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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “configured to at least one of” recited in line 3 of the claim should recite “configured to at least one of:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 it is unclear what the limitation “estimate a 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) of movement of the head of the patient based on the data indicative of the pressure within each of the respective chambers” in lines 15-17 of the claim represent. It is unclear how you estimate 6DoF of movement whenever 6DoF is the number of dimensions used to define and interpret motion within space. These limitations are being interpreted to mean “estimate movement of the head of the patient based on the data indicative of the pressure within each of the respective chambers, wherein the movement is defined by 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF)”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on the above claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-12, 14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton et. al.'331 (U.S. Patent Publication 20130239331 – previously cited) in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 (U.S. Patent Publication 20200121954).
Regarding Claim 1, Eaton et. al.'331 discloses a system for detecting a motion of a head of a patient in a scanner (Paragraph [0087] - sensors in the table, the support device, the inflatable element, or elsewhere in the machine could be positioned and configured to detect motion created by the patient's breathing or involuntary movement), the system comprising:
a pad that is configured to support the head of the patient within the scanner, the pad comprising a plurality of protrusions that protrude from a surface of the pad, each of the plurality of protrusions define a chamber filled with a fluid (Paragraph [0079] - The support devices disclosed and described herein can also include lengthwise or head-to-toe adjustment capability…A separate, independent set of cells, bladders, or pistons using the same fluid as the inflatable bed could instead be utilized; see Annotated Figure 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
306
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
a plurality of pressure sensors, each of the plurality of pressure sensors being operatively connected with a respective chamber of the plurality of protrusions, and each of the plurality of pressure sensors being configured to sense a pressure within each of the respective chambers and to generate data indicative of the pressure (Paragraph [0087] - sensors in the table, the support device, the inflatable element, or elsewhere in the machine could be positioned and configured to detect motion created by the patient's breathing or involuntary movements. The sensors could signal the control apparatus to automatically, continuously, and or immediately make minor adjustments to pressure within individual cells to account for and counter such movements); and
a controller (Paragraph [0032] - The system 50 includes a control apparatus 54) that is configured to:
receive the data indicative of the pressure within each of the respective chambers (Paragraph [0087] - The sensors could signal the control apparatus to automatically, continuously, and or immediately make minor adjustments to pressure within individual cells); and
detect the motion of the head of the patient based on the data indicative of the pressure within each of the respective chambers (Paragraph [0087] - sensors in the table, the support device, the inflatable element, or elsewhere in the machine could be positioned and configured to detect motion created by the patient's breathing or involuntary movements. The sensors could signal the control apparatus to automatically, continuously, and or immediately make minor adjustments to pressure within individual cells to account for and counter such movements).
Eaton et. al.'331 fails to disclose estimate movement of the head of the patient based on the data indicative of the pressure within each of the respective chambers, wherein the movement is defined by 6 degrees of freedom; and correct a scan of the head of the patient from the scanner based on the estimate of the 6DoF of movement of the head of the patient.
Bodduluri et. al.'954 teaches determining motion defined by 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) (Paragraph [0031] - illustrates a matrix 201 of force sensors 200 that can be incorporated into a pad on which the patient's head rests. In this embodiment, the force sensor matrix can function in two modalities: A) threshold detection of movement versus, and B) 6DOF positioning and motion tracking. On the matrix of force sensors 200, each sensor is shown, for illustration purposes, with an example downward force reading on a scale of 0 to 9…Force is detected from the occuput of the patients head in one time period at an initial time, for example group of sensor elements 205, and at a later time, for example group of sensor elements 210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Eaton et. al.’331 to include determining motion of a subject based on readings defined by 6DoF in order to reduce the need for additional imaging modalities as seen in Bodduluri et. al.’954 (Paragraph [0007] - the pressure pattern can be used to localize the absolute 6 DOF position of the patient's head in 3D space, thus eliminating the need for using other imaging modalities to register the initial position of the patient's head).
Bodduluri et. al.’954 further teaches correcting a scan based on the received data of motion defined by 6DoF (Paragraph [0033] - general computerized control process by which a reading by the head pressure sensor matrix translates into corrective movement in the actuator device, for example a radiosurgical system; Paragraph [0034] - The location or position of a patient's head is determined by computing device 510, and spatial correction factors for the actuator device are calculated by computing device 515). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Eaton et. al.’331 to include corrective movements in a computer device calculated by the head motions derived within 6DoF in order to ensure proper scanning is obtained as seen in Bodduluri et. al.’954 (Paragraph [0034] - If the head position does not correspond with the ideal position, these signals are relayed to actuator device radiosurgical machine 520 and/or motorized multi-axis patient table 530. As a result, radiosurgical machine 520 may be repositioned 525 to compensate and/or motorized multi-axis patient table 530 may be pitched and rolled 535, or translated 540 to compensate and bring the patient's head back into proper alignment with respect to radiosurgical machine 520).
Regarding Claim 2, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein when the controller detects the motion of the head of the patient during a scan of the patient by the scanner the controller is configured to at least one of: automatically stop the scanner, signal that the motion of the head of the patient has been detected, estimate a quantity of data corrupted by the motion of the head of the patient, estimate a quantity of data corrupted by the motion of the head of the patient and generate a signal representative of the quantity of data corrupted, or provide feedback to patient (Paragraph [0087] - the control apparatus can be programmed to automatically micro-adjust the patient position or the HIFU transducer position to account for minor and periodic patient movement detected by the system during a procedure).
Regarding Claim 4, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein the fluid is a gas (Paragraph [0083] - Air is the preferred fluid for inflating the cells or bladders. However, other gaseous or liquid fluids could be used as well).
Regarding Claim 5, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein the fluid is a liquid (Paragraph [0083] - Air is the preferred fluid for inflating the cells or bladders. However, other gaseous or liquid fluids could be used as well).
Regarding Claim 6, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses comprising a plurality of fluid pathways that fluidly connect each respective chamber of the plurality of protrusions with the respective pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors (Paragraph [0054] - The control apparatus 54 also has one or more pumps or compressors 62 (though only one is shown and mentioned) and a series of control valves 64. A plurality of fluid lines 66 are connected to the pump or compressor 62 and each line is connected to a corresponding one of the series of valves 64. The control valves 64 can be operated by a controller 68 to open and close the fluid lines during use).
Regarding Claim 7, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 6 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein the plurality of fluid pathways each include a segment that is integral with the pad (Paragraph [0054] - The fluid lines 66 are also connected to the support device 52 as described below).
Regarding Claim 8, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein the scanner is the MRI scanner configured to scan the head of the patient, and wherein the system further comprises the MRI scanner (Paragraph [0049] - The table 30, together with a patient 32 lying above a top side 34 of the table, can be conveyed into the examination region 24 in the bore 26; Paragraph [0052] - the MR machine 20 can be used for imaging; Paragraph [0079] - The support devices disclosed and described herein can also include lengthwise or head-to-toe adjustment capability).
Regarding Claim 11, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 8 above. Eaton et al.’331 additionally discloses wherein the controller is configured to correct the scan of the head of the patient during the scan (Paragraph [0087] - The sensors could signal the control apparatus to automatically, continuously, and or immediately make minor adjustments to pressure within individual cells to account for and counter such movements. This can be done to achieve even better, more consistent results and to reduce patient treatment time by potentially eliminating the need for delay-causing motion compensation during a procedure).
Regarding Claim 12, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 8 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are configured to be provided outside of an interior of the MRI scanner whenever a scan is not active or has not been initiated (Paragraph [0054] - These control apparatus components will typically be situated well outside the magnetic field of the MR machine or outside of the faraday cage of the MR suite; Paragraph [0061] - The patient 32 can be repositioned whether the table 30 is inside or outside of the examination region 24 and bore 26. In general, the patient 32 is repositioned by inflating or deflating any one or more of the cells 78, 80).
Regarding Claim 14, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein the plurality of pressure sensors are MRI compatible (Paragraph [0087] - sensors in the table, the support device, the inflatable element, or elsewhere in the machine could be positioned and configured to detect motion created by the patient's breathing or involuntary movements. The sensors could signal the control apparatus to automatically, continuously, and or immediately make minor adjustments to pressure within individual cells to account for and counter such movements. This can be done to achieve even better, more consistent results and to reduce patient treatment time by potentially eliminating the need for delay-causing motion compensation during a procedure).
Regarding Claim 21, Eaton et. al.’331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.’331 further discloses the pad further comprises a fluid pathway connected to a protrusion of the plurality of protrusions, and the fluid pathway is formed within the pad (Paragraph [0056] - In this example, the inflatable bed 76 has a plurality of inflatable or fluid fillable cells, bladders, or chambers (hereinafter referred to primarily as cells). A single row of the cells 78 lies across and against the horizontal panel 72 and two adjacent columns of the cells 80 are positioned adjacent the vertical panel 74 of the carrier; Paragraph [0059] - Each fluid line 66 of the plurality of fluid lines is coupled to and in fluid communication with a corresponding one of the fluid fillable cells 78, 80).
Regarding Claim 22, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above. Eaton et. al.'331 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is configured to face towards the head of the patient (Paragraph [0079] - The support devices disclosed and described herein can also include lengthwise or head-to-toe adjustment capability…A separate, independent set of cells, bladders, or pistons using the same fluid as the inflatable bed could instead be utilized; see Annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton et. al.'331 (U.S. Patent Publication 20130239331 – previously cited) in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 (U.S. Patent Publication 20200121954), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Taracila et. al.'358 (U.S. Patent Publication 20130076358 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 3, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.’954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of protrusions define a convex shape. Eaton et. al.’331 discloses protrusions facing towards the head of the patient (see Annotated Figure 2 below). Taracila et. al.’358 teaches head stabilizers with convex shapes (Paragraph [0023] - arranged to form a shape that is concave on a first side and convex on the opposite side in order to better conform to a patient's head). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Eaton et. al.’331 to include inflatable elements that are able to take on concave and convex shapes in order to better conform to a patient’s head as seen in Taracila et. al.’358.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton et. al.'331 (U.S. Patent Publication 20130239331 – previously cited), in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 (U.S. Patent Publication 20200121954), as applied to Claim 8, and further in view of Wang et. al.'406 (U.S. Patent Publication 20220187406 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 10, Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 8 above but fails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to correct the scan of the head of the patient from the MRI scanner after completion of the scan. Wang et. al.’406 teaches correcting a completed scanned image obtained from an MRI scanner (Paragraph [0075] - Retrospective methods, known as auto-correction, such as self-navigation and autofocus, extract motion information after the image is fully acquired. These methods may correct corrupted image data afterward by reconstruction model or iterative algorithms (e.g., optimizing image entropy, gradient entropy or other measures of artifacts). An advantage of this process is that motion artifact reduction can be performed on all image data types, eliminating the need for specialized hardware, tailored pulse sequences, and theoretically the cooperation of the patient). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Eaton et. al.'331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 to include correcting an image from an MRI scan after the images are complete in order to reduce motion artifacts on different image types without specialized hardware as seen in Wang et. al.’406.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton et. al.'331 (U.S. Patent Publication 20130239331 – previously cited) in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 (U.S. Patent Publication 20200121954), as applied to Claim 8 above, in view of Taracila et. al.'358 (U.S. Patent Publication 20130076358 – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 13, Eaton et. al.’331 in view of Bodduluri et. al.'954 discloses the system outlined in Claim 8 above. Eaton et. al.’331 further discloses wherein the space – inside the MRI scanner - is configured to receive the pad and the head of the patient (Paragraph [0049] - The table 30, together with a patient 32 lying above a top side 34 of the table, can be conveyed into the examination region 24 in the bore 26; Paragraph [0055] - These control apparatus components are operable to control the support device 52 through the fluid lines 66 to adjust the patient position on the table 30 in this example; Paragraph [0079] - The support devices disclosed and described herein can also include lengthwise or head-to-toe adjustment capability). Eaton et. al.’331 fails to disclose wherein the MRI scanner comprises an MRI head coil, wherein the MRI head coil defines a space within an interior of the MRI scanner. Taracila et. al.’358 teaches an MRI scanner with an MRI head coil (Paragraph [0005] - an adjustable MRI head coil apparatus includes a fixture and a plurality of plates) as well as wherein an MRI head coil defines a space within an interior of an MRI scanner (Paragraph [0017] - The MRI system 10 also includes a processor 80 communicatively connected to the adjustable MRI head coil apparatus 78; Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Eaton et. al.’331 to include an adjustable head coil that can fit inside an MRI scanner in order to assist in keeping a patient’s head still during a scanning process as seen in Taracila et. al.’358 (Paragraph [0031] - the adjustable MRI head coil apparatus 78 holds the patient's head in fixed position).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered and they are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections, but new 112b rejections have been addressed in Paragraph 4 above.
Application’s amendments have overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Applicant is arguing that Eaton et. al.'331 does not teach "a pad comprising a plurality of protrusions that protrude from a surface", but these arguments were found to be not persuasive. Examiner has cited additional paragraphs that disclose a panel with fluid-filled protrusions (Paragraph [0056] - The carrier 70 has a horizontal panel 72 resting directly on the table 30 and has a vertical panel 74 extending upward along one side edge of the horizontal panel…such as an inflatable bed 76 disposed on and/or connected to the carrier 70. In this example, the inflatable bed 76 has a plurality of inflatable or fluid fillable cells, bladders, or chambers (hereinafter referred to primarily as cells). A single row of the cells 78 lies across and against the horizontal panel 72 and two adjacent columns of the cells 80 are positioned adjacent the vertical panel 74 of the carrier; see Annotated Figure 2 above).
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as necessitated by amendments, as discussed in Paragraphs 6-9 above. It is noted that Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12, and 14 that were once rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as necessitated by amendments, as discussed in Paragraph 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leussler et. al.’490 (U.S. Patent Publication 20210278490) teaches an inflatable bed used for scanning patients and controlling the positioning of the patients during the process.
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 SARAH ANN WESTFALL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4:30pm 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/SARAH ANN WESTFALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791