DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: The second limitation recites one more of the plurality of capture angles. To promote compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite one or more of the plurality of capture angles.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The ”first sub-device” and “second sub-device” in claims 2-5, 12, 14, and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The claimed sub-devices are interpreted by the Examiner to refer to the sub-facilities as recited in paragraphs [0015] and [0016] of the application specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 7 and 8 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 7 recites the limitation "the preprocessed data" in lines 7 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All of the limitations of claim 7 have a scope of being exclusive meaning that the second and third limitations would not have antecedent basis in an instance when the first limitation is not part of the sub-algorithm.
Claim 8 recites: parallelizable sub-algorithms. It is not clear whether the method actually requires the sub-algorithms to be parallel or not.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for ascertaining an operating parameter of a medical imaging device, the method comprising:
providing a measurement dataset by operation of the medical imaging device; and
ascertaining the operating parameter as a function of the measurement dataset, by a processing algorithm, wherein
the processing algorithm includes a sub-algorithm providing an intermediate result,
the intermediate result depends solely on a first partial dataset of the measurement dataset,
the operating parameter is ascertained as a function of the intermediate result and a second partial dataset of the measurement dataset, and
calculation of the intermediate result by the sub-algorithm and capture of the second partial dataset by the medical imaging device at least partially overlap time-wise.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “ascertaining the operating parameter as a function of the measurement dataset (mathematical relationship),
the operating parameter is ascertained as a function of the intermediate result and a second partial dataset of the measurement dataset (mathematical relationship)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “ascertaining the operating parameter as a function of the measurement dataset, by a processing algorithm (solving an equation using data), wherein
the processing algorithm includes a sub-algorithm providing an intermediate result (defined step),
the intermediate result depends solely on a first partial dataset of the measurement dataset (defined step),
the operating parameter is ascertained as a function of the intermediate result and a second partial dataset of the measurement dataset (solving an equation), and
calculation of the intermediate result by the sub-algorithm and capture of the second partial dataset by the medical imaging device at least partially overlap time-wise (decision/observation about data)” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 20.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A method for ascertaining an operating parameter of a medical imaging device, the method comprising: providing a measurement dataset by operation of the medical imaging device;
Claim 20: A medical imaging device, comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions.
The additional element in the preamble of “A method for ascertaining an operating parameter of a medical imaging device” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Providing a measurement dataset by operation of the medical imaging device represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A memory (generic memory) and a processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaethner et al. (US 20220293250 A1), hereinafter “Kaethner”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kaethner teaches a method for ascertaining an operating parameter of a medical imaging device, the method comprising:
providing a measurement dataset by operation of the medical imaging device (Kaethner [0121] According to at least one example embodiment, the determination of the information concerning the movement of the medical technology device is based upon at least one device parameter value of the medical technology device and/or upon a measurement value of at least one sensor arranged on the medical technology device. Also see [0166] The medical technology device is an imaging medical technology device. In other words, the medical technology device is configured to capture an image dataset. In this context, the medical technology device is configured, in particular, to capture the first image dataset.); and
ascertaining the operating parameter as a function of the measurement dataset, by a processing algorithm, wherein
the processing algorithm includes a sub-algorithm providing an intermediate result,
the intermediate result depends solely on a first partial dataset of the measurement dataset (Kaethner [0201] The method step of determining DET-1 the transfer parameter value comprises a method step of determining DET-4 the information concerning the relative movement of the examination object and/or the instrument. Also see [0202] The information concerning the relative movement can be determined, in particular, by an edge analysis in the at least one image dataset. In particular, the edge analysis can be carried out on the at least one medical image included by the first image dataset. And [0203] Alternatively or additionally, the determining DET-4 of the information concerning the relative movement of the examination object and/or the instrument can be based upon at least one second image dataset. The at least one second image dataset is in this context captured before the first image dataset. A transfer parameter is determined from at least one of a second image (i.e. a subset of a set of images) or second image set (i.e. a subset of a plurality of image sets)),
the operating parameter is ascertained as a function of the intermediate result and a second partial dataset of the measurement dataset (Kaethner [0065] In the method step of determining the imaging parameter value, the imaging parameter value is determined dependent upon the transfer parameter value. Also see [0071] Thus, the imaging parameter value is determined in such a way that the image dataset comprises not more than the relevant image information. In particular, the imaging parameter value specifies the quality of the first image dataset. In particular, the imaging parameter value can comprise the image acquisition frequency and/or the binning and/or the exposure time and/or the dose and/or the recording dose. […]. the first image dataset should not comprise more medical images or a medical image should not comprise more pixels and/or voxels than can be transferred in a medically useful way. And [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset. The imaging parameter is a result of the transfer parameter and some quality variable of the image dataset), and
calculation of the intermediate result by the sub-algorithm and capture of the second partial dataset by the medical imaging device at least partially overlap time-wise (Kaethner [0071] Medically useful means that a time delay due to the transfer should be minimized. In particular, the first image dataset should be transferred in real time. In particular, a maximum time delay of 500 ms is tolerable and medically useful.).
Regarding Claim 2, Kaethner further teaches the sub-algorithm is implemented by a first sub-device, the first sub-device transfers, to a second sub-device, at least one of the intermediate result or a processing result ascertained as a function of the intermediate result, and the operating parameter is ascertained by the second sub-device (Kaethner [0043] For simplicity, one or more example embodiments may be exemplified as a computer processing device or processor; however, one skilled in the art will appreciate that a hardware device may include multiple processing elements or processors and multiple types of processing elements or processors. For example, a hardware device may include multiple processors or a processor and a controller. In addition, other processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors. The process is the same whether executed by a single processor or multiple processors in communication with each other.).
Regarding Claim 3, Kaethner further teaches wherein transfer of at least one of the intermediate result or the processing result to the second sub-device and the capture of the second partial dataset by the medical imaging device at least partially overlap time-wise (Kaethner [0071] Medically useful means that a time delay due to the transfer should be minimized. In particular, the first image dataset should be transferred in real time. In particular, a maximum time delay of 500 ms is tolerable and medically useful. [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset. The system can determine the parameter during measurement to control the device in real time and improve captures.).
Regarding Claim 4, Kaethner further teaches transferring the operating parameter from the second sub-device to the first sub-device (Kaethner [0043] For simplicity, one or more example embodiments may be exemplified as a computer processing device or processor; however, one skilled in the art will appreciate that a hardware device may include multiple processing elements or processors and multiple types of processing elements or processors. For example, a hardware device may include multiple processors or a processor and a controller. In addition, other processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors. The process is the same whether executed by a single processor or multiple processors within a system in communication with each other.); and
storing the operating parameter at the first sub-device in order for the first sub-device to use the operating parameter during subsequent imaging by the medical imaging device for at least one of processing captured raw data or controlling at least one component of the medical imaging device (Kaethner [0071] Medically useful means that a time delay due to the transfer should be minimized. In particular, the first image dataset should be transferred in real time. In particular, a maximum time delay of 500 ms is tolerable and medically useful. [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 6, Kaethner further teaches the measurement dataset includes measurement data for a plurality of capture angles, and the first partial dataset includes measurement data for one more of the plurality of capture angles (Kaethner [0057] The medical technology device can be, in particular, an angiography system, a C-arm system, a computed tomography system, a magnetic resonance tomography system, an ultrasound system and/or an optical coherence tomography system, etc. Some of the listed medical devices rotate around the subject during measurement, inherently capturing data at different angles, which would lead to different angles being present when dividing the captured data into subsets.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kaethner further teaches at least one of
at least one of a summation or a logarithmizing of measurement data of the first partial dataset or preprocessed data ascertained from the first partial dataset (Kaethner [0059] The medical image can comprise, for example, an X-ray image, a slice image and/or a three-dimensional image and/or a subtraction image and/or a summation image, etc.),
an assignment of value to the measurement data or to the preprocessed data with the aid of a lookup table,
a statistical evaluation of the measurement data or the preprocessed data, wherein the statistical evaluation includes at least one of an averaging or ascertainment of a standard deviation (Kaethner [0147] the medical image and/or the first image dataset includes an image value for each binned pixel. The image value of the binned pixel can correspond to the sum or the mean value or the median of the captured image values of the pixels included by the binned pixels.), or
ascertainment of a noise figure relating to a noise component in the measurement data (Kaethner [0070] The quality of the first image dataset is quantified, for example, by a spatial and/or temporal resolution and/or by a signal-to-noise ratio.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kaethner further teaches wherein at least one of
a respective operating parameter is captured by a plurality of processing algorithms, wherein the plurality of processing algorithms includes at least one parallelizable sub-algorithm respectively (Kaethner [0029] Although the flowcharts describe the operations as sequential processes, many of the operations may be performed in parallel, concurrently or simultaneously.), or
the processing algorithm includes a plurality of parallelizable sub-algorithms (Kaethner [0029] Although the flowcharts describe the operations as sequential processes, many of the operations may be performed in parallel, concurrently or simultaneously.),
wherein the plurality of parallelizable sub-algorithms process at least one of the first partial dataset or a further partial dataset respectively, which is captured before the second partial dataset, in order to ascertain a respective intermediate result, wherein calculations of the respective intermediate results by the respective parallelizable sub-algorithms at least partially overlap time-wise with one another and with the capture of the second partial dataset by the medical imaging device (Kaethner [0071] Medically useful means that a time delay due to the transfer should be minimized. In particular, the first image dataset should be transferred in real time. In particular, a maximum time delay of 500 ms is tolerable and medically useful. [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 9. Kaethner further teaches ascertaining, as the operating parameter, at least one of a measure of a sensitivity of detector elements of the medical imaging device, at least one threshold value for single photon detection, at least one scaling factor used by the medical imaging device during imaging, at least one entry of a lookup table used during imaging, or at least one parameter of a filter function used during imaging (Kaethner [0147] The binning specifies, in particular, a spatial resolution of a detector. The detector can be configured, in particular, to capture the first image dataset. […] By the binning, a sensitivity of the detector can be increased. With a higher sensitivity, in particular, a lower dose is necessary in order to capture the medical image or the first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 10, Kaethner further teaches wherein the medical imaging device is a computed tomography device, a device for molecular imaging or a magnetic resonance tomograph (Kaethner [0099] The at least one medical image can be, for example, an X-ray image, an ultrasound image and/or a slice image from a magnetic resonance tomography, a computed tomography and/or an angiography, etc.).
Regarding Claim 11, Kaethner further teaches a medical imaging device, comprising:
at least one detector configured to capture a measurement dataset (Kaethner [0099] The at least one medical image can be, for example, an X-ray image, an ultrasound image and/or a slice image from a magnetic resonance tomography, a computed tomography and/or an angiography, etc.); and
a processing device configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (Kaethner [0056] At least one example embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for determining an imaging parameter value for the control of a medical technology device during a capture of a first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 12, Kaethner further teaches a first sub-device and a second sub-device, wherein the first sub-device is configured to implement the sub-algorithm, and transfer, to the second sub-device, at least one of the intermediate result or a processing result ascertained as a function of the intermediate result, and the second sub-device is configured to ascertain the operating parameter as a function of the at least one of the intermediate result or the processing result (Kaethner [0043] For simplicity, one or more example embodiments may be exemplified as a computer processing device or processor; however, one skilled in the art will appreciate that a hardware device may include multiple processing elements or processors and multiple types of processing elements or processors. For example, a hardware device may include multiple processors or a processor and a controller. In addition, other processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors. The process is the same whether executed by a single processor or multiple processors in communication with each other.).
Regarding Claim 13, Kaethner further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed at a processor of a medical imaging device, cause the medical imaging device to perform the method of claim 1 (Kaethner [0038] Even further, any of the disclosed methods may be embodied in the form of a program or software. The program or software may be stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and is adapted to perform any one of the aforementioned methods when run on a computer device (a device including a processor).).
Regarding Claim 14, Kaethner further teaches wherein after ascertaining the operating parameter, the method further comprises:
transferring the operating parameter from the second sub-device to the first sub-device (Kaethner [0043] For simplicity, one or more example embodiments may be exemplified as a computer processing device or processor; however, one skilled in the art will appreciate that a hardware device may include multiple processing elements or processors and multiple types of processing elements or processors. For example, a hardware device may include multiple processors or a processor and a controller. In addition, other processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors. The process is the same whether executed by a single processor or multiple processors in communication with each other.); and
storing the operating parameter at the first sub-device in order for the first sub-device to use the operating parameter during subsequent imaging by the medical imaging device for at least one of processing captured raw data (Kaethner [0071] Medically useful means that a time delay due to the transfer should be minimized. In particular, the first image dataset should be transferred in real time. In particular, a maximum time delay of 500 ms is tolerable and medically useful. [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset.) or controlling at least one component of the medical imaging device (Kaethner [0056] At least one example embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for determining an imaging parameter value for the control of a medical technology device during a capture of a first image dataset. Also see [0058] The medical technology device can be controllable, in particular, by the imaging parameter value. In other words, the medical technology device can be controlled by way of the imaging parameter value during capture of the first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 16, Kaethner further teaches the measurement dataset includes measurement data for a plurality of capture angles, and the first partial dataset includes measurement data for one more of the plurality of capture angles (Kaethner [0057] The medical technology device can be, in particular, an angiography system, a C-arm system, a computed tomography system, a magnetic resonance tomography system, an ultrasound system and/or an optical coherence tomography system, etc. Some of the listed medical devices rotate around the subject during measurement, inherently capturing data at different angles, which would lead to different angles being present when dividing the captured data into subsets.).
Regarding Claim 17, Kaethner further teaches ascertaining, as the operating parameter, at least one of a measure of a sensitivity of detector elements of the medical imaging device, at least one threshold value for single photon detection, at least one scaling factor used by the medical imaging device during imaging, at least one entry of a lookup table used during imaging, or at least one parameter of a filter function used during imaging (Kaethner [0147] The binning specifies, in particular, a spatial resolution of a detector. The detector can be configured, in particular, to capture the first image dataset. […] By the binning, a sensitivity of the detector can be increased. With a higher sensitivity, in particular, a lower dose is necessary in order to capture the medical image or the first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 19, Kaethner further teaches wherein the medical imaging device is an x-ray device (Kaethner [0099] The at least one medical image can be, for example, an X-ray image, an ultrasound image and/or a slice image from a magnetic resonance tomography, a computed tomography and/or an angiography, etc.).
Regarding Claim 20, Kaethner further teaches a medical imaging device, comprising:
a memory storing computer-readable instructions (Kaethner [0009] At least one example embodiment provides a computer program product having a computer program which is directly loadable into a memory store of a determining system, having program portions when executed by the determining system to cause the determining system to perform a method according to example embodiments.); and
at least one processor (Kaethner [0009] At least one example embodiment provides a computer program product having a computer program which is directly loadable into a memory store of a determining system, having program portions when executed by the determining system to cause the determining system to perform a method according to example embodiments.) configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to cause the medical imaging device to
ascertain an operating parameter of the medical imaging device as a function of a measurement dataset by a processing algorithm (Kaethner [0067] In particular, the method steps of receiving and/or determining the transfer parameter value, determining the imaging parameter value and/or providing the imaging parameter value can be carried out by an interface and/or a computing unit of the medical technology device. Alternatively or additionally, the method steps of receiving and/or determining the transfer parameter value, determining the imaging parameter value and/or providing the imaging parameter value can be carried out by an interface and/or a computing unit of the remotely arranged device.), wherein
the processing algorithm includes a sub-algorithm providing an intermediate result,
the intermediate result depends on a first partial dataset of the measurement dataset (Kaethner [0201] The method step of determining DET-1 the transfer parameter value comprises a method step of determining DET-4 the information concerning the relative movement of the examination object and/or the instrument. Also see [0202] The information concerning the relative movement can be determined, in particular, by an edge analysis in the at least one image dataset. In particular, the edge analysis can be carried out on the at least one medical image included by the first image dataset. And [0203] Alternatively or additionally, the determining DET-4 of the information concerning the relative movement of the examination object and/or the instrument can be based upon at least one second image dataset. The at least one second image dataset is in this context captured before the first image dataset. A transfer parameter is determined from at least one of a second image (i.e. a subset of a set of images) or second image set (i.e. a subset of a plurality of image sets)),
the operating parameter is ascertained as a function of the intermediate result and a second partial dataset of the measurement dataset (Kaethner [0065] In the method step of determining the imaging parameter value, the imaging parameter value is determined dependent upon the transfer parameter value. Also see [0071] Thus, the imaging parameter value is determined in such a way that the image dataset comprises not more than the relevant image information. In particular, the imaging parameter value specifies the quality of the first image dataset. In particular, the imaging parameter value can comprise the image acquisition frequency and/or the binning and/or the exposure time and/or the dose and/or the recording dose. […]. the first image dataset should not comprise more medical images or a medical image should not comprise more pixels and/or voxels than can be transferred in a medically useful way. And [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset. The imaging parameter is a result of the transfer parameter and some quality variable of the image dataset), and
calculation of the intermediate result by the sub-algorithm and capture of the second partial dataset by the medical imaging device at least partially overlap time-wise (Kaethner [0071] Medically useful means that a time delay due to the transfer should be minimized. In particular, the first image dataset should be transferred in real time. In particular, a maximum time delay of 500 ms is tolerable and medically useful.).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaethner (as stated above).
Regarding Claim 5, Kaethner (as stated above) does not explicitly teach wherein capture of the measurement dataset and at least execution of the sub-algorithm is triggered by the first sub-device in response to an ascertainment instruction from the second sub-device.
However, Kaethner teaches one or more processors (Kaethner [0043] For simplicity, one or more example embodiments may be exemplified as a computer processing device or processor; however, one skilled in the art will appreciate that a hardware device may include multiple processing elements or processors and multiple types of processing elements or processors. For example, a hardware device may include multiple processors or a processor and a controller. In addition, other processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors. The process is the same whether executed by a single processor or multiple processors in communication with each other.) to capture measurement data (Kaethner [0166] The medical technology device is an imaging medical technology device. In other words, the medical technology device is configured to capture an image dataset. In this context, the medical technology device is configured, in particular, to capture the first image dataset.) and execute determination of an imaging parameter including an intermediate result (Kaethner [0065] In the method step of determining the imaging parameter value, the imaging parameter value is determined dependent upon the transfer parameter value.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Kaethner (as stated above) to explicitly teach wherein capture of the measurement dataset and at least execution of the sub-algorithm is triggered by the first sub-device in response to an ascertainment instruction from the second sub-device, because the disclosure of Kaethner is predicated on determining the operating parameter of the medical imaging device in order to improve the present measurement and future measurements (Kaethner [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 15, Kaethner (as stated above) does not explicitly teach wherein capture of the measurement dataset and at least execution of the sub-algorithm is triggered by the first sub-device in response to an ascertainment instruction from the second sub-device.
However, Kaethner teaches one or more processors (Kaethner [0043] For simplicity, one or more example embodiments may be exemplified as a computer processing device or processor; however, one skilled in the art will appreciate that a hardware device may include multiple processing elements or processors and multiple types of processing elements or processors. For example, a hardware device may include multiple processors or a processor and a controller. In addition, other processing configurations are possible, such as parallel processors. The process is the same whether executed by a single processor or multiple processors in communication with each other.) to capture measurement data (Kaethner [0166] The medical technology device is an imaging medical technology device. In other words, the medical technology device is configured to capture an image dataset. In this context, the medical technology device is configured, in particular, to capture the first image dataset.) and execute determination of an imaging parameter including an intermediate result (Kaethner [0065] In the method step of determining the imaging parameter value, the imaging parameter value is determined dependent upon the transfer parameter value.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Kaethner (as stated above) to explicitly teach wherein capture of the measurement dataset and at least execution of the sub-algorithm is triggered by the first sub-device in response to an ascertainment instruction from the second sub-device, because the disclosure of Kaethner is predicated on determining the operating parameter of the medical imaging device in order to improve the present measurement and future measurements (Kaethner [0133] In particular, based thereon, the imaging parameter value can be determined for capturing the subsequent medical images that are included in the first image dataset.).
Regarding Claim 18, Kaethner (as stated above) further teaches ascertaining, as the operating parameter, at least one of a measure of a sensitivity of detector elements of the medical imaging device, at least one threshold value for single photon detection, at least one scaling factor used by the medical imaging device during imaging, at least one entry of a lookup table used during imaging, or at least one parameter of a filter function used during imaging (Kaethner [0147] The binning specifies, in particular, a spatial resolution of a detector. The detector can be configured, in particular, to capture the first image dataset. […] By the binning, a sensitivity of the detector can be increased. With a higher sensitivity, in particular, a lower dose is necessary in order to capture the medical image or the first image dataset.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foland et al. (US 20150289828 A1) discloses a Patient Table With Integrated X-Ray Volumetric Imager.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights