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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alder et al. (US 2008/0177280) in view of Uber et al. (WO 2016138449) and Tran (US 2020/0077892).
Adler et al. teaches monitoring patient motion during medical imaging and/or radiation therapy using physiological signals and generating control signals to reduce motion artifacts and improve treatment delivery; [0096]-[0099].
Uber et al. teaches acquiring physiological measurements including EEG measurements from a patient during imaging procedures; [0070]-[0071], [0087]-[0088].
Tran teaches determining a readiness potential (RP) from EEG signals; [0350].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the EEG-based readiness potential measurements taught by Tran as the physiological signal input of Adler et al. because Alder et al. is directed to predicting and compensating for patient motion during imaging and radiation therapy, and Tran teaches that the readiness potentials may be derived from EEG signals. Substituting one known physiological signal source for another known physiological signal source suitable for anticipating patient movement would have represented a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and provide the predictable results pertaining to improving the prediction of impending patient motion and thereby improve motion compensation during imaging and radiation therapy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following points in which the examiner provides a reason(s) as to why the arguments are not persuasive:
The applicant argues that neither Adler et al. nor Uber et al. teaches determining a readiness potential (RP) from an EEG signal or predicting imminent voluntary motion based on the EEG signal. The argument is not persuasive.
Tran expressly teaches readiness potential measurement from EEG signals; [0350]. Adler et al. teaches utilizing physiological signals to predict patient motion and generate control signals for controlling imaging and radiation therapy operations based upon the predicted motion; [0096]-[0099]. Thus, the combination teaches both determining an RP from an EEG signal and utilizing physiological information to predict patient motion.
The applicant further argues that Uber et al. merely lists EEG as a measurable physiological parameter and does not teach using EEG to predict patient motion. The examiner agrees that Uber et al. does not expressly teach readiness protocol determination or motion prediction from EEG. However, these teachings are supplied by Tran and Adler et al., respectively. The rejection relies upon the combined teachings of the references rather than Uber et al. alone.
Therefore, the arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights