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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2023-024093 dated 2/20/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 1/29/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
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.
The claims 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 use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “unit that” in claim(s) 1-9 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu et al (US 20200402272 A1, hereafter referred to as Xu) in view of Kusens et al (US 20160183864 A1, hereafter referred to as Kusens).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Xu teaches A medical imaging apparatus that captures a medical image of a subject placed on a patient table, the medical imaging apparatus comprising:
a camera image acquisition unit that acquires a camera image including the patient table (Xu in ¶6 discloses “receiving an RGB image and a depth image of an object positioned on a scan table”);
a person extraction unit that extracts a person from the camera image (Xu in Fig. 2A and ¶50 discloses scanning a person).
Xu does not explicitly teach all of a subject specification unit that specifies the subject from among a plurality of the persons extracted by the person extraction unit, based on a distance between each of the plurality of persons and a reference position set based on the patient table.
However, Kusens teaches a subject specification unit that specifies the subject from among a plurality of the persons extracted by the person extraction unit (Kusens in ¶28-29 discloses distinguishing the person being monitored from others who may be within range of the monitoring sensors, such as visitors, caretakers, other service providers, passers-by, and the like),
based on a distance between each of the plurality of persons and a reference position set based on the patient table (Kusens in ¶28-29, 42 discloses the 3D sensors may assess how close the caregiver approaches. 3-D virtual patient zone equates to distance threshold under BRI.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xu by incorporating a virtual 3D patient zone to distinguish imaging subjects based on proximity that is taught by Kusens, since both reference are analogous art in the field of camera-based patient detection; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Xu’s automated scan range setting using camera-based key point detection with Kusens’s multi-person patient identification using a virtual zone as a distance/proximity threshold yields the predictable result of robust automated scan range determination even when multiple people are present in the camera image, thereby improving reliability.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Xu in view of Kusens teaches The medical imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the subject specification unit sets a position of a center line of the camera image as the reference position (Kusens in ¶90 discloses setting a scan center).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Xu in view of Kusens teaches The medical imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the subject specification unit sets a position of a center point of the camera image as the reference position (Kusens in ¶90 discloses setting a scan center).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Xu in view of Kusens teaches The medical imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the subject specification unit extracts a region of the patient table from the camera image and sets a position of a center line or a center point of the extracted region as the reference position (Kusens in ¶90 discloses setting a scan center).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Xu in view of Kusens teaches The medical imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the subject specification unit selects a person having a shortest distance from among the plurality of persons (Kusens in ¶6 discloses setting a virtual patient zone to define a patient. Inherently, the patient is the shortest distance from this zone).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Xu in view of Kusens teaches The medical imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the subject specification unit specifies, in a case where the person selected from among the plurality of persons satisfies a predetermined condition, the person as the subject (Kusens in ¶6 discloses setting a virtual patient zone to define a patient).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Xu in view of Kusens teaches The medical imaging apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the predetermined condition is that the person is within a region of the patient table (Kusens in ¶6 discloses setting a virtual patient zone to define a patient).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Xu in view of Kusens teaches The medical imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the person extraction unit extracts the person from a range in which the patient table is movable (Kusens in Abstract and ¶6 discloses setting a virtual patient zone to define a patient. Inherently, the patient is the shortest distance from this zone. Patient tables are known to be movable, furthermore, the virtual patient zone that can be centered around a patients bed is movable).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Xu teaches A control method of a medical imaging apparatus that captures a medical image of a subject placed on a patient table, the control method comprising:
a camera image acquisition step of acquiring a camera image including the patient table (Xu in ¶6 discloses “receiving an RGB image and a depth image of an object positioned on a scan table”);
a person extraction step of extracting a person from the camera image (Xu in Fig. 2A and ¶50 discloses scanning a person).
Xu does not explicitly teach all of a subject specification step of specifying the subject from among a plurality of the persons extracted by the person extraction unit, based on a distance between each of the plurality of persons and a reference position set based on the patient table.
However, Kusens teaches a subject specification step of specifying the subject from among a plurality of the persons extracted in the person extraction step (Kusens in ¶28-29 discloses distinguishing the person being monitored from others who may be within range of the monitoring sensors, such as visitors, caretakers, other service providers, passers-by, and the like),
based on a distance between each of the plurality of persons and a reference position set based on the patient table (Kusens in ¶28-29, 42 discloses the 3D sensors may assess how close the caregiver approaches. 3-D virtual patient zone equates to distance threshold under BRI.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xu by incorporating a virtual 3D patient zone to distinguish imaging subjects based on proximity that is taught by Kusens, since both reference are analogous art in the field of camera-based patient detection; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Xu’s automated scan range setting using camera-based key point detection with Kusens’s multi-person patient identification using a virtual zone as a distance/proximity threshold yields the predictable result of robust automated scan range determination even when multiple people are present in the camera image, thereby improving reliability.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6 and 11 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 1/9/2025