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 .
The examiner notes that claims 1-52 were cancelled in the pre-liminary amendment filed on Oct. 11, 2024. New claims 53-73 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 18, 2024 is being considered by the examiner. However, the #1 and #3 references under Non-Patent Literature Documents are not being considered because the documents do not disclose a date [at least the year] of the documents (See MPEP 609.01).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 59 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “(DOF” should be change to --(DOF)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 71 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, change “said camera” to --a camera-- in order to avoid insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 53-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a)Regarding claim 53, the claim states: “…wherein, the constraint comprises a relative restriction to provide a suppression of false motions and/or detection errors…” It is not clear from the claim if the “relative restriction” provides just of one false motions or detection errors or having both false motions and detection errors.
For examination purposes, the examiner is taking position that the “a relative restriction to provide a suppression of false motions or detection errors”. Since claims 54-70 depend from claim 53, they also are rejected for the above reason.
b)Regarding claim 55, the claim states: “…at least one parameter comprises a location parameter, an orientation parameter, an extent parameter, a distance parameter and/or a combination comprising at least one of the mentioned parameters …” It is not clear from the claim if the “at least one parameter” comprising one of the items or all of the items.
For examination purposes, the examiner is taking position the claim is using “or” and that the “at least one parameter” consists of only one item and not all.
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) 53, 71 and 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al (US Pub 2018/0070904).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
534
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 53, Yu et al disclose [see Figs. 1 & 7 above] a method of motion tracking of a subject (subject 110) located in a scanner (scanner 108) [see paragraph [0053] for details], the method comprising: generating a baseline 3D surface representation of a surface region of the subject (110) at a first point of time (T(0)) [see block 704 and paragraphs [0075] [0101] and [0111] for details], generating a subsequent 3D surface representation of the surface region of the subject (110) at a subsequent point of time (T(s))[see paragraphs [0101] and [0112] for details], determining a best-fit registration of the subsequent 3D surface representation with at least one constraint relative to the baseline 3D surface representation [see block 712 and paragraphs [0102] and [0081] for details], determining at least one motion tracking parameter [see block 730 and paragraph [0102] for details], wherein, the constraint comprises a relative restriction to provide a suppression of false motions or detection errors [see paragraphs [0102] and [0167] for details], wherein the relative restriction is a function of a difference between respective location(s) of the baseline 3D surface representation and corresponding respective location(s) of the subsequent 3D surface representation.
Regarding claim 71, Yu et al disclose [see Figs 1 & 7 above] a motion tracking apparatus (motion tracking system 100) for motion tracking of a subject (subject 110) located in a scanner (scanner 108), the motion tracking apparatus (100) comprising: an acquisition arrangement (detectors 102) configured for acquiring a 3D surface representation of a surface region of the subject (110) [see paragraph [0075] for details]; a computer system [see Fig. 34 and paragraphs [0008], and [0171]-[0177] for details] in data communication with said acquisition arrangement (102) for receiving data representing said 3D surface representation, wherein the computer system is configured for i. receiving data representing a 3D surface representation acquired by a camera (detector 102) arrangement at a first point of time and generating a baseline 3D surface representation of the surface region of the subject (110) [see paragraph [0111] for details]; ii. associating at least one virtual feature to a ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation; iii. receiving data representing a 3D surface representation acquired by said acquisition arrangement at a subsequent time and generating a subsequent 3D surface representation of the surface region of the subject (110) [see paragraph [0075] for details] and iv. determining at least one motion tracking parameter comprising determining a best-fit registration of the subsequent 3D surface representation with a constraint relative to the baseline 3D surface representation [see block 712 and paragraphs [0102] for details], wherein the constraint comprises a restriction of change of at least one parameter of said at least one virtual feature associated to a corresponding ROI of the best-fit subsequent 3D surface representation relative to the at least one parameter of the at least one virtual feature associated to the ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation [see paragraphs [0080]-[0081] for details], and wherein the computer system [see Fig. 34 and paragraphs [0008], and [0171]-[0177] for details] is configured for carrying out the method of claim 53.
Regarding claim 73, Yu et al disclose wherein the computer system [see Fig. 34 and paragraphs [0008], and [0171]-[0177] for details] is configured for receiving user instructions or acquiring instruction from a database (database 1704) [see paragraphs [0150 and 0175] for details] relating to at least one of: -a criterion associated to the scanning procedure to be run by the scanner (scanner 108), a criterion associated to the subject (110) or a criterion associated to a location and/or body part to be scanned [via item 108] or- at least one of number N of constrains associated virtual feature(s) to be applied, respective baseline parameter(s) of said respectively virtual features, number X of DOFs of said respective constraint and at least one weight attribute associated to said constraints.
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) 54-65 and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US Pub 2018/0070904) in view of Biber (US Pub 2014/0073904).
PNG
media_image3.png
533
715
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
708
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 54, Yu et al disclose (New) The method of claim 53, wherein the method of determining the best-fit registration comprises selecting at least one virtual feature [see paragraph [0059] for details]. However, the prior art does not disclose a restriction of change of at least one parameter of said at least one virtual feature associated to a corresponding ROI as claimed. Biber discloses associating said at least one virtual feature to a ROI (region of interest) of the baseline 3D surface representation, wherein the constraint comprises a restriction of change of at least one parameter of said at least one virtual feature associated to a corresponding ROI of the best-fit subsequent 3D surface representation relative to the at least one parameter of the at least one virtual feature associated to the ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation[see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] where certain trajectories restrict movements]. Further, Biber teaches that the addition of a restriction of change of at least one parameter of said at least one virtual feature is advantageous because the number of the movements of the patient ascertained by means of the model calculation and/or the fitting method can be reduced and preferably restricted to one probable movement of the patient.. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Yu et al by adding a restriction of change of at least one parameter of said at least one virtual feature as taught by Biber in order to reduced and preferably restricted the probable movement of the patient.
Regarding claim 55, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has said at least one parameter comprises a location parameter [position see paragraphs [0012]-[0014] for details], an orientation parameter, an extent parameter, a distance parameter or a combination comprising at least one of the mentioned parameters of said at least one virtual feature associated to said ROI.
Regarding claim 56, Yu et al disclose wherein said at least one virtual features comprises at least one of a virtual point, a virtual volume, a virtual area, a virtual line, a virtual bone structure [see paragraph [0059] for details] or any combination comprising one or more of the mentioned virtual features [see paragraph [0010] for details].
Regarding claim 57, Yu et al disclose wherein the ROI is a sub-region or a set of sub-regions of the baseline 3D surface representation corresponding to actual sub-region (s) of the surface region or corresponding to actual sub-region(s) of a portion of the subject at least partly correlated with actual sub-region (s) of the surface region [see Yu et al claims 30 and 36 for details].
Regarding claim 58, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the constraint comprises providing that the at least one virtual feature associated to the corresponding ROI of the best-fit registered subsequent 3D surface representation has been transformed compared to what it would have been without the at least one constraint, wherein said transformed virtual feature(s) comprises a transformation of said at least one parameter, wherein the transformation comprises at least one restriction of said at least one parameter [see paragraph [0022] where certain trajectories restrict movements].
Regarding claim 59, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the constraint has at least one degree of freedom (DOF) selected from a translation axis and a rotation axis [see paragraph [0022] where the fitting method could be limited to a predetermined movement trajectory].
Regarding claim 60, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the constraint is an X DOF constraint, wherein X is an integer from 1-6 [see paragraph [0022] where the fitting method could be limited to a predetermined movement trajectory].
Regarding claim 61, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the constraint is associated to at least one weight attribute representing at least one weight value of the constraint [see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] where the movement data must lie on the movement trajectory].
Regarding claim 62, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the constraint is associated to a set of weight attributes comprising at least 2 weight attributes each having a weight value, wherein the weight value of the respective weight attributes of the set of weight attributes are derived from a modelling of expected movements of the at least one virtual feature associated to the at least one ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation by movement of an anatomical model of a body part of the subject comprising said surface region [see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] where it discloses possible movements/model calculation].
Regarding claim 63, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the value of the respective weight attributes of the set of weight attributes are dynamically adjusted in dependence of the subsequent 3D surface representation of the surface region[see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] where the movement data must lie on the movement trajectory].
Regarding claim 64, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the at least one virtual feature as associated to the ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation is spatially located at the surface region or at a distance further from the surface region than an acquisition arrangement acquiring reflected light from the surface region for generating the respective surface representations wherein the at least one virtual feature as associated to the ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation is spatially located between the surface region and a bearing supporting the subject [see paragraph [0022] where certain trajectories restrict movements].
Regarding claim 65, Yu et al disclose wherein the surface region comprises a surface region of 65. a body part of the subject, wherein the virtual feature comprises a virtual point, a virtual line or a virtual bone structure [see paragraph [0059] for details], which at a first point of time is located inside a volume of the body part and wherein the parameter comprises a location parameter, an orientation parameter or a distance parameter [see paragraph [0010] for details].
Regarding claim 67, Yu et al in view of Biber disclose that Biber has the method comprises selecting a plurality of constraints for one or more virtual features, comprising selecting at least one weight attribute for each of said respective constraints, where the weight of the respective constraints are selected in dependence of the parameter of the constraint and the baseline parameter [see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] where it discloses possible movements/model calculation].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 66, 68-70 and 72 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 66, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to the surface region comprises a surface region of 66. a body part of the subject, wherein the virtual feature comprises a virtual volume and/or a virtual area, which at the first point of time is located at the surface region and/or at least partly inside the volume of the body part and wherein the parameter comprises a location parameter, an orientation parameter and/or an extent parameter, wherein the method comprises selecting the at least one virtual feature with a feature spatial location at the first point of time T(0), by providing estimated movements of the subject during a scanning section and selecting the at least one virtual feature with the feature spatial location at the first point of time T(0), which is subjected to less parameter changes than other virtual features of the subject and/or to be a virtual feature with the feature spatial location subjected to parameter changes below a preselected level.
Regarding claim 68, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to providing a trained computer comprising a method of training a computer for selecting the at least one virtual feature associated to the ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation, and the at least one constraint using sets of reference data, wherein each reference data set comprises reference data representing previously determined or modelled motions of a reference subject correlated to reference data representing determined or modelled motions of a reference surface region, wherein the reference surface region is a surface of a reference body part of said reference subject. Since claim 69 depends from claim 68, it also has allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 70, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to the surface region is a surface region of a body part comprising a body portion to be scanned, and wherein the at least one virtual feature comprises a cloud of points located inside the body part at locations determined by a Gaussian function around a central location of the body part, wherein the ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation corresponds to a set of locations at the surface region and wherein at least a set of points of the cloud points are associated to the ROI of the baseline 3D surface representation.
Regarding claim 72, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to the motion tracking apparatus comprises a trained computer, wherein the trained computer has been trained for selecting at least one of a number N of constrains and associated virtual features to be applied, respective baseline parameter(s) of said respectively virtual features, a number X of DOFs of said respective constraint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858