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 .
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings and specification filed on August 12th, 2025 have been fully considered and overcome the previous drawing rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the previous claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 13 - 16, regarding the 101 rejection, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the trigger signal when sent can cause the medical device to correct its movement course or prevent further automated movement. The examiner agrees that this would overcome the 101 rejection but it is not mentioned in the claims. The examiner suggests adding this limitation to the claims. Applicant additionally argues that “compare said at least one measured distance with said calculated distance, such that when the difference between said at least one measured distance and said calculated distance exceeds a threshold value, a trigger signal is sent to said imaging modality” cannot be performed by the human mind. The examiner disagrees. Humans constantly compare distances between two objects. For example, someone could estimate that a chair is 3m away and then when it is measured, the chair is 2.8m away. Because the measurement is different the person can push a trigger to send information. Nothing in this limitation is beyond what can be accomplished by a human mind.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 16 – 19, regarding the 103 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, a new reference has been used to reject the claims, Eichler et al. (US Patent No: 11,013,561 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, nor is the abstract idea as a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a machine.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed under MPEP 2106.04 to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text).
Claim 1 recites:
A system to supervise an automated movement of at least one movable component of an imaging modality within a medical scene to prevent collision between said at least one movable component and other objects within said medical scene, said at least one movable component providing a data stream comprising at least one positional parameter determining said at least one movable component’s geometric state in the medical scene, the system comprising,
an interface adapted to read out said positional parameter from said data stream from said at least one movable component,
a memory storing:
dynamic model data representing geometric knowledge of said at least one movable component in the medical scene as a function of said positional parameter of said at least one movable component in said data stream,
stationary model data representing geometric knowledge on all non- movable objects in the medical scene, and
a medical scene map,
at least one distance detector fixed at a known position in said medical scene, said known position is stored in said medical scene map, said at least one distance detector providing at least one measured distance between said at least one distance detector and an observed object along a detection axis of said at least one distance detector, and
a processor configured to:
calculate said medical scene map from said dynamic model data in combination with said at least one positional parameter, and from said stationary model data,
calculate a calculated distance between said stored position of said at least one distance detector in said medical scene map and a first object along said detection axis of said at least one distance detector in said medical scene map, and
compare said at least one measured distance with said calculated distance, such that when the difference between said at least one measured distance and said calculated distance exceeds a threshold value, a trigger signal is sent to said imaging modality.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106.04(d), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application.”
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system to supervise an automated movement of at least one movable component of an imaging modality within a medical scene to prevent collision between said at least one movable component and other objects within said medical scene, said at least one movable component providing a data stream comprising at least one positional parameter determining said at least one movable components' geometric state in the medical scene, the system comprising,
an interface adapted to read out said at least one positional parameter from said at least one data stream from said movable component,
a memory storing:
dynamic model data representing geometric knowledge of said at least one movable component in the medical scene as a function of said at least one positional parameter of said at least one movable component in said data stream,
stationary model data representing geometric knowledge on all non- movable objects in the medical scene, and
a medical scene map,
at least one distance detector fixed at a known position in said medical scene, said known position is stored in said medical scene map, said at least one distance detector providing at least one measured distance between said at least one distance detector and an observed object along a detection axis of said at least one distance detector, and
a processor configured to:
calculate said medical scene map from said dynamic model data in combination with said at least one positional parameter, and from said stationary model data,
calculate a calculated distance between said stored position of said at least one distance detector in said medical scene map and a first object along said detection axis of said at least onedistance detector in said medical scene map, and
compare said at least one measured distance with said calculated distance, such that when the difference between said at least one measured distance and said calculated distance exceeds a threshold value, a trigger signal is sent to said imaging modality.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “a system” this is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “an interface adapted to read out said positional parameter from said data stream from said movable component,” this is merely describing a way to link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)), or at best, is simply appending well‐understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, which will be discussed further below within Step 2B.
Regarding the additional element of “an interface adapted to read out said at least one positional parameter from said data stream from said at least one movable component, a memory storing: dynamic model data representing geometric knowledge of said at least one movable component in the medical scene as a function of said at least one positional parameter of said at least one movable component in said data stream, stationary model data representing geometric knowledge on all non- movable objects in the medical scene, and a medical scene map, at least one distance detector fixed at a known position in said medical scene, said known position is stored in said medical scene map, said at least one distance detector providing at least one measured distance between said at least one distance detector and an observed object along a detection axis of said at least one distance detector, and” this is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “at least one distance detector fixed at a known position in said medical scene, said known position is stored in said medical scene map, said at least one distance detector providing at least one measured distance between said at least one distance detector and an observed object along a detection axis of said at least one distance detector, and” this is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “a processor” this is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the MPEP 2106.05, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, regardless of whether they are looked at individually or in combination.
As discussed, the additional element of “a system” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the additional element of “an interface adapted to read out said at least one positional parameter from said data stream from said at least one movable component, a memory storing: dynamic model data representing geometric knowledge of said at least one movable component in the medical scene as a function of said at least one positional parameter of said at least one movable component in said data stream, stationary model data representing geometric knowledge on all non- movable objects in the medical scene, and a medical scene map, at least one distance detector fixed at a known position in said medical scene, said known position is stored in said medical scene map, said at least one distance detector providing at least one measured distance between said at least one distance detector and an observed object along a detection axis of said at least one distance detector, and” and “a processor” each amount to extra-solution activity (see below).
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “at least one distance detector fixed at a known position in said medical scene, said known position is stored in said medical scene map, said at least one distance detector providing at least one measured distance between said at least one distance detector and an observed object along a detection axis of said at least one distance detector, and” are each well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because calculating the distance between objects is a common invention, including the likes of a ruler, measuring tape, radar, lidar, sonar, etc…
Dependent claims 2 - 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As stated above, claims 13 – 16 overcome the 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 6 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson (DE 102018209691, hereinafter Ferguson) in view of Kirchberg et al. (US Patent No: 11,107,270 B2, hereinafter Kirchberg) and Eichler et al. (US Patent No: 11,013,561 B2, hereinafter Eichler).
*The translation is provided. The actual document is provided by the applicant.
Regarding Claim 1:
Ferguson discloses:
A system to supervise an automated movement of at least one movable component of an imaging modality within a medical scene to prevent collision between said at least one movable component and other objects within said medical scene. Paragraph [0038] describes a medical imaging device. Paragraph [0045] describes a collision probability of an object positioned on the patient support device 17.
an interface adapted to read out said at least one positional parameter from said data stream from said at least one movable component. Paragraph [0043] describes a user interface 24 which is connected to a control unit 23. The control information such as imaging parameters as well as reconstructed magnetic resonance images can be displayed on a display unit 25.
and a medical scene map. Paragraph [0051] describes a 3D position data of the objects arranged on the patient support device. The 3D position data are acquired for the medical imaging examination. This is equivalent to a medical scene map.
at least one distance detector fixed at a known position in said medical scene, said known position is stored in said medical scene map, said at least one distance detector providing at least one measured distance between said at least one distance detector and an observed object along a detection axis of said at least one distance detector. Paragraph [0053] describes that the 3D position data is carried out with respect to a distance 37 of the object position on the patient table.
calculate a calculated distance between said stored position of said at least one distance detector in said medical scene map and a first object along said detection axis of said at least one distance detector in said medical scene map. Paragraph [0012] describes a distance between the object positioned on the patient support device comprises a distance in all three spatial directions. Paragraph [0053] describes that the 3D position data is carried out with respect to a distance 37 of the object position on the patient table.
Ferguson does not disclose a data stream comprising movable component’s geometric state, a stationary model representing geometric knowledge on all non-movable objects in the medical scene and a processor that calculates a medical scene map from dynamic model data in combination with a positional parameter and stationary model data.
Kirchberg, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
said at least one movable component providing a data stream comprising at least one positional parameter determining said at least one movable component’s geometric state in the medical scene, the system comprising. Paragraph [0058] describes geometric models representing one or more recognized objects. Paragraph [0056] describes a medical scene model 200 can be updated to change the positions of object representations in the model scene model 200 to add or remove new object representations to the medical scene model 200. Paragraph [0068] describes control signals for controlling the movement or navigations of medical equipment controllable to move within the scene 200. Paragraph [0066] describes an accuracy parameter. This is equivalent to the claim because the geometric model has an accuracy parameter to estimate the accuracy of the medical scene model as objects or added or removed and medical equipment is dynamically moved.
a memory storing: dynamic model data representing geometric knowledge of said at least one movable component in the medical scene as a function of said at least one positional parameter of said at least one movable component in said data stream. Paragraph [0079] describes storing one or more dynamic changes. Paragraph [0058] describes geometric models representing one or more recognized objects. Paragraph [0056] describes a medical scene model 200 can be updated to change the positions of object representations in the model scene model 200 to add or remove new object representations to the medical scene model 200. Paragraph [0068] describes control signals for controlling the movement or navigations of medical equipment controllable to move within the scene 200.
stationary model data representing geometric knowledge on all non- movable objects in the medical scene. Paragraph [0058] describes geometric models representing one or more recognized objects. Paragraph [0056] describes a medical scene model 200 can be updated to change the positions of object representations in the model scene model 200 to add or remove new object representations to the medical scene model 200. This is equivalent to the claim because the model includes geometric models on stationary and dynamic objects.
and a processor configured to: calculate said medical scene map from said dynamic model data in combination with said at least one positional parameter, and from said stationary model data. Paragraph [0058] describes geometric models representing one or more recognized objects. Paragraph [0056] describes a medical scene model 200 can be updated to change the positions of object representations in the model scene model 200 to add or remove new object representations to the medical scene model 200. Paragraph [0068] describes control signals for controlling the movement or navigations of medical equipment controllable to move within the scene 200. Paragraph [0066] describes an accuracy parameter. This is equivalent to the claim because the geometric model has an accuracy parameter to estimate the accuracy of the medical scene model as objects or added or removed and medical equipment is dynamically moved.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Ferguson to incorporate the teachings of Kirchberg to show a data stream comprising movable component’s geometric state, a stationary model representing geometric knowledge on all non-movable objects in the medical scene and a processor that calculates a medical scene map from dynamic model data in combination with a positional parameter and stationary model data. One would have been motivated to do so to improve the efficiency of medical workflows while still maintaining the continuity and reliability that are important in medical environments ([0005] of Kirchberg).
Ferguson does not disclose comparing a measured distance with a calculated distance, such that when the measured distance exceeds a threshold value, a trigger signal is sent.
Eichler, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches and Ferguson discloses:
compare said at least one measured distance with said calculated distance, such that when the difference between said at least one measured distance and said calculated distance exceeds a threshold value, a trigger signal is sent to said imaging modality. Column 12, lines 15 – 57 describes an ECU 56 that compares the position of detector 28 with a position of body 16 and/or table 20. The ECU 56 configured to determine the position or a change in position of body 16 or table 20 responsive to position signals generated by position sensors 52 and 54 affixed to body 16 and table 20. Paragraph [0049] of Ferguson describes an alert that can be issued when incorrect positioning of objects.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Ferguson to incorporate the teachings of Eichler to show comparing a measured distance with a calculated distance, such that when the measured distance exceeds a threshold value, a trigger signal is sent. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid collisions within a medical scene (Column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 3 of Eichler).
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 2:
Ferguson discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one distance detector is a 3D- or depth-camera. Paragraph [0046] describes a 3D camera.
Regarding Claim 6:
Kirchberg, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said other objects comprise movable and non-movable imaging modality components within said medical scene. Paragraph [0051] describes a fixed sensor 202 and 204. Paragraph [0052] describes a moveable sensor 212. Paragraph [0041] describes that the sensors can be cameras.
The motivation to combine Ferguson with Kirchberg is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
Kirchberg, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said medical scene map is two-dimensional. Paragraph [0077] describes a medical scene model 200 projected on a 2D plane, which is equivalent to a 2D map.
The motivation to combine Ferguson with Kirchberg is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
Ferguson discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said medical scene map is three-dimensional. Paragraph [0051] describes a 3D position data of the objects arranged on the patient support device. The 3D position data are acquired for the medical imaging examination. This is equivalent to a medical scene map.
Regarding Claim 9:
Ferguson discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said positional parameter is an angle between a joint connecting said movable component and another component. Paragraph [0012] describes a distance between the object positioned on the patient support device comprises a distance in all three spatial directions. Based on the axes determined, the angle between the joint and the components can be determined.
Regarding Claim 10:
Ferguson discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said positional parameter is a distance along which the movable component can extend in a predetermined direction. Paragraph [0054] describes a collision probability being calculated by comparing an ascertained distance 37 with a minimum distance threshold value 38. Paragraph [0049] describes an alert that can be issued when incorrect positioning of objects. This is equivalent to the claim because the minimum distance threshold is how far an object can move from where it currently is.
Regarding Claim 11:
Kirchberg, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said known position of said distance detector is preferably on a surface of said movable component. Paragraph [0043] describes a position sensor 206 that can be attached to a moveable workstation 212.
The motivation to combine Ferguson with Kirchberg is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Eichler teaches:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the trigger signal corrects a movement course of the at least one movable component. Column 12, lines 15 – 57 describes generating a warning to the physician to generate a command resulting in movement of the imaging system 10 to realign system 10 with body 16 or table 20.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 13 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 14:
Eichler teaches:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the trigger signal prevents further automated movement of the at least one movable component. Column 12, lines 15 – 57 describes ECU 56 that prevents further commanded movements of the imaging system 10.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 14 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Kirchberg and Eichler and further in view of Safavi-Naeini et al. (US Pub No: 2018/0196134 A1, hereinafter Safavi).
Regarding Claim 3:
Ferguson, Kirchberg and Eichler teach the above limitations in claim 1. Ferguson, Kirchberg and Eichler do not teach a mm-wave radar with an array of transmitting and receiving antennas.
Safavi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one distance detector is a mm-wave radar with an array of transmitting and receiving antennas. Paragraph [0024] describes a mm-wave radar module with a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna. Paragraph [0025] describes array antennas.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Ferguson to incorporate the teachings of Safavi to show a mm-wave radar with an array of transmitting and receiving antennas. One would have been motivated to do so to in order to provide high-resolution images ([0004] of Safavi).
Regarding Claim 4:
Ferguson, Kirchberg and Eichler teach the above limitations in claim 1. Ferguson, Kirchberg and Eichler do not teach a distance detector that is a phased array mm-wave radar.
Safavi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one distance detector is a phased array mm-wave radar. Paragraph [0024] describes a mm-wave radar module with a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna. Paragraph [0025] describes array antennas. The abstract describes a phase-array antenna.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Ferguson to incorporate the teachings of Safavi to show a distance detector that is a phased array mm-wave radar. One would have been motivated to do so to in order to provide high-resolution images ([0004] of Safavi).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Kirchberg and Eichler and further in view of Thapliyal et al. (US Pub No: 2017/0056057 A1, hereinafter Thapliyal).
Regarding Claim 5:
Ferguson, Kirchberg and Eichler teach the above limitations in claim 1. Ferguson, Kirchberg and Eichler do not teach a distance director with an array of ultrasound transceivers including phased arrays.
Thapliyal teaches:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one distance detector is an array of ultrasound transceivers including phased arrays. Paragraph [0049] describes ultrasound techniques that utilizes a linear phased array of transducers. Paragraph [0048] describes that this can determine distance measurements.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Ferguson and Kirchberg to incorporate the teachings of Thapliyal to show distance director with an array of ultrasound transceivers including phased arrays. One would have been motivated to do so because ultrasound provides high accuracy in measuring distances and detecting object shapes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658