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
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “wherein plurality of detectors include”, which should read ‘wherein the plurality of detectors include’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “at least two second type of imaging sources”, which is unclear as presently phrased, as ‘second type’ and ‘sources’ appear to disagree. Presently, the limitation could reasonably be interpreted as requiring two of a second type of imaging source or two second types of images sources. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘at least two of a second type of imaging source’.
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, 3-6, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friedrich (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20100290586 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Friedrich teaches an imaging device (Abstract), comprising:
one or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25; Abstract; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5); and
a plurality of detectors combined by joining, the plurality of detectors being configured to receive one or more imaging beams emitted by the one or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-5, items 15, each having a plurality of joined elements; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 3, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich further teaches wherein:
the one or more imaging sources include a first imaging source and a second imaging source (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5), and
the second imaging source is disposed on either side of an axis of the first imaging source, or the first imaging source and the second imaging source are respectively disposed on two sides of a preset axis (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25, disposed on two sides of, e.g., the axis of the therapeutic beam 11; Examiner notes various other axes would satisfy the requirement as well; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 4, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich further teaches wherein the one or more imaging sources include a first imaging source and at least two second imaging sources (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25, showing at least three; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5), the at least two second imaging sources being respectively disposed on two sides of an axis of the first imaging source (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25, and in particular, Figs. 1-2, 5, each of which have at least two second imaging sources on two sides of an axis of the third imaging source; Examiner notes that because the disclosed disposal is symmetrical, any of the imaging sources could be considered first or second; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich further teaches wherein the one or more imaging sources include one imaging source (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25; Examiner notes that any of the sources could be ‘the one imaging source’; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5), the one imaging source being disposed on an axis of symmetry of a joined structure of the plurality of detectors (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25, each of which are aligned on an axis of symmetry of items 15), and the one imaging source being configured to emit the one or more imaging beams ([0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 6, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1
Friedrich further teaches wherein at least one detector of the plurality of detectors is configured to receive the one or more imaging beams (See Figs. 1-5, items 15; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 10, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich further teaches wherein an included angle of two adjacent detectors of the plurality of detectors is in a range from 120° to 180° (See Figs. 1-5, items 15, each having plural detector elements; [0042]; Examiner notes that both the adjacent detector groups and adjacent detector elements are interpreted as reading on the limitation).
Regarding claim 20, Friedrich teaches a radiation system (Abstract), comprising:
an imaging device configured to scan a target object to generate one or more images of the target object (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25, 15, 41, ; Abstract; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5; [0054]-[0059]); and
a radiation device configured to deliver a radiation beam to the target object based on the one or more images (See Figs. 1-5, items 11, 19, 21, 23; Abstract; [0038]-[0049], and similar description for Figs. 2-5; [0054]-[0059]);
wherein the imaging device includes:
one or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-5, items 13, 25; Abstract; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5); and
a plurality of detectors combined by joining, the plurality of detectors being configured to receive one or more imaging beams emitted by the one or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-5, items 15, each having a plurality of joined elements; [0038]-[0042], and similar description for Figs. 2-5).
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eisenberg (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20030128801 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Eisenberg teaches an imaging device (Abstract), comprising:
one or more imaging sources configured to emit at least two different types of imaging beams (See Figs. 1-2, items 24; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]); and
one or more detectors configured to receive the at least two different types of imaging beams to generate images of at least two different modalities or with at least two different energy levels (See Figs. 1-4, items 26; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]; [0068]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Eisenberg teaches the imaging device of claim 12.
Eisenberg further teaches wherein the one or more imaging sources include one imaging source (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, each of which could be considered ‘to one imaging source’; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]), and wherein:
the one imaging source is configured to be switched between at least two imaging modalities, each of the at least two imaging modalities corresponding to emission of one type of the at least two different types of imaging beams (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, each of which could be considered ‘to one imaging source’, and which is configured to be switched between the disclosed modalities, corresponding to emission types; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Eisenberg teaches the imaging device of claim 12.
Eisenberg further teaches wherein the one or more imaging sources include two or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, showing two or more; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]), and wherein:
each of the two or more imaging sources is configured to emit a corresponding one type of the at least two different types of imaging beams (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, showing two or more, each of which is disclosed to be capable of emitting a corresponding type of beam of the at least two different types of imaging beams; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 15, Eisenberg teaches the imaging device of claim 12.
Eisenberg further teaches wherein the one or more imaging sources include two or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, showing two or more; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]), and wherein:
each of the two or more imaging sources is configured to be switched between at least two imaging modalities, each of the at least two imaging modalities corresponding to emission of one type of the at least two different types of imaging beams, such that the two or more imaging sources emit the at least two different types of imaging beams (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, showing two or more, each of which is capable of being switched between two imaging modalities, corresponding to the at least two different types of imaging beams; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Eisenberg teaches the imaging device of claim 12.
Eisenberg further teaches wherein the one or more imaging sources include two or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, showing two or more; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]), and wherein:
the two or more imaging sources are configured to emit the at least two different types of imaging beams simultaneously, alternately, or asynchronously (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, showing two or more, capable of emitting the two different types of imaging beams at least one of simultaneously, alternately, or asynchronously; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Eisenberg teaches the imaging device of claim 12.
Eisenberg further teaches wherein the one or more imaging sources include two or more imaging sources (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, showing two or more; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]), and wherein:
the two or more imaging sources include a first type of imaging source and a second type of imaging source (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, each of which could be interpreted as ‘first type’ or ‘second type’; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]), a first axis of the first type of imaging source and a second axis of the second type of imaging source have a preset angle (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, each having axes with a preset angle with respect to on another; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]); or
the two or more imaging sources include a first type of imaging source and at least two second type of imaging sources (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, each of which could be interpreted as ‘first type’ or ‘second type’; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]), the at least two second type of imaging sources being respectively disposed on two sides of the first axis of the first type of imaging source (See Figs. 1-2, items 24, each of which could be interpreted as ‘first type’ or ‘second type’, wherein two of items 24 are disposed on two sides of an axis of the third of items 24; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 18, Eisenberg teaches the imaging device of claim 12.
Eisenberg further teaches wherein:
the one or more detectors include one detector (See Figs. 1-4, items 26, each of which could be considered ‘the one detector’; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]; [0068]-[0070]); or
the one or more detectors include two or more detectors combined by joining (See Figs. 1-4, items 26, showing a plurality of sub-elements; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]; [0068]-[0070]); or
the one or more detectors include at least two sets of detectors that are respectively disposed on two sides of a preset axis (See Figs. 1-4, items 26, including at least two sets on two sides of an arbitrary axis; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]; [0068]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 19, Eisenberg teaches the imaging device of claim 12.
Eisenberg further teaches wherein:
the one or more imaging sources include a computed tomography (CT) imaging source and at least one digital radiography (DR) imaging source (See Figs. 1-4, items 24, each of which is configured to perform CT and DR; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]); or
the one or more imaging sources include two DR imaging sources (See Figs. 1-4, items 24, each of which is configured to perform CT and DR; Abstract; [0053]-[0063]).
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, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich, in view of Zhang (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20140247919 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich further teaches wherein the plurality of detectors are joined to form a detection surface (See Figs. 1-5, each of items 15 forming a detection surface), and
Friedrich does not explicitly teach at least a portion of the detection surface is bent or curved.
Zhang teaches at least a portion of the detection surface is bent or curved (See Figs. 2A, 5-10, items 204; [0052]-[0053]; [0059]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friedrich to include at least a portion of the detection surface is bent or curved, as taught by Zhang.
Doing so would allow one to achieve better geometric correspondence between the emitted beams and the receiving detectors to allow for higher imaging quality, as discussed in the cited portions of Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich does not explicitly teach further comprising at least one beam limiter, wherein each of the at least one beam limiter is configured to adjust an imaging beam emitted by an imaging source of the one or more imaging sources that corresponds to the each of the at least one beam limiter.
However, an ordinary skilled artisan would understand the need for precise control of the beam parameters for the disclosed tomography in Friedrich, and would likely conclude that such a structure is implicitly disclosed in order to achieve the imaging disclosed (see e.g. [0059]).
Nevertheless, Zhang teaches further comprising at least one beam limiter (See Figs. 3-4, item 222; [0057]-[0060]), wherein each of the at least one beam limiter is configured to adjust an imaging beam emitted by an imaging source of the one or more imaging sources that corresponds to the each of the at least one beam limiter (See Figs. 3-4, item 222, in particular, Fig. 3B; [0057]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friedrich to include further comprising at least one beam limiter, wherein each of the at least one beam limiter is configured to adjust an imaging beam emitted by an imaging source of the one or more imaging sources that corresponds to the each of the at least one beam limiter, as taught by Zhang.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as disposing a collimator downstream of the imaging beams could be readily adapted to Friedrich by an ordinarily skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success, and achieving predictable results, which would allow one to better control the beam output conditions for improved imaging.
Regarding claim 9, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich further teaches further comprising a gantry (See Figs. 1-2, 4-5, showing path of gantry; [0040]; [0059]; Claim 8), wherein:
the plurality of detectors are disposed [around] the gantry and are arranged along a circumferential direction of the gantry (See Figs. 1-2, 4-5, showing path of gantry; [0040]; [0059]; Claim 8); and/or
one or more imaging sources are disposed [around] the gantry and are arranged along the circumferential direction of the gantry (See Figs. 1-2, 4-5, showing path of gantry; [0040]; [0059]; Claim 8).
Friedrich does not explicitly teach the detectors and imaging source(s) being disposed on the gantry itself. In a non-limiting example, Friedrich discloses a fixed positioning for the imaging beams, allowing a lighter gantry for only the therapeutic beam.
Zhang teaches a plurality of detectors and one or more imaging sources disposed on a gantry and arranged along a circumferential direction of the gantry (See Figs. 2A, item 206; [0052]-[0060]; [0065]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friedrich to include the plurality of detectors are disposed on the gantry…; and/or one or more imaging sources are disposed on the gantry…, as taught by Zhang.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Zhang, to create more detailed 3D images.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich.
Regarding claim 8, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich does not explicitly teach wherein at least two of the plurality of detectors are detachably joined with each other.
However, Friedrich discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of detector elements being separable.
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 modified Friedrich to achieve wherein at least two of the plurality of detectors are detachably joined with each other, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich in view of Proska (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20100002830 A1).
Examiner notes that Proska is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 08/19/2025.
Regarding claim 11, Friedrich teaches the imaging device of claim 1.
Friedrich does not teach wherein plurality of detectors include one or more detectors with a relatively large area and one or more detectors with a relatively small area.
Proska teaches wherein plurality of detectors include one or more detectors with a relatively large area and one or more detectors with a relatively small area (See Fig. 1, item 124; [0021]; [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friedrich to include wherein plurality of detectors include one or more detectors with a relatively large area and one or more detectors with a relatively small area, as taught by Proska.
Doing so would allow one, as taught by Proska, to measure different targeted parameters, and as would be known by an ordinarily skilled artisan, allow for different beam characteristics to be effectively imaged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
