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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in Applicant’s responses filed 05/18/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant remarks on pages 10 that prior art Visser, et al. (US 20160019701 A1) does not teach adjusting the irradiation field by using means in addition to or instead of the collimator, as required by claims 1, 17 and 18.
Newly found prior art Fortuna, D., et al., US 20160128653 A1, which teaches a radiation source tilting device that continually uses optimal offset distance and greater target volumes to be scanned by the gantry, increases the field-of-view (FOV) by altering the angle of radiation emitted by the source, and optimizes beam targeting by keeping the strongest beam of radiation focused on the receiving device [0021], has been applied in combination with the teachings of Visser, et al. (US 20160019701 A1) and Mohr, B., et al. (US 20120219198 A1) to teach the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser et al., US 20160019701 A1 in view of Mohr, B., US 20120219198 A1, and Fortuna, D., et al., US 20160128653 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Visser teaches a control apparatus (tomographic image generating system 100 of reproduced fig. 1 below and [0041]) comprising:
at least one processor (see CPU of [0064]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire a distance image from a distance measurement camera that captures a distance image representing a distance from the distance measurement camera to an imaging target that exists in an imaging region of a radiography apparatus that captures a radiographic image with the radiation emitted from a radiation source ([0061] states that “The three-dimensional camera 70 functions as an acquiring member to radiograph the subject H in the irradiating direction of the radiation source 61, acquire a two-dimensional image (two-dimensional geometric image) and a distance image of the subject H, and output the images to the console 90. The distance image is an image representing a distribution of a distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 at individual positions in the imaging range of a two-dimensional image.”),
specify whether or not a structure that differs from a subject for imaging is present in the imaging region of the radiography apparatus ([0080] states that “The control section 91 acquires the thickness of the subject H based on the distance image captured with the three-dimensional camera 70 (Step S3). For example, the control section 91 measures the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 in advance and stores it in the storage section 95. The control section 91 then calculates a differential value between the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 and the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to each position (the x and y coordinates of each dot) in the imaging range. The control section 91 takes the differential value (more than zero) as the thickness of the subject H at each position and acquires a distribution of the thicknesses of the subject H (the thickness of the subject H at each position on the surface (xy-plane) irradiated with radiation)”),
set an imaging region excluding the structure as the imaging region before initial irradiation of the radiation is performed from the radiation source with respect to the subject in a case where the structure is present ([0089] states that “The irradiation field is a range in which the radiation source 61 radiates radiation, and can be limited with the collimator 75. For example, the control section 91 defines an area in which the thickness of the subject is more than zero (i.e. an area where the subject H exists) as a subject area within the imaging range of the three-dimensional camera 70. The control section 91 determines an area, which is inside a rectangle circumscribing the subject area, to be an irradiation field. This configuration can automatically determine the optimal irradiation field without manual adjustment by the user”. The defined irradiation field excludes regions where the thickness is zero, that is, including areas in the distance image occupied by the subject table 54),and
control the radiography apparatus to image the imaging region ([0097] states that “The control section 91 performs the tomosynthesis imaging under the determined imaging conditions (Step S5)”).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Visser fails to teach that the specifying of the presence of the structure is based on a region of pixels in the distance image that has a specific shape of the structure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Mohr teaches selecting image data representative of a subject from an image data set comprising determining regions of image data, wherein each region of image data consists of a respective plurality of connected voxels, and selecting at least one region as being representative of the subject based upon at least one of the size and shape of the region (see abstract). Reproduced fig. 2 ([0023]) below depicts steps to the effect of determining image data representative of the subject. The method of fig. 2 further includes a stage 28, where according to paragraph 39, the regions identified as being representative of the patient are selected out, leaving those regions that are above the intensity threshold but that have not been identified as representing the patient. A further process is then performed to identify which, if any, of the remaining regions represent the table. That further process uses a geometrical classifier to identify regions that may represent the table or parts of the table. The regions associated with the table are highlighted according to [0045]. [0046] then states that “The approach taken at stage 28 takes advantage of the fact that measurement table components have been found usually to be smaller and/or have a higher ratio of perimeter to filled interior size than a human or animal body or other subject. Even in the case of a relatively large table, the only above-threshold voxels may be present in the frame of the table, and the interior of the table will usually comprise below-threshold voxels that will have been discarded at the start of the process. Thus, the measure of the filled volume or area of the table (for example, the number of above-threshold voxels included in the table region) will usually be low relative to the measure of the perimeter. In some cases, once the below-threshold voxels have been discarded the frame of the table will comprise a plurality of separate regions (for example a plurality of separate rod shapes). Even in those cases, it has been found that the measure of the filled volume or area of each region is low relative to the measure of the perimeter of the region, in comparison to the whole or even individual parts (for example tip of nose, ears, fingertips) of a human or animal body”.
PNG
media_image2.png
780
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, such that the specifying of the presence of the structure is based on a region of pixels in the distance image that has a specific shape of the structure, as taught by Mohr, as such modification would improve results of further post-acquisition image processing such as registration and segmentation of the region of interest (see paragraph 6), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Visser also seeks to improve processing accuracy ([0102]) and achieve shortened processing time ([0120]).
Visser in view of Mohr teaches fails to teach to control at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source, and optionally control a collimator, so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fortuna teaches a radiological imaging device including a gantry defining an analysis zone in which at least a part of the patient is placed, a source suitable to emit radiation, and a detector arranged to receive the radiation and to generate data signals based on the radiation received (see abstract). [0021] discloses that the radiological imaging device further includes a source tilting device that connects to the source and a translational apparatus configured to translate the detector…The source tilting device enables dynamic scanning that continually uses optimal offset distance and greater target volumes to be scanned by the gantry, increases the field-of-view (FOV) by altering the angle of radiation emitted by the source, and optimizes beam targeting by keeping the strongest beam of radiation focused on the receiving device. The source tilting device further reduces the need for a collimator. [0109] disclosing that a source tilting device 132 is provided with the radiological imaging device 1 to position the radiation source 21 and thus, the central axis of propagation 21a of the radiation at various angles depending on the desired scanning position. Accordingly, the source tilting device 132 enables dynamic scanning that continually uses optimal offset distance and greater target volumes to be scanned by the gantry 20, which in turn increases the field-of-view (FOV) by increasing the angle of radiation emitted by the radiation source 21. The source tilting device 132 also optimizes beam targeting by keeping the strongest beam of radiation focused on the radiation detector 102, and hence teaching control at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, as modified by Mohr, to control at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure, as taught by Fortuna, as such modification would reduce the need for a collimator utilizing a wide aperture, wide-angle emission, and multiple emission sources, which is beneficial given that these other components, if used, introduce greater technical difficulty, cost, power requirements, safety risks (due to emission), and inferior image quality ([0021]), and hence reduce cost and complexity of the system ([0010]) while still providing clear images of a patient’s body ([0011]). Of note, Fortuna’s [0112] describes that optionally, the source tilting device 132 is used in combination with the collimator 76 having an adjustable window. There is a reasonable expectation of success for the further modification of modified Visser by Fortuna because similar to Fortuna, Visser also seeks to minimize the complexity of the system and process ([0006]-[0007]), with improved processing accuracy ([0102]).
Regarding claim 6, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser further teaches wherein the at least one processor (see CPU of [0064]) is configured to specify that the structure is present in a case where a structure distance image corresponding to the specific shape is detected from the distance image based on the distance ([0080] states that “the control section 91 measures the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 in advance and stores it in the storage section 95. The control section 91 then calculates a differential value between the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 and the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to each position (the x and y coordinates of each dot) in the imaging range.”).
Regarding claim 10, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser fails to teach wherein the structure consists of metal.
However, Mohr further teaches wherein the structure consists of metal (paragraph 32 states that “in the case of some CT tables, where the bulk of the table is formed of foam or other non-absorbing material, voxels representative of the foam or other non-absorbing material are discarded during the initial thresholding process and only voxels representative of a metal or other frame of the table are retained. For such CT tables, the patient region will be separate from the table region even without the morphological process”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser wherein the structure consists of metal, as taught by Mohr, as such modification would improve results of further post-acquisition image processing such as registration and segmentation of the region of interest (see paragraph 6), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Visser also seeks to improve processing accuracy ([0102]) and achieve shortened processing time ([0120]).
Regarding claim 13, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire the radiographic image by imaging the imaging region, in which the subject is present, via the radiography apparatus, and execute image processing on the radiographic image ([0110] states that “The control section 91 generates reconstructed images (tomographic images) of the subject H based on the projected images stored in the projected image storage section 951, and stores them in connection with the patient information in the reconstructed image storage section 952 (Step S7)”).
Regarding claim 16, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser teaches a radiography system comprising: a radiography apparatus that captures a radiographic image of a subject ([0041] states that “The skeleton framework of a tomographic image generating system 100 according to a first embodiment will now be described. The tomographic image generating system 100 generates a tomographic image of a subject H (a part of the human body) by reconstructing projected images acquired through the tomosynthesis imaging of the subject H.”); and the control apparatus according to claim 1 (tomographic image generating system 100 of reproduced fig. 1 below and [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Visser teaches a control processing method (see reproduced fig. 4 below),
wherein a computer (see CPU of [0064]) executes processing of:
acquiring a distance image from a distance measurement camera that captures a distance image representing a distance from the distance measurement camera to an imaging target that exists in an imaging region of a radiography apparatus that captures a radiographic image with the radiation emitted from a radiation source ([0061] states that “The three-dimensional camera 70 functions as an acquiring member to radiograph the subject H in the irradiating direction of the radiation source 61, acquire a two-dimensional image (two-dimensional geometric image) and a distance image of the subject H, and output the images to the console 90. The distance image is an image representing a distribution of a distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 at individual positions in the imaging range of a two-dimensional image.”),
specifying whether or not a structure that differs from a subject for imaging is present in the imaging region of the radiography apparatus ([0080] states that “The control section 91 acquires the thickness of the subject H based on the distance image captured with the three-dimensional camera 70 (Step S3). For example, the control section 91 measures the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 in advance and stores it in the storage section 95. The control section 91 then calculates a differential value between the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 and the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to each position (the x and y coordinates of each dot) in the imaging range. The control section 91 takes the differential value (more than zero) as the thickness of the subject H at each position and acquires a distribution of the thicknesses of the subject H (the thickness of the subject H at each position on the surface (xy-plane) irradiated with radiation)”),
setting an imaging region excluding the structure as the imaging region before initial irradiation of the radiation is performed from the radiation source with respect to the subject in a case where the structure is present([0089] states that “The irradiation field is a range in which the radiation source 61 radiates radiation, and can be limited with the collimator 75. For example, the control section 91 defines an area in which the thickness of the subject is more than zero (i.e. an area where the subject H exists) as a subject area within the imaging range of the three-dimensional camera 70. The control section 91 determines an area, which is inside a rectangle circumscribing the subject area, to be an irradiation field. This configuration can automatically determine the optimal irradiation field without manual adjustment by the user”. The defined irradiation field excludes regions where the thickness is zero, that is, including areas in the distance image occupied by the subject table 54), and
controlling the radiography apparatus to image the imaging region([0097] states that “The control section 91 performs the tomosynthesis imaging under the determined imaging conditions (Step S5)”).
PNG
media_image3.png
604
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Visser fails to teach that the specifying of the presence of the structure is based on a region of pixels in the distance image that has a specific shape of the structure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Mohr teaches selecting image data representative of a subject from an image data set comprising determining regions of image data, wherein each region of image data consists of a respective plurality of connected voxels, and selecting at least one region as being representative of the subject based upon at least one of the size and shape of the region (see abstract). Reproduced fig. 2 ([0023]) below depicts steps to the effect of determining image data representative of the subject. The method of fig. 2 further includes a stage 28, where according to paragraph 39, the regions identified as being representative of the patient are selected out, leaving those regions that are above the intensity threshold but that have not been identified as representing the patient. A further process is then performed to identify which, if any, of the remaining regions represent the table. That further process uses a geometrical classifier to identify regions that may represent the table or parts of the table. The regions associated with the table are highlighted according to [0045]. [0046] then states that “The approach taken at stage 28 takes advantage of the fact that measurement table components have been found usually to be smaller and/or have a higher ratio of perimeter to filled interior size than a human or animal body or other subject. Even in the case of a relatively large table, the only above-threshold voxels may be present in the frame of the table, and the interior of the table will usually comprise below-threshold voxels that will have been discarded at the start of the process. Thus, the measure of the filled volume or area of the table (for example, the number of above-threshold voxels included in the table region) will usually be low relative to the measure of the perimeter. In some cases, once the below-threshold voxels have been discarded the frame of the table will comprise a plurality of separate regions (for example a plurality of separate rod shapes). Even in those cases, it has been found that the measure of the filled volume or area of each region is low relative to the measure of the perimeter of the region, in comparison to the whole or even individual parts (for example tip of nose, ears, fingertips) of a human or animal body”.
PNG
media_image2.png
780
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, such that the specifying of the presence of the structure is based on a region of pixels in the distance image that has a specific shape of the structure, as taught by Mohr, as such modification would improve results of further post-acquisition image processing such as registration and segmentation of the region of interest (see paragraph 6), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Visser also seeks to improve processing accuracy ([0102]) and achieve shortened processing time ([0120]).
Visser in view of Mohr teaches fails to teach to control at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source, and optionally control a collimator, so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fortuna teaches a radiological imaging device including a gantry defining an analysis zone in which at least a part of the patient is placed, a source suitable to emit radiation, and a detector arranged to receive the radiation and to generate data signals based on the radiation received (see abstract). [0021] discloses that the radiological imaging device further includes a source tilting device that connects to the source and a translational apparatus configured to translate the detector…The source tilting device enables dynamic scanning that continually uses optimal offset distance and greater target volumes to be scanned by the gantry, increases the field-of-view (FOV) by altering the angle of radiation emitted by the source, and optimizes beam targeting by keeping the strongest beam of radiation focused on the receiving device. The source tilting device further reduces the need for a collimator. [0109] disclosing that a source tilting device 132 is provided with the radiological imaging device 1 to position the radiation source 21 and thus, the central axis of propagation 21a of the radiation at various angles depending on the desired scanning position. Accordingly, the source tilting device 132 enables dynamic scanning that continually uses optimal offset distance and greater target volumes to be scanned by the gantry 20, which in turn increases the field-of-view (FOV) by increasing the angle of radiation emitted by the radiation source 21. The source tilting device 132 also optimizes beam targeting by keeping the strongest beam of radiation focused on the radiation detector 102, and hence teaching control at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, as modified by Mohr, to control at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure, as taught by Fortuna, as such modification would reduce the need for a collimator utilizing a wide aperture, wide-angle emission, and multiple emission sources, which is beneficial given that these other components, if used, introduce greater technical difficulty, cost, power requirements, safety risks (due to emission), and inferior image quality ([0021]), and hence reduce cost and complexity of the system ([0010]) while still providing clear images of a patient’s body ([0011]). Of note, Fortuna’s [0112] describes that optionally, the source tilting device 132 is used in combination with the collimator 76 having an adjustable window. There is a reasonable expectation of success for the further modification of modified Visser by Fortuna because similar to Fortuna, Visser also seeks to minimize the complexity of the system and process ([0006]-[0007]), with improved processing accuracy ([0102]).
Regarding claim 18, Visser teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a control processing program ([0064] states that “The CPU of the control section 91 reads various programs such as system programs and processing programs stored in the storage section 95 and loads them onto the RAM. Under instruction of the loaded programs, the CPU executes a reconstructed image generating process A and other processes described later.”) causing a computer to execute processing of:
acquiring a distance image from a distance measurement camera that captures a distance image representing a distance from the distance measurement camera to an imaging target that exists in an imaging region of a radiography apparatus that captures a radiographic image with the radiation emitted from a radiation source ([0061] states that “The three-dimensional camera 70 functions as an acquiring member to radiograph the subject H in the irradiating direction of the radiation source 61, acquire a two-dimensional image (two-dimensional geometric image) and a distance image of the subject H, and output the images to the console 90. The distance image is an image representing a distribution of a distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 at individual positions in the imaging range of a two-dimensional image.”),
specifying whether or not a structure that differs from a subject for imaging is present in the imaging region of the radiography apparatus ([0080] states that “The control section 91 acquires the thickness of the subject H based on the distance image captured with the three-dimensional camera 70 (Step S3). For example, the control section 91 measures the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 in advance and stores it in the storage section 95. The control section 91 then calculates a differential value between the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to the subject table 54 and the distance from the three-dimensional camera 70 to each position (the x and y coordinates of each dot) in the imaging range. The control section 91 takes the differential value (more than zero) as the thickness of the subject H at each position and acquires a distribution of the thicknesses of the subject H (the thickness of the subject H at each position on the surface (xy-plane) irradiated with radiation)”),
setting an imaging region excluding the structure as the imaging region before initial irradiation of the radiation is performed from the radiation source with respect to the subject in a case where the structure is present([0089] states that “The irradiation field is a range in which the radiation source 61 radiates radiation, and can be limited with the collimator 75. For example, the control section 91 defines an area in which the thickness of the subject is more than zero (i.e. an area where the subject H exists) as a subject area within the imaging range of the three-dimensional camera 70. The control section 91 determines an area, which is inside a rectangle circumscribing the subject area, to be an irradiation field. This configuration can automatically determine the optimal irradiation field without manual adjustment by the user”. The defined irradiation field excludes regions where the thickness is zero, that is, including areas in the distance image occupied by the subject table 54),
controlling a collimator that adjusts an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure ([0089] states that “The irradiation field is a range in which the radiation source 61 radiates radiation, and can be limited with the collimator 75”), and
controlling the radiography apparatus to image the imaging region([0097] states that “The control section 91 performs the tomosynthesis imaging under the determined imaging conditions (Step S5)”).
Visser fails to teach that the specifying of the presence of the structure is based on a region of pixels in the distance image that has a specific shape of the structure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Mohr teaches selecting image data representative of a subject from an image data set comprising determining regions of image data, wherein each region of image data consists of a respective plurality of connected voxels, and selecting at least one region as being representative of the subject based upon at least one of the size and shape of the region (see abstract). Reproduced fig. 2 ([0023]) below depicts steps to the effect of determining image data representative of the subject. The method of fig. 2 further includes a stage 28, where according to paragraph 39, the regions identified as being representative of the patient are selected out, leaving those regions that are above the intensity threshold but that have not been identified as representing the patient. A further process is then performed to identify which, if any, of the remaining regions represent the table. That further process uses a geometrical classifier to identify regions that may represent the table or parts of the table. The regions associated with the table are highlighted according to [0045]. [0046] then states that “The approach taken at stage 28 takes advantage of the fact that measurement table components have been found usually to be smaller and/or have a higher ratio of perimeter to filled interior size than a human or animal body or other subject. Even in the case of a relatively large table, the only above-threshold voxels may be present in the frame of the table, and the interior of the table will usually comprise below-threshold voxels that will have been discarded at the start of the process. Thus, the measure of the filled volume or area of the table (for example, the number of above-threshold voxels included in the table region) will usually be low relative to the measure of the perimeter. In some cases, once the below-threshold voxels have been discarded the frame of the table will comprise a plurality of separate regions (for example a plurality of separate rod shapes). Even in those cases, it has been found that the measure of the filled volume or area of each region is low relative to the measure of the perimeter of the region, in comparison to the whole or even individual parts (for example tip of nose, ears, fingertips) of a human or animal body”.
PNG
media_image2.png
780
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, such that the specifying of the presence of the structure is based on a region of pixels in the distance image that has a specific shape of the structure, as taught by Mohr, as such modification would improve results of further post-acquisition image processing such as registration and segmentation of the region of interest (see paragraph 6), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Visser also seeks to improve processing accuracy ([0102]) and achieve shortened processing time ([0120]).
Visser in view of Mohr teaches fails to teach controlling at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source, and optionally control a collimator, so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fortuna teaches a radiological imaging device including a gantry defining an analysis zone in which at least a part of the patient is placed, a source suitable to emit radiation, and a detector arranged to receive the radiation and to generate data signals based on the radiation received (see abstract). [0021] discloses that the radiological imaging device further includes a source tilting device that connects to the source and a translational apparatus configured to translate the detector…The source tilting device enables dynamic scanning that continually uses optimal offset distance and greater target volumes to be scanned by the gantry, increases the field-of-view (FOV) by altering the angle of radiation emitted by the source, and optimizes beam targeting by keeping the strongest beam of radiation focused on the receiving device. The source tilting device further reduces the need for a collimator. [0109] disclosing that a source tilting device 132 is provided with the radiological imaging device 1 to position the radiation source 21 and thus, the central axis of propagation 21a of the radiation at various angles depending on the desired scanning position. Accordingly, the source tilting device 132 enables dynamic scanning that continually uses optimal offset distance and greater target volumes to be scanned by the gantry 20, which in turn increases the field-of-view (FOV) by increasing the angle of radiation emitted by the radiation source 21. The source tilting device 132 also optimizes beam targeting by keeping the strongest beam of radiation focused on the radiation detector 102, and hence teaching controlling at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, as modified by Mohr, for controlling at least one of a position of the radiation source or an irradiation angle of the radiation from the radiation source so as to adjust an irradiation field of the radiation emitted from the radiation source, such that the irradiation field corresponds to the imaging region excluding the structure, as taught by Fortuna, as such modification would reduce the need for a collimator utilizing a wide aperture, wide-angle emission, and multiple emission sources, which is beneficial given that these other components, if used, introduce greater technical difficulty, cost, power requirements, safety risks (due to emission), and inferior image quality ([0021]), and hence reduce cost and complexity of the system ([0010]) while still providing clear images of a patient’s body ([0011]). Of note, Fortuna’s [0112] describes that optionally, the source tilting device 132 is used in combination with the collimator 76 having an adjustable window. There is a reasonable expectation of success for the further modification of modified Visser by Fortuna because similar to Fortuna, Visser also seeks to minimize the complexity of the system and process ([0006]-[0007]), with improved processing accuracy ([0102]).
PNG
media_image4.png
766
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser fails to teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify whether or not the structure that differs from the subject for imaging is present by: detecting the region of pixels in the distance image, in which a difference in pixel value between adjacent pixels is equal to or less than a predetermined value and the pixels are continuous for a predetermined number or more; and specifying that the structure is present in a case where a shape of the detected region of pixels has the specific shape of the structure.
However, Mohr further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify whether or not the structure that differs from the subject for imaging is present by:
detecting the region of pixels in the distance image, in which a difference in pixel value between adjacent pixels is equal to or less than a predetermined value ([0018] discloses a method of selecting image data representative of a subject from an image data set comprising determining regions of image data, wherein each region of image data consists of a respective plurality of connected voxels. The method of fig. 2 further includes a stage 28, where according to [0030]-[0032], a morphological opening process that effectively discards connected regions that are below a threshold thickness, separating loosely connected regions as a patient region from a table region), and the pixels are continuous for a predetermined number or more ([0033]-[0035] disclose that after the morphological process has been performed, the data set usually comprises a separate set of regions, each comprising a plurality of connected voxels above the threshold intensity value); and
specifying that the structure is present in a case where a shape of the detected region of pixels has the specific shape of the structure ([0039]-[0040] describe a geometrical classifier to identify regions that may represent the table or parts of the table. The regions associated with the table are highlighted according to [0045]. [0046] then states that “The approach taken at stage 28 takes advantage of the fact that measurement table components have been found usually to be smaller and/or have a higher ratio of perimeter to filled interior size than a human or animal body or other subject. Even in the case of a relatively large table, the only above-threshold voxels may be present in the frame of the table, and the interior of the table will usually comprise below-threshold voxels that will have been discarded at the start of the process. Thus, the measure of the filled volume or area of the table (for example, the number of above-threshold voxels included in the table region) will usually be low relative to the measure of the perimeter. In some cases, once the below-threshold voxels have been discarded the frame of the table will comprise a plurality of separate regions (for example a plurality of separate rod shapes). Even in those cases, it has been found that the measure of the filled volume or area of each region is low relative to the measure of the perimeter of the region, in comparison to the whole or even individual parts (for example tip of nose, ears, fingertips) of a human or animal body”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify whether or not the structure that differs from the subject for imaging is present by: detecting the region of pixels in the distance image, in which a difference in pixel value between adjacent pixels is equal to or less than a predetermined value and the pixels are continuous for a predetermined number or more; and specifying that the structure is present in a case where a shape of the detected region of pixels has the specific shape of the structure, as taught by Mohr, as such modification would improve results of further post-acquisition image processing such as registration and segmentation of the region of interest (see paragraph 6), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Visser also seeks to improve processing accuracy ([0102]) and achieve shortened processing time ([0120]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imamura, et al, US 20190046134 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna fails to teach wherein the distance image capturing apparatus captures the distance image using a time-of-flight (TOF) system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Imamura teaches a position detection unit disposed at an exposure position that is included in a camera image and a field of view of a camera and outputs a position signal indicating the position of a part of a peripheral portion of an electronic cassette. A calculation unit calculates an in-image cassette position which is the position of the electronic cassette in the camera image, on the basis of the position, direction, and size of the position detection unit in the camera image and the position signal. See abstract. Imamura further teaches wherein the distance image capturing apparatus captures the distance image using a time-of-flight (TOF) system (see [0079] which discloses that The image sensor 60 is any one of an optical camera, a time-of-flight camera 150 (see FIG. 25), an ultrasound sensor, and a radar sensor. The time-of-flight camera 150 irradiates a detection target with a laser beam. The ultrasound sensor irradiates the detection target with ultrasonic waves. The radar sensor irradiates the detection target with radio waves. Then, the camera or the sensor receives waves reflected from the detection target, converts the information of the received reflected waves into a two-dimensional image, and outputs the two-dimensional image. The image sensor 60 forms a so-called stereo camera including two optical cameras, two time-of-flight cameras 150, two ultrasound sensors, or two radar sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser as modified by Mohr and Fortuna, such that the distance image capturing apparatus captures the distance image using a time-of-flight (TOF) system, as taught by Imamura, as this would provide an easier way to capture images of the subject (see [0013]-[0014]), with reduced computational burden and improved accuracy of detection ([0173]). There is a reasonable expectation of success for the further modification of modified Visser by Mohr because similar to Mohr, Visser also seeks to improve processing accuracy ([0102]) and achieve shortened processing time ([0120]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser in view of Mohr, Fortuna, and Imamura, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Eichler, et al., US 20140275998.
Regarding claim 7, Visser in view of Mohr, Fortuna, and Imamura teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above.
Visser in view of Mohr, Fortuna, and Imamura fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to detect the structure distance image based on a learned model learned in advance using a plurality of the distance images with the structure in the imaging region as the imaging target.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Eichler teaches a method of an image based navigation of a medical device within a body ([0049] discloses that referring to FIG. 7, an exemplary method for navigating a medical device 14 within body 16 may begin with the step 84 of generating one or more magnetic fields with a magnetic field generator assembly 44 disposed outside of body 16), wherein the processor (one or more programmable microprocessors and microcontrollers of [0047]-[0048]) is configured to detect the structure distance image based on a learned model learned in advance using a plurality of the distance images with the structure in the imaging region as the imaging target ([0049] discloses a neural network algorithm “to generate accurate outputs of the position of emitter 26 and/or detector 28 and the distance between emitter 26 and detector 28 responsive to inputs from a group of sensors… To account for the various degrees of freedom within the illustrated electrophysiology lab, one of assembly 44 and sensors 48, 50, 52 may be correlated to a position of emitter 26, another of assembly 44 and sensors 48, 50, 52 may be correlated to a position of detector 28 and yet another of assembly 44 and sensors 48, 50, 52 may be correlated to a position of body 16. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, assembly 44 may be correlated to body 16 by virtue of the attachment of assembly 44 and body 16 to table 20, sensor 48 may be correlated to detector 28 and sensor 50 may be correlated to emitter 26”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, as modified by Mohr, Fortuna, and Imamura, such that the processor is configured to detect the structure distance image based on a learned model learned in advance using a plurality of the distance images with the structure in the imaging region as the imaging target, as taught by Eichler, as such accurate outputs of the distance improves the accurate depiction of the region of interest ([0005]-[0006]). There is a reasonable expectation of success for the further modification of modified Visser by Eichler because similar to Eichler, Visser also seeks to improve accuracy of processing outputs ([0102]) and achieve shortened processing time ([0120]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto, Y. JP2006198157 (disclosed in IDS dated 06/03/2021).
Regarding claim 11, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna does not teach wherein the structure is a wheelchair.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto teaches an X-ray apparatus reducing the burdens of both of a supporter and a subject and capable of radiographing the subject even in a sitting posture (see abstract), further disclosing radiographic imaging of a patient supported by a wheelchair (see reproduced fig. A below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, as modified by Mohr and Fortuna, such that the patient to be imaged is supported on wheelchair, as taught by Matsumoto, hence reducing the burden of ambulating the patient during the imaging study (see fourth paragraph of attached translation of the patent document), so that the scan is performed easily ([0045]). There is a reasonable expectation of success for the further modification of modified Visser by Eichler because similar to Eichler, Visser also seeks to minimize the complexity of the system and imaging process ([0006]-[0007]), and increase accuracy of detection on the basis of the subject thickness, and hence improve the accuracy of reconstructed images generated ([0124])
PNG
media_image5.png
498
776
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, et al., US 20150282774 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna does not teach wherein the structure is a stretcher.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches Systems and methods for x-ray imaging are disclosed, particularly non-rotating, stationary gantry and mobile x-ray computed tomography systems and methods for imaging a subject, and particularly for imaging the head, spine, and neck of a subject (see abstract), the system comprising a CT scanner 1200 for imaging a patient (see [0074]), the patient configured to lie on a stretcher that allows translations to image the subject (see [0081] which discloses that the system can be equipped with translation stages TS to allow for imaging along the Z axis. The subject S, or patient, can lie on a metal-free bed, stretcher, or table T, which in some embodiments can comprise a head holder, which reduces the artifacts during imaging. In some embodiments the system can move along the Z axis to perform a full scan of the head, neck and/or spine of subject S).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser as modified by Mohr and Fortuna, such that the structure is a stretcher, as taught by Lee, as such modification would allow easier access to the regions of interest of the subject and hence reduce instances of artifacts in the image acquisition (see [0081]), and hence simplifying the system and its processes (see [0096]), with a reasonable expectation of success as Visser also seeks to minimize the complexity of the system and process ([0006]-[0007]), with improved processing accuracy ([0102]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim, et al, US 20150190107 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Visser in view of Mohr and Fortuna fails to teach wherein the image processing is contrast enhancement processing.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches an image processor is configured to extract distinct points from at least one of the first diagnostic image and the second diagnostic image and perform image registration the first and second diagnostic images based on the extracted distinct points (see abstract), wherein the image processing is contrast enhancement processing (see [0105]-[0106] which describe image adjustments including normalization of contrast).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Visser, as modified by Mohr and Fortuna, such that the image processing is contrast enhancement processing, as taught by Kim, improving the diagnostic quality of the image ([0105]-[0106]), with a reasonable expectation of success as modified Visser also seeks to increase accuracy of detection on the basis of the subject thickness, and hence improve the accuracy of reconstructed images generated ([0124]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights