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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendments to claims 1, 13, and the corresponding dependent claims, the 103 Rejection and 112(b) Rejection is withdrawn.
In view of newly added claims 28-30, an updated search was conducted resulting in the modified 103 Rejection set forth below and upon further consideration, due to lack of clarity issues, a 112(b) Rejection is set forth 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 28-30 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 28 recites “surface information of the subject”. This is considered a broad term and the claim does not specify the type of data that is encompassed by the surface information. Upon reviewing the application specification, “the first data 1201 may include surface information of the subject acquired by one or more optical cameras 1202. The surface information of the subject may include any data that can indicate a position, shape, and/or other features of the body surface of the subject” [0114]. It is suggested claim language specify the type of surface “information” that is being used as a basis for generating a dose plan.
Additionally, claim 29 recites “generating the dose plan by determining doses corresponding to the body parts of the subject”. It is not clear from the claim language the relationship between the dose plan and the type of body part being considered in the image. According to the specification, “different body parts of the subject may be identified from a 3D optical image of the subject, and the dose plan may include different doses corresponding to different body parts of the subject. Merely by way of example, the trunk and the legs of the subject may be identified, and the dose plan may include a dose corresponding to the trunk and a dose corresponding to the legs, wherein the dose corresponding to the trunk may be higher than the dose corresponding to the leg” [0120]. It is suggested claim language reflect the doses being higher/lower relative to the body part to provide further clarity on how the dose varies from one body part to another body part.
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) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (11311263). in view of Shekhar et al. (2007/0167784) and further in view of Lachaine et al. (2023/0302297).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Bai et al. teach of a system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor to perform an image acquisition and reconstruction for a first image acquisition device or a first type of scan and obtain second image data from a second image acquisition device or second type of scan (see abstract, fig. 2 flow chart). Bai et al. teach of obtaining a second data of the subject related to the first scan where the scan is performed according the dose plan of the initial or first data or the PET imaging data, obtaining third data of the subject related to a second scan of the subject or the CT acquisition data (col. 9 lines 30-35), and generating a resulting reconstructed image (claim 17).
Bai et al. do not explicitly teach of a dose plan based on the CT scan. In a similar field of endeavor Shekhar et al. teach of obtaining a first type of scan being a CT scan [0052, 0053], generating a dose plan of the first scan where the dose plan relates to a radiation dose to be delivered to the subject during the first scan or directed treatment [0119]. Shekhar et al. teach of increasing the radiation dose delivered to the tumor and decreasing the dose delivered to healthy tissue [0119]. Shekhar et al. teach of comparing the left and right lungs on the CT images with respect to the dose-volume and the treatment plan [0120]. Shekhar et al. teach of a dose plan of a first scan where a high dose CT data is received with respect to first scan data [0122] where CT scan data is received from imager 110 [0125]. Shekhar et al. then teach of a receiving a second scan data for a different time where the second type of scan may be a PET scan to obtain a third data and registration of the CT/PET data to generate a target image [0055]. Shekhar et al. teach of adjusting the doses of the scan based on the surface information generated with respect to the image where a low-dose scan shows the same anatomy as the standard dose but characterized by a high quantum noise [0144] and high dose scan [0142, 0144] and use the scan or surface information to adjust the dose plan to calculate the registration accuracy at various doses [0145]. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Shekhar et al. teach of generating a dose plan (such as high or low dose CT) based on the first scan or CT scan of the subject, obtaining a second data related to the CT scan of the subject where the CT scan is performed according to the dose plan or the low dose CT and obtaining a third data related to the second scan or PET scan of the subject and therefore the first scan is different from the second scan and generating a target image based on the second and third data or the CT/PET data registration [0160]. Shekhar et al. teach of generating a first and second image based on CT, PET data and performing attenuation correction on the first image based on the second image [0143] and generating a fusion image of the corrected first image and the second image as the target image or indicate registration accuracy of the order of the resolution of the PET images [0157-0160]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Shekhar et al. to modify Bai et al. to ensure improved alignment between the two types of scan and therefore improve the registration accuracy and alignment [Shekhar, 0162].
The previous references do not make reference to obtaining surface information of a subject with an optical camera and generating a dose plan based on the image generated by the optical camera. In a related field of endeavor Lachaine et al. teach of a using surface camera imaging data [0047, 0048] to determine radiation dosage data or planning [0045, 0048, 0088]. Lachaine et al. teach of generating and storing radiation therapy treatment plans to provide information on the dose, beam intensity, and other parameters [0088]. Lachaine et al. therefore teach of obtaining surface information from camera to generate a model that is use for radiation dose planning [0122, 0124, 0125]. Lachaine et al. also teach of using a CT scanner along with the camera image to generate a model and guide the radiation delivery [0141]. The combination of references teaches of identifying body parts of the subject from the optical camera image of the subject and generating a dose plan by determining doses corresponding to the body parts of the subject or determining the dose distribution as represented in the image [0051, 0053, 0089, 0092]. Lachaine et al. also teach of the obtaining complementary datasets suing MRI or PET scanners [0031, 0089]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Lachaine et al. to modify the previous references to ensure that the target tumor is treated without damage to surrounding health tissue [Lachaine, 0007].
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to claims 1, 13, and the corresponding dependent claims, the combined prior art of record (Bai, Shekhar, Busch, and Fram) does not teach of a method and system the includes a processor to perform operations including:
“determining a count rate distribution in a subject based on first data collected in a third scan of the subject, wherein the third scan is a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, and the first data includes PET data; generating a dose plan of a first scan based on first data of a subject the count rate distribution, the first scan being of a first type of scan, wherein the first type of scan is a computed tomography scan, and the dose plan relates to a radiation dose to be delivered to the subject during the first scan;-and obtaining second data of the subject related to the first scan of the subject, the first scan being performed according to the dose plan; obtaining third data of the subject related to a second scan of the subject, wherein the second scan is of a second type of scan different from the first type of scan the second type of scan is a PET scan, and the third data includes PET data; and generating a target image based on the second data and the third data”.
Additional relevant prior art:
Brachman et al. (2025/0135235):
Directed to generating a dosimetric plan where pre-op images are captured including optical camera images where the pre-operative images are used in development of a dosimetric plan [0108].
Menichelli et al. (2021/0311212):
Directed to receiving images from the camera and calculate a representation of a dose of the radiation based on the received images and determine positional dose distributions of the radiation [0043, 0049]. Reference directed to performing image analysis functions on images from camera in order to calculate a representation of a dose of a radiation delivered to phantom [0049].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797