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 .
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefetz et al. (US 2008/0029704, hereinafter Hefetz) in view of Jansen et al. (US 2012/0108948, hereinafter Jansen)
With respect to claims 1, 7, Heffetz discloses an imaging system (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a gantry (see element 110);
detector units mounted to the gantry, each of the detector units comprising a plurality of pixels (see para. 0017, “FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of a Nuclear Medicine (NM) imaging system 100 which has a plurality of small imaging detectors mounted on a gantry. In FIG. 1, first, second, third through N imaging detectors 102, 104, 106 and 108 are mounted on a gantry 110. As illustrated in FIG. 1, N is equal to four; however, it should be understood that two, three or more than four imaging detectors may be used.”; More than four detectors, means the element has at least 5 detectors as claimed)
a corresponding collimator for each of the detector units, each collimator configured to be interposed between the detector unit and an object to be imaged, the collimator having septa defining plural bores for each pixel of at least some of the plurality of pixels of the detector unit, wherein a corresponding interior septum of the collimator is disposed above an internal portion of a corresponding pixel of the at least some of the plurality of pixels (see para. 0022, 0023, “Each of the first, second, third through N imaging detectors 102, 104, 106 and 108 has a radiation detection face 130, 132, 134 and 136, respectively, which is directed towards a structure of interest within the patient 142. The radiation detection faces 132, 132, 134 and 136 are each covered by a collimator 150, 152, 154 and 156, respectively. The actual FOV for each of the first through N imaging detectors 102-108 may be increased, decreased, or relatively unchanged by the type of collimator 150-156, such as pinhole, parallel-beam converging, diverging fan-beam, converging or diverging cone-beam, multi-bore, multi-bore converging, multi-bore converging Fan-Beam, multi-bore converging Cone-Beam, multi-bore diverging, or other type of collimator. Optionally, multi-bore collimators may be constructed to be registered with pixels of a pixilated detector such as CZT pixilated detector. Registered collimation may increase spatial resolution by forcing photons going through one bore to be collected primarily by one pixel. Additionally, registered collimation may increase sensitivity and energy response of pixilated detectors as detector area near the edges of a pixel or in-between two adjacent pixels may have reduced sensitivity or decreased energy resolution or other performance degradation. Having collimator septa directly above the edges of pixels reduces the chance of photon impinging at these degraded-performance locations, without decreasing the overall probability of a photon passing through the collimator.;
at least one processing unit configured to obtain object information corresponding to the object to be imaged (see para. 0024, “A controller unit 120 may control the movement and positioning of the patient table 114, the gantry 110, the first through N imaging detectors 102-108, and the collimators 150-156. A range of motion during an acquisition or between images is set to keep the actual FOV of each of the first through N imaging detectors 102-108 directed towards or "aimed at" the structure of interest. The range of motion may be based on fixed or patient specific orbits, and small motions, such as detector "dither", may be used. Optionally, the amount or range of motion may be based on a preliminary image of the structure of interest. The preliminary image may be obtained by the imaging system 100, or by a previously obtained image, optionally from another, optionally different type of imaging system. For example, a CT image may be used as the preliminary image.; and
a controller configured to control an independent rotational movement of each the at least five detector units used to acquire scanning information by detecting emissions from the object, wherein the controller rotates each of the detector units at a corresponding sweep rate (see para. 0025, “The controller unit 120 may have a gantry motor controller 124, table controller 141, radius controller 164, pivot controller 118, and collimator controller 186. The controllers 118, 124, 141, 164 and 186 may be automatically commanded by a processing unit 196, manually controlled by an operator, or a combination thereof. The gantry motor controller 124 may rotate the first through N imaging detectors 102-108 with respect to the patient 142 individually in segments or simultaneously in a fixed relationship to one another. Optionally, a mechanical link or links connected to plurality or sub-set of the imaging detectors may move the plurality of imaging detectors in unison. The table controller 141 may move the patient table 114 to position the patient 142 relative to the FOV of one or more of the first through N imaging detectors 102-108. The patient table 114 may be moved in up-down direction 144, in-out direction 148, and right-left direction 146, for example. The radius controller 164 may move each of the first through N imaging detectors 102-108 closer to and further from a surface of the patient 142, and the pivot controller 118 may move the first through N imaging detectors 102-108 axially with respect to the patient 142. The collimator controller 186 may adjust a position of an adjustable collimator, such as a collimator with adjustable strips (or vanes) or adjustable pinhole(s). It should be noted that motion of one or more imaging detectors may be in directions other than strictly axially or radially, and optionally, motions in several motion directions may be combined to create the desired motion. Therefore, the term "motion controller" may be used to indicate a collective name for all motion controllers.”.
PNG
media_image1.png
609
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hefetz fails to explicitly disclose to having interlocking sheets, the interlocking sheets crossing each other to define collimator openings.
Jansen, in the same field of endeavor in the subject of systems and methods for collimation in diagnostic imaging system discloses a collimation system that includes a collimator having a plurality of independently adjustable segments 30 or sheets. These segments 30 can be wedge shaped, have a curved outline or may be provided in different shapes (see para. 42). Also, It also should be noted that different segments 30 may be formed having different parameters such as bore size, shape, angulations and length.(see para. 0043, See Figs, 13, 14 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
444
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Furthermore, Jansen discloses a grid like configuration for a collimator (see Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
294
369
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date to modify Hefetz such that the adjustable segments can be interlocked to define collimator openings (see also Fig. 2) as disclosed by Jansen because doing so will allow for focus for objects of interest outside the field of view (see para. 0004).
Furthermore, with respect to claim 7, Heffetz in view of Jansen disclose “a controller configured to control movement of the plurality of detector units to acquire Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) data, the movement including both the translational movement and the pivoting movement coordinated to position the plurality of detector units adjacent to a subject.” (see Hefetz, fig. 1, see Jansen para. 0028).
With respect to claim 2, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the interlocking sheets comprise first sheets and second sheets, the first sheets corresponding to a first side oriented toward the detector face, the second sheets corresponding to a second side opposite the first side (see Fig. 13).
With respect to claim 3, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the first sheets and second sheets comprise complementary cuts formed to allow interlocking of the first sheets and second sheets (para. 0043).
With respect to claim 4, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the first sheets define a flat surface at the first side and the second sheets define a curved surface at the second side (para. 0030-42).
With respect to claim 5 , Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the collimator has collimator bores of different lengths to form a curved face (see Figs, 1,5, 13).
With respect to claim 6, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the collimator has a fan-beam structure (see Fig. 1, 8, 10, 6).
With respect to claim 8, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein each detector unit is disposed in a corresponding housing, the detector unit configured to move translationally with respect to the corresponding housing (see para. 0060).
With respect to claim 9, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the controller unit is configured to move the detector unit translationally closer toward a face of the detector unit when the detector unit is parallel to the face than when the detector unit is pivoted at an oblique angle to the face (see Fig. 13).
With respect to claim 10, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the controller is configured to control one or more of the plurality of detector units to concurrently perform the translational movement and the pivoting movement (see para. 0060).
With respect to claim 11, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein each detector unit has a corresponding collimator, the collimator coupled to a detector face of the corresponding detector unit, the collimator defining a collimator pitch that is not equal to the detector pitch (fig. 4).
With respect to claim 12, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein the collimator pitch is smaller than the detector pitch (fig. 4).
With respect to claim 13, Heffetz in view of Jansen discloses wherein each detector unit has a corresponding collimator, the collimator coupled to a detector face of the corresponding detector unit, the collimator comprising interlocking sheets, the interlocking sheets crossing each other to define collimator openings (para. 0037, 0055).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments where considered; in summary, as best understood, the applicant argument focus on the limitation of “the collimator comprising interlocking sheets, the interlocking sheets crossing each other to define collimator openings”.
The applicant argues “Based on the known construction of a grid-like collimator and the interlocking sheets described as being crossed over one another, one of skill in the art would understand that the interlocking sheets would be arranged in this grid-like structure. For example, the sheets 200 may be positioned perpendicularly relative to sheets 202, with the cuts aligned such that the sheets are interlocked in the grid structure. Thus, the areas (squares) between the sheets form the openings of the collimator. Because neither Hefetz nor Jansen teach or suggest these limitations, Applicant believes claim 1 is in condition for allowance. Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1 and are in therefore in condition for allowance for at least the same reasons as claim 1.”
Therefore, as best understood, such limitation of “interlocking sheets” would be a collimator having a grid-like configuration. Both Heffetz and Jansen set forth such a collimator configuration.
See Heffetz para. 0028 “the type of collimator 150-156, such as pinhole, parallel-beam converging, diverging fan-beam, converging or diverging cone-beam, multi-bore, multi-bore converging, multi-bore converging Fan-Beam, multi-bore converging Cone-Beam, multi-bore diverging, or other type of collimator.”
See Jansen Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
294
369
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, because both reference provide such grid-like configuration, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 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, Anne Kozak can be reached on 571-270-0552. 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.
/JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights