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 .
Response to Amendment
In Applicant’s response filed 01/20/2026, Applicant elected Invention I (claims 1–18) and, within Invention I, elected Species I.A.III, I.B.II, I.C.I, and I.D.II, identifying claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–15, and 18 as readable on the elected invention and elected species. The election is acknowledged and treated as without traverse.
Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as drawn to non-elected species and/or non-elected Invention II in accordance with the restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 37 CFR 1.142(b). No action is taken on the withdrawn claims in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: limitations that contain “body movement calculation section”, “region determination section”, “body movement extraction section”, “mask generation section”, “movement information presentation section”, “imaging unit” in claims.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Accordingly, for purposes of examination, the limitations “body movement calculation section,” “region determination section,” “body movement extraction section,” “mask generation section,” and “movement information presentation section” are construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), with the corresponding structure being the body movement information processing device (e.g., CPU/GPU and memory) executing the algorithms described in the specification (see, e.g., Figs. 2, 4, 6, 12 and the corresponding description). The term “imaging unit” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as structural MRI hardware and is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As the specification sets forth sufficient corresponding structure/algorithms for the 112(f) limitations identified above, no rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 112(b) is made on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10–15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (Krueger et al., US 2021/0244283 A1, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Krueger discloses a body movement information processing device, the device comprising:
a body movement calculation section configured to calculate a body movement of the subject by using the signal from the measuring device ([0010-0012] & [0073-0075]: Krueger describes a medical instrument in which a camera system 102 acquires a base position image 122 and subsequent images 124 of a subject 108, and a computer 110 and processor 114 executes an image transformation algorithm 128 to calculate an image transformation 126 between the base image and each subsequent image using an optical-flow or displacement-mapping algorithm, thereby determining body-movement vectors representing motion of voxels/pixels between frames from the camera signal, [0014-0016] & [0041-0043]);
a region determination section configured to determine a spatial region of a movement of the subject (Krueger further teaches that a region of interest of the base position image may be selected and that an average transformation quantity is calculated for voxels within this region of interest, thus explicitly determining a spatial region of the subject whose movement is tracked; [0018–0019], [0087], [0095] & Fig. 8); and
a body movement extraction section configured to extract the body movement calculated by the body movement calculation section for the region determined by the region determination section. ([0018–0019], [0027–0029] & [0088–0089]: Krueger also teaches computing a motion magnitude field from the image transformation 126 and calculating statistical measures such as mean / average or maximum displacement specifically for the selected region of interest, and using this regional motion quantity as a position feedback indicator and to retrospectively validate or invalidate portions of MRI data, thereby extracting body-movement values for the determined spatial region; see paragraphs).
Although different embodiments of Krueger have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krueger by combining Krueger’s similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see Krueger, [0098-0099]).
Regarding claim 4, Krueger teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the region determination section is configured to determine a first region that is a part of the subject and that includes an imaging target part, and a second region that includes the imaging target part of the subject and a region other than the imaging target part, as the spatial regions, respectively (Krueger explicitly teaches determining two distinct spatial regions: Krueger, in [0076–0079], describes an MRI system 402 in which the subject 108 on subject support 106 is positioned so that at least a portion of the subject lies within the imaging zone 408 of magnet 404, and a region of interest 409 within this imaging zone is defined for motion analysis; Krueger, in [0095–0096], further illustrates in a base position image 122 that a region of interest 800 is selected to monitor movement of a specific portion of the subject during imaging. The selected regions of interest 409 and 800 correspond to a first region that is a part of the subject including the imaging target part, while the portion of the subject located within the imaging zone (which encompasses the target part and adjacent portions) corresponds to a second, larger region that includes the imaging target part and a region other than the imaging target part).
Regarding claim 10, Krueger discloses the body movement information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the body movement calculation section is configured to calculate movement vectors in two directions orthogonal to each other ([0016-0019], [0078], [0089]: Krueger teaches calculating movement vectors in two directions orthogonal to each other by performing optical flow-based movement recognition using standard optical-flow methods, such as the and Lucas-Kanade method that compute, for each pixel, vectors in the x direction (Vx) and the y direction (Vy), the horizontal and vertical pixel axes, which are orthogonal directions) and use the movement vectors in the two directions to discriminate between a periodic movement and a non-steady movement for calculation ([0018–0021], [0027–0030], [0091], [0097]: Krueger further teaches calculating statistical measures from the frame-to-frame image transformation for the region of interest and comparing these motion-related measures to a predetermined criteria to decide whether the motion is acceptable or excessive and to validate or invalidate portions of the MRI data accordingly, thereby using the time-varying motion vectors as a control quantity to distinguish normal or regular motion from non-steady motion in the calculation).
Regarding claim 11, Krueger discloses the body movement information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the body movement extraction section is configured to set a threshold value for at least one of a magnitude, a duration time, or an occurrence interval with respect to the body movement calculated by the body movement calculation section ([0027-0031] & [0091-0092]: Krueger teaches calculating a statistical measure of the image transformation, such as maximum or average displacement, and using predetermined criteria as thresholds values to validate or invalidate portions of the medical imaging data, and further adjusting these criteria over time. "The calculation of the statistical measure between the frame-to-frame image transformation may be more useful in identifying motions …" which captures duration and occurrence interval over time) and extract the non-steady movement of the subject based on the threshold value ([0027–0033], [0091], [0097]: Krueger further explains that portions of medical imaging data corresponding to motion that exceeds the criteria, e.g. transient motion events such as eye blinking, swallowing, coughing, or other short-timescale motions, are invalidated and may be reacquired or excluded from reconstruction, effectively extracting non-steady movement based on the threshold).
Regarding claim 12, Krueger discloses the body movement information processing device according to claim 11, further comprising: a movement information presentation section configured to present information regarding the non-steady movement extracted by the body movement extraction section to an outside (Fig. 1, [0072], [0090]: Krueger teaches that the motion quantity derived from the image transformation for the region of interest is used to control a position feedback indicator presented on a display 104; visual feedback via a position feedback indicator).
Regarding claim 13, Krueger discloses the body movement information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the body movement calculation section is configured to calculate at least one of a displacement, a period, or the number of times per predetermined time for the periodic movement ([0006], [0012], [0018–0019], [0021–0022], [0028]: Krueger teaches that the image transformation algorithm may be a displacement-mapping or optical-flow algorithm that maps the displacement of voxels/ pixels between a base position image and subsequent images, and that the processor computes an average transformation quantity such as an average vector displacement for voxels within a region of interest, which represents the displacement of the subject relative to its initial position and further allows statistical measures of motion magnitude (e.g., maximum or average displacement) to be derived from the motion field).
Regarding claim 14, Krueger discloses a magnetic resonance imaging device comprising:
an imaging unit configured to measure a nuclear magnetic resonance signal generated by a subject and acquire an image of the subject ([0076]: Krueger describes a medical imaging system including an MRI system, the MRI machine performing non-optical, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the subject; [0026]: medical imaging system configured for acquiring medical imaging data from a subject); and
a body movement information processing unit configured to receive a signal from a measuring device that measures information regarding a movement of the subject, and collect movement information of the subject ([0005-0007]:Krueger teaches a processor that receives imaging data [image signals] from the imaging system and calculates an image transformation representing motion of the subject, corresponding collecting body-movement information from the imaging signals),
wherein the body movement information processing unit includes:
a body movement calculation section configured to calculate a body movement of the subject by using the signal from the measuring device ([0006], [0014-0016] & [0088-0089]: Krueger’s processor executes an optical-flow or displacement-mapping algorithm on the base and subsequent camera images to compute the image transformation and motion measures such as average or maximum displacement, which are body-movement values derived from the camera signal);
a region determination section configured to determine a spatial region of the movement of the subject ([0018]–[0019], [0077]–[0079], [0095]: Krueger discloses that a region of interest of the base position image may be selected as the area in which subject motion is to be identified and evaluated, thereby determining a spatial region of the subject whose movement is tracked); and
a body movement extraction section configured to extract the body movement calculated by the body movement calculation section for the region determined by the region determination section ([0018–0019], [0027–0029] & [0088–0089]: Krueger teaches calculating a motion magnitude field and statistical measures, such as an average transformation quantity, specifically for the voxels within the selected region of interest and using this regional motion quantity to control a position feedback indicator and to retrospectively validate or invalidate portions of MRI data, thus extracting the body-movement value calculated for the determined spatial region).
Although different embodiments of Krueger have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krueger by combining Krueger’s similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see Krueger, [0098-0099]).
Regarding claim 15, Krueger discloses the magnetic resonance imaging device according to claim 14, wherein the imaging unit is configured to, based on information on a non-steady movement extracted by the body movement extraction section, delete measurement data obtained in a case where the movement has occurred ([0027–0030]: Krueger teaches calculating a statistical measure from the frame-to-frame image transformation for the region of interest and comparing this measure with a predetermined criteria, and then invalidating or rejecting portions of the MRI data when the motion measure exceeds the criterion, i.e., data acquired during excessive/non-acceptable movement are treated as motion corrupted and discarded; see [0097]), and perform image reconstruction by using measurement data other than the deleted measurement data ([0028–0033], [0083]: Krueger further explains that MRI images are reconstructed using only the validated portions of the MRI data and/or reacquired data, excluding those portions invalidated due to excessive motion, so reconstruction is performed from measurement data other than the discarded motion-corrupted data).
Regarding claim 18, Krueger discloses the magnetic resonance imaging device according to claim 14, wherein the region determination section is configured to determine a region of the subject located within an imaging space of the magnetic resonance imaging device, as the spatial region (in [0077–0078], Krueger describes a magnetic resonance imaging system 402 having a magnet 404 with a bore 406 and an imaging zone 408, and shows that a region of interest 409 is defined within the imaging zone 408 where the subject 108 on subject support 106 is positioned so that at least a portion of the subject lies within the imaging zone and region of interest. Krueger further illustrates a base position image in which a region of interest is selected to identify motion of the subject in the MRI setting, i.e., a spatial region of the subject located within the imaging space for motion analysis; [0095–0096]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (Krueger et al., US 2021/0244283 A1, 2021) in view of Schumacher (Schumacher et al., Weighted Medical Image Registration with automatic mask generation, 2006).
Regarding claim 5, Krueger fails to explicitly disclose where Schumacher explicitly teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a mask generation section configured to generate a mask based on the spatial region determined by the region determination section, (Schumacher, in [Sec. 2 (“Method”)], explicitly describes selecting “problematic” spatial regions
B
T
i
,
B
R
i
in the template and reference images and constructing weighting masks
M
T
x
,
M
R
x
,
M
A
x
that take prescribed values inside those regions and different values elsewhere, and further discloses automatically generating the reference mask from an initial region using grey-value statistics and a snake / GVF segmentation).
wherein the body movement extraction section is configured to extract the body movement by using the mask (Schumacher’s weighted distance measure
D
R
T
M
R
M
T
u
multiplies the intensity difference between template and reference by the masks
M
R
,
M
T
,
M
A
in the registration functional that is minimized to obtain the displacement field
u
x
; thus the extracted deformation / body movement is computed according to the mask values for the determined spatial region; [Sec. 2 (“Method”) and the discussion with Fig. 1]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Krueger’s ROI-based motion system in view of Schumacher’s weighting-mask technique. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of medical imaging of a subject, and both address the same problem of obtaining a motion / registration measure that is driven primarily by clinically relevant regions while suppressing the influence of less relevant or problematic areas. Schumacher teaches that this is effectively achieved by defining a mask over the image domain with region-specific weights and using that mask inside the similarity measure so that certain regions contribute more strongly or weakly to the computed deformation. A POSITA seeking to improve Krueger’s ROI-based motion feedback would therefore have been motivated to implement the ROI as a weighting mask in the same manner, so that motion in more important parts of the spatial region (e.g., near the imaging target) has greater impact on the extracted motion value, while motion in other regions is down-weighted. This is a predictable use of a known technique (weighting masks in medical image registration) to improve a similar system (ROI-based MRI motion tracking) according to its established function, with a reasonable expectation of success and without changing the fundamental operation of Krueger’s device.
Regarding claim 7, Krueger [as modified by Schumacher] discloses the body movement information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the mask is a mask including weighting corresponding to at least one of a distance between the measuring device and each position of the spatial region (Schumacher teaches using weighting masks in which different spatial sub-regions
B
i
of the image domain
Ω
are assigned respective weighting factors
b
i
, so that the masks
M
T
x
,
M
R
x
take different values depending on the voxel position
x
within the region of interest; this defines a spatially varying weight distribution over the region used in registration, i.e., the mask weight at each voxel is a function of that voxel’s position, which to a POSITA corresponds to the voxel’s distance / geometry relative to the imaging setup; see [Section 2.1 “Weighted non-linear image registration”, eq. (2) and the definitions of
M
T
,
M
R
,
M
A
]).
or a measurement sensitivity distribution of the imaging device (Given claim 7 is satisfied by any one of the listed types, Krueger [as modified by Schumacher] fully teaches the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, Applicant is directed to Krueger [as modified by Schumacher] ‘s other discussions, from which it is readily apparent that Krueger [as modified by Schumacher] also discloses other listed types for weighting).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN KUDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
KEN KUDO
Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/KEN KUDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671