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
Claims 2, 9 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the term “substantially” should be removed in order to correct a grammatical informality and to remove a broad term.
Regarding claim 9, the term “substantially” should be removed in order to correct a grammatical informality and to remove a broad term.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “an AI engine” should be changed to “an artificial intelligence (AI) engine” in order to define “AI” since it wasn’t introduced in claims 15 and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauer (U.S. 2005/0180544).
Regarding claim 1:
Sauer discloses a method for a computer system to perform target structure tracking for radiation therapy, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining first projection image data ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle) that is generated using a first imaging source to emit a first imaging beam towards a first imaging area on an imager to image a target structure within a patient from a first angle ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle);
obtaining second projection image data that is generated using a second imaging source of the radiation therapy system ([0046], biplane x-ray system) to emit a second imaging beam towards a second imaging area on the imager to image the target structure from a second angle ([0040], imaging data obtained at a second angle);
processing the first projection image data to determine first two-dimensional position data associated with the target structure ([0042], position is tracked and found for each imaging sequence) and the second projection image data to determine second 2D position data associated with the target structure ([0042], position is tracked and found for each imaging sequence); and
based on at least the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data, determining three-dimensional position data associated with the target structure ([0043], 3D positions are found), thereby tracking the target structure in 3D ([0043], 3D positions are found).
Regarding claim 3:
Sauer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first projection image data and the second projection image data comprises:
obtaining the first projection image data and the second projection image data that are generated by sequentially causing the first imaging source to emit the first imaging beam ( ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle; [0046], biplane x-ray system) and the second imaging source to emit the second imaging beam towards the imager ([0046], biplane x-ray system).
Regarding claim 6:
Sauer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the 3D position data comprises one of the following:
performing triangulation to determine the 3D position data based on the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data ([0018] and [0025], triangulation); and
processing the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data using an AI engine that is trained to determine the 3D position data based on the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data.
Regarding claim 8:
Sauer discloses A computer system, comprising:
a processor ([0034], CPU); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0034], memory) having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the following:
obtain first projection image data ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle) that is generated using a first imaging source to emit a first imaging beam towards a first imaging area on an imager to image a target structure within a patient from a first angle ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle);
obtain second projection image data that is generated using a second imaging source of the radiation therapy system ([0046], biplane x-ray system) to emit a second imaging beam towards a second imaging area on the imager to image the target structure from a second angle ([0040], imaging data obtained at a second angle);
process the first projection image data to determine first two-dimensional position data associated with the target structure ([0042], position is tracked and found for each imaging sequence) and the second projection image data to determine second 2D position data associated with the target structure ([0042], position is tracked and found for each imaging sequence); and
based on at least the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data, determine three-dimensional position data associated with the target structure([0043], 3D positions are found), thereby tracking the target structure in 3D ([0043], 3D positions are found).
Regarding claim 10:
Sauer discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein the instructions for obtaining the first projection image data and the second projection image data cause the processor to: obtain the first projection image data and the second projection image data that are generated by sequentially causing the first imaging source to emit the first imaging beam ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle; [0046], biplane x-ray system) and the second imaging source to emit the second imaging beam towards the imager ([0046], biplane x-ray system).
Regarding claim 13:
Sauer discloses the computer system of claim 8, wherein the instructions for determining the 3D position data cause the processor to perform one of the following:
perform triangulation to determine the 3D position data based on the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data ([0018] and [0025], triangulation); and
process the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data using an AI engine that is trained to determine the 3D position data based on the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data.
Regarding claim 15:
Sauer discloses a radiation therapy system, comprising:
an imager (Fig. 1, 195);
a first imaging source (Fig. 1, 135) to emit a first imaging beam towards a first imaging area on the imager to image a target structure within a patient from a first angle ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle), thereby generating first projection image data ([0039], image data obtained at a first angle);
a second imaging source ([0046], biplane x-ray system) to emit a second imaging beam towards a second imaging area on the imager to image the target structure from a second angle ([0040], imaging data obtained at a second angle), thereby generating second projection image data ([0040], imaging data obtained at a second angle); and
a computer system ([0034], cpu) to obtain the first projection image data and the second projection image data and determine 3D position data associated with the target structure based on the first projection image data and the second projection image data ([0043], 3D positions are found).
Regarding claim 16:
Sauer discloses the radiation therapy system of claim 15, wherein the computer system is to determine 3D position data by performing the following:
process the first projection image data to determine first two-dimensional position data associated with the target structure and the second projection image data to determine second 2D position data associated with the target structure ([0042], position is tracked and found for each imaging sequence); and
determine the 3D position data based on the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data ([0043], 3D positions are found).
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.
Claims 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (U.S. 2005/0180544) in view of Star-Lack (U.S. 2010/0183118).
Regarding claim 2:
Sauer discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Sauer fails to disclose obtaining the first projection image data and the second projection image data that are generated by substantially simultaneously causing the first imaging source to emit the first imaging beam and the second imaging source to emit the second imaging beam towards the imager.
Star-lack teaches obtaining the first projection image data and the second projection image data that are generated by substantially simultaneously causing the first imaging source to emit the first imaging beam and the second imaging source to emit the second imaging beam towards the imager([0023], imaging performed simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of Sauer with the simultaneous imaging taught by Star-Lack in order to improve image quality by reducing the effect of noise (Star-Lack; [0042]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9:
Sauer discloses the computer system of claim 8.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein the instructions for obtaining the first projection image data and the second projection image data cause the processor to: obtain the first projection image data and the second projection image data that are generated by substantially simultaneously causing the first imaging source to emit the first imaging beam and the second imaging source to emit the second imaging beam towards the imager.
Star-lack teaches wherein the instructions for obtaining the first projection image data and the second projection image data cause the processor to:
obtain the first projection image data and the second projection image data that are generated by substantially simultaneously causing the first imaging source to emit the first imaging beam and the second imaging source to emit the second imaging beam towards the imager ([0023], imaging performed simultaneously).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Sauer with the simultaneous imaging taught by Star-Lack in order to improve image quality by reducing the effect of noise (Star-Lack; [0042]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14, and 17-21 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:
The closet prior art is Sauer (U.S. 2005/0180544).
Regarding claim 4:
Sauer disclose the method of claim 1.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein processing the first projection image data and the second projection image data comprises: performing template matching to match the first projection image data to one or multiple first template images to determine the first 2D position data and match the second projection image data to one or multiple second template images to determine the second 2D position data, wherein the multiple first template images and the multiple second template images are each associated with at least one part of the target structure.
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.
Regarding claim 5:
Sauer discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein processing the first projection image data and the second projection image data comprise: processing the first projection image data and the second projection image data using an artificial intelligence engine that is trained to perform 2D position estimation to determine the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data.
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.
Regarding claim 7:
Sauer discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises: obtaining third projection image data that is generated using a third imaging source to emit a third imaging beam towards a third imaging area on the imager to image the target structure from a third angle; processing the third projection image data to determine third 2D position data associated with the target structure; and determining the 3D position data associated with the target structure based on the first 2D position data, the second 2D position data and the third 2D position data.
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.
Regarding claim 11:
Sauer discloses the computer system of claim 8.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein the instructions for processing the first projection image data and the second projection image data and determining the 3D position data cause the processor to: perform template matching to match the first projection image data to one or multiple first template images to determine the first 2D position data and match the second projection image data to one or multiple second template images to determine the second 2D position data.
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.
Regarding claim 12:
Sauer discloses the computer system of claim 8.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein the instructions for processing the first projection image data and the second projection image data and determining the 3D position data cause the processor to: process the first projection image data and the second projection image data using an artificial intelligence engine that is trained to perform 2D position estimation to determine the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data.
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.
Regarding claim 14:
Sauer discloses the computer system of claim 8.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: obtain third projection image data that is generated using a third imaging source of the radiation therapy system to emit a third imaging beam towards a third imaging area on the imager to image the target structure from a third angle; process the third projection image data to determine third 2D position data associated with the target structure; and determining the 3D position data associated with the target structure based on the first 2D position data, the second 2D position data and the third 2D position data.
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.
Regarding claim 17:
Sauer discloses the radiation therapy system of claim 16.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein the computer system is to determine 3D position data by performing the following: perform template matching to match the first projection image data to one or multiple first template images to determine the first 2D position data and match the second projection image data to one or multiple second template images to determine the second 2D position data, wherein the multiple first template images and the multiple second template images are each associated with at least one part of the target structure.
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.
Regarding claim 18:
Sauer discloses the radiation therapy system of claim 16.
However, Sauer fails to disclose wherein the computer system is to determine 3D position data by performing the following: process the first projection image data and the second projection image data using an artificial intelligence engine that is trained to perform one of the following: 2D position estimation to determine the first 2D position data and the second 2D position data and 3D position estimation to determine the 3D position data based on the first projection image data and the second projection image data.
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.
Regarding claim 19:
Sauer discloses the radiation therapy system of claim 15.
However, Sauer fails to disclose further comprising: a third imaging source to emit a third imaging beam towards a third imaging area on the imager to image the target structure from a third angle, thereby generating third projection image data; and the computer system is further to obtain the third projection image data and the second projection image data and determine the 3D position data associated with the target structure based on the first projection image data, the second projection image data and the third projection image data.
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. Claims 20-21 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights