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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-7, 10, 13-14, and 17 have obviated the interpretation of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the language recited in the claims have been removed. Therefore, claims 1-7, 10, 13-14, and 17 are no longer invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pautsch does not teach the limitations of amended independent claim 1, lines 13-22. Remarks at 10-12. However, as detailed in infra rejection Pautsch discloses conducting magnetic resonance imaging using breath-holds or respiratory gating, detecting body movement information of the subject including breathing/respiratory motion, displaying notifications/messages for the body movement related information, and determining whether the body movement adversely impacts the imaging and outputs a message/notification to indicate the breath-hold or respiratory gated imaging is adversely affected by the body movement. Thus, as Pautsch discloses the alleged claim features, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant does not provide arguments particular to independent claims 15 and 17 which recite similar limitations to amended claim 1. These arguments are, therefore, address as above regarding independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “is difficult” in claim 1, line 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “is difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “is difficult” renders the limitation “outputting a message” in claim 1, lines 20-21 indefinite.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as depending from rejected independent claim 1.
The term “is difficult” in claim 15, line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “is difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “is difficult” renders the limitation “presenting… a message” in claim 15, lines 15-16 indefinite.
Claim 16 is rejected as depending from rejected independent claim 15.
The term “is difficult” in claim 17, line 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “is difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “is difficult” renders the limitation “outputting a message” in claim 17, lines 19-20 indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pautsch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0205748), hereinafter “Pautsch.”
Regarding claim 1, Pautsch discloses a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (magnetic resonance imaging system, [0017]) comprising a processor and a program storage device tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the processor (computing device includes non-transitory memory containing executable computer-readable instructions to control the imaging system, [0032]-[0034], [0041]-[0045], [0052], [0070]), the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus including the processor performing a method comprising:
conducting breath-holding imaging (imaging during breath holds, [0046], [0062], [0069]) or respiratory synchronization imaging (imaging using respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]), including controlling acquisition of a magnetic resonance signal of a subject disposed in an imaging space and generation of an image (magnetic resonance imaging system to acquire MR images from MR signals, [0017]; patient positioned within the bore for imaging, [0013], [0036], [0059], [0083], claim 17);
controlling detection of body movement of the subject disposed in the imaging space and generation of body movement information corresponding to the detected body movement (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]);
causing body movement-related information to be displayed (image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; images or videos can be projected onto the bore for viewing by the patient, [0076], [0080]; display breathing/respiratory information to the patient, [0062], [0065], [0069]; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086]), the body movement-related information associating the body movement information and imaging information representing the generated image with each other (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]); and
determining whether the body movement of the subject adversely affects the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging, and when the body movement adversely affects the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging, outputting a message indicating the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging is not successful or is difficult (determine that breathing during breath hold adversely impacts the scan and output a message indicating that the motion is impacting scanning including outputting messages to stop moving/breathing when the scan is affected by the motion/breathing, [0059]-[0063], [0069]; determine that the respiratory/breathing cycle is outside of a particular respiratory phase and not trigger scanning, [0065], [0069]; see also determining that breathing is irregular due to anxiety or sleep and outputting a message to calm and/or wake the patient, [0015], [0069], [0071]-[0072], [0074], [0078], [0080], [0086], claim 14; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient upon determining body movement adversely affects the scan, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066]-[0067], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086], Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 2, Pautsch discloses the imaging information includes an examination part (anatomy of interest selected by the operator, [0032], [0046], [0053]-[0055], [0059]-[0062]), and
the body movement-related information includes information in which the examination part and body movement information of a part of the subject are associated with each other (body movement detected by the image sensors is related to the imaging protocol and anatomy of interest selected by the operator, [0032], [0046], [0053]-[0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 3, Pautsch discloses the body movement-related information includes allowance of the body movement or a warning based on the body movement detected by the body movement detection device (body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 4, Pautsch discloses the method performed by the processor further comprises:
(i) analyzing the body movement (body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]); and
(ii) displaying display content corresponding to an allowable limit of body movement preset corresponding to an examination part as the body movement-related information, based on an analysis result of (i) (body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level wherein body movement above the acceptable motion severity/level for the examination part is displayed as a notification to the patient, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 5, Pautsch discloses the method performed by the processor further comprises analyzing an allowable limit of body movement for each part, based on a relationship between the examination part and a part where the body movement occurs (body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level based on the relationship between the location of motion and the anatomy currently being scanned, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]).
Regarding claim 6, Pautsch discloses the method performed by the processor further comprises
analyzing a degree of the body movement and a position or a part where the body movement occurs (image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]; video stream from image sensor, [0033], [0069]).
Regarding claim 9, Pautsch discloses the body movement-related information includes prior information indicating an allowable limit of body movement for each part corresponding to an examination part (body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level based on the relationship between the location of motion and the anatomy currently being scanned that is previously defined by the imaging protocol, goal of the scan, etc., [0014], [0032], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Pautsch discloses the body movement-related information includes an evaluation of a stationary duration time of the subject (respiratory phase and breathing cycles including breath hold duration is detected by the image sensor and processor, [0062], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0075]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pautsch.
Regarding claim 15, Pautsch discloses a body movement information presentation method of presenting, to a subject disposed in an imaging space and being examined, body movement information of the subject (a method for obtaining movement information, [0003], [0013], [0016], [0045], [0052], [0070]; magnetic resonance imaging system to acquire MR images from MR signals, [0017]; patient positioned within the bore for imaging, [0013], [0036], [0059], [0083], claim 17; notifications of body movement are output to the patient using a video display, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0076]), the method comprising:
detecting body movement of the subject disposed in the imaging space (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]), while conducting breath-holding imaging (imaging during breath holds, [0046], [0062], [0069]) or respiratory synchronization imaging (imaging using respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]), and generating body movement information corresponding to the detected body movement (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]);
displaying body movement-related information (image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; images or videos can be projected onto the bore for viewing by the patient, [0076], [0080]; display breathing/respiratory information to the patient, [0062], [0065], [0069]; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086]) in which the body movement information and imaging information representing an acquired image are associated with each other (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]);
analyzing a magnitude of body movement of the subject and determining whether or not the body movement adversely affects the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging (determine that breathing during breath hold adversely impacts the scan and output a message indicating that the motion is impacting scanning including outputting messages to stop moving/breathing when the scan is affected by the motion/breathing, [0059]-[0063], [0069]; determine that the respiratory/breathing cycle is outside of a particular respiratory phase and not trigger scanning, [0065], [0069]; see also determining that breathing is irregular due to anxiety or sleep and outputting a message to calm and/or wake the patient, [0015], [0069], [0071]-[0072], [0074], [0078], [0080], [0086], claim 14; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient upon determining body movement adversely affects the scan, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066]-[0067], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086], Figs. 4-6); and
presenting, when it is determined that the body movement adversely affects the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging, a message indicating that the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging is not successful or is difficult (determine that breathing during breath hold adversely impacts the scan and output a message indicating that the motion is impacting scanning including outputting messages to stop moving/breathing when the scan is affected by the motion/breathing, [0059]-[0063], [0069]; determine that the respiratory/breathing cycle is outside of a particular respiratory phase and not trigger scanning, [0065], [0069]; see also determining that breathing is irregular due to anxiety or sleep and outputting a message to calm and/or wake the patient, [0015], [0069], [0071]-[0072], [0074], [0078], [0080], [0086], claim 14; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient upon determining body movement adversely affects the scan, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066]-[0067], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086], Figs. 4-6).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pautsch.
Regarding claim 17, Pautsch discloses a medical image diagnosis apparatus (magnetic resonance imaging system, [0017]) comprising a processor and a program storage device tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the processor (computing device includes non-transitory memory containing executable computer-readable instructions to control the imaging system, [0032]-[0034], [0041]-[0045], [0052], [0070]), the medical image diagnosis apparatus including the processor performing a method comprising:
conducting breath-holding imaging (imaging during breath holds, [0046], [0062], [0069]) or respiratory synchronization imaging (imaging using respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]), including controlling acquisition of an image of a subject disposed in an imaging space (magnetic resonance imaging system to acquire MR images from MR signals, [0017]; patient positioned within the bore for imaging, [0013], [0036], [0059], [0083], claim 17);
detecting body movement of the subject disposed in the imaging space and generating body movement information corresponding to the detected body movement (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]);
processing the body movement of the subject being imaged and causing body movement-related information to be displayed (image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; images or videos can be projected onto the bore for viewing by the patient, [0076], [0080]; display breathing/respiratory information to the patient, [0062], [0065], [0069]; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086]), the body movement-related information associating the body movement information and imaging information representing the acquired image with each other (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]); and
determining whether the body movement of the subject adversely affects the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging, and when the body movement adversely affects the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging, outputting a message indicating the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging is not successful or is difficult (determine that breathing during breath hold adversely impacts the scan and output a message indicating that the motion is impacting scanning including outputting messages to stop moving/breathing when the scan is affected by the motion/breathing, [0059]-[0063], [0069]; determine that the respiratory/breathing cycle is outside of a particular respiratory phase and not trigger scanning, [0065], [0069]; see also determining that breathing is irregular due to anxiety or sleep and outputting a message to calm and/or wake the patient, [0015], [0069], [0071]-[0072], [0074], [0078], [0080], [0086], claim 14; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient upon determining body movement adversely affects the scan, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066]-[0067], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086], Figs. 4-6).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pautsch as in claim 4 above, and in further view of Solf et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0299747), hereinafter “Solf.”
Regarding claim 7, Pautsch discloses the method performed by the processor further comprises
storing a message corresponding to a degree of body movement at a part where the body movement occurs and an allowable limit of the body movement for each examination part (storage of imaging protocols and control methods in memory/storage device, [0032], [0041], [0045], [0052], [0070]; body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level wherein body movement above the acceptable motion severity/level for the examination part is displayed as a predetermined notification to the patient, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]), and
selecting the message based on the analysis result (body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level wherein body movement above the acceptable motion severity/level for the examination part is displayed as a selected predetermined notification to the patient, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062], [0066], [0075], [0085]-[0086]).
However, while Pautsch discloses storing and selecting a predetermined notification, Pautsch does not appear to explictly disclose storing the predetermined notifications as a table.
However, in solving substantially the same problem of storing a plurality of notifications that correspond to a given event, Solf teaches storing a plurality of notifications and corresponding events in a table and retrieving selected notifications therefrom according to the corresponding event (supplemental information bank stores supplemental data in a look up table, the supplemental information being one of a plurality of messages that are retrieved for display based on the state of the subject, [0035]-[0039]; see also state of the subject corresponding to motion/movement, [0004], [0032], [0036], [0053], [0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied Solf’s known technique of using a look up table to store and retrieve messages using corresponding subject states to Pautsch’s known apparatus that stores and retrieves messages that correspond to subject states, e.g., motion severity/level of the subject, to achieve the predictable result that providing for retrievable supplemental information such as messages improves the imaging procedure by allowing for adaptation or change of the protocol for the imaging procedure to correct the image data. See, e.g., Solf, [0023].
Regarding claim 8, Pautsch discloses the imaging information includes a type of an imaging sequence (imaging information includes a selection of the imaging protocol, [0046], [0059]-[0062], [0064]), and
the allowable limit of the body movement is set in accordance with the imaging sequence (acceptable motion severity/level is set in accordance with the selected imaging protocol, [0046], [0059]-[0062]).
However, while Pautsch discloses storing the method and instructions in a memory/storage device to perform the method of displaying a predetermined notification corresponding to the body movement severity/level for the examination part, Pautsch does not appear to explictly disclose that the stored predetermined notifications are stored as a table.
However, in solving substantially the same problem of storing a plurality of notifications that correspond to a given event, Solf teaches storing a plurality of notifications and corresponding events in a table and retrieving selected notifications therefrom according to the corresponding event (supplemental information bank stores supplemental data in a look up table, the supplemental information being one of a plurality of messages that are retrieved for display based on the state of the subject, [0035]-[0039]; see also state of the subject corresponding to motion/movement, [0004], [0032], [0036], [0053], [0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied Solf’s known technique of using a look up table to store and retrieve messages using corresponding subject states to Pautsch’s known apparatus that stores and retrieves messages that correspond to subject states, e.g., motion severity/level of the subject, to achieve the predictable result that providing for retrievable supplemental information such as messages improves the imaging procedure by allowing for adaptation or change of the protocol for the imaging procedure to correct the image data. See, e.g., Solf, [0023].
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pautsch as in claim 1 above, and in further view of Sreenivasan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0023901), hereinafter “Sreenivasan.”
Regarding claim 10, Pautsch discloses a series of imaging including a plurality of main scans is executed (one or more diagnostic scans as part of imaging protocol, [0057]-[0058], [0060]-[0062], [0072]-[0073]).
However, Pautsch does not appear to disclose the body movement-related information includes timing information for allowing body movement in the series of imaging.
However, in the same field of endeavor of providing patient guidance during a MRI or CT imaging scan, Sreenivasan teaches the body movement-related information includes timing information for allowing body movement in the series of imaging (patient feedback includes periods in which movement is allowed, [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied Sreenivasan’s known technique of providing feedback to the patient of periods in which movement is allowed to Pautsch’s known apparatus including a plurality of diagnostic scans to achieve the predictable result that patient cooperation is improved by allowing periods of free movement. See, e.g., Sreenivasan, [0007].
Regarding claim 13, Pautsch discloses the method performed by the processor further comprises displaying body movement-related information on a video display device (notifications of body movement are output to the patient using a video display, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086]).
However, Pautsch does not appear to teach the body movement information processing unit displays progress information of imaging on the video display device together with the body movement-related information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of providing patient guidance during a MRI or CT imaging scan, Sreenivasan teaches a method performed by a processor (computing device includes a processor to execute instructions stored in a memory to control the imaging system and perform method steps, [0047]-[0057]) comprising displaying progress information of imaging on a video display device together with the body movement-related information (progress of the scan and notifications of body movement are output to the patient using a video display, Abstract, [0001], [0004]-[0005], [0009]-[0017], [0020], [0028], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0038]-[0040], [0042]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied Sreenivasan’s known technique of indicating the progress of the scan to the patient in conjunction with notifications for body movement of the patient to the patient to Pautsch’s known apparatus for notifying the patient of body movement of the patient to achieve the predictable result that the workflow may be improved wherein information of the progress of the imaging scan can reduce patient anxiety. See, e.g., Sreenivasan, [0005].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pautsch as in claim 11 above, and in further view of Avinash et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0113673), hereinafter “Avinash.”
Regarding claim 12, while Pautsch discloses the body movement-related information includes an evaluation of a stationary duration time of the subject (respiratory phase and breathing cycles including breath hold duration is detected by the image sensor and processor, [0062], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0075]), Pautsch does not appear to disclose the body movement-related information includes a drawing pattern or image information that is changed in accordance with the stationary duration time of the subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of respiratory motion in MR imaging, Avinash teaches the body movement-related information includes a drawing pattern or image information that is changed in accordance with the stationary duration time of the subject (a visual indicator such as a light, text, or symbol is used to provide motion information indicative that the breath holding is acceptable or unacceptable to the patient or operator, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied Avinash’s known technique of indicating acceptable or unacceptable breath holding using a visual indicator to Pautsch’s known apparatus that evaluates the breath hold duration to achieve the predictable result that a sufficiently long breath hold improves the effectiveness of respiration gating to reduce respiratory motion. See, e.g., Avinash, [0014].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pautsch in further view of Sreenivasan as in claim 1 above, and in further view of Yanof et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0188757), hereinafter “Yanof.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pautsch as in claim 1 above, and in further view of Yanof et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0188757), hereinafter “Yanof.”
Regarding claim 14, Pautsch discloses processing information from the breath-holding imaging or respiratory synchronization imaging (image sensors detect patient motion related to the selected imaging acquisition, [0014], [0019], [0033]-[0040], [0046]-[0049], [0053]-0056, [0059]-[0069]; image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; detecting breathing movement for breath hold imaging, [0046], [0062], [0069]; detecting breathing movement for respiratory gating, [0065], [0069]; determine that breathing during breath hold adversely impacts the scan and output a message indicating that the motion is impacting scanning including outputting messages to stop moving/breathing when the scan is affected by the motion/breathing, [0059]-[0063], [0069]; determine that the respiratory/breathing cycle is outside of a particular respiratory phase and not trigger scanning, [0065], [0069]; respiratory phase and breathing cycles including breath hold duration is detected by the image sensor and processor, [0062], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0075]; see also determining that breathing is irregular due to anxiety or sleep and outputting a message to calm and/or wake the patient, [0015], [0069], [0071]-[0072], [0074], [0078], [0080], [0086], claim 14; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient upon determining body movement adversely affects the scan, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066]-[0067], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086], Figs. 4-6), and
displaying the body movement-related information (image sensor data processor processes information from the image sensors to detect and display patient motion, [0033]-[0034]; images or videos can be projected onto the bore for viewing by the patient, [0076], [0080]; display breathing/respiratory information to the patient, [0062], [0065], [0069]; see also various images/videos including notifications of body movement that can be output to the patient, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066], [0075], [0076], [0085]-[0086]).
However, Pautsch does not appear to disclose displaying as the body movement-related information an image indicating a cycle of respiratory movement.
However, in the same field of endeavor of MR imaging, Yanof teaches displaying as the body movement-related information an image indicating a cycle of respiratory movement (breath hold range and patient breathing image is displayed to indicate the cycle of respiratory movement and whether the patient’s breathing is within the range, [0041], [0045], [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied Yanof’s known technique of displaying an image of the cycle of respiratory movement and evaluating the breathing range in the image to Pautsch’s known technique of detecting and evaluating the respiratory phase and breathing cycles for breath hold and/or respiratory gated imaging to achieve the predictable result that displaying the respiratory waveform and the breathing range provides an intuitive and relaxing means of showing breath hold levels that allows for easy training of patients to properly breathe for image scanning. See, e.g., Yanof, [0019].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pautsch as in claim 15 above, and in further view of Avinash.
Regarding claim 16, Pautsch discloses monitoring the body movement of the subject (body movement detected by the image sensors provides a motion severity/level and acceptable motion severity/level based on the relationship between the location of motion and the anatomy currently being scanned, [0014], [0046], [0049], [0055], [0059]-[0062]) and a duration time of a stationary state (respiratory phase and breathing cycles including breath hold duration is detected by the image sensor and processor, [0062], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0075]); and
displaying a video that changes (notifications of body movement are output to the patient using a video display or projection, [0014]-[0015], [0033], [0035], [0056], [0062], [0066], [0075], [0076], [0080], [0085]-[0086]) and evaluating a duration time of the stationary state (respiratory phase and breathing cycles including breath hold duration is detected by the image sensor and processor, [0062], [0065], [0069], [0071], [0075]).
However, Pautsch does not appear to disclose displaying a video that changes in accordance with the duration time of the stationary state.
However, in the same field of endeavor of respiratory motion in MR imaging, Avinash teaches the body movement-related information includes a drawing pattern or image information that is changed in accordance with the stationary duration time of the subject (a visual indicator such as a light, text, or symbol is used to provide motion information indicative that the breath holding is acceptable or unacceptable to the patient or operator, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied Avinash’s known technique of indicating acceptable or unacceptable breath holding using a visual indicator to Pautsch’s known process that evaluates the breath hold duration to achieve the predictable result that a sufficiently long breath hold improves the effectiveness of respiration gating to reduce respiratory motion. See, e.g., Avinash, [0014].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnathan Maynard whose telephone number is (571)272-7977. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798