DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 03/05/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1, 3, 6-8,12-14, 18, 20, 23, 34-36, 39 and 44-47 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims 12 and 23 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In claims 12 and 23: an acquisition module, an imaging module, a receiving module, a searching module, and a sending module for performing claimed functions are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
61066.. Claims 1, 3, 8, 12-14, 34, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethamraju (US Pub: 2015/0356244) and in further view of Zuehlsdorff et al (US Pub: 2013/0297331), Dutta Choudhury et al (US Pub: 2023/0154594), and Kirihata (US Pub: 20160006896).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Seethamraju teaches: A method implemented on at least one machine each of which has at least one processor and at least one storage device for imaging, comprising: obtaining historical configuration information, the historical configuration information including at least one of a historical inspection process configuration, a historical scanning scheme configuration, a historical displaying configuration, or (twin data of a historical detection object) used when a historical scanning device is running in a historical scanning condition [abstract, p0045]; adjusting the historical configuration information to generate target configuration information matching a current scanning condition, the target configuration information including at least one of an inspection process configuration, a scanning scheme configuration, a displaying configuration, or twin data of a detection object [p0008-p0010, p0032, p0033].
An imaging device in Seethamraju would have inherently perform an imaging operation using updated configuration information although not explicitly stated. Seethamraju does not explicitly specify twin data. In the same field of endeavor, Zuehlsdorff et al teaches twin data in terms of patient characteristics and historical protocol : obtaining historical configuration information, the historical configuration information including at least one of a historical inspection process configuration, a historical scanning scheme configuration, a historical displaying configuration, or twin data of a historical detection object used when a historical scanning device is running in a historical scanning condition [p0023-p0025]; and performing, using a first device, an imaging operation on the detection object based on the target configuration information, wherein an account, a current scanning device, an operator, or a detection object under the current scanning condition is different from an account, the historical scanning device, an operator, or a detection object under the historical scanning condition, respectively [p0019-p0021, p0025].
For a redundant teaching in the same field of endeavor on performing scanning based on dynamically updated configuration protocol based on historic data and twin data, Dutta Choudhury et al teaches: adjusting the historical configuration information to generate target configuration information matching a current scanning condition, and performing, using a first device, an imaging operation on the detection object based on the target configuration information, wherein, an account, or a detection object under the current scanning condition is different from an account or a detection object under the historical scanning condition, respectively [p0069, p0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to dynamically update historical configuration to match current scanning condition for optimizing scanning result.
Seethamraju in view of Zuehlsdorff et al and Dutta Choudbury et al does not teach account based migration. In the same field of endeavor, Kirihata teaches: the historical configuration information is set on a second device started by using a target account [p0027, 0049, p0052 (MFP 101 as the second device)]; migrating the historical configuration information of the second device to a first device wherein the target account is obtained via a login interface of the first device, and models or serial numbers of the first devices and the second device are different [p0028, p0049, p0053 (Devices with different setting capabilities suggests devices differing in type or model.)]; adjusting the historical configuration information to generate target configuration information matching the first device [claim 1, p0055, p0058 (Whether acquired setting can be used in the current device. If not, change it to usable setting.)]. Therefore, given Kirihara’s teaching on migrating account associated configuration from a server to a second device and change unusable settings into setting usable on the second device, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to provide account based migration of medical imaging configuration information between different imaging devices and execute device specific adjustment for improved compatibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Seethamraju and Zuehlsdorff et al further teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the performing, using a first device, an imaging operation on the detection object based on the target configuration information includes: updating a setting corresponding to at least one configuration option on the first device based on a target preference setting related to the inspection process configuration, the scanning scheme configuration, and/or the displaying configuration in the target configuration information [Seethamraju: p0023, p0027; Zuehlsdorff: p0012, p0016, p0017].
Kirihata further teaches: wherein the target preference setting includes a setting of one or more configuration options on a second device, the setting of the one or more configuration options being set by an operator on the second device using a target account [p0027, p0028, p0049-p0052].
Regarding claim 8 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Zuehlsdorff et al further teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining historical scanning scheme data, the historical scanning scheme data including twin data of a historical object and/or twin data of a historical operator [p0011, p0011 (anatomic feature)].
Claim 12 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 13 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Seethamraju et al’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to implement a method [p0037].
Regarding claim 14 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Seethamraju et al and Dutta Choudhury et al further teach: The method of claim 1, further comprising a method implemented on a first device for data migration, comprising: obtaining a target account via a login interface of the first device; obtaining a target preference setting corresponding to the target account, the target preference setting including a setting of one or more configuration options on a second device, the setting of the one or more configuration options being set by an operator on the second device after the operator starts the second device using the target account, the one or more configuration options including at least one of an inspection process configuration, a scanning scheme configuration, or a displaying configuration; updating a setting corresponding to at least one configuration option on the first device based on the target preference setting [Seethamraju: p0008-p0010, p0033, p0045; Dutta: p0023-p0025]. Although not explicitly specified, a login interface would have been obvious so that only authorized user is permitted for configuration setting and scanning operation.
Regarding claim 34 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Dutta Choudhury et al further teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining historical scanning scheme data, the historical scanning scheme data including twin data of a historical object and twin data of a historical operator; obtaining portrait data of a current object and initial twin data of a current operator; fusing the historical scanning scheme data with the portrait data of the current object and the initial twin data of the current operator to generate an image scanning scheme for the current object [figs. 5 and 6, p0062, p0064, p0093 (Generate scan scheme using historical and current patient demographics and procedure history (twin data) and operator selection patterns.)].
Regarding claim 44 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kirihata and Dutta Choudhury further teach: The method of claim 1,wherein the historical configuration information is packaged in the second device and uploaded to a cloud server through the second device or a second mobile terminal, and the second mobile terminal is connected with or in communication with the second device; and the historical configuration information is downloaded from the cloud server to the first device via the first device or a first mobile terminal, and the first mobile terminal is connected with or in communication with the first device [Kirihata: p0005, p0026-p0028, p0049-p0052; Dutta: p0030].
Claim 45 (new) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 44.
71066.. Claims 6, 7, 24, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethamraju (US Pub: 2015/0356244), Zuehlsdorff et al (US Pub: 2013/0297331), Dutta Choudhury et al (US Pub: 2023/0154594), and Kirihata (US Pub: 20160006896); and in further view of Baer-Beck et al (US Pub: 2022/0338830).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Seethamraju in view of Zuehlsdorff et al, Dutta Choudhury et al, and Kirihata does not disclose scanning scheme having a plurality of scanning phase. In the same field of endeavor, Baer-Beck et al teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the twin data of the detection object, in the scanning scheme configuration, an initial image scanning scheme corresponding to the twin data of the detection object, the initial image scanning scheme including a plurality of scanning phases [claim 22, p0015-p0040 (Twin data in terms of physiological data such as respiration or breathing behavior)]. Therefore, given Baer-Beck et al’s prescription on how scan should be configured based on patient’s breathing behavior, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to determine scanning phase based on twin data for improving image quality with more personalized process.
Regarding claim 7 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Baer-Beck et al further teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein the twin data of the detection object includes portrait data of the detection object, and the performing, using the first device, an imaging operation on the detection object based on the target configuration information includes: executing the initial image scanning scheme; determining whether the portrait data of the detection object has changed during a current scanning phase of the plurality of scanning phases; and in response to a determination that the portrait data of the detection object has changed, optimizing one or more parameters of at least one pending scanning phase of the plurality of scanning phases in the initial image scanning scheme [p0020-p0026].
Regarding claim 24 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 24 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 7.
Regarding claim 46 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Baer-Beck et al further teaches: The method of claim 7, wherein the in response to a determination that the portrait data of the detection object has changed, optimizing one or more parameters of at least one pending scanning phase of the plurality of scanning phases in the initial image scanning scheme includes: determining whether changed portrait data of the detection object is related to a image scanning result, including: in response to determining that the changed portrait data of the detection object includes breath holding data of the detection object, determining that the changed portrait data of the detection object is related to the image scanning result; in response to determining that the portrait data of the detection object has changed and the changed portrait data of the detection object is related to the image scanning result, optimizing the one or more parameters of the at least one pending scanning phase of the plurality of scanning phases in the initial image scanning scheme [p0036, p0037].
81066.. Claims 15, 18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethamraju (US Pub: 2015/0356244), Zuehlsdorff et al (US Pub: 2013/0297331), Dutta Choudhury et al (US Pub: 2023/0154594), and Kirihata (US Pub: 20160006896); and in further view of Patel et al (US Patent: 6,411,836) and Raman et al (US Pub: 2018/0140271).
Regarding claim 15 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 has been incorporated herein. Seethamraju et al in view of Zuehlsdorff et al and Dutta Choudhury et al does not disclose acquisition request to a server to retrieve user preference. In the same field of endeavor, Patel et al teaches: The method of claim 14, wherein the obtaining a target preference setting corresponding to the target account includes: sending a first acquisition request to a server, wherein the first acquisition request carries the target account to facilitate the server to search, based on the target account and a first mapping relationship, for the target preference setting corresponding to the target account, the first mapping relationship indicating a correlation between a plurality of accounts and a plurality of preference settings; and receiving the target preference setting sent by the server [abstract, claim 8].
In the same field of endeavor, Raman et al further teaches selecting a setting protocol for a scanner [p0090, p0091]. Therefore, given Patel et al’s teaching on retrieving preference through a request to a server and Raman et al’s exemplification on selecting setting protocols for scanners, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to obtain target preference setting from a server through a user account for secure data retrieval purpose.
Regarding claim 18 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 15 and in accordance with Raman et al’s further teaching: The method of claim 1, further comprising a method implemented on a server for data migration, comprising: receiving a first acquisition request sent by a first device, wherein the first acquisition request carries a target account, the target account being obtained via a login interface of the first device; searching, based on the target account and a first mapping relationship, for a preference setting corresponding to the target account, the first mapping relationship indicating a correlation between a plurality of accounts and a plurality of preference settings; designating the preference setting as a target preference setting corresponding to the target account, wherein the target preference setting includes a setting of one or more configuration options on a second device, the setting of the one or more configuration options being set by an operator on the second device using the target account, and the one or more configuration options including at least one of an inspection process configuration, a scanning scheme configuration, or a displaying configuration; sending the target preference setting to the first device to facilitate the first device to update a setting corresponding to at least one configuration option on the first device based on the target preference setting; and starting the first device [p0090-p0097].
Regarding claim 20 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 18. Notice the second device would have been an obvious alternative to the server.
Regarding claim 23 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 23 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 20.
91066.. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethamraju (US Pub: 2015/0356244), Zuehlsdorff et al (US Pub: 2013/0297331), Dutta Choudhury et al (US Pub: 2023/0154594), and Kirihata (US Pub: 20160006896); and in further view of Raman et al (US Pub: 2018/0140271).
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 14 has been incorporated herein. Seethamraju et al in view of Zuehlsdorff et al, Dutta Choudhury et al and Kirihata does not specify setting compatibility with a device. In the same field of endeavor, Raman et al further teaches: The method of claim 14, further comprising: obtaining a device identification of the second device; determining, based on the device identification of the second device, whether the target preference setting is compatible with the first device; and in response to a determination that the target preference setting is incompatible with the first device, adjusting the target preference setting; and updating the setting corresponding to the at least one configuration option on the first device based on the adjusted target preference setting [p0089, p0100, p0102, p0175]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to match a protocol to a device for compatibility purpose.
101066.. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethamraju (US Pub: 2015/0356244), Zuehlsdorff et al (US Pub: 2013/0297331), Dutta Choudhury et al (US Pub: 2023/0154594), and Kirihata (US Pub: 20160006896); and in further view of Lou et al (US Pub: 2016/0183905).
Regarding claim 35 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 34 has been incorporated herein. Dutta Choudhury et al does not explicitly specify ROI. In the same field of endeavor, Lou et al teaches: The method of claim 34, wherein in response to the current object being the same as the historical object, and a scanning region of interest (ROI) of the current object is the same as a scanning ROI of the historical object, the fusing the historical scanning scheme data with the portrait data of the current object and the initial twin data of the current operator includes: extracting one or more historical scanning parameters from the twin data of the historical operator; and fusing the one or more historical scanning parameters with the portrait data of the current object and the initial twin data of the current operator to generate the image scanning scheme for the current object [abstract, p0017, p0020, p0098]. Therefore, given Lou et al’s prescription on same scanning ROI, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to perform fusing process on the same ROI for generating scanning scheme when treating the same patient for improving processing efficiency.
111066.. Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethamraju (US Pub: 2015/0356244), Zuehlsdorff et al (US Pub: 2013/0297331), Dutta Choudhury et al (US Pub: 2023/0154594), Kirihata (US Pub: 20160006896); and Baer-Beck et al (US Pub: 2022/0338830); and in further view of Assmann et al (US Pub: 2014/0088405).
Regarding claim 47 (New), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Claim 47 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 46. Baer-Beck et al does not detect emotion. In the same field of endeavor, Assmann et al teaches: in response to determining that an emotion of the detection object is irritable, determining that the portrait data of the detection object has changed; the in response to a determination that the portrait data of the detection object has changed, optimizing one or more parameters of at least one pending scanning phase of the plurality of scanning phases in the initial image scanning scheme includes: in response to determining that the portrait data of the detection object has changed, adjusting a sampling rate of subsequent scanning protocols after the current scanning phase of the image scanning scheme to accelerate scanning [p0005, p0009, p0013, p0046, p0047 (faster measurement sequence for increasing sampling rate)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of all to change scan protocol sequence for more rapid measurement sequence when monitoring emotion to shorten stressful situation
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 36 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment 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 extension fee 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.
Contact
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights