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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a calculation processing part claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: RADIOTHERAPY DEVICE COMPRISING A POSITIONING DEVICE, AND POSITIONING METHOD.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 1] (Proposed Amendments) A positioning device that controls a position of a treatment-couch on which a subject is mounted, the positioning device comprising:
an image acquisition part that acquires a plurality of fluoroscopic images obtained by imaging the subject by detecting, on a detection surface via the subject, light from a light source for each of a plurality of imaging axes;
a creation part that creates, for each of the plurality of imaging axes, a simulated fluoroscopic image obtained by projecting a three-dimensional fluoroscopic image of the subject onto the detection surface with respect to [[the]] each imaging axis of the plurality of imaging axes (a previously recited limitation); and
a calculation processing part that obtains, for each of the plurality of imaging axes, a correction axis obtained by correcting [[the]] each imaging axis of the plurality of imaging axes based on a deviation amount between [[the]] a fluoroscopic image of the plurality of fluoroscopic images and the simulated fluoroscopic image corresponding to [[the]] each imaging axis of the plurality of imaging axes, and calculates, as a treatment-couch motion amount by which the treatment-couch is to be moved, a motion amount from an intersection of the plurality of imaging axes to a midpoint of a common perpendicular of [[the]] correction axes (a lack of an antecedent basis).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 2] (Proposed Amendments) The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein 41 the calculation processing part further obtains, as the correction axis, an axis connecting a position, where the intersection of the plurality of imaging axes (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) is moved by the deviation amount, to the light source, for each of the plurality of imaging axes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 3] (Proposed Amendments) The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the calculation processing part further calculates the deviation amount based on a position of a peak of a phase-only correlation function calculated from the fluoroscopic image and the simulated fluoroscopic image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 4] (Proposed Amendments) The positioning device according to claim 3, wherein the calculation processing part further calculates the phase-only correlation function from a region of interest set on the fluoroscopic image and the simulated fluoroscopic image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 5] (Proposed Amendments) The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a length of the common perpendicular is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the calculation processing part changes at least one of the fluoroscopic image and the simulated fluoroscopic image to redetermine the correction axis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 6] (Proposed Amendments) The positioning device according to claim 5, wherein the calculation processing part changes at least one of the fluoroscopic image and the simulated fluoroscopic image by performing predetermined image processing on at least one of the fluoroscopic image and the simulated fluoroscopic image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 7] (Proposed Amendments) The positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the calculation processing part further calculates motion amounts in a translation direction and a rotation direction of the treatment-couch based on a similarity between each corrected simulated fluoroscopic image obtained by correcting each simulated fluoroscopic image based on the treatment-couch motion amount, and each fluoroscopic image of the plurality of fluoroscopic images (a previously recited limitation in claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 8] (Proposed Amendments) A radiotherapy device, comprising:
the positioning device according to claim 1;
a treatment-couch control system that moves the treatment-couch based on [[a]] the treatment-couch motion amount (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) calculated by the calculation processing part (a previously recited limitation in claim 1); and
an irradiation device that uses radiation to irradiate a subject mounted on the moved treatment-couch.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 9] (Proposed Amendments) A positioning method using a positioning device that controls a position of a treatment-couch on which a subject is mounted, the positioning method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of fluoroscopic images obtained by imaging the subject by receiving, on a detection surface via the subject, light from a light source for each of a plurality of imaging axes;
creating, for each of the plurality of imaging axes, a simulated fluoroscopic image obtained by projecting a three-dimensional fluoroscopic image of the subject onto the detection surface with respect to [[the]] each imaging axis of the plurality of imaging axes; [[and]]
obtaining, for each of the plurality of imaging axes, a correction axis obtained by correcting [[the]] each imaging axis of the plurality of imaging axes based on a deviation amount between [[the]] a fluoroscopic image of the plurality of fluoroscopic images and the simulated fluoroscopic image corresponding to [[the]] each imaging axis of the plurality of imaging axes, and
calculating, as a treatment-couch motion amount by which the treatment-couch is to be moved, a motion amount from the foot to a midpoint of a common perpendicular of each correction axis.
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 a 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 a 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 limitations use 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 limitations are: an image acquisition part, a creation part, a calculation processing part, a treatment-couch control system, and an irradiation device in claims 1-8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1 recites a limitation “the imaging axis” in lines 11-12, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of imaging axes” in line 7.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the imaging axis” in line 15, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of imaging axes” in line 7.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the fluoroscopic image” in line 16, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of fluoroscopic images” in lines 4-5.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the imaging axis” in line 17, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of imaging axes” in line 7.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the correction axes” in line 21, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a correction axis” in line 14.
Claim 3 recites a limitation “the fluoroscopic image” in line 4, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of fluoroscopic images” in lines 4-5.
Claim 4 recites a limitation “the fluoroscopic image” in lines 3-4, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of fluoroscopic images” in lines 4-5.
Claim 5 recites a limitation “the fluoroscopic image” in lines 4-5, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of fluoroscopic images” in lines 4-5.
Claim 6 recites a limitation “the fluoroscopic image” in lines 2-3, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of fluoroscopic images” in lines 4-5.
Claim 6 recites a limitation “the fluoroscopic image” in line 5, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of fluoroscopic images” in lines 4-5.
Claim 9 recites a limitation “the imaging axis” in line 11, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 9 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of imaging axes” in lines 6-7.
Claim 9 recites a limitation “the imaging axis” in line 13, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 9 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of imaging axes” in lines 6-7.
Claim 9 recites a limitation “the imaging axis” in lines 15-16, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claim 9 previously recites a limitation “a plurality of imaging axes” in lines 6-7.
Claim 9 recites a limitation “the foot” in line 18, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirai et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,364,877 B2) disclosed a treatment system comprising a medical device and a medical image-processing device, and a storage medium.
Thompson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,257,455 B2) disclosed a virtual port image for a treatment setup in a radiation therapy system.
Sakata et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,165,321 B2) disclosed a treatment system comprising a medical device and a medical image-processing device, and a storage medium.
Jordan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,128,252 B2) disclosed a management of a motion of a target of a no-view inter-fraction treatment using volumetric imaging.
Karasawa et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,059,579 B2) disclosed a treatment system comprising a medical image-processing device, and a storage medium.
Miyazaki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,660,471 B2) disclosed a radiation therapy system.
Fujii et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,446,520 B2) disclosed a radiation therapy apparatus configured to track a tracking object moving in an irradiation object.
Fujii et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,439,848 B2) disclosed a radiation irradiating system and a moving object tracking system.
Miyazaki et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,049,252 B2) disclosed a radiotherapy system comprising an apparatus for tracking a moving object, and a method for tracking a moving object.
Haas et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,918,885 B2) disclosed systems, methods, and devices for an automated generation of a target volume.
Takahashi (U. S. Patent No. 10,722,733 B2) disclosed a positioning apparatus and a method of positioning.
Miyamoto et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,616,249 B2) disclosed a control apparatus and a control program for a radiotherapy.
Ebisawa (U. S. Patent No. 9,514,538 B2) disclosed a pupil detection method, a corneal reflex detection method, a facial posture detection method, and a pupil tracking method.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,835,500 B2) disclosed a multi-phase registration of 2-D X-ray images to 3-D volume studies.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,831,073 B2) disclosed a precision registration of X-ray images to a cone-beam CT scan for an image-guided radiation treatment.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,684,647 B2) disclosed tracking a rigid body for a radiosurgery.
Raanes et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,623,623 B2) disclosed non-collocated imaging and a treatment in systems for image-guided radiation treatments.
Bodduluri (U. S. Patent No. 7,620,144 B2) disclosed a parallel stereo-vision geometry in an image-guided radiosurgery.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,522,779 B2) disclosed an image enhancement method and a system for fiducial-less tracking of treatment targets.
Chen et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,453,984 B2) disclosed a real-time confirmation of a target for a radiation therapy.
Urano et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,436,928 B2) disclosed a radiotherapy device comprising a control apparatus and a radiation irradiation method.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,426,318 B2) disclosed a generation of a motion field for a registration of a non-rigid image.
Schildkraut et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,418,079 B2) disclosed a system for a real-time detection of targets for a radiation therapy.
Wofford et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,415,095 B2) disclosed a system and a method utilizing a framework of an adaptive radiation therapy.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,366,278 B2) disclosed a generation of a digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) using a non-linear attenuation model.
Wang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,330,578 B2) disclosed a generation of a digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) and an enhancement using a dedicated graphics device.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,327,865 B2) disclosed fiducial-less tracking with a non-rigid image registration.
Kuduvalli (U. S. Patent No. 7,315,636 B2) disclosed a generation of reconstructed images.
Carrano et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,302,033 B2) disclosed an imaging geometry for an image-guided radiosurgery.
Schweikard et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,260,426 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus for tracking an internal target region without an implanted fiducial.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,231,076 B2) disclosed a selection of a region of interest (ROI) in an image registration.
Fu et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,187,792 B2) disclosed an apparatus and a method for determining a measure of a similarity between images.
Mitschke et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,010,080 B2) disclosed a method for an automatic marker-free fusion of 2-D fluoroscopic images with 3-D pre-operative images using an intraoperatively obtained 3-D data record.
Grzeszczuk (U. S. Patent No. 6,907,281 B2) disclosed fast mapping of volumetric density data onto a two-dimensional screen.
Blumhofer et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,865,253 B2) disclosed a method and a device for accurately positioning a patient in a radiosurgery and/or a radiotherapy.
Grzeszczuk et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,714,810 B2) disclosed a fluoroscopic registration system and a method.
Shahidi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,674,833 B2) disclosed a virtual fluoroscopic system and a method.
Fröhlich et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,516,046 B1) disclosed exact patient positioning by comparing X-ray reconstructed images and X-ray LINAC images.
Murphy et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,901,199 A) disclosed a high-speed inter-modality image-registration via matching an iterative feature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov