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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 07/21/2026.
The amendments filed on 07/21/2026 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-9 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis step 1 of Subject Matter Eligibility Test
The claims are directed to a process (i.e., a method for performing collision prediction of an object in a medical imaging system, wherein the medical imaging system comprises: a machine table, for carrying a to-be-scanned object; and a scanning device, the scanning device having a scanning space allowing the machine table to enter therein) of claims 3-5.
Analysis step 2A, Prong I,
The claims recite abstract ideas, in particular mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts.
Claim 3 recites “judging whether an object 3D point cloud of the object overlaps a 3D point cloud of a surrounding environment during a moving process of moving in an advance/retreat direction of the machine table at a planned height of the machine table, so as to predict whether the object collides with the surrounding environment during the moving process” which is a mental process in particular concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claim 4 recites “determining a to-be-scanned region in the object 3D point cloud based on a scanning plan, wherein the scanning plan comprises positioning information of the to-be- scanned region relative to the object” which is a mental process in particular concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 4 also recites “determining a center of gravity ofthe to-be-scanned region and a height of the center of gravity; and determining a target height for positioning the machine table as the planned height based on the height of the center of gravity and a central height of the scanning space, so that the height of the center of gravity is equal to the central height of the scanning space when the machine table is positioned at the target height” which are mathematical concepts.
Claim 5 recites “determining a moving range of the machine table in the advance/retreat direction during the moving process based on a position of a boundary of the to-be-scanned region on the advance/retreat route and a scanning range of the scanning device” which is a mathematical concept.
Analysis step 2A, Prong II
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim elements. Examiner notes that although claim 3 references an imaging system with a machine table and a scanning device, these elements are not recited as part of the claimed process. Further examiner would like to note that even if these elements were claimed as additional elements they would likely amount to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Analysis step 2B
The claims do not include any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims simply do not recite any additional elements.
Claims 3-5 are therefore directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 3-5 are not patent eligible.
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 3-9 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a to-be-scanned object” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same or different from the “object” also recited in the claim. For the present purposes of examination, they have been interpreted as being the same. Further clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the to-be-scanned region” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further clarification is required.
Claims dependent upon a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected under the same statute because they each inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wan et al. (US 2017/0220709, August 3, 2017).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection stated above, Wan discloses a method for performing collision prediction of an object in a medical imaging system (“A method of detecting a possible collision in a medical procedure that involves a medical system” Abstract; also see [0001]), wherein the medical imaging system comprises:
a machine table, for carrying a to-be-scanned object (“a patient support 14 for supporting a patient 20” [0099]; also see Fig. 1 and corresponding description); and
a scanning device, the scanning device having a scanning space allowing the machine table to enter therein (gantry 12 in Fig. 1 and corresponding description; also see Fig. 5B and corresponding description; also see [0180]),
the method comprising:
judging whether an object 3D point cloud of the object overlaps a 3D point cloud of a surrounding environment (“the surface model may be formed by combining point clouds from the different cameras 130” [0122]; also see “3D point cloud data” [0124]) during a moving process of moving in an advance/retreat direction of the machine table (“the collision prediction mechanism is further configured for virtually moving the first model to simulate a movement of the patient due to a movement of the patient support” [0009]) at a planned height of the machine table (“if the 6 degree of freedom (DOF) parameters (i.e., x, y, z, pitch, roll, and yaw) of the patient support 14 as provided by the treatment system 10 is known” [0131]; also see [0132]), so as to predict whether the object collides with the surrounding environment during the moving process (“detecting a possible collision in a medical procedure, includes: a camera for providing an image of a patient that is supported on a patient support; and a processing unit configured for: determining a first model based at least in part on the image, at least a part of the first model representing a surface of the patient, and determining a second model, the second model representing a first component of the medical system; and a collision prediction mechanism configured for virtually moving the second model to simulate a movement of the first component of the medical system to determine whether there is a possible collision between the first component and the patient; wherein the collision prediction mechanism is also configured for generating an output to indicate the possible collision or an absence of the possible collision.” [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection stated above, Wan further discloses determining a moving range of the machine table in the advance/retreat direction during the moving process based on a position of a boundary of the to-be-scanned region on the advance/retreat route and a scanning range of the scanning device (“the treatment plan may prescribe that the patient support 14 supporting the patient be translated along the longitudinal axis of the patient support 14 from z-position of 5 cm to z-position of 6.6 cm, and then the gantry 12 be rotated from gantry angle 45° to gantry angle 49°.” [0132]; also see [0129]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Movassaghi (US 2009/0316973, December 24, 2009).
Regarding claim 4, Wan discloses the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Wan further discloses determining a to-be-scanned region in the object 3D point cloud based on a scanning plan, wherein the scanning plan comprises positioning information of the to-be-scanned region relative to the object (“the collision prediction mechanism 150 in the processing unit 140 is configured to receive information regarding a treatment plan, and then virtually executes the treatment plan by virtually moving one or models to simulate movement of the object(s) represented by the model(s) based on the treatment plan information. For example, the treatment plan may prescribe that the patient support 14 supporting the patient be translated along the longitudinal axis of the patient support 14 from z-position of 5 cm to z-position of 6.6 cm, and then the gantry 12 be rotated from gantry angle 45° to gantry angle 49°.” [0132]).
Wan fails to disclose wherein the planned height is determined through the following steps: determining a center of gravity of the to-be-scanned region and a height of the center of gravity; and determining a target height for positioning the machine table as the planned height based on the height of the center of gravity and a central height of the scanning space, so that the height of the center of gravity is equal to the central height of the scanning space when the machine table is positioned at the target height.
However, Movassaghi teaches, in the same field of endeavor, determining a center of gravity of the to-be-scanned region and a height of the center of gravity (“a determination unit adapted for determining a translation vector pointing from a point of gravity of the object of interest to an iso-centre of the examination apparatus, wherein the examination apparatus is adapted for performing an iso-centering of the object of interest on the basis of the translation vector” [0008]; also see “the point of gravity is a three-dimensional point of gravity” [0010]); and determining a target height for positioning the machine table as the planned height based on the height of the center of gravity and a central height of the scanning space, so that the height of the center of gravity is equal to the central height of the scanning space when the machine table is positioned at the target height (“a fast and effective iso-centering may be provided yielding the optimal table position for rotational angiography” [0009]; also see “The respective vector components of T (T.sub.X, T.sub.Y, T.sub.Z) given, for example, in the coordinate system of the table, determine then three translation components of the table movement in order to shift the P.sub.G of the object of interest to the iso-center of the system.” [0057]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wan with wherein the planned height is determined through the following steps: determining a center of gravity of the to-be-scanned region and a height of the center of gravity; and determining a target height for positioning the machine table as the planned height based on the height of the center of gravity and a central height of the scanning space, so that the height of the center of gravity is equal to the central height of the scanning space when the machine table is positioned at the target height as taught by Movassaghi in order to not depend on a user’s skills to set an optimal table position ([0009] of Movassaghi).
Claims 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of McCarthy et al. (US 2017/0086758, March 30, 2017).
Regarding claim 6, Wan discloses the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Wan further discloses when a prediction result is that the object does not collide with the surrounding environment during the moving process, providing a safety indication of no collision (“wherein the collision prediction mechanism is also configured for generating an output to indicate the possible collision or an absence of the possible collision” [0005]; and
when the prediction result is that the object is to collide with the surrounding environment during the moving process, providing a collision warning indicating that a collision is to occur (“wherein the collision prediction mechanism is also configured for generating an output to indicate the possible collision or an absence of the possible collision” [0005]; also see [0136]).
Wan fails to disclose allowing the machine table to automatically move into the scanning device for scanning based on the scanning plan; and a predicted collision site indication for a site predicted to have the collision.
However, McCarthy teaches, in the same field of endeavor, when a prediction result is that the object does not collide with the surrounding environment during the moving process, providing a safety indication of no collision allowing the machine table to automatically move into the scanning device for scanning based on the scanning plan (“If a collision will not occur, for example as shown in FIG. 5, then a diagnostic scan or scan may be performed. In addition, the patient bed and/or the imaging gantry may be automatically positioned at the desired position” [0015]); and when the prediction result is that the object is to collide with the surrounding environment during the moving process, providing a predicted collision site indication for a site predicted to have the collision (“FIG. 6 shows a diagrammatic view 600 of example detector and source trajectories with respect to an off-center subject 601 wherein a collision is expected. Here, the ROI of the subject 601 is positioned within the FOV 620, but the size of the subject 601 is larger than the size of the subject 501 discussed above. As a result, the center of the table 603 is located at a horizontal position x.sub.3, which is a greater distance from the horizontal isocenter position x.sub.1 than the position x.sub.2 of the table 503 in FIG. 5. The detector trajectory 610 and the source trajectory 615 thus coincide with both the subject 601 and the table 603. In this example, a collision is expected due to the coincidence of the trajectories with the subject and table positions.” [0043]; also see Fig. 6, reproduced below, and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wan with allowing the machine table to automatically move into the scanning device for scanning based on the scanning plan; and a predicted collision site indication for a site predicted to have the collision as taught by McCarthy in order to reduce operational time ([0004], [0031] of McCarthy).
Regarding claim 7, Wan modified by McCarthy discloses the limitations of claim 6 as stated above and Wan further discloses wherein a structural model of the object, the safety indication, and the collision warning are presented in a man-machine interaction interface (“the user interface 560 may also include a screen for displaying information to a user. For example, the user interface 560 may provide graphics indicating the model of the patient, and models of the various components in the treatment system 10. The user interface 560 may also display the models in relative position with respect to each other after they have been positioned to match up with the real-world setup. In addition, the user interface 560 may display an actual optical image of the system 10 with the patient 20. Such display may be in a side-by-side configuration with respect to a graphical image showing the models. Furthermore, the user interface 560 may display a processor-generated video showing a virtual movement of the model(s) as the treatment plan is virtually executed to simulate an actual treatment procedure. Also, the user interface 560 may provide results from the treatment simulation that is performed virtually by the collision prediction mechanism 506.” [0147]).
Regarding claim 9, Wan modified by McCarthy discloses the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Wan fails to disclose wherein when the prediction result is that the object is to collide with the surrounding environment during the moving process, a degree of the collision is further determined according to an overlapping degree of the object 3D point cloud with the environment 3D point cloud during the moving process.
However, McCarthy further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein when the prediction result is that the object is to collide with the surrounding environment during the moving process, a degree of the collision is further determined according to an overlapping degree of the object 3D point cloud with the environment 3D point cloud during the moving process (“collision may be predicted, if the likelihood of collision is higher than a threshold, the threshold may be based on an extent of overlap or coincidence of the trajectories with the subject and table positions” [0044]; also see [0061]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wan with wherein when the prediction result is that the object is to collide with the surrounding environment during the moving process, a degree of the collision is further determined according to an overlapping degree of the object 3D point cloud with the environment 3D point cloud during the moving process as taught by McCarthy in order to enhance avoidance of collisions between a patient and a scanner ([0005] of McCarthy).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of McCarthy as applied to claims 3, 6, and 7 above and further in view of Crawford et al. (US 2019/0311490, filed April 9, 2018).
Regarding claim 8, Wan modified by McCarthy discloses the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. In particular, McCarthy was relied on to teach the predicted collision site indication. Wan further discloses wherein the predicted collision site indication is present, in the man-machine interaction interface (“the user interface 560 may also include a screen for displaying information to a user. For example, the user interface 560 may provide graphics indicating the model of the patient, and models of the various components in the treatment system 10. The user interface 560 may also display the models in relative position with respect to each other after they have been positioned to match up with the real-world setup. In addition, the user interface 560 may display an actual optical image of the system 10 with the patient 20. Such display may be in a side-by-side configuration with respect to a graphical image showing the models. Furthermore, the user interface 560 may display a processor-generated video showing a virtual movement of the model(s) as the treatment plan is virtually executed to simulate an actual treatment procedure. Also, the user interface 560 may provide results from the treatment simulation that is performed virtually by the collision prediction mechanism 506.” [0147]).
Wan modified by McCarthy fails to disclose the predicted collision site indication being presented on the part predicted to have the collision in the object 3D point cloud.
However, Crawford teaches, in the same field of endeavor, the predicted collision site indication being presented on the part predicted to have the collision in the object 3D point cloud (“The system may perform a collision alert action responsive to determining that a physical object, which is separate from the gantry, has a surface that extends from a location within the circular object displayed on the display device to another location that is outside the circular object. The collision alert action may include displaying another graphical object overlaid relative to the physical object and that identifies the physical object as being a collision risk” [0034]; also see [0073]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wan with the predicted collision site indication being presented on the part predicted to have the collision in the object 3D point cloud as taught by Crawford in order to provide more robust visual information to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights