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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on 03/18/2024
Claims 1–38 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 03/18/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2024, 07/26/2024 and 08/15/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1–38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 1 and 20 recite(s) a method and a system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to a method and a system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1 and 20 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1: the limitations recite:
positioning the imaging system into a first position (insignificant pre-solution and data gathering);
acquiring a first image at the first position (data gathering);
determining patient data from the first image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind OR mathematical concepts);
communicating patient data to a user interface (general computer components);
displaying the patient data on a display (general computer components and post-solution); and
inputting the patient data configured for acquiring second image (data gathering).
Regarding independent claim(s) 20: the limitations recite:
a controller configured to execute instructions to (general computer components),
acquire a first image at a first position (insignificant pre-solution and data gathering);
determine patient data from the first image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind OR mathematical concepts);
communicating patient data to a user interface (general computer components);
displaying the patient data on a display (general computer components and post-solution); and
acquire a second image based on the patient data (data gathering).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally look at an image make an observation about the patient data such as height, width, weight, etc. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a controller does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1 and 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1 and 20 discloses a controller, user interface and display, which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 20 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 1 and 20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1 and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2–10, 14–19, 21–29 and 33–38: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 11–13 and 30–32: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) are general computer components and data gathering.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3–7, 10–12, 20, 22–26 and 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Verdonck et al. (US 20020054662 A1, hereafter, "Verdonck").
Regarding claim 1, Verdonck discloses a method of controlling an imaging system (See Verdonck, [Abstract], The invention relates to a method and an X-ray apparatus for imaging anatomical parts of the human anatomy, in particular for imaging the human spine) comprising:
positioning the imaging system into a first position (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], Therein, frontal views of the spinal column 20 of the patient 12 are to be acquired. Preferably these frontal views are acquired when the patient 12 is in an upright position);
acquiring a first image at the first position (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], According to the invention at first a lateral overview image, preferably with a low X-ray dose, is acquired as the at least one initial projection image which preferably includes the vertebral column 20 completely. The overview image is determined from several initial projection images of different portions of the spinal column 20. Note: the projection image is implicitly taken from a first position);
determining patient data from the first image (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated. Then the spinal axis line 21 is detected by known measures, and the lateral tilt angles .alpha. of the vertebrae of interest are measured by means of known methods. This information about the spinal axis line 21 and/or the tilt angles is used to generate a set of projection lines 181, 182, 183, 184 perpendicular to the axis line 21. Note: Examiner is interpreting spinal axis line 21 as the patient data);
communicating patient data to a user interface (See Verdonck, ¶ [0039], The projection images acquired can be combined so as to form a composite image, this combination requiring an additional processing effort, or the projection images can be displayed separately. Note: Examiner is interpreting the display as the user interface);
displaying the patient data on a display (See Verdonck, ¶ [0039], The projection images acquired can be combined so as to form a composite image, this combination requiring an additional processing effort, or the projection images can be displayed separately); and
inputting the patient data configured for acquiring second image (See Verdonck, ¶ [0038], Preferably, one projection line is determined for each vertebra in the region of interest. From all these projection lines (in FIG. 3 there are only four projection lines 181 to 184 shown but there will be more projection lines in practice) a scanning trajectory is generated along which the X-ray source 1 and the X-ray detector 2 are dynamically moved during the subsequent acquisition of projection images of the spinal column 20. Thus, the X-ray source 1 and the X-ray detector 2 are dynamically angulated so as to align with a projection line for each vertebral body).
Regarding claim 3, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 1 wherein determining patient data comprises determining a first body structure from the first image (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated).
Regarding claim 4, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 3 wherein determining the first body structure comprises determining vertebrae (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], According to the invention at first a lateral overview image, preferably with a low X-ray dose, is acquired as the at least one initial projection image which preferably includes the vertebral column 20 completely. The overview image is determined from several initial projection images of different portions of the spinal column 20. Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated).
Regarding claim 5, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 3 wherein determining the first body structure comprises determining at least one of an end plate, corners of an end plate, a full vertebrate, a partial vertebrate, a skull, a limb, or an organ (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], According to the invention at first a lateral overview image, preferably with a low X-ray dose, is acquired as the at least one initial projection image which preferably includes the vertebral column 20 completely. The overview image is determined from several initial projection images of different portions of the spinal column 20. Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated).
Regarding claim 6, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 3 further comprising determining an orientation of the first body structure based on the first position and the first image (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated. Then the spinal axis line 21 is detected by known measures, and the lateral tilt angles .alpha. of the vertebrae of interest are measured by means of known methods. This information about the spinal axis line 21 and/or the tilt angles is used to generate a set of projection lines 181, 182, 183, 184 perpendicular to the axis line 21. Note: Examiner is interpreting the tilt angle as the orientation).
Regarding claim 7, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 6 wherein determining the orientation comprises determining an orientation of vertebrae (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated. Then the spinal axis line 21 is detected by known measures, and the lateral tilt angles .alpha. of the vertebrae of interest are measured by means of known methods. This information about the spinal axis line 21 and/or the tilt angles is used to generate a set of projection lines 181, 182, 183, 184 perpendicular to the axis line 21. Note: Examiner is interpreting the tilt angle as the orientation).
Regarding claim 10, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 6 wherein determining the orientation comprises determining a lateral left orientation or lateral right orientation (See Verdonck, ¶ [0022], Notably, the frontal and/or lateral spine axis and/or the frontal and/or the lateral tilt angles of the vertebrae are determined from a frontal or lateral initial projection image).
Regarding claim 11, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 1 wherein acquiring the first image comprises acquiring the first image comprising a first two-dimensional image (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], According to the invention at first a lateral overview image, preferably with a low X-ray dose, is acquired as the at least one initial projection image which preferably includes the vertebral column 20 completely. Note: A projection image is inherently a 2D image).
Regarding claim 12, Verdonck discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the user interface is a three-dimensional image user interface and further comprising acquiring a three-dimensional image using the data (See Verdonck, ¶ [0033], Furthermore, image data of several X-ray images derived at different positions and from different angles of the X-ray source 1 and X-ray detector 2 with respect to the patient 12 can be combined so as to form a three-dimensional data set which can be used to calculate a desired image, for example, of a certain slice of the patient or a projection image from a certain direction. The sub-images, the composite image or other calculated images can be displayed on a display, that is either successively or side-by-side).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to the claim 20, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. Furthermore, Verdonck teaches a system to control an imaging system, the system comprising: a controller configured to execute instructions to (See Verdonck, ¶ [0024], An X-ray apparatus according to the invention for imaging the anatomical parts of the human anatomy is claimed in claim 17 and comprises a control unit and a processing unit).
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected the same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to the claim 22, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected the same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to the claim 23, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected the same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to the claim 24, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected the same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to the claim 25, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same as claim 7 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 7 are equally applicable to the claim 26, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 7 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected the same as claim 10 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to the claim 29, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 10 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same as claim 11 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 11 are equally applicable to the claim 30, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 11 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected the same as claim 12 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 12 are equally applicable to the claim 31, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 12 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdonck et al. (US 20020054662 A1, hereafter, "Verdonck") in view of Nakai et al. (US 20180242927 A1, hereafter, "Nakai") further in view of Goto et al. (US 20150297166 A1, hereafter, “Goto”).
Regarding claim 2, Verdonck teaches the method of claim 1 wherein determining patient data comprises [determining a patient width and patient AP thickness from the first image].
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach determining a patient width and patient AP thickness from the first image;
Nakai, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining a patient width (See Nakai, ¶ [0084], In step S1101, the processing circuitry 101 generates outer shape information of a measured size of the subject P (the body thickness and the body width) obtained from a scan image (or a positioning image, e.g., a scanogram image) of a subject P that is radiographed in advance, and an image of a subject P that is obtained by a camera or a distance sensor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference to determining a patient width based on the method of Nakai’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to acquire a quality image using data specific to the outer shape of the subject (See Nakai, ¶ [0084–0086]).
However, Verdonck and Nakai fail(s) to teach AP thickness.
Goto, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: AP thickness (See Goto, ¶ [0064], The scan expert system 120 can identify the thickness and a change in the thickness in the anteroposterior axis for each target organ and subject extracted from the volume data with high precision, and an optimum value of the tube current (mA) and its modulation direction can be determined (S20)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference to AP thickness based on the method of Goto’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to acquire accurate imaging based on changes in the subject (See Goto, ¶ [0002–0004]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakai and Goto with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected the same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to the claim 21, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdonck et al. (US 20020054662 A1, hereafter, "Verdonck") in view of Bregman-Amitai et al. (US 20160015347 A1, hereafter, "Bregman").
Regarding claim 8, Verdonck teaches the method of claim 6 wherein determining the orientation comprises [determining a prone position or a supine position].
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach determining a prone position or a supine position.
Bregman, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining a prone position or a supine position (See Bregman, ¶ [0120], Optionally, at 308, the lying position of the patient relative to the scanning table (or bed) is detected. The lying position of the patient may be used to convert the imaging data to a common format for analysis, for example, from the supine to the prone position or from the prone to the supine position, or maintain the imaging data in the current format).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference to determining a prone position or a supine position based on the method of Bregman’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to process the data more accurately in a common format (See Bregman, ¶ [0120]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bregman with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Verdonck teaches the method of claim 6 wherein determining the orientation comprises [determining a direction of a spinous process].
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach determining a direction of a spinous process.
Bregman, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining a direction of a spinous process (See Bregman, ¶ [0141], The identified patient back line may be used as an initial location for searching, as the back line represents the spinous process portion of the vertebrae. Moving in a direction from the back line towards the front of the patient's body, the vertebral foramen (which houses the spinal cord) is located near the back line. Note: By moving from the direction from the back line towards the front of the patient body it is implicitly getting the spinous process direction).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference determining a direction of a spinous process based on the method of Bregman’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to process the data more accurately in a common format (See Bregman, ¶ [0120]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bregman with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same as claim 8 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 8 are equally applicable to the claim 27, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 8 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same as claim 9 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to the claim 28, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 9 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 13–15, 17–19, 32–34 and 36–38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdonck et al. (US 20020054662 A1, hereafter, "Verdonck") in view of Muramatsu et al. (JP 2021137259 A, hereafter, "Muramatsu").
Regarding claim 13, Verdonck in view of Muramatsu teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising determining imaging system data based on the patient data and the first image (See Verdonck, ¶ [0015], Optimum imaging parameters are thus determined for the vertebrae from their position and/or orientation in the initial image), [communicating the imaging system data to the user interface and displaying patient data and imaging system data on the display].
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach communicating the imaging system data to the user interface and displaying patient data and imaging system data on the display.
Muramatsu, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: communicating the imaging system data to the user interface and displaying patient data and imaging system data on the display (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0042], At this time, the display 42 displays a helical scano image showing the determined cross-sectional position and a cross-sectional image corresponding to the determined cross-sectional position. ¶ [0043], The processing circuit 44 sets a provisional imaging protocol for the main scan scheduled after the pre-scan by the setting function 444. The provisional imaging protocol is a set of parameters related to scanning preset for each imaging site, body shape of the subject, and the like (hereinafter, referred to as a first scan parameter set), ..., The processing circuit 44 sets the first scan parameter set according to the user's selection via the input interface 43 by the setting function 444. Note: that the imaging protocols have to be displayed on the display for the user to set them along with the cross-sectional image and the position that is displayed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference to communicating the imaging system data to the user interface and displaying patient data and imaging system data on the display based on the method of Muramatsu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to take an image under non-optimal conditions (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0003–0006]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Muramatsu with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Verdonck in view of Muramatsu teaches the method of claim 13 wherein determining imaging system data (See Verdonck, ¶ [0015], Optimum imaging parameters are thus determined for the vertebrae from their position and/or orientation in the initial image) comprises [determining imaging system voltage].
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach determining imaging system voltage.
Muramatsu, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining imaging system voltage (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0043], That is, the preset imaging protocol corresponds to a combination of imaging parameters for a typical scan with respect to performing imaging for various examinations ordered by a physician. The parameters relate to scanning conditions such as, for example, imaging method, imaging time, reconstruction time, dose indicating exposure amount, image quality, and specifically, tube current, tube voltage, imaging time, tube current time product. , The rotation speed of the rotation frame 13, the slice thickness, the helical pitch, and the like. The processing circuit 44 sets the first scan parameter set according to the user's selection via the input interface 43 by the setting function 444).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference determining imaging system voltage based on the method of Muramatsu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to take an image under non-optimal conditions (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0003–0006]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Muramatsu with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Verdonck in view of Muramatsu teaches the method of claim 13 wherein determining imaging system data (See Verdonck, ¶ [0015], Optimum imaging parameters are thus determined for the vertebrae from their position and/or orientation in the initial image) comprises [determining imaging system tube current].
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach determining imaging system tube current.
Muramatsu, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining imaging system tube current (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0043], That is, the preset imaging protocol corresponds to a combination of imaging parameters for a typical scan with respect to performing imaging for various examinations ordered by a physician. The parameters relate to scanning conditions such as, for example, imaging method, imaging time, reconstruction time, dose indicating exposure amount, image quality, and specifically, tube current, tube voltage, imaging time, tube current time product. , The rotation speed of the rotation frame 13, the slice thickness, the helical pitch, and the like. The processing circuit 44 sets the first scan parameter set according to the user's selection via the input interface 43 by the setting function 444).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference determining imaging system tube current based on the method of Muramatsu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to take an image under non-optimal conditions (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0003–0006]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Muramatsu with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claims 17, Verdonck teaches the method of claim 13 wherein determining imaging system data comprises determining imaging system collimation (See Verdonck, ¶ [0045], The image information can be used for automatic optimum adjustment of the collimation, the exposure parameters and the projection orientation).
Regarding claim 18, Verdonck teaches the method of claim 13 wherein determining imaging system data comprises determining imaging system region of interest (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated).
Regarding claim 19, Verdonck in view of Muramatsu teaches the method of claim 13 wherein determining imaging system data comprises determining at least three of [imaging system power, imaging system tube current], imaging system pulse width, imaging system collimation (See Verdonck, ¶ [0045], The image information can be used for automatic optimum adjustment of the collimation, the exposure parameters and the projection orientation), and imaging system region of interest (See Verdonck, ¶ [0037], Therein the region of interest, for example, the complete spinal column 20 or portions thereof, can be indicated).
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach imaging system power, imaging system tube current.
Muramatsu, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: imaging system power, imaging system tube current (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0043], That is, the preset imaging protocol corresponds to a combination of imaging parameters for a typical scan with respect to performing imaging for various examinations ordered by a physician. The parameters relate to scanning conditions such as, for example, imaging method, imaging time, reconstruction time, dose indicating exposure amount, image quality, and specifically, tube current, tube voltage, imaging time, tube current time product. , The rotation speed of the rotation frame 13, the slice thickness, the helical pitch, and the like. The processing circuit 44 sets the first scan parameter set according to the user's selection via the input interface 43 by the setting function 444).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference imaging system power, imaging system tube current based on the method of Muramatsu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to take an image under non-optimal conditions (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0003–0006]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Muramatsu with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is rejected the same as claim 13 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 13 are equally applicable to the claim 32, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 13 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 33, Verdonck in view of Muramatsu teaches the system of claim 32 wherein the imaging system data (See Verdonck, ¶ [0015], Optimum imaging parameters are thus determined for the vertebrae from their position and/or orientation in the initial image) comprises [imaging system power].
However, Verdonck fail(s) to teach imaging system power.
Muramatsu, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: imaging system power (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0043], That is, the preset imaging protocol corresponds to a combination of imaging parameters for a typical scan with respect to performing imaging for various examinations ordered by a physician. The parameters relate to scanning conditions such as, for example, imaging method, imaging time, reconstruction time, dose indicating exposure amount, image quality, and specifically, tube current, tube voltage, imaging time, tube current time product. , The rotation speed of the rotation frame 13, the slice thickness, the helical pitch, and the like. The processing circuit 44 sets the first scan parameter set according to the user's selection via the input interface 43 by the setting function 444. Note: Examiner is interpreting the imaging system voltage as the power).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference imaging system power based on the method of Muramatsu’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to take an image under non-optimal conditions (See Muramatsu, ¶ [0003–0006]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Muramatsu with Verdonck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is rejected the same as claim 15 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 15 are equally applicable to the claim 34, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 15 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is rejected the same as claim 17 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 17 are equally applicable to the claim 36, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 17 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is rejected the same as claim 18 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 18 are equally applicable to the claim 37, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 18 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 is rejected the same as claim 19 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 19 are equally applicable to the claim 38, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 19 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim(s) 16 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdonck et al. (US 20020054662 A1, hereafter, "Verdonck") in view of Muramatsu et al. (JP 2021137259 A, hereafter, "Muramatsu") further in view of Abe et al. (US 20220183648 A1, hereafter, "Abe").
Regarding claim 16, Verdonck in view of Muramatsu teaches the method of claim 13 wherein determining imaging system data comprises [determining imaging system pulse width].
However, Verdonck and Muramatsu fail(s) to teach determining imaging system pulse width.
Abe, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining imaging system pulse width (See Abe, ¶ [0057], At step S105, when the timing of the period in which periodic movement is small can be estimated (step S105: YES), the processing circuitry 21 determines a pulse width of an X-ray to be irradiated at step S110 described later according to the estimated period in which the periodic movement is small and a preset (step S106)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verdonck’s reference to determining imaging system pulse width based on the method of Abe’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately irradiate the subject in non-ideal circumstances such as movement (See Abe, ¶ [0003–0005 and 0057]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Abe with Verdonck and Muramatsu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 is rejected the same as claim 16 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 16 are equally applicable to the claim 35, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 16 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuda et al. (EP 2506211 A1) teaches provided are a target-object distance measuring device (50) and a vehicle (12) on which the device is mounted, wherein a human body detection device is utilized for calculating a distance between an image capturing device (16) and a human body candidate in an actual space more accurately, on the basis of the size of the human body candidate in the image. The head width is approximately 15 [cm] to 16 [cm] which is approximately the same for the people from three-years of age to 99-years of age. Using this knowledge, a body height (HT) in the actual space of the human candidate in the image is estimated on the basis of the ratio between the head-width in the extracted image and at least one size of the human body feature (for example, body height) among the human body features, such as total height, total width, etc., in the extracted human body candidate region, and the distance from the image capturing device to the human body candidate in the actual space is calculated on the basis of the estimated body height (HT) in the actual space and the body height of the human body candidate in the image.
Jensen (US 20060293582 A1) teaches the method includes tracking a region of interest (ROI) location through a tracking system. Further, the method includes acquiring a first image of an object with the medical imaging device. In addition, the method includes indicating a virtual ROI location on the first image that corresponds to the ROI location. Further, the method includes moving the medical imaging device and determining the movement of the ROI location through the tracking system. The medical imaging system is moved, in order to acquire another image from a perspective that is different from that of the first image. In addition, the method includes correlating the movement of the ROI location with a shift of the virtual ROI location on the first image. Furthermore, the method includes shifting the virtual ROI location on the first image according to the correlation of the movement of the ROI location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION J SATCHER whose telephone number is (703)756-5849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm, Friday 5:30 am - 9:30 am PST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/DION J SATCHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676