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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 19 are amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In light of the amendments to the claims, a new rejection is made in view of Prasad et al. (US Pub # 2021/0201476). See explanation below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al. (US Pub # 2021/0201476).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Prasad discloses a medical image diagnosis apparatus and method of using, comprising providing processing circuitry configured to:
obtain a border that defines a scanning range of a scan of a subject to obtain a medical image of the subject by analyzing a subject image obtained by capturing the subject, by analyzing, using an automatic planning function (the clinical intent identifier (CID) imaging protocol has the option to operate as an automatic planning function (APF) by allowing automatic selection of parameters including a start/end scan locations; P. 0040, 0041, 0059, 0061, 0104, 0108);
obtain fixed scanning-range information for imaging the subject, in a manner that is different from using the automatic planning function, (the CID imaging protocol may be also include the option of parameters (e.g. x-ray source parameters) being selected by the operator from among a plurality of imaging protocols which are stored in memory on the computing device 216, and which is different than the APF; P. 0040-0041);
set the scanning range based on the fixed scanning-range information and the border (computer device 216 performs scan range overlay and landmarking; P. 0041, 0043, 0088, 0091, 0099, 0101); and
output the set scanning range for display on a monitor (display 232 allows through a GUI for scan or processing, where scan outcome prediction includes identifying a start and end range of scan through scan overlay; FIG 7; P. 0099, 0101, 0107).
Prasad teaches obtaining a scan range, including start and stop scan locations, and generating a scan range overlay on a medical image, but does not specifically disclose obtaining first and second border lines and outputting the first and second border lines on the image. However, a range by definition includes at least a first number and a second number, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant was effectively filed to specify a first and a second line defining the scan range established by Prasad, and to include the first and second line within the scan range overlay, as further described by Prasad, with the benefit of providing greater clarity of the scan range in the overlay image for a user. Lastly, Prasad does not explicitly describe the step of obtaining fixed scanning-range information for imaging the subject, in a manner that is different from using the APF, the fixed scanning-range information representing a length of the scanning range including a scan start position and a scan end position. However, Prasad discloses that it is known to in the art for an operator to take a CID and make manual adjustments of imaging parameters (e.g. table position, subject position, etc.; [0040-0041]), with the advantage of reduced a patient radiation dose. In light of the teachings of Prasad regarding manual adjustments, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a known technique (manual parameter adjustments) to a known method (selecting a start and stop scan position in a medical imaging) to improve similar methods (CID imaging parameter selection) in the same way (reduce patient dose). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Prasad discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain the subject image (FIG 4A-C, step 504 and step 534 to detect shape/orientation/pose from depth camera);
set, per region to be imaged, at least one border line of a scanning range on a human body image representing a human body model (scan range overlay amounts to the border line; P. 0043);
display, on a display, a GUI that allows a designation or a non-designation of a border line of the scanning range based on analysis of the subject image data (scan range overlay 810 designates patient structure from the rest of the scene; P. 0099);
in response to the designation, determine at least one border line of the scanning range for a scan of a region to be imaged of the subject by performing the analysis of the subject image with reference to the border line set on the human body image and the human body model (3D patient structure estimation is used for scan outcome prediction, scan range overlay and landmarking which are used to determine if the patient is in a desired scan pose; P. 0101); and
display the scanning range based on the determined border line together with the subject image on the monitor (scan range overlay is as described, a scan range overlaying the image to illustrate a scan range; P. 0099, 0101).
Regarding claim 3, Prasad discloses wherein the human body model represents a three-dimensional positional relationship among anatomical landmarks in a human body (FIG 8A-C), the processing circuitry is further configured to:
extract anatomical landmarks from the subject image,
compare the extracted anatomical landmarks and the three-dimensional positional relationship among anatomical landmarks in the human body model, to detect a region to be imaged from the subject image data (scan landmarking; P. 0091);
determine at least one border line of the scanning range for a scan of the region to be imaged of the subject, based on the detected region to be imaged and the at least one border line of the scanning range on the human body image (scan range overlay); and
set, with reference to the determined border line, the scanning range to be displayed together with the subject image data on the display (scan range overlay; P. 0099, 0101; FIG 7-8C).
Regarding claims 4-6, Prasad discloses wherein the at least one border line set on the human body image includes:
a border line representing the start position and the end position (scan range overlay),
the apparatus further comprises an input interface configured to receive an input to designate a border (GUI allows operator to select a volume of interest (VOI); P. 0039), and
Prasad does not specify the processing circuitry is further configured to: when the set scanning range to be displayed together with the subject image on the monitor is less than a minimum scanning range to be ensured as the scanning range designated by the input, set the scanning range to suffice the minimum scanning range by extending one of the start position and the end position and maintaining the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a minimum scanning range and make adjustments to the range based as on an input of the selected VOI, in order to facilitate optimal image of the patient, with the expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Prasad discloses wherein the at least one border line set on the human body image includes: a border line representing the start position and an end position of a scan in the scanning range on the human body image, the apparatus further comprises an input interface configured to receive an input to designate a center position of the scan in the scanning range on the human body image, and the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain fixed scanning-range information as to a scan mode with no couch movement, and set the scanning range to be displayed together with the subject image on the monitor, based on the fixed scanning-range information and one of the first border line and the second border line set according to the center position of the scan (the display 232 may also allow the operator to select a volume of interest (VOI) and/or request patient information, for example, via graphical user interface (GUI) for a subsequent scan or processing; P. 0039, 0099, 0101).
Regarding claims 8-14, Prasad discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display 232 a selection of a volume of interest (VOI) and/or a patient information request via graphical user interface (GUI), provide a scan output prediction identifying the start and end range of the scan (P. 0107), present a scan range overlay for display (P. 0099), determine a desired patient pose and compare it to a current patient pose, and determine a region of a patient that exceeds a boundary of the bore (P. 0039, 0099, 0104, 0107). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to set a minimum scanning range, reposition a border line of a scan, and maintain a center position of the scan, in order to optimize the imaging of a VOI of a patient and minimize errors.
Regarding claim 17, Prasad further comprising: an optical camera (depth camera 114) that captures the subject, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output a virtual scanning range simulating the scanning range, to display, on the monitor, the virtual scanning range on an image of the subject captured by the optical camera in a superimposed manner, and the input is directed to the scanning range on display (tonal depth image 804 is used to generate an overlay 810 which is used to perform scan range overlap and landmarking; P. 0099).
Regarding claim 18, Prasad discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output the obtained border line to display the obtained border line of the scanning range on the monitor in a highlighted manner (scan range overlay; P. 0099).
Regarding claim 20, Prasad discloses the system further comprising: an X-ray imaging apparatus 200 having an X-ray source 104 and a detector 214 (FIG 2); a control apparatus configured to control the X-ray source and detector to scan the subject to obtain the medical image of the subject using the scanning range obtained from the processing circuitry (P. 0022-0025).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al. (US Pub # 2021/0201476) in view of REEREN et al. (US Pub # 2017/0049322).
Regarding claim 15, Prasad teaches a scan range overlay (P. 0099), but does not specify wherein the input interface is further configured to receive a designation of a maximum magnification factor of the FOV, and the processing circuitry is further configured to: when the set scanning range to be displayed together with the subject image on the monitor is less than the maximum magnification factor, set the scanning range to suffice the maximum magnification factor by reducing at least one of the first border line and the second border line and maintaining the center position of the FOV. In the same field of radiation imaging in a medical application, Heeren discloses a surgical microscope device comprising a user interface, the device providing a scan range configured to automatically adjust as a FOV is manipulated by a user (P. 0005, 0014, 0015, 0021), with the benefit of improving the workflow of the user by reducing the number of tasks. In light of the improvements provided by the teachings of Reeren, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of Prasad.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al. (US Pub # 2021/0201476) in view of NUKUI (US PUB # 2013/0108130).
Regarding claim 16, Prasad discloses a gantry, but does not specify the gantry performs an X-ray CT scan of the subject, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output a virtual scanning range simulating the scanning range, to display on the monitor the virtual scanning range on an image of the subject captured by a low-dose CT scan by the gantry in a superimposed manner, and the input is directed to the scanning range on display. In the same field of endeavor, NUKUI discloses a CT system comprising a gantry that is configured to perform a low-dose helical scout scan an image display control 108 that overlays the generate scout tomographic image in the z direction to generate a 3D image (P. 0095), with the benefit of improved dose calculation for a CT imaging (P. 0031). In light of the improvements provided by the teachings of NUKUI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of Prasad.
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884