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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 43 and 44 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 43, the limitations “if the first sum exceeds the second sum, designating the first candidate interaction time as the interaction time; and if the first sum is less than the second sum, designating the second candidate interaction time as the interaction time” render the claim indefinite because of the term “if”. As currently written, the limitations are contingent limitations and are not required to occur. The step are not required to occur since the condition precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04. The Examiner has interpreted “if” as “when”.
Regarding claim 44, the limitations “if a trigger time of the first readout end is less than a trigger time of the second readout end, designating the first candidate interaction time as the interaction time; and if the trigger time of the first readout end exceeds the trigger time of the second readout end, designating the second candidate interaction time as the interaction time.” render the claim indefinite because of the term “if”. As currently written, the limitations are contingent limitations and are not required to occur. The step are not required to occur since the condition precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04. The Examiner has interpreted “if” as “when”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ng (U.S. 9,903,961).
Regarding claim 32:
Ng discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining a first set of electrical signals output from a first readout end of a detector module of a detector assembly (Col. 9, lines 38-57, output signals obtained from respective row of scintillators);
obtaining a second set of electrical signals output from a second readout end of the detector module of the detector assembly (Col. 9, lines 38-57, output signals obtained from respective row of scintillators), the first set of electrical signals and the second set of electrical signals being generated by the first readout end and the second readout end in response to receiving an output of a same detector unit of the detector module detecting a same radiation ray among a plurality of radiation rays (Col. 9, lines 14-38, each row of scintillators has readout multiplexer);
determining an impinging position where the radiation ray interacts with the detector unit based on the first set of electrical signals and the second set of electrical signals (Col. 9, lines 38-57, determining the row and column of scintillators based on the output signals); and
generating image data based on the impinging position of each of at least a portion of the plurality of radiation rays (Col. 5, lines 13-45, image reconstruction).
Regarding claim 33:
Ng discloses the method of claim 32, wherein at least one readout element of the first readout end extends longitudinally in a second direction (Fig.7, 706, row summing circuit) and is optically coupled to two or more detector elements of the detector unit in the second direction (Fig. 7, each of 706 is attached to detector element 702) and optically coupled to two or more columns of detector elements (Fig. 7, 708, column summing circuit), each of the two or more columns of detector elements being arranged in the second direction (Fig. 7, 708, column summing circuit).
Regarding claim 34:
Ng discloses he method of claim 32, wherein at least one readout element of the second readout end extends longitudinally in a first direction (Fig.7, 706, row summing circuit) and is optically coupled to two or more detector elements of the detector unit in the first direction (Fig.7, 706, row summing circuit), and optically coupled to two or more rows of detector elements (Fig.7, 706, row summing circuit), each of the two or more rows of detector elements being arranged in the first direction (Fig.7, 706, row summing circuit).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-45, and 52-55 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Ng (U.S. 9,903,961).
Regarding claim 35:
Ng discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the determining an impinging position where the radiation ray interacts with the detector unit based on the first set of electrical signals and the second set of electrical signals includes:
determining a first position of the radiation ray that has interacted with the detector unit in a first direction based on the first set of electrical signals (Col. 9, lines 38-57, output signals obtained from respective row of scintillators); and
determining a second position of the radiation ray that has interacted with the detector unit (Col. 9, lines 38-57, output signals obtained from respective row of scintillators).
However, Ng fails to disclose determining a second position of the radiation ray that has interacted with the detector unit in a second direction based on the second set of electrical signals, the first direction and the second direction being perpendicular to each other and parallel to a surface of the detector unit facing a detection region, the impinging position including the first position and the second position.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claims 36-45, and 52-55 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights