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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from Foreign Application No. GB2018757.1, filed November 27, 2020 and PCT Application No. PCT/EP2021/083223, filed November 26, 2021.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 28, 2025 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the limitation “determining the geometric location of the differentially operating pixel from the encoded pattern” overcomes the abstract idea rejection because it requires active extraction and determination of location information from the encoded pattern. However, Examiner asserts that a person skilled in the art could manually determine the location from the encoded pattern such as by using a mathematical equation, which is a category that an abstract idea can fall under. Applicant further argues that because the differentially operating pixel is within the imaging panel that captured the image and the encoded pattern identifies the geometric location within the imaging panel, the process cannot be performed mentally. However, despite the differentially operating pixel being within the imaging panel, the images themselves are still used in the determination of the position of the reference element. Additionally, the encoded pattern identifying the geometric location of the pixel within the imaging panel does not negate the ability of a person to use a mathematical calculation to decode the pattern and determine the location. Finally, the mere recitation of image capture hardware does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 abstract idea rejections are upheld.
Applicant's arguments filed December 28, 2025 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection presented in the 35 USC 103 rejections below. Applicant argues that none of the previously proposed references teach that the differentially operating pixel is within the imaging panel that captured the image. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Levoy teaches dead pixels manifest as sensor elements with zero or abnormally low photodetector current that correspond to pixels in a captured image that appear darker than surrounding normal pixels (see Levoy, Para. [0027]). Examiner asserts that this is sufficient to teach a differentially operating pixel within the imaging panel (i.e., the sensor). Additionally, Applicant argues that the references do not teach that the encoded pattern identifies the geometric location within the imaging panel and determining the geometric location of the differentially operating pixel from the encoded pattern. However, Examiner asserts that combining Levoy’s teaching of the differentially operating pixel in the image sensor and determining the locations of defective and/or occluded sensor elements using a condition map with Bassett’s teachings of determining a geometric location of a position-encoded film of the display relative to a geometric location of a pixel in the pixel array is sufficient to teach these limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art could use Bassett’s teaching of determining the location based on an encoded pattern in Levoy’s sensor with a differentially operating pixel. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is upheld.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for identifying image shift in a radio therapy setting. Consider method claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method or a process; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations “identifying a position of a reference element in a captured image from an imaging panel, wherein the reference element comprises a differentially operating pixel within the imaging panel that captured the image, the differentially operating pixel having an encoded pattern that identifies a geometric location of the differentially operating pixel within the imaging panel”, “determining the geometric location of the differentially operating pixel from the encoded pattern”, “comparing the identified position with a predetermined expected position” and “identifying an image shift when the compared positions do not match” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations manually and in the mind of a person. That is, a user or person skilled in the art may determine a reference element in an image (i.e., a certain pixel or marker), determine the location of the pixel from an encoded pattern either mentally or manually by decoding using a mathematical equation, compare the position of the element between two images, and determine image shift has occurred when the compared positions do not match. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of the user and/or mathematical operations i.e., mathematical calculations and equations.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional step or a combination of additional steps in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, with respect to the system and computer-readable medium claims of claims 12 and 13, the mere recitation of a generic processor, memory, or storage medium to perform/store programming instructions of the recited/identified abstract idea does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the recited steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claims 1, 12 and 13 are not patent eligible. In addition, claims 3-11 and 14-21 of the instant application provide limitations that both individually or in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti et al. (US 2016/0023019 A1) in view of Levoy et al. (US 2017/0180659 A1) further in view of Bassett et al. (US 2018/0004350 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Filiberti teaches a method of identifying image shift, the method comprising:
identifying a position of a reference element in a captured image from an imaging panel (Filiberti, Para. [0050], once the positions of the markers in the X-ray image are determined, the controller can form a one-to-one correspondence between the projections of each marker in the X-ray image and the markers themselves in the phantom. The possible orientation of the phantom translates into possible couch orientations/positions that would support such a phantom orientation. By applying this image processing technique for all MV X-ray images obtained, the position of the phantom at each couch rotation angle can be determined. The MV X-ray images so generated therefore contain information about the positions of the calibration phantom and corresponding treatment couch positions for all couch rotation angles),
comparing the identified position with a predetermined expected position (Filiberti, Para. [0055], the difference between the determined (i.e., measured) and reference couch positions for each couch rotation angle can be calculated); and
identifying an image shift when the compared positions do not match (Filiberti, Para. [0055], the calculated couch position offsets represent the longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and rotational displacements between the determined couch position and the reference couch positions for every couch rotation angle).
Although Filiberti teaches a reference couch position (Filiberti, Para. [0055]), Filiberti does not explicitly teach “wherein the reference element comprises a differentially operating pixel within the imaging panel that captured the image”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Levoy teaches dead pixels manifest themselves as sensor elements with zero or abnormally low photodetector current (i.e., differently operating pixel within the imaging panel that captured the image), even when illuminated. Such sensor elements may correspond to pixels in a captured image that appear darker than surrounding normal pixels (Levoy, Para. [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Filiberti with the teachings of Levoy by including the reference pixel is a differently operating pixel within the sensor (i.e., imaging panel) that captured the image. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for recognizing defective pixels in an image, as recognized by Levoy.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy teaches a sensor element condition map that includes information indicative of locations and corresponding conditions of defective and/or occluded sensor elements of the image sensor (Levoy, Para. [0092]), they do not explicitly teach “the differentially operating pixel having an encoded pattern that identifies a geometric location of the differentially operating pixel within the imaging panel” and “determining the geometric location of the differently operating pixel from the encoded pattern”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bassett teaches a pixel analyzer may detect a designated reference pixel in the pixel array. For example, designated reference pixel may be detected based on characteristics of the reference pixel (e.g., color, location, etc.) (i.e., a differently operating pixel) (Bassett, Para. [0034]). The location detector determines a geometric location of a position-encoded film of the display relative to a geometric location of a pixel array of the display (e.g., based on a location of a reference pixel or reference pixels within a pattern of the position-encoded film) (i.e., an encoded pattern that identifies a geometric location of the differentially operating pixel) (Bassett, Para. [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Filiberti with the teachings of Bassett by including that the reference marker is a differentially operating pixel (i.e., a different color) in the imaging panel that has an encoded pattern that identifies a geometric location of the pixel. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for calibrating an input device using a reference pixel, as recognized by Bassett. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 4, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the reference element comprises a reference marker (Filiberti, Para. [0055], the difference between the determined (i.e., measured) and reference couch positions for each couch rotation angle can be calculated).
Regarding claim 9, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
correcting the captured image if the compared positions do not match (Filiberti, Para. [0043], correcting the offsets in the positions of the imaging axis can be done by applying the gantry dependent position offsets to the imaging system or by shifting the acquired images by the amount of the image system offset).
Regarding claim 10, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising:
identifying a shift vector corresponding to the identified image shift and correcting the image by applying an inverse shift vector to the captured image (Filiberti, Para. [0043], The correction shift vectors Δ.sub.in (beam isocenter offsets) are 2D vectors (x, y) which indicate the lateral and longitudinal offsets, respectively, between the treatment beam isocenter and the kV/MV image centers. The controller 120 can also generate a correction file including the correction shift vectors Δ.sub.in indicating the deviations of the actual treatment beam at each gantry angle (θ.sub.gn). These gantry-angle dependent deviations (Δ.sub.in) can be later applied to the MV/kV system to correct for offsets in the positions of the imaging axis. Correcting the offsets in the positions of the imaging axis can be done by applying the gantry dependent position offsets (Δ.sub.in) to the imaging system (imager arm or X-ray tube arm) or by shifting the acquired images by the amount of the image system offset (Δ.sub.in)).
Regarding claim 11, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the predetermined expected position is determined in a calibration phase or is provided by an imaging panel manufacturer (Filiberti, Para. [0041], the calibration device (phantom) can be a three-dimensional phantom assembly that can be used to independently verify the phantom or isocenter position by the use of various position systems available on the treatment device, and is able to quantitatively determine the shift between the different isocenter/imaging centers used).
Claim 12 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Filiberti, Levoy and Bassett references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the Filiberti, Levoy and Bassett references disclose a computer readable storage medium (Filiberti, Para. [0072], software instruction stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claim 13 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Filiberti, Levoy and Bassett references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the Filiberti, Levoy and Bassett references disclose a processor and a memory (Filiberti, Para. [0035], computer with typical hardware such as a processor, storage devices, memory).
Regarding claim 14, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the apparatus of claim 13, and further teaches wherein the apparatus is included in a radiotherapy system (Filiberti, Para. [0024], the radiation therapy treatment system includes a radiation treatment device such as, but not limited to, a radiotherapy or radiosurgery device).
Claims 3, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti et al. (US 2016/0023019 A1) ) in view of Levoy et al. (US 2017/0180659 A1) further in view of Bassett et al. (US 2018/0004350 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4 and 9-14 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (US 6,317,512 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches determining a shift amount using a reference pixel (Bassett, Para. [0034]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the differentially operating pixel comprises a faulty pixel”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Maeda teaches detecting and correcting positional shift between images at corresponding positions based on a quantity of discrepant pixels (Maeda, Col. 12, lines 6-60; Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett with the teachings of Maeda by including the differentially operating pixel comprises a faulty pixel (i.e., discrepant pixel). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for positional shift correction in images, as recognized by Maeda. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 15, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches determining a shift amount using a reference pixel that is a differentially operating pixel (Bassett, Para. [0034]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the differentially operating pixel comprises a faulty pixel”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Maeda teaches detecting and correcting positional shift between images at corresponding positions based on a quantity of discrepant pixels (Maeda, Col. 12, lines 6-60; Claim 1).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Maeda references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, apply to Claim 15 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 15 is met by Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett and Maeda.
Claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the elements recited in Claim 15. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding computer-readable medium claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett, and Maeda references, presented in rejection of Claim 3, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett, and Maeda references discloses a processor and a memory (Para. [0035], computer with typical hardware such as a processor, storage devices, memory).
Claims 5-6, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti et al. (US 2016/0023019 A1) in view of Levoy et al. (US 2017/0180659 A1) further in view of Bassett et al. (US 2018/0004350 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4 and 9-14 above, and further in view of Saitoh et al. (US 2016/03019192 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches a reference couch position (Filiberti, Para. [0055]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the reference marker has a known intensity”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Saitoh teaches a cost of each candidate pixel that corresponds to the reference pixel is calculated based on the luminance values (i.e., intensity) of a predetermined reference pixel in the reference image and a plurality of candidate corresponding pixels (Saitoh, Para. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett with the teachings of Saitoh by including that the reference pixel has a known intensity. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for determining an image shift using a reference pixel, as recognized by Saitoh. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 6, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches a reference couch position (Filiberti, Para. [0055]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the reference element comprises multiple pixels, wherein each pixel of the multiple pixels has a corresponding particular predetermined expected position”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Saitoh teaches the process is performed not in units of single pixels but in units of predetermined regions each including a plurality of pixels, the predetermined region that includes a reference pixel is denoted as a reference region, and the predetermined region that includes a corresponding pixel is denoted as a corresponding region (Saitoh, Para. [0033]). Saitoh further teaches a shift amount between each candidate region and the predetermined reference region (Saitoh, Para. [0047]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Saitoh references presented in the rejection of Claim 5, apply to Claim 6 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 6 is met by Filiberti in view Levoy further in view of Bassett and Saitoh.
Regarding claim 16, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches a reference couch position (Filiberti, Para. [0055]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the reference element comprises a reference marker, the reference marker having a known intensity”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Saitoh teaches a cost of each candidate pixel that corresponds to the reference pixel is calculated based on the luminance values (i.e., intensity) of a predetermined reference pixel in the reference image and a plurality of candidate corresponding pixels (Saitoh, Para. [0047]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Saitoh references presented in the rejection of Claim 5, apply to Claim 16 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the computer-readable storage medium recited in claim 16 is met by Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett and Saitoh.
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Saitoh references, presented in rejection of Claim , apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Saitoh references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Filiberti, Para. [0072], software instruction stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claim 20 recites a system with elements corresponding to the elements recited in Claim 16. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding computer-readable medium claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Saitoh references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Saitoh references discloses a processor and a memory (Para. [0035], computer with typical hardware such as a processor, storage devices, memory).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti et al. (US 2016/0023019 A1) in view of Levoy et al. (US 2017/0180659 A1) further in view of Bassett et al. (US 2018/0004350 A1) and Saitoh et al. (US 2016/03019192 A1), as applied to claims 5-6, 16-17 and 20 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 2020/0250831 A1) and Kanda et al. (US 2011/0032352 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett and Saitoh teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett and Saitoh teaches a predetermined reference pixel position (Saitoh, Para. [0047]), they do not explicitly teach “identifying the captured image as disordered when one or more of the multiple pixels are not in the corresponding particular predetermined expected position”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches a shift determination of a control device that identifies coordinates of a predetermined region in detection image data and reference image data and determines whether or not detection image data and reference image data are shifted with respect to each other (Ishikawa, Para. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett and Saitoh with the teachings of Ishikawa by including determining shift when a predetermined region in detection image data is shifted with respect to the reference image. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for determining that an image capture region of a camera is shifted in order to suitably adjusted to position quickly, as recognized by Ishikawa.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett, Saitoh and Ishikawa teaches determining shift when a predetermined region is shifted with respect to the reference image (Ishikawa, Para. [0054]), they do not explicitly teach “reordering the captured image such that each pixel of the multiple pixels occupy the corresponding particular predetermined expected position”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kanda teaches matching of feature points included in the images are performed for correcting a shift between pixels of the images (Kanda, Para. [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett, Saitoh and Ishikawa with the teachings of Kanda by including reordering the image by matching feature points in the image to correct a shift between pixels of the images. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for correcting a detected image shift, as recognized by Kanda. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti et al. (US 2016/0023019 A1) in view of Levoy et al. (US 2017/0180659 A1) further in view of Bassett et al. (US 2018/0004350 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4 and 9-14 above, and further in view of Mazaika et al. (US 2009/0103795 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches determining the difference between a captured and reference couch position (Filiberti, Para. [0055]), Filiberti does not explicitly teach “discarding the captured image when the compared positions do not match”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Mazaika teaches images are removed based on the shift of one or more voxels from one image to another image. If the RMS is greater than the threshold shift, the image is removed (Mazaika, Para. [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett with the teachings of Mazaika by including discarding (i.e., removing) the captured image when a shift of the pixels is determined. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for avoiding or correcting errors in MRI scans for a successful analysis, as recognized by Mazaika. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Mazaika references, presented in rejection of Claim 8, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Filiberti, Levoy, Bassett and Mazaika references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Filiberti, Para. [0072], software instruction stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti et al. (US 2016/0023019 A1) in view of Levoy et al. (US 2017/0180659 A1) further in view of Bassett et al. (US 2018/0004350 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4 and 9-14 above, and further in view of Surazhsky et al. (US 2018/0315213 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches the method of claim 1, as described above.
Although Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett teaches determining a geometric location of a position-encoded film of the display relative to a geometric location of a pixel array of the display (Bassett, Para. [0023]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein determining the geometric location of the differentially operating pixel from the encoded pattern comprises decoding the encoded pattern”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Surazhsky teaches a decoder can decode each of the binarization codes to create a decoded value of a pixel location of the pixel (Surazhsky, Para. [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Filiberti in view of Levoy further in view of Bassett with the teachings of Surazhsky by including determining the geometric location of the differentially operating pixel form the encoded pattern (i.e., binarization code) by decoding the encoded pattern. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for determining pixel locations for detecting misalignment, as recognized by Surazhsky. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights