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 .
Claim Objections
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 16 and 17 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.
Claims 16 and 17 recites the limitation "the anatomical model". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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: “generating unit”, “obtaining unit”, “first determining unit”, “second determining unit” and “providing unit” in claim 13.
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
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, 7-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (EP 3 581 109) in view of Kyme (KYME ANDRE ET AL: "Markerless Motion Tracking of Awake Animals in Positron Emission Tomography", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, IEEE, USA, vol. 33, no. 11, 1 November 2014 (2014-11-01), pages 2180-2190).
In regard to claim 1, Krueger et al. teach a method for motion correction of magnetic resonance (MR) data (figs. 1, 2, paragraphs 64 and 65), comprising: generating, by a calculation unit, of a region of interest of a subject comprising at least one landmark inherent to the subject (fig. 8 element 800 and paragraph 83); obtaining, by a first measuring device, a two-dimensional image (2D image) of at least a part of the subject inside a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, wherein the measuring device is arranged at least partially inside a bore of the MRI system (fig. 4 element 102 and paragraphs 68 and 69); determining, by the calculation unit, at least one landmark in the 2D image (element 800 and paragraph 83); but does not teach a three-dimensional model (3D model); wherein the at least one landmark in the 2D image corresponds to the at least one landmark of the 3D model; determining, by the calculation unit, a 3D position of the region of interest of the subject in the MRI system based on the determined at least one landmark in the 2D image; and providing, by the calculation unit, the 3D position of the region of interest of the subject for motion correction of MR data.
Kyme teaches a three-dimensional model (3D model) (page 2183 Landmark DB and description of fig. 3. Kyme teaches generating 3-D head landmarks using triangulation); wherein the at least one landmark in the 2D image corresponds to the at least one landmark of the 3D model (fig. 4, the landmark database is reprojected onto a 2-D plane); determining, by the calculation unit, a 3D position of the region of interest of the subject in the system based on the determined at least one landmark in the 2D image (fig. 4, reprojection); and providing, by the calculation unit, the 3D position of the region of interest of the subject for motion correction of MR data (page 2813, Section F. Pose Estimation. A 3-D head model is stored in a database. 2-D pictures are taken and from there a pose can be estimated).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of motion detection in medical devices.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. with the 3D-2D registration of Kyme. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. with the 3D-2D registration of Kyme because the markerless motion tracking of Kyme would work equally as well in the apparatus of Krueger et al. as it does separately. The 3D-2D registration of Kyme would provide more landmarks for user tracking than the single landmark of Krueger et al. The additional landmarks of Kyme would allow for an improvement in user tracking and would reduce motion blur in the images.
In regard to claim 7, Krueger et al. teach measuring the position of a person inside the bore (fig. 8 and paragraph 69).
Kyme teaches wherein the determining of the position of region of interest of the subject in the system comprises determining of one or more rotations and one or more translations of the 3D model in relation to a position of the first measuring device in order to obtain a projection of the 3D model that fits to the 2D image obtained by the first measuring device (page 2813, Kyme teaches pose estimation (rotation and translation, see fig. 4 R and t)) using 2D cameras projecting onto the 3 space).
In regard to claim 8, Krueger et al. teach wherein the first measuring device is arranged in a coil (fig. 5 element 102” and paragraph 73).
In regard to claim 9, Krueger et al. teach wherein the first measuring device is an optical camera (paragraph 73 Krueger et al. teach a camera. Fig. 8 shows the image provided by the camera).
In regard to claim 10, Krueger et al. teach wherein the region of interest of the subject is a head of the subject (fig. 8).
In regard to claim 12, Krueger et al. teach wherein the position of the region of interest of the subject is continuously determined and provided for the motion correction of the MR data (paragraph 69).
In regard to claim 13, Krueger et al. teach an apparatus for motion correction of magnetic resonance (MR) data (paragraph 65, MRI system), comprising: an obtaining unit, configured to obtain a two-dimensional image (2D image) of at least a part of the subject inside a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, wherein the obtaining unit is arranged inside a bore of the MRI system (element 102” and paragraphs 62 and 73. Krueger et al. describes element 102” as a camera system. Applicant describes the obtaining unit as being a camera on page 12); a second determining unit, configured to determine a position of the subject in the MRI system based on the determined at least one landmark in the 2D image (paragraphs 62 and 63. Krueger et al. teach a computer program stored on memory determining the position of the user. This is the same as applicant’s computer program as described on page 12); and a providing unit, configured to provide the position of the subject for a motion correction of MR data (paragraphs 63 and 69. Krueger et al. teach the image transformation algorithm 128 providing the position of the user. This is described as an algorithm on a memory which is equivalent to applicant’s program and memory) but does not teach a generating unit, configured to generate a three-dimensional model (3D model) of a subject comprising at least one landmark inherent to the subject; a first determining unit, configured to determine at least one landmark in the 2D image, wherein the at least one landmark in the 2D image corresponds to the at least one landmark of the 3D model.
In regard to claim 14, Krueger et al. teach an MRI system; and a first camera, configured to obtain a 2D image inside an MRI system (element 102”).
In regard to claim 15, Krueger et al. teach a computer program element comprising instructions stored on a computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor is configured to carry out the steps of the method (paragraphs 62 and 63).
Kyme teaches a generating unit, configured to generate a three-dimensional model (3D model) of a subject comprising at least one landmark inherent to the subject (see description of fig. 3 on page 2813. Kyme teaches pairs of cameras are used to make a 3D landmark image. These images are fed to software to create the landmark DB. This is equivalent to applicant’s generating unit described on page 12); a first determining unit, configured to determine at least one landmark in the 2D image, wherein the at least one landmark in the 2D image corresponds to the at least one landmark of the 3D model (page 2183, Kyme shows using software and hardware to determine landmarks positions in a 2D image. This is equivalent to applicant’s determining unit described on page 12).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Kyme further considered with Pautsch et al. (US 2020/0205748).
In regard to claim 2, Krueger et al. teach an MRI system (paragraphs 64 and 65) but neither Krueger et al. nor Kyme teach all the elements of claim 2 except obtaining at least one modelling image of the subject, wherein the at least one modelling image is at least one image obtained by a second measuring device arranged outside the bore of the system, and wherein the at least one modelling image is used for generating the 3D model of the region of interest of the subject.
Pautsch et al. teach obtaining at least one modelling image of the subject, wherein the at least one modelling image is at least one image obtained by a second measuring device arranged outside the bore of the system (fig. 3 and paragraphs 36-38, Pautsch et al. teach imaging devices both inside and outside the device), and wherein the at least one modelling image is used for generating the 3D model of the region of interest of the subject (paragraph 19, three-dimensional depth sensor).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of motion detection in medical devices.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. and Kyme with the image sensor outside the bore as shown in Pautsch et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. and Kyme with the image sensor outside the bore as shown in Pautsch et al. because the multiple cameras of Pautsch et al, both inside and outside, would provide a greater range of images. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these images would provide improved user tracking abilities.
In regard to claim 3, Kyme teaches wherein the at least one modelling image comprises 3D data of the region of interest of the subject (page 2813, description of fig. 3 and fig. 4. The landmark DB is taken using multiple cameras to create 3D landmarks).
In regard to claim 4, Pautsch et al. teach wherein the second measurement device is a depth camera (paragraph 19, depth sensor).
In regard to claim 5, Pautsch et al. teach wherein the second measuring device is at least one optical camera (paragraph 19).
In regard to claim 11, Pautsch et al. teach wherein the generating the 3D model of the subject is based on an anatomical model (fig. 7).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Kyme further considered with Schleyer et al. (US 2023/0298231).
In regard to claim 6, Kyme teaches wherein the system is trained to describe a relation between geometrical data of a region of interest of a subject and at least one landmark of the region of interest of the subject (page 2813 fig. 4. Kyme determines the pose data (geometrical data) based on the landmarks DB from the training images) but neither Kyme nor Krueger et al. teach wherein the generating of the 3D model is based on a machine learning system representing a mathematical algorithm processing at least one landmark of a region of interest of a subject.
Schleyer et al. teach wherein the generating of the 3D model is based on a machine learning system representing a mathematical algorithm processing at least one landmark of a region of interest of a subject (paragraph 75, Schleyer et al. teach using 2D image data to predict the 3D location of markers in an MRI machine).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of motion detection in medical devices.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. and Kyme with the machine learning system of Schleyer et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. and Kyme with the machine learning system of Schleyer et al. because they machine learning system of Schleyer et al. would allow for the determination of 3D location using cheap off the shelf cameras and would improve machine accuracy (see paragraph 29).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Kyme further considered with Wang et al. (US 2019/0228556).
In regard to claims 16 and 17, Krueger et al. and Kyme teach all the elements of these claims except a 3D morphable model.
Wang et al. teach a 3D morphable model (fig. 8 and paragraph 56).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of motion detection in medical devices.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. and Kyme with the 3D morphable model of Wang et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Krueger et al. and Kyme with the 3D morphable model of Wang et al. because the 3D morphable model of Wang et al. would allow for the device to determine an accurate 3D pose of a person’s face using 2D images.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 7 that the combination fails to disclose generating a subject-specific 3D model with inherent landmarks, solving an absolute 3D pose in MRI coordinate from the 2D landmark and providing the 3D pose for motion correction. The features above have not been claimed; however, the combination of Krueger and Kyme do show the claimed features. Kyme shows in fig. 3 and page 2183, “landmarks accumulating in the database represented a sparse 3-D model of the head surface” This shows the claimed region of interest and landmark in a 3D model. Kyme also shows taking an image of a user and finding landmarks in the 2D image. Kyme then finds those landmarks in the 3D landmark DB (fig. 4). This shows the claimed obtaining and first determining steps of claim 1. Kyme then finds the rotation from the landmark DB to the current pose based on a rotation of the landmark DB. This 3D rotation position is then used for motion correction (see section F. Pose estimation).
Applicant continues to argue on pages 8 and 9 that there is a lack of motivation to combine the two references. Applicant continues to argue that the motivation “would work equally well in the apparatus of Krueger…” is not sufficient. The motivation to combine is not only that Krueger would work equally as well as applicant argues. The motivation to combine is “the markerless motion tracking of Kyme would work equally as well in the apparatus of Krueger et al. as it does separately. The 3D-2D registration of Kyme would provide more landmarks for user tracking than the single landmark of Krueger et al. The additional landmarks of Kyme would allow for an improvement in user tracking and would reduce motion blur in the images.” The motivation not only states, as applicant claims, Krueger would work equally as well. The motivation also states Krueger would provide more landmarks than the single landmark of Kyme and Krueger would also reduce motion blue through the use of these multiple landmarks.
In regard to applicant’s arguments on page 9 (different problems, different sensing configurations, different coordinate frames) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights