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
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on December 22, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7, filed December 22, 2025, with respect to abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the abstract has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the abstract.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7, filed December 22, 2025, with respect to Claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the minor informalities.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 6 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.
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) 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (U.S. 2016/0174930) in view of Hale (U.S. 2019/0321657) and Sato (U.S. 2019/0343479).
Regarding claim 1:
Braun discloses a medical image capturing apparatus comprising:
a table (Fig. 1, 11) on which a subject is placed (Fig. 1, patient P);
a scan gantry unit (Fig. 1, 13) that includes a detection unit which detects X-rays transmitted through subject ([0003], CT scanner);
an image generation unit ([0052], microprocessor and operating unit) that generates a medical image by using a detection signal transmitted from the detection unit ([0003], CT scanner);
a display unit (Fig. 1, 16) that displays the medical image;
a camera (Fig. 1, 10 and 10’) that images the subject on the table; and
a processor ([0072], computer), configured to:
designate an imaging position with respect to the subject before movement of the table ([0076], imaging positioning selected),
acquire a camera image (Fig. 1, 10 and 10’ take image of patient); and
generate a superimposed image ([0077], superimposed image) the imaging position (fig. 6, 27).
However, Braun fails to disclose acquire a camera image captured by the camera before, during, or after the movement of the table; generate a superimposed image in which the designated imaging position is superimposed on the subject in the camera image and displays the superimposed image on the display unit
Hale teaches a camera image acquisition unit that acquires a camera image captured by the camera before (Fig. 12, patient is imaged using camera 230, 232 and 234; [0100]), during ([0099], patient is continuously imaged), or after the movement of the table ([0099], patient is continuously imaged).
Sato teaches generate a superimposed image in which the designated imaging position is superimposed on the subject in the camera image and displays the superimposed image on the display unit (Fig. 8, 61 and 62).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the imaging system of Braun with the camera imaging of Hale in order to improve efficiency by improving patient positioning (Braun; [0101]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the imaging system of Braun with the superimposing imaging position of Sato in order to reduce image distortion by improving positioning (Sato; [0124]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Braun, Hale, and Sato discloses the medical image capturing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processor designates the imaging position based on a pre-movement image (Braun; ([0076], imaging positioning selected), which is the camera image before the movement of the table (Hale; Fig. 12, patient is imaged using camera 230, 232 and 234; [0100]), and
the processor generates the superimposed image by calculating coordinates of the imaging position in a post-movement image, which is the camera image during or after the movement of the table, based on a difference between the post- movement image and the pre-movement image (Hale; [0102], deviations are calculated).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the imaging system of Braun with the camera imaging of Hale in order to improve efficiency by improving patient positioning (Braun; [0101]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Braun, Hale, and Sato discloses the medical image capturing apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the processor further superimposes an outer shape of the subject on the superimposed image (Braun; Fig. 5-9, outer shape of patient is superimposed).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Braun, Hale, and Sato discloses the medical image capturing apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the processor further superimposes an imaging field of view of the scan gantry unit on the superimposed image (Braun; Fig. 9, R).
Regarding claim 6:
Braun discloses a control method of a medical image capturing apparatus including a table on which a subject is placed, a scan gantry unit that includes a detection unit which detects X-rays transmitted through the subject, an image generation unit that generates a medical image by using a detection signal transmitted from the detection unit, a display unit that displays the medical image, and a camera that images the subject on the table, the control method comprising:
acquiring a camera image captured by the camera (Fig. 1, 10 and 10’ take image of patient); and
generating a superimposed image in which an imaging position is superimposed on the camera image (Fig. 6, 27) and displaying the superimposed image on the display unit ([0077], superimposed image).
However, Braun fails to disclose a camera image acquisition step of acquiring a camera image captured by the camera before, during, or after the movement of the table, wherein the imaging position is designated with respect to the subject before movement of the table.
Hale teaches a camera image acquisition step of acquiring a camera image captured by the camera before (Fig. 12, patient is imaged using camera 230, 232 and 234; [0100]), during, or after the movement of the table ([0099], patient is continuously imaged).
Sato teaches wherein the imaging position is designated with respect to the subject before movement of the table ([0082], setting each position)
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the control method of Braun with the camera imaging of Hale in order to improve efficiency by improving patient positioning (Braun; [0101]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the imaging system of Braun with position designation of Sato in order to reduce image distortion by improving positioning (Sato; [0124]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Braun, Hale, and Sato discloses the medical image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays the superimposed image in which the designated imaging position superimposed on the subject in the camera image before (Hale; Fig. 12, patient is imaged using camera 230, 232 and 234; [0100]), during (Hale; ([0099], patient is continuously imaged), and after the movement of the table (Hale; [0099], patient is continuously imaged).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the imaging system of Braun with the camera imaging of Hale in order to improve efficiency by improving patient positioning (Braun; [0101]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Braun, Hale, and Sato discloses the medical image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays the superimposed image in which the designated imaging position superimposed on the subject in the camera image during the movement of the table (Hale; [0099], patient is continuously imaged).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the imaging system of Braun with the camera imaging of Hale in order to improve efficiency by improving patient positioning (Braun; [0101]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Braun (U.S. 2016/0174930), Sato (U.S. 2019/0343479) and Hale (U.S. 2019/0321657).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Braun, Hale, and Sato discloses the medical image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires the camera image during the movement of the table as a video (Hale; [0059], video images).
However, the combination of Braun, Hale, and Sato fails to disclose the processor displays electrocardiogram data of the subject on the display unit in synchronization with the superimposed image generated based on the video.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884