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
Applicant’s amendments filed on 07/07/2026 to the abstract and claims have overcome specification objection, claim rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 8 and 10-11 will not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with claim amendment. Applicant filed Terminal Disclaimer on 05/20/2026. Thus, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection as preciously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed on 02/20/2025 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lachaine (US 20190080459 A1).
-Regarding claim 1, Lachaine discloses a patient motion tracking system ([0022], “Control console 110 … perform functions or operations such as treatment planning, treatment execution, image acquisition, image processing, motion tracking”) for automatic generation of a region of interest on a 3D representation of a patient ([0040], “control console 110 may determine the motion of the anatomical region of interest by matching the set(s) of contour elements … to the 3D surface image”), the system comprising (Abstract; FIGS. 1-6): a memory comprising stored region of interest (ROI) descriptive data (FIGS. 4, 5; [0038], “anatomical region of interest - a kidney of a patient, indicated by contours 412, 414, and 416 …”; [0040], “contour(s) to the 3D surface image of target 320 acquired prior to the treatment session”; Note: contours has to be stored in a memory in order to later determine the motion of the anatomical region of interest as shown in FIGS. 1, 6); a 3D representation generation processor configured to obtain a 3D representation comprising at least a target area (FIGS. 1, 3, 5; [0019], “A target may include an organ, a tumor, an anomaly, or an anatomical structure that is subject to or related to radiotherapy”; [0020], “matched to a 3D surface image of the target”; [0034]); a ROI generation processor configured (FIG. 1) to utilize said stored ROI descriptive data (FIG. 5; FIG.6, steps 620-640) and said 3D representation (FIG. 5, 3D surface image 520) to generate a ROI labelled 3D representation (FIG. 5; FIG. 6, steps 610-640; [0020]; [0040]), wherein the ROI labelled 3D representation is the 3D representation of the patient having a ROI applied thereto (FIG. 5; [0020], “the segmented contour(s) may be matched to a 3D surface image of the target that is acquired prior to the treatment session … its original position … ” ; [0040], “matching the contour(s) to the 3D surface image of target 320 acquired prior to the treatment session … When no motion occurs (e.g. neither displacement nor rotation occurs) between the acquisition of the 3D image from which 3D surface image 520 is extracted and the acquisition of each of the 2D images from which the set contour elements 512, 514, or 516 is extract, the three sets of contour elements 512, 514, and 516 should substantially match the 3D surface image 520”), wherein the system is configured to use said ROI labelled 3D representation to track motion of a patient during positioning and/or treatment of said patient in a treatment room (FIGS. 1-2; FIGS. 5-6, steps 640-650; [0020]; [0039]; [0040], “… optimizing the matching between the three sets of contour elements 512, 514, and 516 and the 3D surface image 520 may result in displacement and/or rotation of the 3D surface image 520 that substantially track the motion of the anatomical region of interest that actually occurs …”; [0048]).
-Regarding claim 21, Lachaine discloses the system of claim 1. Lachaine further discloses wherein the 3D representation is a 3D surface or a point cloud ([0020]; [0040]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachaine (US 20190080459 A1) in view of Lampotang et al (US 20220133284 A1), hereinafter Lampotang.
-Regarding claim 2, Lachaine discloses the method of claim 1.
Lachaine does not disclose wherein the system comprises a 3D scanning reconstruction system configured to be arranged in a radiotherapy treatment room and configured to generate an input representation, the 3D representation being generated from said input representation.
In the same field of endeavor, Lampotang teaches a guidance and tracking system that facilitate templated and targeted biopsy and/or treatment (Lampotang: Abstract; FIGS. 1-27). Lampotang further teaches wherein the system comprises a 3D scanning reconstruction system configured to be arranged in a radiotherapy treatment room and configured to generate an input representation, the 3D representation being generated from said input representation (Lampotang: FIGS. 1-2, 6, 8; [0014]; [0050]; [0077], “The computing device 115 can be configured to … generate a three-dimensional reconstruction … of an organ”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lachaine with the teaching of Lampotang by using 3D scanning reconstruction system in order to provide more accurate model for motion tracking of the patient (Lampotang: [0061]).
-Regarding claim 3, Lachaine in view of Lampotang teaches the method of claim 2.
Lachaine does not disclose that 3D representation is reconstructed from 2D image frames.
In the same field of endeavor, Lampotang teaches a guidance and tracking system that facilitate templated and targeted biopsy and/or treatment (Lampotang: Abstract; FIGS. 1-27). Lampotang further teaches that 3D representation is reconstructed from 2D image frames (Lampotang: FIGS. 1-2; [0052], “the three-dimensional reconstruction may be generated by … multiple two-dimensional (2D) images”; [0086]; [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lachaine with the teaching of Lampotang by using 3D scanning reconstruction system in order to provide more accurate model for motion tracking of the patient (Lampotang: [0061]).
-Regarding claim 4, Lachaine in view of Lampotang teaches the method of claim 3. The combination further teaches wherein the system furthermore comprises one or more cameras configured to be arranged in the radiotherapy treatment room and to obtain said series of 2D image frames of at least the target area of the patient (Lampotang: FIGS. 1-2; [0051]).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachaine (US 20190080459 A1) in view of Bharat et al (US 20160016007 A1), hereinafter Bharat.
-Regarding claim 5, Lachaine discloses the method of claim 1 and discloses herein the stored ROI descriptive data comprises one or more reference representations (FIG. 4; [0040], “contour(s) to the 3D representation image of target 320 acquired prior to the treatment session”).
Lachaine does not disclose the one or more reference representations each having an annotated reference ROI applied thereto.
In the same field of endeavor, Bharat teaches a method for representation tracking-based motion management (Bharat: Abstract; FIGS. 1-3). Bharat further teaches the one or more reference representations each having an annotated reference ROI applied thereto (Bharat: FIG. 1; [0025], “delineates one or more regions of interest (ROIs) in the image, such as a target and/or OARs. The ROIs are typically delineated with contours tracing the boundaries of the ROIs in the image. Delineation can be performed automatically …”; [0026]; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lachaine with the teaching of Bharat by having an annotated reference ROI applied to each of the one or more reference representations in order to more accurate determine the motion of the anatomical region of interest.
-Regarding claim 7, Lachaine discloses the method of claim 1.
Lachaine does not disclose wherein said ROI labelled 3D representation is configured to be input to a display, wherein said display is configured to allow a user to adjust said region of interest via control inputs to the ROI generation processor, wherein the control inputs utilizes an adjustment of at least the borders of the ROI label of the ROI labelled 3D representation.
In the same field of endeavor, Bharat teaches a method for representation tracking-based motion management (Bharat: Abstract; FIGS. 1-3). Bharat further teaches wherein said ROI labelled 3D representation is configured to be input to a display, wherein said display is configured to allow a user to adjust said region of interest via control inputs to the ROI generation processor, wherein the control inputs utilizes an adjustment of at least the borders of the ROI label of the ROI labelled 3D representation (Bharat: FIG. 1; [0025]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lachaine with the teaching of Bharat by adjusting said region of interest in order to more accurate determine the motion of the anatomical region of interest.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachaine (US 20190080459 A1) in view of Lampotang et al (US 20220133284 A1), hereinafter Lampotang, and further in view of Bharat et al (US 20160016007 A1), hereinafter Bharat.
-Regarding claim 17, Lachaine in view of Lampotang teaches the method of claim 2.
Lachaine in view of Lampotang does not teach the one or more reference representations each having an annotated reference ROI applied thereto.
However, Bharat is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application and teaches a method for representation tracking-based motion management (Bharat: Abstract; FIGS. 1-3). Bharat further teaches the one or more reference representations each having an annotated reference ROI applied thereto (Bharat: FIG. 1; [0025], “delineates one or more regions of interest (ROIs) in the image, such as a target and/or OARs. The ROIs are typically delineated with contours tracing the boundaries of the ROIs in the image. Delineation can be performed automatically …”; [0026]; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lachaine in view of Lampotang with the teaching of Bharat by having an annotated reference ROI applied to each of the one or more reference representations in order to more accurate determine the motion of the anatomical region of interest.
-Regarding claim 18, Lachaine in view of Lampotang teaches the method of claim 3.
Lachaine in view of Lampotang does not teach the one or more reference representations each having an annotated reference ROI applied thereto.
However, Bharat is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application and teaches a method for representation tracking-based motion management (Bharat: Abstract; FIGS. 1-3). Bharat further teaches the one or more reference representations each having an annotated reference ROI applied thereto (Bharat: FIG. 1; [0025], “delineates one or more regions of interest (ROIs) in the image, such as a target and/or OARs. The ROIs are typically delineated with contours tracing the boundaries of the ROIs in the image. Delineation can be performed automatically …”; [0026]; [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lachaine in view of Lampotang with the teaching of Bharat by having an annotated reference ROI applied to each of the one or more reference representations in order to more accurate determine the motion of the anatomical region of interest.
-Regarding claim 20, Lachaine in view of Lampotang teaches the method of claim 2.
Lachaine in view of Lampotang does not teach wherein said ROI labelled 3D representation is configured to be input to a display, wherein said display is configured to allow a user to adjust said region of interest via control inputs to the ROI generation processor, wherein the control inputs utilizes an adjustment of at least the borders of the ROI label of the ROI labelled 3D representation.
However, Bharat is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application and teaches a method for representation tracking-based motion management (Bharat: Abstract; FIGS. 1-3). Bharat further teaches wherein said ROI labelled 3D representation is configured to be input to a display, wherein said display is configured to allow a user to adjust said region of interest via control inputs to the ROI generation processor, wherein the control inputs utilizes an adjustment of at least the borders of the ROI label of the ROI labelled 3D representation (Bharat: FIG. 1; [0025]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lachaine in view of Lampotang with the teaching of Bharat by adjusting said region of interest in order to more accurate determine the motion of the anatomical region of interest.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/07/2026 to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and in response to applicant's argument that Lachine fail to teach or suggest the claimed features of “utiliz[ing] said stored ROI descriptive data and said 3D representation to generate a ROI labelled 3D representation.” (Remarks: page 11, 2nd paragraph; Supplement Remarks: Page 7, 3rd paragraph), claim 1 recites “wherein the ROI labelled 3D surface representation is the 3D surface representation of the patient having a ROI applied thereto” meaning that “ROI labelled 3D surface representation” is generated by applying “a ROI” to the “the 3D surface representation”. On the other hand, Lachaine discloses stored region of interest (ROI) descriptive data (FIGS. 4, 5; [0038], “anatomical region of interest - a kidney of a patient, indicated by contours 412, 414, and 416 …”; [0040], “contour(s) to the 3D surface image of target 320 acquired prior to the treatment session”) and utilizing said stored ROI descriptive data (FIG. 5, sets of contour elements 512, 512 and 514; FIG.6, steps 620-640) and said 3D representation (FIG. 5, 3D surface image 520) to generate a ROI labelled 3D representation (FIG. 5; FIG. 6, steps 610-640; [0020]; [0040]), wherein the ROI labelled 3D representation is the 3D representation of the patient having a ROI applied thereto (FIG. 5; [0020], “the segmented contour(s) may be matched to a 3D surface image of the target that is acquired prior to the treatment session … its original position … ” ; [0040], “matching the contour(s) to the 3D surface image of target 320 acquired prior to the treatment session … When no motion occurs (e.g. neither displacement nor rotation occurs) between the acquisition of the 3D image from which 3D surface image 520 is extracted and the acquisition of each of the 2D images from which the set contour elements 512, 514, or 516 is extract, the three sets of contour elements 512, 514, and 516 should substantially match the 3D surface image 520”). See also this office action, page 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XIAO LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-4539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:30-4:30.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/XIAO LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights