DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 5, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 10, and 13. Claims 1-16 and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 5, 202 with respect to claims 1-16 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amended claims resulted in changes to the scope/contents and also raised new issue(s) indicated below.
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 1-16 and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the source data is at least partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device during the acquisition steps” in lines 16-17 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the source data” that is “partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device” recited in lines 16-17 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device” recited in lines 16-17 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device” recited in lines 16-17 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim, for example.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the source data is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” in lines 16-18 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the source data” that is “is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” recited in line 18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 9-10 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” recited in line 18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 10-11 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” recited in line 18 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 11-12 of the claim, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “raw data sets as source data to register” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1, or if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 10-11 of claim 1, or if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 11-12 of claim 1, or if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding to other “source data” different from the claimed “source data” previously recited in claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a part of the source data” in line 5 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the source data” recited in line 5 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the source data” recited in line 5 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 10-11 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the source data” recited in line 5 of claim 9 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 11-12 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “MRI data are acquired and at least partly used as source data” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1, or if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 10-11 of claim 1, or if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 11-12 of claim 1, or if the claimed “source data” recited in line 6 of claim 10 encompass embodiments corresponding to other “source data” different from the claimed “source data” previously recited in claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the source data is from different modalities” in lines 1-2 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the source data” recited in line 1 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the source data” recited in line 1 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 10-11 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the source data” recited in line 1 of claim 11 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 11-12 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the source data is at least partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device during the acquisition steps” in lines 19-20 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the source data” that is “partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device” recited in lines 19-20 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 12-13 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device” recited in lines 19-20 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 13-14 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “partly acquired by an acquisition device of an additional modality different from the imaging device” recited in lines 19-20 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 14-15 of the claim, for example.
Claim 13 further recites the limitation “the source data is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” in lines 21-22 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “the source data” that is “is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” recited in line 21 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data describing the motion in the region of interest” recited in lines 12-13 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” recited in line 21 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data relating to one of the acquisition steps of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 14-15 of the claim, or if the claimed “the source data” that is “is acquired in parallel with the nuclear medical raw data sets” recited in line 21 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “source data from another acquisition step of the respective acquisition steps” recited in lines 15-16 of the claim, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights