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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments page 6, that the measurement volumes of Flammang are selected by a user. First, the claims do not specify that the target anatomies are identified automatically. Second, [0015] of Flammang states that the measurement volumes are selected “’normally’ by the user”. This suggests embodiments in which the measurement volumes are selected by something other than the user, and Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the system automatically selecting a measurement volume is the most obvious alternative to a manual user selection.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments pages 6-8, that Flammang does not teach repositioning the patient table for each measurement volume, either moving the table to a mathematical middle point of the measurement volumes or using the same position if a distance to the next volume is below a threshold. First, using the mathematical middle point as the table position is only one embodiment of Flammang. Second, the language of the claims only requires one target anatomy to be captured. Flammang begins the imaging process by taking an overview measurement to determine the measurement volumes and their positions ([0011] & [0042]). The table position during this measurement reads on the claimed first table position. Then, Flammang navigates the table to a position such that the focal point is situated as close as possible to the isocenter of the MR apparatus ([0012]). This new position is the claimed second table position. In the event that there is only one measurement volume when performing the method of Flammang, the process will be performed exactly as is claimed. Nevertheless, if there are additional measurement volumes, whether the table is moved for each one is predicated on the distance threshold. If an additional measurement volume is greater than a distance threshold from the current location, the table will be moved ([0021] & [0044]). Paragraph [0023] teaches that the user can adjust the threshold; thus, if so desired, the threshold can be reduced or even eliminated such that the table will be moved for each measurement volume. This has the benefit of obtaining the highest quality image data for each volume. Examiner upholds the use of Flammang.
Regarding the amendments to claim 5 & 9, Examiner upholds the uses of Saracen and Windolf, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Flammang (US 2015/0201863).
Regarding claim 1, Flammang teaches a method for patient positioning using a patient table (patient table 2, [0036]) of a magnetic resonance device (MR apparatus 1, [0036]) that can be moved ([0036]) within a patient receiving area (examination region 9, [0036]), wherein the patient table has at least two degrees of freedom with respect to its movement within the patient receiving area ([0036]), the method comprising:
introducing a patient into the patient receiving area ([0036]), wherein, for this purpose, the patient table is positioned in a first patient table position (table position in the first examination step, [0043]; [0011]) within the patient receiving area ([0042]);
capturing first magnetic resonance data from the patient (first, defining examination step 30, [0042]; [0011]);
determining first image data from the first magnetic resonance data ([0012] & [0042]), wherein at least one target anatomy of the patient and/or a position of at least one region of interest with the at least one target anatomy (measurement volumes, [0011] & [0042]-[0043]) is ascertained and/or determined in the first image data ([0011] & [0042]);
ascertaining at least one second patient table position (first table position, [0012] & [0043]) by analyzing the first image data to identify a location of the at least one target anatomy and/or the at least one region of interest ([0011] & [0042]), wherein, in the at least one second patient table position, the at least one region of interest and/or at least one target anatomy of the patient has a minimum possible distance from an isocenter of the magnetic resonance device ([0012] & [0015]); and
positioning the patient table in the at least one second patient table position ([0012] & [0044]), wherein at least two degrees of freedom are available to the patient table for movement into the at least one second patient table position ([0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: after positioning the patient table in the at least one second patient table position (step 36, [0044], Figure 3), adjusting at least one parameter (adjustment measurements 38 & adjustment parameters 32, [0044], Figure 3) of the region of interest to the at least one second patient position ([0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: after positioning the patient table in the at least one second patient table position, capturing second magnetic resonance data (data acquisition 40, [0044], Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: after positioning of the patient table in the at least one second patient table position, performing at least one adjustment step (implementation of adjustment measurements 38, [0044], Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: if there are two or more target anatomies of the patient, and thus two or more regions of interest, calculating and/or ascertaining a second patient table position for each of the regions of interest ([0044] & Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 8, further comprising: for ascertaining a plurality of second patient table positions, in each case taking a preceding second patient table position into account as a starting position for a patient table movement ([0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: performing the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data with distortion correction (shimming, [0005] & [0013]).
Regarding claim 12, Flammang teaches a magnetic resonance device, comprising:
a magnet unit (basic field magnet 4, [0036]);
a patient receiving area (examination region 9, [0036]) at least partially surrounded by the magnet unit ([0036] & Figures 1-2);
a patient table (patient table 2, [0036]) that is movable within the patient receiving area ([0036]), and has at least two degrees of freedom with respect to its movement within the patient receiving area ([0036]); and
a control unit (control unit 6, [0037]) embodied to control the magnetic resonance device such that a method for patient positioning using a patient table that is movable within a patient receiving area is executed as claimed in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Flammang teaches a non-transitory computer program product, which comprises a program (program, [0037]) and is loadable directly into a memory (digital storage medium 15, [0037]) of a programmable control unit (control unit 6, [0037]), with a program operable to control a method for patient positioning using a patient table that is movable in at least two spatial directions within a patient receiving area as claimed in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1), when the program is executed in the control unit ([0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammang, as applied to claim 1, above, in view of Saracen (US 2005/0234327).
Regarding claim 4, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, Flammang fails to disclose that four degrees of freedom are available to the patient table for movement of the patient table into the at least one second patient table position.
Saracen teaches that four degrees of freedom ([0048] & Figure 2A) are available to the patient table (patient treatment couch 103, [0048]) for movement of the patient table into the at least one second patient table position ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flammang such that four degrees of freedom are available to the patient table for movement of the patient table into the at least one second patient table position, as taught by Saracen. Providing additional degrees of freedom allows a more precise positioning of the patient table, allowing the table to be brought closer to the isocenter and maximize image quality.
Regarding claim 5-6, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, Flammang fails to disclose that ascertaining the at least one second patient table position comprises using a collision model to verify that the at least one second patient table position does not result in collision between the patient and an enclosure surrounding the patient receiving area, wherein the collision model comprises an anatomy and/or size of the patient to be examined and/or position information for the patient table.
Saracen teaches that ascertaining the at least one second patient table position comprises using a collision model (anti-collision model, [0090]) to verify that the at least one second patient table position does not result in collision between the patient and an enclosure (linac gantry or other moving parts of the robot-based linac system 406, [0090]) surrounding the patient receiving area ([0090]), wherein the collision model comprises an anatomy and/or size of the patient to be examined (patient’s body, [0090]) and/or position information for the patient table ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flammang such that ascertaining the at least one second patient table position comprises using a collision model to verify that the at least one second patient table position does not result in collision between the patient and an enclosure surrounding the patient receiving area, wherein the collision model comprises an anatomy and/or size of the patient to be examined and/or position information for the patient table, as taught by Saracen. This prevents the table from being placed in a potentially dangerous position, reducing any potential harm that may be done to the patient.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammang, as applied to claim 8, above, in view of Windolf (US 2011/0166447).
Regarding claim 9, Flammang teaches the method as claimed in claim 8.
However, Flammang fails to disclose: analyzing the first image data to determine whether all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured in the first magnetic resonance data; and repeating the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data if not all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured and/or determined during the analyzing of the first image data.
Windolf teaches:
analyzing the first image data to determine whether all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured in the first magnetic resonance data ([0086]-[0087]); and
Paragraph [0087] teaches that the imaging step is repeated “until the projection of all targets of each object are visible in one of said images”. In order for the system to know when an image is satisfactory and does not need to be recaptured, an analysis of the image must occur to determine that all anatomies are present.
repeating the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data if not all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured and/or determined during a first capturing of first magnetic resonance data ([0086]-[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flammang to include: analyzing the first image data to determine whether all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured in the first magnetic resonance data; and repeating the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data if not all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured and/or determined during the analyzing of the first image data, as taught by Windolf. This increases overall efficiency of the procedure, as each anatomy can be imaged consecutively, rather than return to the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data to obtain the anatomies not obtained the first time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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 (572)-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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798