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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 30, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61662702, 61800527, 13924505, 14062707, 15095883, 15157444, 15609334, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. None of these prior-filed applications teach the claimed embodiment, corresponding to Figure 22 of the instant application. As such, the instant application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior-filed applications and is instead awarded the effecting filing date of June 7, 2018, which corresponds to the filing date of the 16002223 application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 7, “based the first and second imaging information” should be “based on the first and second imaging information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150119704 to Roth.
Regarding Claim 1, Roth teaches a method of operating an imaging system using first and second contact imaging probes to generate imaging of a body (first and second probes 508, Figure 5 are detectors for PET imaging, par. 0343), the method comprising:
controlling a robotic actuator to position the first contact imaging probe at a first location on a surface of the body such that the first contact imaging probe is in a first radial alignment with an imaging isocenter (the probe heads 508 are shown retracted in Figure 4B and actuated in Figure 5, using linear actuators, par. 0297, 0364; the imaging probes are aligned with respect to the center of the bore, i.e. the imaging isocenter, and they contact the patient, par. 0234); and
controlling the robotic actuator to position the second contact imaging probe at a second location on the surface of the body such that the second contact imaging probe is in a second radial alignment with the imaging isocenter, wherein the first and second radial alignments are different (the probe heads 508 are shown retracted in Figure 4B and actuated in Figure 5, using linear actuators, par. 0297, 0364; the imaging probes are aligned with respect to the center of the bore, i.e. the imaging isocenter, at different radial alignments as shown in Figure 5, and they contact the patient, par. 0234),
rotating the first and second contact imaging probes in a circular path around the body to obtain a plurality of 2D images from the first and second contact imaging probes as the probes rotate around the body (par. 0061, 0210, and as shown in Figure 13); and
generating a 3D volume from the obtained plurality of 2D images from the first and second contact imaging probes based on the imaging isocenter (par. 0005, 0026).
Regarding Claim 2, Roth further teaches wherein controlling the robotic actuator to position the first contact imaging probe at the first location comprises providing contact at the first location based on at least one of capacitive measurement feedback, temperature measurement feedback, conductivity measurement feedback, force measurement feedback, pressure measurement feedback, and/or optical feedback (contact sensors provide proximity detection, including acoustic sensor, IR sensor, optical sensor, par. 0231-0232, force sensor, par. 0233-0234 to sense contact, i.e. proximity, to the other probe and/or the patient surface, par. 0373-0375), and/or wherein controlling the robotic actuator to position the second contact imaging probe at the second location comprises providing contact at the second location based on at least one of capacitive measurement feedback, temperature measurement feedback, conductivity measurement feedback, force measurement feedback, pressure measurement feedback, and/or optical feedback (contact sensors provide proximity detection, including acoustic sensor, IR sensor, optical sensor, par. 0231-0232, force sensor, par. 0233-0234 to sense contact, i.e. proximity, to the other probe and/or the patient surface, par. 0373-0375).
Regarding Claim 3, Roth further teaches generating first imaging information using the first contact imaging probe in the first location (par. 0005, 0026);
generating second imaging information using the second contact imaging probe in the second location (par. 0005, 0026); and
generating 3-dimensional information for an image of the body to be rendered on a display, wherein the 3-dimensional information is generated based on the first imaging information and the second imaging information (par. 0005, 0026).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Roth further teaches determining a first distance of the first contact imaging probe from the imaging isocenter at the first location that is used to generate the first imaging information; and
determining a second distance of the second contact imaging probe from the imaging isocenter at the second location that is used to generate the second imaging information, wherein the first and second distances are different,
wherein the 3-dimensional information is generated based on the first and second imaging information and based on the first and second distances (coincident and time-of-flight detection implicitly relies upon the distances of the imaging probe from the imaging isocenter to calculate the flight path length, par. 0249, 0251, 0423, variable distances custom to the patient par. 0438).
Regarding Claim 9, Roth teaches wherein the imaging isocenter is located within the body (it is implicit that since a patient is oriented at the center of the bore, the isocenter overlaps with the body).
Claims 11-15, 19 are rejected for the same reasons as for claims 1-5, 9 above, respectively.
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 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150119704 to Roth in view of US 20090003528 to Ramraj.
Regarding Claims 6, Roth further teaches defining the isocenter at the center of the bore but does not adjust the isocenter based on prior image information.
Ramraj teaches defining a target ROI/isocenter based on a prior image in the coordinate system, rendering the prior image on a display, and accepting user input to provide the first definition of the imaging isocenter using the prior image (defining target 105, Fig. 3; imaging device captures an image and the image is used to identify the target 105, par. 0053; further, the target 105 is used as an isocenter reference point, par. 0025).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to define the ROI based on a previously acquired image as in Ramraj in order to confirm the desired ROI is being imaged to achieve peak resolution at the ROI.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150119704 to Roth in view of US 20090003528 to Ramraj as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, in further view of US 20150297177 to Boctor.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Li, Roth in combination with Ramraj does not teach determining the ROI/isocenter based on a geometric mean, arithmetic mean, a center of mass, and/or moment of inertia of the body or center of a circle defined by three surface points. Instead, the selection of the isocenter/ROI is arbitrary and determined by the user based on the desired location to image.
Boctor teaches robotically positioning contact imaging probes wherein it is critical to define the isocenter at the center of the imaged body part (as in Fig. 57, as shown by scan pattern Fig. 56C; swept around a surface to perform tomographic imaging, par. 0288). While Boctor does not expressly teach the methodology to determine the exact central location for the isocenter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the selection of the central location as shown in Fig. 57 would correspond to at least a center of mass and geometric mean of the corresponding image slice. Further providing automated means to achieve the same result as the manual selection of the ROI in Roth and Ramraj to select the central location of Boctor would have been routine for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the expected result of central ROI for tomographic imaging, as in Boctor.
Claims 17-18 are rejected for the same reasoning as for Claims 7-8 above, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10932746 and US 11607190 to Bouhnik teach detector probes robotically actuated to scan around a patient while in contact with the patient surface, e.g. Figure 12, 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MARIE HOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
ANGELA M. HOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/Angela M Hoffa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights