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
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 12/22/2025.
The amendments filed on 12/22/2025 have been entered. Claims 7 and 14 are presently canceled. Accordingly claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 are presently amended.
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments to claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 15 and the canceling of claim 7. However, the amendments introduce new objections that are detailed below.
The previous rejections of claim 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of applicant's canceling of claims 7 and 14. Although applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 resolve the indefiniteness issue related to the limitation “the pixels” the remaining 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have not been resolved and the rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1, 8, and 15 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. Examiner notes that applicant’s arguments regarding secondary reference Neff with respect to the new limitation pertaining to filtering the two-dimensional image datasets is persuasive and therefore Neff is not relied on to teach this new limitation. However, this new limitation is taught by newly discovered prior art Khachaturian et al. as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the limitation “filter the two-dimensional image datasets” should be changed to –filter the at least two two-dimensional image datasets--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the locations” in line 25 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this recitation of “the locations” refers to “a spatial location” in line 20 , “corresponding locations of one or more of the pixels” in lines 21-22, or some other locations. Further clarification is required. This also applies to claims 8 and 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the measured locations" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further clarification is required. This also applies to claims 8 and 15.
Claims dependent upon a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected under the same statute because they each inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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.
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 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks et al. (US 2012/0008741, January 12, 2012) in view of Neff et al. (US 2014/0267758, September 18, 2014) and Khachaturian et al. (US 8,950,935 B1, filed July 31, 2014).
Regarding claim 1, 8, and 15, Hendriks discloses a system (and corresponding computer implemented method and non-transitory computer-readable program storage medium) including memory and one or more processors operable to execute instructions stored in a memory (“The system according to the invention additionally comprises a data processor” [0006]), comprising the instructions to:
acquire a three-dimensional image dataset (“a full three dimensional reconstruction” [0011]; also see “By employing the movable C arm, the X ray image may comprise a three dimensional reconstruction” [0012]);
acquire at least two two-dimensional image datasets (“camera images 404” and “camera images 406” [0039]; examiner notes that the camera images are each two-dimensional image datasets that together form a three-dimensional image as described in [0019], [0041]), wherein each of the two- dimensional image datasets include one or more pixels that represent one or more wavelengths (“a camera responsive to a wavelength for providing a camera image of a patient's exterior” Abstract), wherein one or more of the wavelengths depict a two-dimensional image of at least a part of a surface of a patient's body which comprises a plurality of points (“the contour 408 of the patient’s exterior” [0040]; also see Fig. 4) and wherein the two-dimensional images are taken from different and known viewing directions (“camera 324” and “further camera 326”, which are used to provide “camera images 404” and “camera images 406”, respectively, each have a different “parallax” [0041]; examiner notes that since the cameras are arranged on the gantry of the X ray device, the viewing directions are “known” [0007]; also see [0012], Fig. 3);
determine, for each point in the plurality of points, one or more of the pixels in the two-dimensional image datasets which show said point on the surface of the patient’s body (a spatial reference is identified in the camera images [two-dimensional image datasets] [0006]; “the spatial reference is constitutable by a contour, or apart thereof, of the patient's exterior [points on the surface of a patient’s body].” [0010]; examiner notes that it is implicit that contour identification in the camera images involves pixel determination);
calculate, for each point in the plurality of points, a spatial location of the point based on corresponding locations of one or more of the points in the two-dimensional image datasets and the known viewing directions of the two-dimensional images (using the contour of the patient’s exterior from each image [locations of the corresponding determined pixels in the two-dimensional image datasets] and the parallax [viewing directions] of each camera, a three dimensional camera image is obtained [spatial location] [0019], [0041]); and
calculate alignment information which represents a virtual relative position between the three-dimensional image dataset and the locations of the plurality of points, such that the measured locations of the plurality of points lie on a contour of the patient’s body as represented by the three-dimensional image dataset (“the camera is arranged for providing a stream of camera images, the further camera is arranged for providing a stream of further camera images and the further data processor for detecting a movement of the contour [alignment information], or a part thereof, of the patient's exterior and for subsequently updating the X ray image according to said movement. This embodiment has the advantage of providing real time three dimensional monitoring of the patient's exterior and accordingly updating the X ray image of the patient's interior, while exposing the patient to a minimum amount of X rays. Namely, by spatially correlating the patient's contour in the stream of camera images and the X ray image, the onetime X ray image is updated in conformance with a movement of the contour of a patient's exterior as detected by the further data processor.” [0020]).
While Hendriks discloses using a camera that is responsive to a wavelength in the infrared spectrum (“It is stressed that the camera is not necessarily an optical camera; the camera is responsive to a wavelength, which wavelength may be either in the visible spectrum, the infrared spectrum or the ultraviolet spectrum.” [0006]) which includes thermal imaging, Hendriks fails to explicitly disclose wherein each two-dimensional image dataset represents a two-dimensional thermographic image.
However, Neff teaches, in the same field of endeavor, capturing two-dimensional thermographic images (“utilizing low-resolution thermal imagers in stereo” [0020], [0021]; also see “images 207, 208” [0026], Fig. 2A; also see “2D space” in [0037]; [0019], [0023]). The thermographic images may be used to perform edge detection to identify the contour of a person’s body ([0035]).
Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of Hendriks with wherein each two-dimensional image dataset represents a two-dimensional thermographic image as taught by Neff in order to perform imaging of a person independent from scene lighting ([0017] of Neff).
Hendriks does not specifically point out that the points in the two-dimensional images that are determined to be on the surface of a patient’s body are determined by pixel determination.
However, Neff teaches, in the same field of endeavor, performing pixel analysis ([0035], [0036]) to perform edge detection and determine the contour of a person’s body in thermal images ([0020], [0021], [0035], [0040]).
Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of Hendriks with pixel determination as taught by Neff in order to precisely distinguish a surface of body from a background ([0035], [0036] of Neff).
Hendriks fails to disclose filter the two-dimensional image datasets in order to discard a subset of the one or more pixels, wherein the subset of the one or more pixels represent one or more of the wavelengths that are outside a predefined wavelength range, wherein the predefined wavelength range has a maximum wavelength and a minimum wavelength.
However, Khachaturian teaches, in an analogous field of endeavor (e.g. infrared sensing), filter the two-dimensional image datasets in order to discard a subset of the one or more pixels, wherein the subset of the one or more pixels represent one or more of the wavelengths that are outside a predefined wavelength range, wherein the predefined wavelength range has a maximum wavelength and a minimum wavelength (“apparatus 1100 includes a frequency-filter module 1116 that applies a frequency filter to the spatial clustered frequency filtered identified pixel values of skin 1114, which generates frequency filtered spatial clustered frequency filtered identified pixel values of skin 1118. The frequency-filter module 1116 performs block 1608 in FIG. 16. In some implementations, the frequency-filter module 1116 is a one-dimensional spatial Fourier Transform, a high pass filter, a low pass filter, a bandpass filter or a weighted bandpass filter.” col. 17, ll. 48-60; examiner notes that e.g., a bandpass filter has a maximum and minimum wavelength.; also see “the digital IR sensor 108 has an optical filter (long-wave pass) that cuts off the visible and near infra-red radiant flux is integrated in the package to provide ambient and sunlight immunity. The wavelength pass band of the optical filter is from 5.5 till 14 .mu.m.” col. 5, ll. 40-45).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hendriks with filter the two-dimensional image datasets in order to discard a subset of the one or more pixels, wherein the subset of the one or more pixels represent one or more of the wavelengths that are outside a predefined wavelength range, wherein the predefined wavelength range has a maximum wavelength and a minimum wavelength as taught by Khachaturian in order to amplify temporal variations (col. 15, ll. 30-41 of Khachaturian).
Claims 2-3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks in view of Neff and Khachaturian as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of Kovalski et al. (US 2013/0123602, March 16, 2013).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Hendriks modified by Neff and Khachaturian discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as stated above but fails to disclose further comprising the instructions to: calculate movement control data from the alignment information, and cause, based on the movement control data, the patient's body to be moved into a position that is identical to a position at a time the three-dimensional image dataset was created.
However, Kovalski teaches, in the same field of endeavor, further comprising instructions to: calculate movement control data from the alignment information, and cause, based on the movement control data, the patient's body to be moved into a position that is identical to a position at a time the three-dimensional image dataset was created (“positioning a patient on the table at a first time, performing an initial medical examination of the organ of interest at the revised imaging position at the first time, repositioning the patient on the table at a second different time, calculating a difference between a location of the organ of interest at the first time and the organ of interest at the second different time, and automatically repositioning at least one of the table or the detector based on the calculated difference to perform a second medical imaging examination” [0006]; also see).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hendriks with further comprising instructions to: calculate movement control data from the alignment information, and cause, based on the movement control data, the patient's body to be moved into a position that is identical to a position at a time the three-dimensional image dataset was created as taught by Kovalski in order to reduce the time required to perform subsequent examinations while maintaining consistency between multiple examinations ([0004] of Kovalski).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Hendriks modified by Neff, Khachaturian, and Kovalski discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 as stated above, in particular Kovalski was relied on to teach the movement control data. Kovalski further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the movement control data describes how the patient's body has to be moved for the surface of the patient's body to match the contour of the patient's body as represented by the three-dimensional image dataset (“the patient positioning module 40 may suggest that the table 28 be moved axially into the gantry to a table position of 38.4 cm” [0047]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hendriks with wherein the movement control data describes how the patient's body has to be moved for the surface of the patient's body to match the contour of the patient's body as represented by the three-dimensional image dataset as taught by Kovalski in order to reduce the time required to perform subsequent examinations while maintaining consistency between multiple examinations ([0004] of Kovalski).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Hendriks modified by Neff and Khachaturian discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the three-dimensional image dataset is a CT or MR image dataset.
However, Kovalski teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the three-dimensional image dataset is a CT or MR image dataset (“an image contained in a planning computed tomography (called planning CT)” [0008]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hendriks with wherein the three-dimensional image dataset is a CT or MR image dataset as taught by Kovalski in order to provide more detailed three-dimensional images.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks in view of Neff, Khachaturian, and Kovalski as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 above and further in view of Vilsmeier (US 2017/0239493, corresponding PCT filed August 28, 2014).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Hendriks modified by Neff, Khachaturian, and Kovalski discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the position at the time the three-dimensional image dataset was created is a predetermined position relative to an accelerator for radiotherapy.
However, Vilsmeier teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the position at the time the three-dimensional image dataset was created is a predetermined position relative to an accelerator for radiotherapy (“That means that for example the planning image data is used to determine a geometry (at least one of diameter and direction) of at least one treatment beam used to deliver treatment radiation to a treatment body part (a treatment target) contained for example in the reference body part. For example, the computer is configured to control the treatment beam source to emit a treatment beam based on the derived transformation data. In doing so, the patient is allowed to continue breathing normally during radiotherapy or radiosurgery while it is ensured that the treatment beam source is activated only at instances (points in time) at which the treatment body part is known to be at a predetermined position at which it shall be irradiated with treatment radiation” [0047]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hendriks with wherein the position at the time the three-dimensional image dataset was created is a predetermined position relative to an accelerator for radiotherapy as taught by Vilsmeier in order to avoid undesired irradiation of anatomical body parts other than the treatment body part ([0047] of Vilsmeier).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks in view of Neff and Khachaturian as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of Amico et al. (Amico et al., “Volatile Compounds Detection by IR Acousto-Optic Detectors” J. Byrnes, Unexploded Ordnance Detection and Mitigation (2009) pgs. 21-22, applicant submitted prior art via the IDS).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, while Hendriks discloses utilizing wavelengths in the infrared spectrum ([0006]), Neff teaches utilizing thermal wavelengths ranging from 700 nanometers to about 1 millimeter ([0016]), and Khachaturian teaches a wavelength pass band filter from 5.5 to 14 mm, Hendriks in view of Neff and Khachaturian fails to specifically disclose wherein the two-dimensional thermographic images represent wavelengths having a predefined wavelength range between 8 mm and 14 mm.
However, Amico teaches, in an analogous infrared field of endeavor, that long-wavelength infrared which encompasses wavelengths of 8-15 mm is commonly referred to as the thermal imaging region (pg. 22, 4th bullet point from the top).
Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hendriks with wherein the two-dimensional thermographic images represent wavelengths having a predefined wavelength range between 8 mm and 14 mm as taught by Amico in order to obtain an image based on thermal emission without requiring any external light source (pg. 22, 4th bullet point from the top of Amino).
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 AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights