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 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kottner et al.1
With regard to claim 1, Kottner et al. teach a storage device storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the storage device (see fig. 1: laptop; see p. 36 ¶ 1: CPU with memory), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to: receive target information relating to the subject acquired by an information acquisition component, the target information including a plurality of images of the subject, wherein the subject is supported by a scanning table (see fig. 1: acquiring plurality of images using plurality of cameras of a patient on a scanning table), and the information acquisition component includes a plurality of cameras mounted on a gantry of a medical imaging device, the plurality of cameras being configured to acquire the plurality of images of an exterior or an outline of the subject from multiple perspectives, and at least one of the plurality of cameras being configured to acquire an image of a body side of the subject (see fig. 1: plurality of cameras attached to gantry of medical imaging device, plurality of images acquired of an exterior or outline of the subject from multiple perspectives using plurality of cameras arranged on an arc shape, see fig. 2: outline of the subject; see fig. 1: cameras arranged to acquire images of a side of the subject); and generate the 3D model of the subject based on the target information (see abstract, p. 36 ¶ 3, p. 36 col 2 last ¶, figs. 2-3: generating a 3D model of the subject based on the plurality of images).
With regard to claim 2, Kottner et al. teach wherein the plurality of cameras are arranged in an arc (see fig. 1: plurality of cameras arranged in an arc).
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottner et al. and further in view of Petkovic et al.2
With regard to claim 3, Kottner et al. fail to explicitly teach the information acquisition component further includes a projector, each of the plurality of images of the subject includes at least a portion of a structured light projected on the subject by the projector; the projector includes a plurality of sub-projectors arranged in an arc, the arc being located in a plane perpendicular to a length direction of the scanning table, each of the plurality of sub-projectors being configured to project the at least a portion of the structured light on the subject, wherein at least one of the plurality of sub-projectors is configured to project the at least a portion of the structured light on the body side of the subject, and the image of the body side of the subject acquired by the at least one of the plurality of cameras includes image information of the at least a portion of the structured light projected on the body side of the subject. However, Petkovic et al. teach the missing features.
Petkovic et al. teach the information acquisition component further includes a projector, each of the plurality of images of the subject includes at least a portion of a structured light projected on the subject by the projector (see abstract: structured light projector); the projector includes a plurality of sub-projectors arranged in an arc, the arc being located in a plane perpendicular to a length direction of the scanning table (see fig. 3: plurality of projectors arranged in an arc shape around the subject to be imaged); each of the plurality of sub-projectors being configured to project the at least a portion of the structured light on the subject, wherein at least one of the plurality of sub-projectors is configured to project the at least a portion of the structured light on the body side of the subject (see abstract, fig. 3), and the image of the body side of the subject acquired by the at least one of the plurality of cameras includes image information of the at least a portion of the structured light projected on the body side of the subject (see abstract, fig. 3).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Kottner et al. is directed to imaging a subject using a plurality of cameras and generating a 3D model of the subject. Petkovic et al. is directed to scanning a body of a subject using a plurality of cameras and a plurality of structured light projectors. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to substitute the imaging system in Kottner et al. with that described in Petkovic et al. which uses structure light to scan a body of a subject. The motivation for using structured light projectors would have been to acquire high accuracy, high-resolution which captures superior details of shapes and structures.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottner et al. and further in view of Horaud et al.3
With regard to claim 5, Kottner et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the target information further includes time of flight (TOF) information associated with light pulses emitted toward the subject. However, Horaud et al. teach the missing feature (see abstract, § 2: time of flight based camera system with laser light pulse).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Kottner et al. is directed to scan or image a subject using cameras. Horaud et al. is related to scanning an object using time of flight (TOF) information associated with light pulses emitted toward the subject. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings by substituting the camera system of Kottner et al. with the system described by Horaud et al. for scanning the subject yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation for using time of flight sensors include significantly improving data accuracy, speed, and image quality by measuring the exact travel time of photons or light.
With regard to claim 6, Horaud et al. teach a light pulse generator configured to emit the light pulses toward the subject, wherein the light pulse generator includes a plurality of sub-light pulse generators see § 3.1: plurality of laser-detector pairs spread over a vertical field of view). The motivation for combining the references would have been the same as stated above.
Horaud et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the pulse generators or lasers are arranged in an arc. However, it is clear from the primary reference Kottner et al. that the plurality of cameras or photodetectors are arranged in an arc shape. It would have been for one skilled in the art to pair the lasers with the cameras/photodetectors in an arc shape resulting in predictable results. The motivation would have been to capture the image of the body from different perspectives that would cover the side of the body.
Claims 7, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottner et al. and further in view of Gregerson et al.4
With regard to claim 7, Kottner et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the information acquisition component is coupled to an extendable pole, the extendable pole being configured to drive the information acquisition component to move to one or more first positions, and the information acquisition component is configured to acquire at least a portion of the target information relating to the subject at the one or more first positions, however Gregerson et al. teach the missing features (see fig. 2, ¶ 39: cameras mounted on an extending arm that may extend/retract to capture images at different positions).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Kottner et al. teach cameras attached to the gantry to image a subject. Kottner et al. further teach lifting carts so that the camera rig may be moved across the body carrying area (see Kottner et al. p. 36 ¶ 2). Meanwhile, Gregerson et al. teach a extendable arm for moving the camera across the body. It would have been obvious incorporate the extendable arm of Gregerson et al. into the configuration of Kottner et al. such that the cameras may be efficiently moved across the body to capture detailed overlapping images of the subject instead of using lifting carts to move the camera rig.
With regard to claim 9, Gregerson et al. teach wherein the extendable pole is coupled to the gantry of the medical imaging device or a container mounted on the gantry (see fig. 2, ¶ 39: extendable arm/pole attached to the gantry). The motivation for combining the references is the same as stated above.
With regard to claim 10, Gregerson et al. teach wherein the information acquisition component is located see fig. 2, ¶ 39: camera retracted back to the gantry). Gregerson et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the camera is retracted inside the gantry or into a container mounted on the gantry, however Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that retracting a device inside a container is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date and that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of Kottner et al. and Gregerson et al. yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation for retracting the camera inside the gantry or inside a container or enclosure would have been to protect the camera and lenses while not in use.
With regard to claim 11, Gregerson et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein a lid is mounted on the gantry or the container, the lid being configured to cover the information acquisition component when the extendable pole is fully retracted. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that it is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date to provide an enclosure or lid to protect cameras or other items and it would have been particularly obvious to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation would have been to provide protection of the camera system when not in use.
With regard to claim 12, Gregerson et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the lid is further configured to be opened when the extendable pole is about to drive the information acquisition component to extend out of the gantry or the container. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that it is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date to provide an enclosure or lid that can be opened when the camera needs to be used, to protect cameras or other items and it would have been particularly obvious to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation would have been to provide protection of the camera system when not in use.
With regard to claim 13, Kottner et al. teach wherein the information acquisition component is configured to continuously or discontinuously acquire the target information of the subject when the information acquisition component is driven by the extendable pole to move (see fig. 1, p. 36 ¶ 2: images are acquired until the camera rig is moved from one end to the other).
With regard to claim 14, Kottner et al. teach wherein the scanning table is configured to drive the subject to move to one or more second positions (see fig. 1, p. 35 last ¶: automatically moving the CT table).
With regard to claim 15, Kottner et al. teach wherein the information acquisition component is configured to continuously or discontinuously acquire the target information of the subject during a movement of the subject driven by the scanning table (see fig. 1, p. 35 last ¶: acquiring overlapping photos of a body by automatically moving the CT table step-by-step underneath the rig).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottner et al. and further in Beckmann et al.5
With regard to claim 17, Kottner et al. teach a scanning table, configured to support a subject (see fig. 1: subject on a scanning table); a plurality of cameras configured to acquire a plurality of images of an exterior or an outline of the subject from multiple perspectives (see abstract, fig. 1: plurality of cameras to capture image of the subject from different perspectives); and, wherein the plurality of cameras are arranged in an arc and mounted on a gantry of the medical imaging device, and at least one of the plurality of cameras is configured to acquire an image of a body side of the subject (see fig. 1: plurality of cameras arranged in an arc, at least one camera captures side of the body).
Kottner et al. fail to explicitly teach a medical imaging device configured to perform a scan on the subject based on the plurality of images of the subject, however Beckmann et al. teach the missing features (see Beckmann et al. ¶¶ 33-34: the camera image is used as a planning image to select a region of interest to be scanned using an MRI or CT scanner).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to incorporate known teachings of Beckmann et al. into the configuration of Kottner et al. In particular, Kottner et al. is related to scanning an image of the subject using an MRI or CT scanner while also teaching using a camera to capture an external image of the subject. Beckmann et al. is related to identifying a region of interest to be scanned using an MRI or CT scanner, where the region of interest is identified using a camera image of the subject. It would have been obvious based on the teachings of Beckmann et al., to use the camera image in Kottner et al. to identify a region of interest as a planning step for scanning the region of interest using MRI or CT imaging, yielding predictable and enhanced results, i.e., accurately identifying positional information of a region of interest for subsequent scanning.
With regard to claim 16, Kottner et al. fails to explicitly teach determine a region of interest (ROI) to be scanned of the subject based on the 3D model, however Beckmann et al. teach the missing features ((see Beckmann et al. ¶¶ 33-34: the camera image is used as a planning image to select a region of interest to be scanned using an MRI or CT scanner). One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to incorporate known teachings of Beckmann et al. into the configuration of Kottner et al. In particular, Kottner et al. is related to scanning an image of the subject using an MRI or CT scanner while also teaching using a camera to capture an external image of the subject. Beckmann et al. is related to identifying a region of interest to be scanned using an MRI or CT scanner, where the region of interest is identified using a camera image of the subject. It would have been obvious based on the teachings of Beckmann et al., to use the camera image in Kottner et al. to identify a region of interest as a planning step for scanning the region of interest using MRI or CT imaging, yielding predictable and enhanced results, i.e., accurately identifying positional information of a region of interest for subsequent scanning.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottner et al. in view of Beckmann et al. and further in view of Gregerson et al.6
With regard to claim 19, Kottner et al. teach a scanning table, configured to support a subject (see fig. 1: subject on a scanning table); at least one camera configured to acquire one or more images of the subject when the at least one camera is located at one or more positions, see abstract, fig. 1: plurality of cameras to capture image of the subject from different perspectives); and a medical imaging device, configured to perform a scan on the subject see fig. 1: medical imaging device comprising a gantry, camera is attached to the gantry).
Kottner et al. fail to explicitly teach a medical imaging device configured to perform a scan on the subject based on the plurality of images of the subject, however Beckmann et al. teach the missing features (see Beckmann et al. ¶¶ 33-34: the camera image is used as a planning image to select a region of interest to be scanned using an MRI or CT scanner).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to incorporate known teachings of Beckmann et al. into the configuration of Kottner et al. In particular, Kottner et al. is related to scanning an image of the subject using an MRI or CT scanner while also teaching using a camera to capture an external image of the subject. Beckmann et al. is related to identifying a region of interest to be scanned using an MRI or CT scanner, where the region of interest is identified using a camera image of the subject. It would have been obvious based on the teachings of Beckmann et al., to use the camera image in Kottner et al. to identify a region of interest as a planning step for scanning the region of interest using MRI or CT imaging, yielding predictable and enhanced results, i.e., accurately identifying positional information of a region of interest for subsequent scanning.
Kottner et al. and Beckmann et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the camera wherein the at least one camera is coupled to an extendable pole, the extendable pole being configured to drive the at least one camera to move to the one or more positions and the at least one camera being located inside the gantry or the container mounted on the gantry when the extendable pole is fully retracted, however Gregerson et al. teach the missing features (see fig. 2, ¶ 39: cameras mounted on an extending arm that may extend/retract).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Kottner et al. teach cameras attached to the gantry to image a subject. Kottner et al. further teach lifting carts so that the camera rig may be moved across the body carrying area (see Kottner et al. p. 36 ¶ 2). Meanwhile, Gregerson et al. teach a extendable arm for moving the camera across the body. It would have been obvious incorporate the extendable arm of Gregerson et al. into the configuration of Kottner et al. such that the cameras may be efficiently moved across the body to capture detailed overlapping images of the subject instead of using lifting carts to move the camera rig.
With regard to claim 20, Gregerson et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein a lid is mounted on the gantry or the container, the lid being configured to cover the at least one camera when the extendable pole is fully retracted. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that it is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date to provide an enclosure or lid to protect cameras or other items and it would have been particularly obvious to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation would have been to provide protection of the camera system when not in use.
With regard to claim 21, Kottner et al. teaches wherein the arc is located in a plane perpendicular to a length direction of the scanning table (see fig. 1: cameras in an arc shape in a plane perpendicular to the subject or the scanning table).
With regard to claim 22, Beckmann et al. teaches wherein the medical imaging device is configured to perform a scan on the subject based on a region of interest (ROI) to be scanned of the subject, and the ROI to be scanned is determined based on the one or more images of the subject (see Beckmann et al. ¶¶ 33-34: the camera image is used as a planning image to select a region of interest to be scanned using an MRI or CT scanner). The motivation for combining the references is the same as stated above.
With regard to claim 18, Kottner et al. and Beckmann et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of cameras are coupled to an extendable pole, wherein: the extendable pole is configured to drive the information acquisition component to move to one or more positions, and the extendable pole is coupled to the gantry of the medical imaging device or a container of the medical imaging device, however Gregerson et al. teach the missing features (see fig. 2, ¶ 39: cameras mounted on an extending arm that may extend/retract, the arm/pole is attached to the gantry). One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Kottner et al. teach cameras attached to the gantry to image a subject. Kottner et al. further teach lifting carts so that the camera rig may be moved across the body carrying area (see Kottner et al. p. 36 ¶ 2). Meanwhile, Gregerson et al. teach a extendable arm for moving the camera across the body. It would have been obvious incorporate the extendable arm of Gregerson et al. into the configuration of Kottner et al. such that the cameras may be efficiently moved across the body to capture detailed overlapping images of the subject instead of using lifting carts to move the camera rig.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 Kottner, Sören, et al. "VirtoScan-a mobile, low-cost photogrammetry setup for fast post-mortem 3D full-body documentations in x-ray computed tomography and autopsy suites." Forensic science, medicine, and pathology 13.1 (2017): 34-43.
2 Petković, Tomislav, et al. "Multi-projector multi-camera structured light 3D body scanner." Proceedings of 3DBODY. TECH (2017): 11-12.
3 Horaud, Radu, et al. "An overview of depth cameras and range scanners based on time-of-flight technologies." Machine vision and applications 27.7 (2016): 1005-1020.
4 US Publication No. 2018/0185113.
5 US Publication No. 2016/0266760.
6 US Publication No. 2018/0185113.
Prosecution Insights