms for each of the plurality of pairs of crystals and the detected second true coincidences.
Similar to the rationale for Claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference in limitations is merely a wording that dictates that the second time periods depend on a speed of bed movement in 17302347 and that the second time periods are determined by a distance moved by the bed during the time period in 18933042, effectively describing the same dependency on a speed of bed movement as the definition of speed known to one of ordinary skill in the art is distance over time.
Regarding Claim 6, representative of Claim 13, the claim recites, “a system according to Claim 5, wherein the distances moved by the bed during each of the plurality of time periods and the second distances moved by the bed during each of the plurality of second time periods are equal”.
Although an identical equivalent is not found in 17302347, claim 6 of application 18933042 establishes that distances moved during time periods of a first and second scan are equal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to configure this based on claim 15 of 17302347 establishing the dependence of the second time periods on a speed of bed movement during the scan, in view of Panin describing data collection of PET scans using continuous bed motion of the same distance with two different speeds ([Section 2.7.5]: Data were collected in list mode format. The bed moved about 3 cm with a speed of 10 mm s−1, then 3 cm with a speed of 0.1 mm s−1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of 17302347 to include the teachings of Panin by substituting a general second scan with a second scan operated with a second bed speed. Doing so would improve the accuracy of reconstruction, particularly the signal to noise ratio by performing data collection at a slower speed.
Regarding Claim 7, representative of Claims 14 and 20, the claim recites “a system according to Claim 6, wherein a duration of each of the plurality of time periods is not equal to a second duration of each of the plurality of second time periods”.
Although an identical equivalent is not found in 17302347, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to configure this based on claim 15 of 17302347 establishing the dependence of the second time periods on a speed of bed movement during the scan, in view of Panin describing data collection of a PET scan using continuous bed motion of the same distance with different speeds ([Section 2.7.5]: Data were collected in list mode format. The bed moved about 3 cm with a speed of 10 mm s−1, then 3 cm with a speed of 0.1 mm s−1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of 17302347 to include the teachings of Panin by substituting a general second scan with a second scan operated with a second bed speed. Doing so would improve the accuracy of reconstruction, particularly the signal to noise ratio by performing data collection at a slower speed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE VAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/JANICE E. VAZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights