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 § 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 5-8 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “preferably greater than” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is not clear if being “less than” would also meet the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the phrases “preferably constant” and “preferably greater than 60%” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is not clear if being outside the preferable conditions would also meet the limitations as claimed
Regarding claim 7, the phrases “preferably constant” and “preferably less than 40%” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is not clear if being outside the preferable conditions would also meet the limitations as claimed
Regarding claim 8, the phrases “preferably between 8 and 20 mm2” and “preferably between 5 and 14 mm2” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is not clear if being within one but not both of the dimensions would also meet the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “preferably said filter (500) being a multilayer wherein at least one layer is made of metallic material and at least one layer is made of a material with a low density, preferably said metallic material being selected between: copper, tungsten, gadolinium, yttrium, lead aluminium, bismuth, tin and brass” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. It is not clear if being of different materials than those listed would also meet the limitations as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kindem et al. (US 2005/0104000).
With respect to claim 1, Kindem et al. teaches measuring structure for PET or SPECT applications comprising:
a matrix of scintillation crystals (200, 300) configured for simultaneously measuring radiation directed along respective directions, each crystal extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig 1a) between an upper surface (Fig 1a) and a base surface (Fig 1a) opposite the upper surface, each scintillation crystal having, along the longitudinal axis, a variable transversal section (Fig 2a-c);
a grille (203) defining a plurality of through seats each configured for receiving a respective scintillation crystal, each seat having inner walls shaped to match a lateral surface of the respective scintillation crystal (Para. 35), said grille being made of a metallic material with a high atomic number designed to screen incident radiation (Para. 51);
an electronic conversion circuitry configured for receiving an optical signal from each scintillation crystal and converting it into an electrical signal (Para. 4);
characterised in that each scintillation crystal has, in a section passing through the longitudinal axis, a step profile (Fig. 2a-c).
With respect to claim 2, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 1,wherein each scintillation crystal has a tapered shape, along said longitudinal axis, from the upper surface to the base surface (Fig. 2a-c).
With respect to claim 3, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 1, wherein each scintillation crystal has a tapered shape, along said longitudinal axis, from the base surface to the upper surface (Fig. 2a-c).
With respect to claim 5, as best understood, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 4, wherein each scintillation crystal comprises a first end stretch defining said upper surface and a second end stretch defining said base surface, and wherein said first end stretch has a transversal cross section which is different to, preferably greater than, said second end stretch (Fig. 2a-c).
With respect to claim 8, as best understood, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 1,wherein the maximum section of said scintillation crystals is between 5 and 40 mm2, and preferably between 8 and 20 mm2, and wherein the minimum section of said scintillation crystals is between 3 and 20 mm2, and preferably between 5 and 14 mm2 (Paragraphs 38-41, 49).
With respect to claim 9, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 1,wherein said grille has, along the longitudinal axis, variable thicknesses substantially complementary to the variation in transversal section of the scintillation crystals (Paragraphs 43-44).
With respect to claim 10, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 1,comprising a filter applied to the upper surface of the scintillation crystals and configured to absorb the radiation having energy less than a predetermined value (Paragraph 27).
With respect to claim 11, as best understood, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 10, wherein said filter is of the multilayer type, preferably said filter being a multilayer wherein at least one layer is made of metallic material and at least one layer is made of a material with a low density, preferably said metallic material being selected between: copper, tungsten, gadolinium, yttrium, lead aluminium, bismuth, tin and brass (Para. 50-51).
With respect to claim 12, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 1,wherein each step of the step profile has a wall parallel to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2a-c).
With respect to claim 13, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 12, wherein each scintillation crystal is formed as a single structure having, along the longitudinal axis, scintillation blocks having a dimension, in transversal cross-section, different to each other (Fig. 1a).
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(s) 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kindem et al.
With respect to claims 4, 6 and 7, as best understood, Kindem et al. teaches the structure according to claim 1, as detailed above.
However, Kindem et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein each scintillation crystal has a transversal section decreasing, along said longitudinal axis, between each of said upper surface and base surface and a central zone of the scintillation crystal between said upper surface and base surface as detailed in claim 4,
wherein each scintillation crystal has a central stretch with a minimum transversal section and preferably constant, and wherein said central stretch with a minimum transversal section extends for a length, along the longitudinal axis, greater than 50%, preferably greater than 60%, of the length of the scintillation crystal as detailed in claim 6, and
wherein each scintillation crystal has a central stretch with a minimum transversal section and preferably constant, and wherein said central stretch with a minimum transversal section extends for a length, along the longitudinal axis, less than 50%, preferably less than 40%, of the length of the scintillation crystal as detailed in claim 7.
Kindem et al. further teaches modifying the shape and configuration including “(a) a single pixel or a plurality of pixels of non-rectangular cross-section (e.g., pixels of hexagonal cross-section or parallelogram cross-section, pixels where the planes of the top face, bottom face or both are not parallel to the x-y plane, pixels where the sides other than the top and bottom faces are not parallel to the z-direction but are parallel to a single axis not lying in the x-y plane, pixels where the sides other than the top and bottom faces are non-parallel, pixels tapered in the z-direction or in a direction parallel to a single axis not lying in the x-y plane), (b) arrays of a plurality of scintillator pixels, one or a plurality of which have different cross-sections from one or a plurality of other pixels in the array, (c) arrays in which the individual pixels are not distributed in a rectangular array, and (d) any appropriate combination of (a), (b), (c) individually or collectively.” (Para. 43-45, 52-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape and configuration of Kindem et al. with those configurations from the details of claims 4, 6, and 7 with the configured details further described in Kindem et al. because “A number of embodiments have been described. Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, other materials could be used. Other shapes and numbers of scintillator pixels could be used; as well as other geometric shapes to arrays.” (Kindem et al.; Para. 54) and using different shapes and configurations provide not be significant (details of instant spec Figs 2A-2C show opposite configurations) would be a simple matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Newman (US 10101472), Labella (US 2026/0104518, 12504550), Nagarkar et al. (US 2004/0042585), Ramsden (US 10429523), Laurence et al. (US 7932497) all teach scintillator structures with various tapered edges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J Makiya whose telephone number is (571)272-2273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30ET.
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.
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.
DAVID J. MAKIYA
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights