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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the claims list the steps “determines a…” and “creates a…” are listed as part of the same limitation “assuming…” when they appear to be distinct limitations which should be indented.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 2 or 11 be found allowable, claims 3 and 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A moving unit in claims 9 and 24, because it uses “unit” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “configured to move the positron emitting radionuclide in a space between the first detector or the second detector and the subject” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the moving unit, the specification fails to disclose the structure of the moving unit. Paragraph 0079 merely recited the function of the moving unit and figure 8 depicts the moving unit as a block which discloses no structural information.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-30 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 claims 1 and 10, the phrase "assuming" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be ignored.
Claims 2 and 4-9 depend on claim 1 and claims 11 and 13-18 depend on claim 10 so are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10-12, the claims recite the limitation "for each coincidence event." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-9 depend on claim 1; claims 19-24 depend on claim 3; claims 11 and 13-18 depend on claim 10; and claims 25-30 depend on claim 12 so are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, the limitation “in a state in which a subject is placed between the first detector and the second detector” or similar language (emphasis added) is indefinite because it is a product and process in the same claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p)) This limitation is unclear when infringement begins because it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates an apparatus that allows the user to place a subject or when the subject is actually placed in the apparatus. These ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims 2 and 4-9 depend on claim 1 so are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 3, 19, 21, and 22 the limitation “a subject into which a drug labeled with a positron emitting radionuclide is injected is placed between the first detector and the second detector, and a positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject” or similar language (emphasis added) is indefinite because it is a product and process in the same claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p)) This limitation is unclear when infringement begins because it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates an apparatus that allows the user to inject and place a subject or when the subject is actually injected and placed in the apparatus. These ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claim 19-24 depend on claim 3 so are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 1-3, the limitations “for each…,” “assuming…,” “determines a position…,” and “creates a first…” are method limitations enumerating a list of steps. They are indefinite because they (1) fails to limit the apparatus as no component is configured to perform the functional language and (2) because it is a product and process in the same claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p)) This limitation is unclear when infringement begins because it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates an apparatus that allows the user perform the method or when the method is actually performed. These ambiguities render the claim indefinite.
Claims 2 and 4-9 depend on claim 1 and claims 19-24 depend on claim 3 so are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 9 and 24, the claim limitation “moving unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely discloses the function of the moving unit and not the structure, additionally figure 8 is a does not disclose any information regarding the structure of the moving unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 24, the claim limitation “moving unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely discloses the function of the moving unit and not the structure, additionally figure 8 is a does not disclose any information regarding the structure of the moving unit. Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness (see Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seppi US 2004/0066878.
Regarding claim 1, Seppi discloses an image acquisition apparatus comprising (fig. 1):
a measurement unit including a first detector (#14) and a second detector (#16) each configured to detect a gamma-ray photon (para. 0021; photons generated from electron-positron annihilation are gamma rays), and configured to output a signal indicating a detection position and a detection time when each of the first detector and the second detector detects the gamma-ray photon (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14); and
a processing unit (#15) configured to process the signal output from each of the first detector and the second detector (abstract, para. 0022), wherein
the measurement unit, in a first measurement mode, in a state in which a subject (fig. 1 person) is placed between the first detector and the second detector (fig. 1), and a positron emitting radionuclide (#51; para. 0019) is placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject (fig. 1), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14), and
the processing unit, in the first measurement mode, for each coincidence event in which the first detector and the second detector perform coincidence detection of a pair of gamma-ray photons generated by an electron positron annihilation event in the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0022; “pulse coincidence analyzer”),
assuming that the gamma-ray photon arriving at one detector out of the first detector and the second detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving without being Compton scattered in the subject, and the gamma-ray photon arriving at another detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving after being Compton scattered in the subject (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112),
determines a position at which the gamma-ray photon is Compton scattered in the subject based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector and a position of the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0045), and
creates a first tomographic image representing a distribution of Compton scattering positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0050).
Regarding claim 5, Seppi discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether or not the gamma-ray photon arriving at the first detector or the second detector is a gamma-ray photon after being Compton scattered (para. 0045), based on any one or more of the position of the positron emitting radionuclide, a magnitude of energy of the gamma-ray photon, and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045).
Regarding claim 6, Seppi discloses wherein the measurement unit, in a state in which the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), and a positron emitting radionuclide is placed also between the second detector and the subject (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Regarding claim 10, Seppi discloses an image acquisition method comprising:
a measurement step of using a first detector (#14) and a second detector (#16) each configured to detect a gamma-ray photon (para. 0021; photons generated from electron-positron annihilation are gamma rays), and outputting a signal indicating a detection position and a detection time when each of the first detector and the second detector detects the gamma-ray photon (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14); and
a processing step of processing the signal output from each of the first detector and the second detector (abstract, para. 0022), wherein
the measurement step, in a first measurement mode, in a state in which a subject (fig. 1 person) is placed between the first detector and the second detector (fig. 1), and a positron emitting radionuclide (#51; para. 0019) is placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject (fig. 1), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14), and
the processing step, in the first measurement mode,
for each coincidence event in which the first detector and the second detector perform coincidence detection of a pair of gamma-ray photons generated by an electron positron annihilation event in the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0022; “pulse coincidence analyzer”),
assuming that the gamma-ray photon arriving at one detector out of the first detector and the second detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving without being Compton scattered in the subject, and the gamma-ray photon arriving at another detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving after being Compton scattered in the subject (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112),
determines a position at which the gamma-ray photon is Compton scattered in the subject based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector and a position of the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0045), and
creates a first tomographic image representing a distribution of Compton scattering positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0050).
Regarding claim 14, Seppi discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether or not the gamma-ray photon arriving at the first detector or the second detector is a gamma-ray photon after being Compton scattered (para. 0045), based on any one or more of the position of the positron emitting radionuclide, a magnitude of energy of the gamma-ray photon, and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045).
Regarding claim 15, Seppi discloses wherein the measurement unit, in a state in which the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), and a positron emitting radionuclide is placed also between the second detector and the subject (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Regarding claim 18, Seppi discloses wherein the measurement step moves the positron emitting radionuclide in a space between the first detector or the second detector and the subject (fig. 1; para. 0019).
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 2, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi US 2004/0066878 in view of Fukuchi et al. US 8847166.
Regarding claim 2, Seppi teaches the measurement unit, in a second measurement mode, in a state in which the subject into which a drug labeled with a positron emitting radionuclide is injected is placed between the first detector and the second detector (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14), and
the processing unit, in the second measurement mode, for each coincidence event in which the first detector and the second detector perform coincidence detection of a pair of gamma-ray photons generated by an electron positron annihilation event in the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0022; “pulse coincidence analyzer”),
determines a position at which the annihilation event occurs based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045),
creates a second tomographic image representing a distribution of annihilation event occurrence positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0050; “tomographic images” being plural implies at least a second image).
Seppi fails to teach correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image.
Fukuchi teaches taking a first tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “PET image”) and a second tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “Compton image”) and correcting the second image using the first image (col. 29 ln. 12-19, Section 4-3-3-2) for the purpose of improving resolution (col. 29 ln. 12-19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image as taught by Fukuchi in the apparatus of Seppi for the purpose of improving resolution.
Regarding claim 4, Seppi teaches wherein the positron emitting radionuclide placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject and the positron emitting radionuclide labeling the drug injected into the subject are the positron emitting radionuclides of the same type (para. 0019, 0008).
Regarding claim 11, Seppi teaches the measurement step, in a second measurement mode, in a state in which the subject into which a drug labeled with a positron emitting radionuclide is injected is placed between the first detector and the second detector (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14), and
the processing step, in the second measurement mode, for each coincidence event in which the first detector and the second detector perform coincidence detection of a pair of gamma-ray photons generated by an electron positron annihilation event in the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0022; “pulse coincidence analyzer”),
determines a position at which the annihilation event occurs based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045),
creates a second tomographic image representing a distribution of annihilation event occurrence positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0050; “tomographic images” being plural implies at least a second image).
Seppi fails to teach correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image.
Fukuchi teaches taking a first tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “PET image”) and a second tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “Compton image”) and correcting the second image using the first image (col. 29 ln. 12-19, Section 4-3-3-2) for the purpose of improving resolution (col. 29 ln. 12-19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image as taught by Fukuchi in the method of Seppi for the purpose of improving resolution.
Regarding claim 13, Seppi teaches wherein the positron emitting radionuclide placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject and the positron emitting radionuclide labeling the drug injected into the subject are the positron emitting radionuclides of the same type (para. 0019, 0008).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi US 2004/0066878.
Regarding claim 7, Seppi teaches the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Seppi does not explicitly disclose a detection surface of the first detector is narrower than a detection surface of the second detector, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 16, Seppi teaches the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Seppi does not explicitly disclose a detection surface of the first detector is narrower than a detection surface of the second detector, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi US 2004/0066878 in view of Engert et al. EP 2482102.
Regarding claim 8, Seppi fails to teach wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector.
Engert teaches wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield (fig. 1 #11) configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector (fig. 1; para. 0032-0033) for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector as taught by Engert in the apparatus of Seppi for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding claim 17, Seppi fails to teach wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector.
Engert teaches wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield (fig. 1 #11) configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector (fig. 1; para. 0032-0033) for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector as taught by Engert in the method of Seppi for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio.
Claims 3, 19-22, 12, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi US 2004/0066878 in view of Fukuchi et al. US 8847166.
Regarding claim 3, Seppi teaches an image acquisition apparatus comprising (fig. 1):
a measurement unit including a first detector (#14) and a second detector (#16) each configured to detect a gamma-ray photon (para. 0021; photons generated from electron-positron annihilation are gamma rays), and configured to output a signal indicating a detection position and a detection time when each of the first detector and the second detector detects the gamma-ray photon (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14); and
a processing unit (#15) configured to process the signal output from each of the first detector and the second detector (abstract, para. 0022), wherein
the measurement unit, in a second measurement mode, in a state in which the subject into which a drug labeled with a positron emitting radionuclide is injected is placed between the first detector and the second detector (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14),
the processing unit, for each coincidence event in which the first detector and the second detector perform coincidence detection of a pair of gamma-ray photons generated by an electron positron annihilation event in the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0022; “pulse coincidence analyzer”),
in a case in which the gamma-ray photon arriving at one detector out of the first detector and the second detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving without being Compton scattered in the subject, and the gamma-ray photon arriving at another detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving after being Compton scattered in the subject, determines a position at which the gamma-ray photon is Compton scattered in the subject based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector and a position of the positron emitting radionuclide placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject (para. 0045),
in a case in which the gamma-ray photons arriving at both the first detector and the second detector are gamma-ray photons arriving without being Compton scattered in the subject, determines a position at which the annihilation event occurs based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045),
creates a first tomographic image representing a distribution of Compton scattering positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0045, 0050),
creates a second tomographic image representing a distribution of annihilation event occurrence positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0045, 0050).
Seppi fails to teach correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image.
Fukuchi teaches taking a first tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “PET image”) and a second tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “Compton image”) and correcting the second image using the first image (col. 29 ln. 12-19, Section 4-3-3-2) for the purpose of improving resolution (col. 29 ln. 12-19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image as taught by Fukuchi in the apparatus of Seppi for the purpose of improving resolution.
Regarding claim 19, Seppi teaches wherein the positron emitting radionuclide placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject and the positron emitting radionuclide labeling the drug injected into the subject are the positron emitting radionuclides of the same type (para. 0019, 0008).
Regarding claim 20, Seppi teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether or not the gamma-ray photon arriving at the first detector or the second detector is a gamma-ray photon after being Compton scattered (para. 0045), based on any one or more of the position of the positron emitting radionuclide, a magnitude of energy of the gamma-ray photon, and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045).
Regarding claim 21, Seppi teaches wherein the measurement unit, in a state in which the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), and a positron emitting radionuclide is placed also between the second detector and the subject (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Regarding claim 22, Seppi teaches the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Seppi does not explicitly disclose a detection surface of the first detector is narrower than a detection surface of the second detector, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance
Regarding claim 12, Seppi teaches an image acquisition method comprising (fig. 1):
a measurement step of using a first detector (#14) and a second detector (#16) each configured to detect a gamma-ray photon (para. 0021; photons generated from electron-positron annihilation are gamma rays), and configured to output a signal indicating a detection position and a detection time when each of the first detector and the second detector detects the gamma-ray photon (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14); and
a processing step of processing the signal output from each of the first detector and the second detector (abstract, para. 0022), wherein
the measurement step, in a state in which the subject into which a drug labeled with a positron emitting radionuclide is injected is placed between the first detector and the second detector (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14),
the processing step, for each coincidence event in which the first detector and the second detector perform coincidence detection of a pair of gamma-ray photons generated by an electron positron annihilation event in the positron emitting radionuclide (para. 0022; “pulse coincidence analyzer”),
in a case in which the gamma-ray photon arriving at one detector out of the first detector and the second detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving without being Compton scattered in the subject, and the gamma-ray photon arriving at another detector is a gamma-ray photon arriving after being Compton scattered in the subject, determines a position at which the gamma-ray photon is Compton scattered in the subject based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector and a position of the positron emitting radionuclide placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject (para. 0045),
in a case in which the gamma-ray photons arriving at both the first detector and the second detector are gamma-ray photons arriving without being Compton scattered in the subject, determines a position at which the annihilation event occurs based on the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045),
creates a first tomographic image representing a distribution of Compton scattering positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0045, 0050),
creates a second tomographic image representing a distribution of annihilation event occurrence positions in the subject respectively determined for a plurality of coincidence events (para. 0045, 0050).
Seppi fails to teach correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image.
Fukuchi teaches taking a first tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “PET image”) and a second tomographic image (col. 3 ln. 8-33 “Compton image”) and correcting the second image using the first image (col. 29 ln. 12-19, Section 4-3-3-2) for the purpose of improving resolution (col. 29 ln. 12-19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have correcting the second tomographic image based on the first tomographic image as taught by Fukuchi in the method of Seppi for the purpose of improving resolution.
Regarding claim 25, Seppi teaches wherein the positron emitting radionuclide placed between the first detector or the second detector and the subject and the positron emitting radionuclide labeling the drug injected into the subject are the positron emitting radionuclides of the same type (para. 0019, 0008).
Regarding claim 26, Seppi teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether or not the gamma-ray photon arriving at the first detector or the second detector is a gamma-ray photon after being Compton scattered (para. 0045), based on any one or more of the position of the positron emitting radionuclide, a magnitude of energy of the gamma-ray photon, and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0045).
Regarding claim 27, Seppi teaches wherein the measurement unit, in a state in which the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), and a positron emitting radionuclide is placed also between the second detector and the subject (fig. 1; para. 0019), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Regarding claim 28, Seppi teaches the positron emitting radionuclide is placed between the first detector and the subject (fig. 1), outputs the signal indicating the detection position and the detection time of the gamma-ray photon by each of the first detector and the second detector (para. 0024, 0036, 0045; claims 12-14).
Seppi does not explicitly disclose a detection surface of the first detector is narrower than a detection surface of the second detector, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 30, Seppi discloses wherein the measurement step moves the positron emitting radionuclide in a space between the first detector or the second detector and the subject (fig. 1; para. 0019).
Claims 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppi US 2004/0066878 and Fukuchi et al. US 8847166 in further view of Engert et al. EP 2482102.
Regarding claim 23, Seppi and Fukuchi fails to teach wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector.
Engert teaches wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield (fig. 1 #11) configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector (fig. 1; para. 0032-0033) for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector as taught by Engert in the apparatus of Seppi and Fukuchi for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding claim 29, Seppi and Fukuchi fails to teach wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector.
Engert teaches wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield (fig. 1 #11) configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector (fig. 1; para. 0032-0033) for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio (para. 0033).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the measurement unit further includes a shield configured to prevent a gamma-ray photon backscattered in one detector out of the first detector and the second detector from being incident on another detector as taught by Engert in the method of Seppi and Fukuchi for the purpose of increasing the signal to noise ratio.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights