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 Remarks
In the remarks filed 12/23/2025, the Applicant argues that KREUGER et al. (US Pub # 2021/0244283) fails to disclose all the features of claims 1, 2, 3 ,4, 6, 7, 10 and 11-14. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that KREUGER does not “relocate the displayed image to a location relative to the bore” (REMARKS, pages 6-7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. The display system 104 and the patient bore 406 are fixed in position relative to one another. KREUGER explains that “in step 206 the processor 114 repeatedly renders the position feedback indicator 130 and displays this on the display 104. The subject 108 can use the rendering of the position feedback indicator 130 to self-adjust his or her position” ([0075]). That is, the display relocates the displayed image to a new location based on the trailing position of the patient, with image guidance for returning the patient to an original position relative to the bore and display. This is also possible by way of a mirror and position feedback indicator 130 ([0080]; FIG 4). Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 3, the Applicant argues that KREUGER does not disclose “moving the displayed image to the same side as in claim 3 (REMARKS, page 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. KREUGER discloses rendering of the position feedback indicator 130 to self-adjust his or her position based on image 702, wherein a patient moving in a direction will represent in the display as moving in the same direction ([0075]; FIG 7). Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 4, the Applicant argues that KREUGER does not disclose “moving the displayed image back towards the original position in response to detecting movement of the at least one of the head or eyes of the patient back towards the original position”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. KREUGER discloses rendering of the position feedback indicator 130 to self-adjust his or her position based on image 702, wherein a patient moving in a direction will represent in the display as moving in the same direction ([0075]; FIG 7). Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 5, the Applicant argues that KREUGER does not disclose “adapting the displayed image comprises depicting the detected movement of the anatomical region of interest in the displayed image “ as in claim 5. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. KREUGER discloses rendering of the position feedback indicator 130 to self-adjust his or her position based on image 702, wherein a patient moving in a direction will represent in the display as moving in the same direction ([0075]; FIG 7). Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 6, the Applicant argues that KREUGER does not disclose that “detected movement of the anatomical region of interest is depicted in the displayed image with an amplification factor k”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The motion rendering in the position feedback indicator 130 will have some relationship to the motion of the patient, wherein that relationship can be described by a factor k. For, example a video rendering that is representative of actual motion will have a factor k=1. Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained.
Regarding claim 7, the Applicant argues that KREUGER does not disclose “controlling the display device to render the image as a stereographic image”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. KREUGER discloses rending using a stereo/multi-vision image ([0089]).
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant argues that KREUGER also does not disclose "applying a perspective transformation to the image data to adapt the displayed image to the off-center viewing position”, as instead the circle 700 in KREUGER is fixed, and the circle with the dashed line 702 is generated to indicate the current position of the subject (i.e., relative to the circle 700). KREUGER explains in [0075], “the processor repeatedly calculates an image transformation 126 from voxels of at least a portion of the base position image 122 to voxels of the subsequent image 124 by inputting the base position image 122 and the subsequent image 124 into an image transformation algorithm 128. Finally, in step 206 the processor 114 repeatedly renders the position feedback indicator 130 and displays this on the display 104. The subject 108 can use the rendering of the position feedback indicator 130 to self-adjust his or her position”. This image transformation detecting an off-center viewing position of the patient, and amounts to applying a perspective transformation to the image data to adapt the displayed image to the off-center viewing position. Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive, and the previous rejection is maintained.
The balance of claims are rejected based on the argument set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KRUEGER et al. (US Pub # 2021/0244283).
Regarding claim 1, KREUGER discloses a computer-implemented method for performing motion suppression in a medical imaging apparatus 302 (FIG 2-3; [0076]), the method comprising:
obtaining image data ([0075]) defining an image to be displayed to a patient (subject 108) within a bore of the medical imaging apparatus (camera 102’ captures bore 106; [0079]);
controlling a display device (display system 104) to display the image to the patient in the bore (continuous video feed, position feedback indicator, motion of subject, etc.; [0073], [0076], [0080]);
obtaining data indicating a real-time position of an anatomical region of interest comprising at least one of the head or eyes of the patient at an original position during a medical imaging scan (FIG 4 shows the head region of the subject within the imaging zone 408; [0079]);
detecting movement of the anatomical region of interest using the data indicating the real-time position (image transformation algorithm 128 renders a position feedback indicator 130; [0074-0075]); and
in response to detecting the movement, adapting the displayed image to perform patient motion suppression by relocating the displayed image to a location relative to the bore which urges the patient to return at least one of the head eyes to the original position (the subject 108 uses the rendering of the position feedback indicator 130 to self-adjust position to remain still or returning to a same position after moving; [0075], [0080]).
Regarding claim 3, KREUGER discloses that in response to detecting movement of the at least one of the head or eyes of the patient to one side, moving the displayed image to the same side, wherein the movement of the image is amplified relative to the movement of the at least one of the head or eyes by an amplification factor k (wherein k=1, i.e. neutral amplification).
Regarding claim 4, KREUGER discloses moving the displayed image back towards to its original position in response to detecting movement of the at least one of the head or eyes of the patient back towards their original position ([0075], [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, KREUGER discloses depicting the detected movement of the anatomical region of interest in the displayed image (camera 102 captures motion of the subject 108 and displays on the display system 104; [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, KREUGER discloses the detected movement of the anatomical region of interest is depicted in the displayed image with an amplification factor k (wherein k=1, i.e. neutral amplification).
Regarding claim 7, KREUGER discloses controlling the display device to render the image as a stereographic image ([0089]).
Regarding claim 10, KREUGER further discloses using the data indicating the real-time position to detect an off-center viewing position of the patient, and applying a perspective transformation to the image data to adapt the displayed image to the off-center viewing position (the processor repeatedly calculates an image transformation 126 from voxels of at least a portion of the base position image 122 to voxels of the subsequent image 124 by inputting the base position image 122 and the subsequent image 124 into an image transformation algorithm 128. Finally, in step 206 the processor 114 repeatedly renders the position feedback indicator 130 and displays this on the display 104. The subject 108 can use the rendering of the position feedback indicator 130 to self-adjust his or her position; [0075]).
Regarding claim 11, KREUGER discloses a method of controlling a medical imaging apparatus, the method comprising: controlling the medical imaging apparatus to perform a medical imaging scan for imaging an anatomical region of interest of a patient; and during the medical imaging scan, performing the motion suppression method of claim 1 ([0002], [0076]; FIG 3).
Regarding claim 12, KREUGER discloses a controller configured to perform the method of claim 1 (processor 113; [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, KREUGER discloses a medical imaging apparatus comprising the controller of claim 12 (e.g. MR, x-ray, PET system, etc.; [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, KREUGER discloses a computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform the method of claim 1 (memory 118 with instruction 120 to perform method of claim 1; [0072-0074]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KREUGER et al. (US Pub # 2021/0244283) in view of Bickerstaff et al. (GB Pub # 2501761).
Regarding claim 2, KREUGER discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose, in response to detecting movement of the at least one of the head or eyes of the patient towards one side, moving the displayed image towards the opposite side. In attempt to solve a similar problem, Bickerstaff discloses a head-mountable display system for and detecting a user’s motion and displaying a video feed to a user, wherein the system further comprises providing a controller compensating for a user’s head position or motion by moving the displayed video feed in the opposite direction relative to that of the detected motion (page 2, lines 10-21), with the benefit of reducing visual discomfort in the user. In light of the teachings of Bickerstaff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of KREUGER.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed steps, wherein the method further comprises determining the amplification factor based at least partly on the anatomical region of interest.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed steps, wherein the method further comprises determining the amplification factor based at least partly on a motion sensitivity of the medical imaging scan.
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884