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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claims: 1, 5; canceled claims: 4, 14-20; new claims: 21-28; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new primary reference is currently being used in the present rejection.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falco et al. (US 2008/0064953 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2008).
Regarding claim 1, Falco et al. disclose: A system for medical imaging (para. [0036]), comprising: at least one storage medium including a set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations (para. [0032], [0036]) including: obtaining historical state information of a scanning region in a historical scan and current state information of the scanning region in a current scan to be performed; determining whether historical parameter values of one or more imaging parameters used in the historical scan need to be updated based on a comparison result between the historical state information and the current state information (para. [0032], [0036]); in response to determining that the historical parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters used in the historical scan need to be updated, determining updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the historical state information and the current state information (para. [0032], [0036]) determining first feature information of a first medical image captured in the historical scan; the first feature information and the second feature information relating to at least one of a radiation incidence center, a radiation incidence angle, or an image feature parameter that affects visual presentation of the first medical image and the second medical image; and directing a medical imaging device to perform the current scan based on the updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters (para. [0032], [0036]).
Falco et al. do not specifically disclose: determining the updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the historical state information and the current state information such that a similarity degree between the first feature information and second feature information of a second medical image captured in the current scan is within a preset range. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to determine the updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the historical state information and the current state information such that a similarity degree between the first feature information and second feature information of a second medical image captured in the current scan is within a preset range to prevent healthy tissues/organs from being exposed to unnecessary radiation.
Regarding claim 2, Falco et al. disclose: the historical state information and the current state information relate to at least one of: whether the scanning region is fixed by a fixing device, whether a distance between the scanning region and a radiation source of the medical imaging device is within a preset distance range, whether the scanning region has a preset posture, or whether a radiation ray filtering device is placed between the scanning region and the medical imaging device (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Falco et al. disclose: the one or more imaging parameters include at least one of: a position parameter of one or more movable components of the medical imaging device, an exposure parameter, or an image post-processing parameter (para. [0032]).
Claims 6-7, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falco et al. (US 2008/0064953 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2008) in view of Voronenko et al. (US 2022/0126117 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022).
Regarding claim 6, Falco et al. are silent about: the determining updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the historical state information and the current state information comprises: for each of at least part of the one or more imaging parameters, determining, based on a first medical image captured in the historical scan, a reference range of the imaging parameter; determining, based on the current state information and the historical state information, a candidate parameter value of the imaging parameter; and determining, based on the candidate parameter value, the updated parameter value of the imaging parameter that is within the reference range of the imaging parameter.
In a similar filed of endeavor Voronenko et al. disclose: the determining updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the historical state information and the current state information comprises: for each of at least part of the one or more imaging parameters, determining, based on a first medical image captured in the historical scan, a reference range of the imaging parameter; determining, based on the current state information and the historical state information, a candidate parameter value of the imaging parameter; and determining, based on the candidate parameter value, the updated parameter value of the imaging parameter that is within the reference range of the imaging parameter (para. [0243]) motivated by the benefits for improving the accuracy of dose delivery to multiple patient target regions (Voronenko et al. para. [0119]).
In light of the benefits for improving the accuracy of dose delivery to multiple patient target regions as taught by Voronenko et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Falco et al. with the teachings of Voronenko et al.
Regarding claim 7, Falco et al. are silent about: the determining updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the historical state information and the current state information comprises: determining the updated parameter values by processing the historical state information, the current state information, and the historical parameter values using a parameter prediction model, the parameter prediction model being a trained machine learning model.
In a similar filed of endeavor Voronenko et al. disclose: the determining updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the historical state information and the current state information comprises: determining the updated parameter values by processing the historical state information, the current state information, and the historical parameter values using a parameter prediction model, the parameter prediction model being a trained machine learning model (para. [0042]) motivated by the benefits for improving the accuracy of dose delivery to multiple patient target regions (Voronenko et al. para. [0119]).
In light of the benefits for improving the accuracy of dose delivery to multiple patient target regions as taught by Voronenko et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Falco et al. with the teachings of Voronenko et al.
Regarding claim 21, Falco et al. are silent about: the historical state information and the current state information relate to at least one of: whether the scanning region is fixed by a fixing device, wherein the fixing device includes at least one of a plaster cast, a neck bracket, an elbow joint fixation bracket, a knee joint fixation bracket, or an ankle fixation bracket, whether a distance between the scanning region and a radiation source of the medical imaging device is within a preset distance range, or whether a radiation ray filtering device is placed between the scanning region and the medical imaging device
In a similar filed of endeavor Voronenko et al. disclose: the historical state information and the current state information relate to at least one of: whether the scanning region is fixed by a fixing device, wherein the fixing device includes at least one of a plaster cast, a neck bracket, an elbow joint fixation bracket, a knee joint fixation bracket, or an ankle fixation bracket, whether a distance between the scanning region and a radiation source of the medical imaging device is within a preset distance range, or whether a radiation ray filtering device is placed between the scanning region and the medical imaging device (para. [0123], [0154]) motivated by the benefits for improving treatment accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improving treatment accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Falco et al. with the teachings of Voronenko et al.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falco et al. (US 2008/0064953 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2008) in view of Voronenko et al. (US 2022/0126117 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 2022/0031273 A1; pub. Feb. 3, 2022).
Regarding claim 22, the combined references are silent about: the determining, based on a first medical image captured in the historical scan, a reference range of the imaging parameter includes: determining the reference range of the imaging parameter based on one or more image feature parameters of the first medical image, the one or more image feature parameters referring to parameters that affect a visual presentation of the first medical image.
In a similar filed of endeavor Lewis et al. disclose: there is an image artifacts region and the patient should be moved away from the region (para. [0065], [0080], [0085]) motivated by the benefits for improving treatment accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improving treatment accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Falco et al. with the teachings of Voronenko et al. to have: the determining, based on a first medical image captured in the historical scan, a reference range of the imaging parameter includes: determining the reference range of the imaging parameter based on one or more image feature parameters of the first medical image, the one or more image feature parameters referring to parameters that affect a visual presentation of the first medical image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-13 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters are determined according to a process including one or more iterations, each of the one or more iterations includes:
determining a predicted second medical image based on the current state information, the first medical image, and initial parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters using an image prediction model, the image prediction model being a trained machine learning model:
determining whether a similarity degree between the first feature information and third feature information of the predicted second medical image is within the preset range;
in response to determining that the similarity degree between the first feature information and the third feature information is out of the preset range, determining adjusted parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters based on the first feature information and the third feature information, and designating the adjusted parameter values as initial parameter values in a next iteration; or
in response to determining that the similarity degree between the first feature information and the third feature information is within of the preset range, designating the initial parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters as the updated parameter values of the one or more imaging parameters.
Regarding claim 8, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the operations further include: determining size information of the scanning region based on a medical image captured in the historical scan or the current scan by: obtaining a first optical image of the scanning region captured by an optical camera in the historical scan or the current scan; determining, based on the first optical image, an equivalent thickness of the scanning region along a traveling direction of radiation rays in the historical scan or the current scan; determining, based on the equivalent thickness, a first distance between a radiation source and a reference point of the scanning region; and determining, based on the first distance and the medical image, the size information of the scanning region.
Claims 9-10 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 8 for dependency reasons.
Regarding claim 11, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: obtaining a second optical image of the scanning region that is supported by a supporting device, the second optical image being captured by an optical camera before the current scan is performed;
determining, based on the second optical image, a deflection angle of the scanning region with respect to an extension direction of the supporting device;
determining, based on the deflection angle, a rotation angle of the supporting device and/or a detector of the medical imaging device such that a representation of the scanning region in a second medical image captured in the current scan has a preset direction in the second medical image.
Claims 12-13 would be allowable on the same basis as claim 8 for dependency reasons.
Claims 23-28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 23, Hsieh discloses: at least one storage medium including a set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations (para. [0056]) including: obtaining an optical image of a scanning region captured by an optical camera in a scan (para. [0018]).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: determining, based on the optical image, an equivalent thickness of the scanning region along a traveling direction of radiation rays in the scan; determining, based on the equivalent thickness, a first distance between a radiation source and a reference point of the scanning region; and determining, based on the first distance and a medical image captured in the scan, size information of the scanning region.
Claims 24 - 25 are allowed on the same basis as independent claim 26 for dependency reasons.
Regarding independent claim 26, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: determining, based on the optical image, a deflection angle of the scanning region with respect to an extension direction of the supporting device; determining, based on the deflection angle, a rotation angle of the supporting device and/or a detector of a medical imaging device for performing the scan such that a representation of the scanning region in a medical image captured in the scan has a preset direction in the medical image.
Claims 27 - 28 are allowed on the same basis as independent claim 26 for dependency reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 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 MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights