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 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendments to the independent claims, previously-found reference of Holland has been incorporated into the rejection to teach correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts. Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments pages 9-10, that Holland teaches correcting motion artifacts caused by patient motion, not camera motion. Firstly, Holland does not explicitly teach that “motion artifacts”, taught in [0063], refers to patient motion. Although, conversely, it does not state that these artifacts are explicitly caused by camera motion, considering whether the patient or camera has moved is a matter of frame of reference. Patient or camera motion will equally result in motion artifacts in an image, and for a system able to correct motion artifacts, the correction process will be the same regardless of the source of the motion. Secondly, the imaging device of an MRI system being stationary does not prevent Holland from reading on the limitation. An MRI imaging device may experience motion from an external source, and, as stated above, the resultant artifact can still be corrected. Thirdly, Examiner asserts that Holland was introduced to teach that correcting motion artifacts is well-known in the art. Holland being drawn to MRI does not prevent it from being combined with the other references. Artifact correction is an image processing step, not an image acquisition step; regardless of the modality used to acquire an image, artifact correction can be applied to the image. Lastly, claim 68 defines aliasing as a camera motion-related imaging artifact. Based on the language of the claim, Holland teaching correcting aliasing teaches that it corrects a camera motion-related imaging artifact. For these reasons, Examiner upholds the use of Holland.
Claim Objections
Objections to the claims have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 10/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 10/21/2025.
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 67-68, 71, 77, 79, & 81-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2016/0206203) in view of Luhta (US 6,628,744), Hampton (US 2015/0035942), Holland (US 2010/0259263), and Gordon (US 5,768,331).
Regarding claim 67, Yu teaches a radiation therapy system comprising:
a rotatable ring (gantry 18, [0018]) that defines a longitudinal bore (scan area 24, [0018] & Figure 2) with a patient area therein (Figure 2);
a therapeutic radiation source (x-ray source, [0018]) coupled to the rotatable ring ([0018]);
a camera (cameras 16, [0020]) located within the longitudinal bore and coupled to the rotatable ring ([0023]), wherein the camera is configured to acquire camera image data of the patient area ([0026]) while the ring is rotating ([0023]); and
a controller (processor 26, [0014]) in communication with the rotatable ring ([0031]), therapeutic radiation source ([0031]), and camera ([0030]).
However, Yu fails to disclose that the rotatable ring is configured to rotate at a rate from 60 RPM to 200 RPM.
Luhta teaches that the rotatable ring is configured to rotate at a rate from 60 RPM to 200 RPM (Column 3, Lines 4-6).
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 system of Yu such that the rotatable ring is configured to rotate at a rate from 60 RPM to 200 RPM, as taught by Luhta. Rotating the camera around the patient at a high speed can ensure that any position changes of the patient can be measured in near real time.
However, Yu in view of Luhta fail to disclose that the therapeutic radiation source comprises a megavoltage (MV) X-ray source.
Hampton teaches that the therapeutic radiation source (radiation source 172, [0228]) comprises a megavoltage (MV) X-ray source ([0228]).
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 system of Yu such that the therapeutic radiation source comprises a megavoltage (MV) X-ray source, as taught by Hampton. The use of MV X-rays is well-known for therapeutic radiation procedures.
However, Yu in view of Luhta and Hampton fail to disclose that the controller is configured to correct camera motion-related imaging artifacts in the camera image data.
Holland teaches that the controller (computer 116, [0056]) is configured to correct camera motion-related imaging artifacts (image artifacts (e.g., motion artifacts), [0063]) in the camera image data ([0063]).
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 system of Yu, Luhta, and Hampton such that the controller is configured to correct camera motion-related imaging artifacts in the camera image data, as taught by Holland. Correcting motion artifacts will result in higher quality images, increasing the effectiveness of a diagnosis.
However, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, and Holland fail to disclose correcting artifacts by combining image data acquired by the camera over a plurality of camera revolutions around the patient for monitoring positional information of a patient within the patient area.
Gordon teaches correcting artifacts by combining image data acquired by the camera over a plurality of camera revolutions around the patient for monitoring positional information of a patient within the patient area (Column 2, Line 57-Column 3, Line 7 & Column 6, Line 37-Column 7, Line 20).
Although Gordon is drawn to patient motion, this is merely a frame of reference. Whether the patient moves during an image or the camera does, motion will still be depicted in the image. The artifact-correcting method of Gordon can be applied to correct the motion artifacts taught in Holland.
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 system of Yu, Luhta, Hampton, and Holland to include correcting artifacts by combining image data acquired by the camera over a plurality of camera revolutions around the patient for monitoring positional information of a patient within the patient area, as taught by Gordon. In the event that an imaging artifact occurs, substituting the image with the motion-related artifact with an image taken at the same position on the ring from a different revolution in which the patient did not move allows a higher quality reconstruction to be produced.
Regarding claim 68, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67.
Holland further teaches that camera motion-related imaging artifacts comprise spatial aliasing and temporal aliasing ([0063]).
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 system of Yu, Luhta, and Hampton such that camera motion-related artifacts comprise spatial aliasing and temporal aliasing, as taught by Holland. Aliasing is a common motion artifact in imaging, so correcting it will result in higher quality images.
Regarding claim 71, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67, and Yu further teaches a patient platform (bed 20, [0018]) that is movable within the patient area ([0018]).
Regarding claim 77, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67, and Yu further teaches that the camera is located adjacent to the therapeutic radiation source ([0018] & [0023]).
Paragraphs [0018] & [0023] teach that the x-ray source and cameras are coupled to the gantry, respectively. Because they are both mounted on the rotatable ring, the cameras and therapeutic radiation source can be considered “adjacent” to each other.
Regarding claim 79, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67, and Yu further teaches that the camera comprises a monoscopic or stereoscopic camera ([0020]).
Paragraph [0020] teaches that either a single or multiple cameras can be used. Using a single camera would comprise a monoscopic method while using multiple cameras would comprise a stereoscopic method.
Regarding claim 81, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67, and Yu further teaches that the camera comprises a radiofrequency camera (MR system, [0017]).
Paragraph [0017] teaches that the medical imaging system 14 may be an MR system. MR comprises obtaining imaging data using electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency range.
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 system of Yu to substitute the cameras 16 for an MR system. Using the x-ray source and cameras comprises a therapeutic source and an imaging source. Replacing the cameras with the MR system maintains this functionality, as the MR system is also able to obtain imaging data. Doing so provides an alternative modality by which to capture image data, and is within the scope and understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 82, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67, and Yu further teaches that the camera comprises a projection camera ([0034]).
Claims 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon, as applied to claim 67, above, in further view of Asento (US 2015/0257717).
Regarding claim 69, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67, and Yu further teaches a housing (housing on the gantry or detector 18, [0023]) disposed over the rotatable ring ([0023]), wherein the housing has a longitudinal lumen that corresponds with the bore (Figure 2).
Gordon further teaches correcting motion-related artifacts (Column 2, Line 57-Column 3, Line 7 & Column 6, Line 37-Column 7, Line 20).
However, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon fail to disclose that a surface of the longitudinal lumen comprises reference markings or reference structures, and wherein correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts uses images of the reference markings or reference structures acquired by the camera.
Asento teaches that a surface of the longitudinal lumen (scanner housing 78, [0146]) comprises reference markings or reference structures (fiducial marks 260, [0146] & fiducial marks 262, [0147) (Figures 18A-B).
By incorporating the fiducial marks of Asento into the housing of Yu, the images acquired by Gordon that are used to correct motion-related artifacts would contain the reference markings or reference structures.
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 system of Yu, Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon such that a surface of the longitudinal lumen comprises reference markings or reference structures, as taught by Asento. Because these markings are expected to remain in a constant position, they can be used as a frame of reference to both determine if patient movement has occurred and correct the movement.
Regarding claim 70, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Gordon, and Asento teach the system of claim 69, and Yu further teaches that the housing comprises a light-transmitting region along the surface of the longitudinal lumen, wherein the light-transmitting region corresponds with a field-of-view of the camera (“A window or opening is provided in the housing for capturing photos.”, [0023]).
Claims 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon, as applied to claim 67, above, in further view of Coppens (US 2008/0031414) and Pearce (US 2018/0133508).
Regarding claims 72-74, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 71, and Holland further teaches correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts ([0063]).
However, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon fail to disclose that a top surface of the patient platform comprises reference markings or reference structures, and wherein correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts uses images of the reference markings or reference structures acquired by the camera.
Coppens teaches that a top surface of the patient platform (couch top (2), [0037]) comprises reference markings or reference structures (markers (4), [0037]) (Figures 1 & 3-9).
By incorporating the markers of Coppens into the bed of Yu, the images acquired by Holland that are used to correct camera motion-related imaging artifacts would contain the reference markings or reference structures.
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 system of Yu, Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon such that a top surface of the patient platform comprises reference markings or reference structures, as taught by Coppens. Because these markings are expected to remain in a constant position, they can be used as a frame of reference to both determine if patient movement has occurred and correct the movement.
However, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, Gordon, and Coppens fail to disclose that an underside of the patient platform comprises reference markings or reference structures, and wherein correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts uses images of the reference markings or reference structures acquired by the camera.
Pearce teaches that an underside of the patient platform (patient platform (102), [0085) comprises reference markings or reference structures (optical markers (160), [0085]) (Figure 1F).
By incorporating the optical markers of Pearce into the bed of Yu, the images acquired by Holland that are used to correct camera motion-related imaging artifacts would contain the reference markings or reference structures.
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 system of Yu, Luhta, Hampton, Holland, Gordon, and Coppens such that an underside of the patient platform comprises reference markings or reference structures, as taught by Pearce. Per [0085] of Pearce, the optical markers are used to determine the amount of sag the patient platform undergoes when weighted with the patient, allowing motion artifacts to be identified and corrected.
Claims 75-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon, as applied to claim 67, above, in further view of Tang (US 2012/0209555).
Regarding claims 75-76, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67.
However, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon fail to disclose a gyroscope mounted adjacent to the camera to acquire vibration data, wherein correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts comprises using the vibration data with a compensatory algorithm to counteract the imaging artifacts, and wherein the gyroscope comprises a MEMS gyroscope.
Tang teaches a gyroscope (gyroscope 30, [0017]) mounted adjacent to the camera ([0015]) to acquire vibration data (angular velocity, angular acceleration, and/or angular jerk, [0032]), wherein correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts comprises using the vibration data with a compensatory algorithm to counteract the imaging artifacts ([0031]-[0032]), and wherein the gyroscope comprises a MEMS gyroscope ([0017]).
Paragraph [0015] teaches that the rotation sensor 12 (of which the gyroscope 30 is a part) “can be coupled to gantry 14”. When combined with Yu, which teaches mounting the camera on the gantry, the gyroscope would be mounted “near or adjacent to” the camera.
Paragraphs [0031]-[0032] teach that data from gyroscope 30 is used to correct the image data. It is assumed that image correction is performed with the use of an algorithm.
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 system of Yu, Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon to include a gyroscope mounted near or adjacent to the camera to acquire vibration data, wherein correcting camera motion-related imaging artifacts comprises using the vibration data with a compensatory algorithm to counteract the imaging artifacts, and wherein the gyroscope comprises a MEMS gyroscope, as taught by Tang. MEMS gyroscopes are well-known in the art to obtain motion data. When used with a rotating gantry, any abnormal motion will result in motion artifacts, so the ability to detect any abnormal motion with a gyroscope allows the artifacts to be corrected.
Claim 78 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon, as applied to claim 67, above, in further view of Wollenweber (US 2009/0003655).
Regarding claim 78, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67, and Yu further teaches a display (display 28, [0014]).
However, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon fail to disclose that the controller is configured to output a graphic representing the changes in positional information to the display.
Wollenweber teaches that the controller is configured to output a graphic representing the changes in positional information (graph of gross patient motion, [0039]) to the display (display, [0006]).
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 system of Yu, Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon such that the controller is configured to output a graphic representing the changes in positional information to the display, as taught by Wollenweber. This allows the operator to visualize the location and magnitude of patient movement, facilitating a more intuitive motion correction.
Claim 80 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon, as applied to claim 67, above, in further view of Guertin (US 2007/0003010).
Regarding claim 80, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon teach the system of claim 67.
However, Yu in view of Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon fail to disclose that the camera comprises an infrared camera.
Guertin teaches that the camera comprises an infrared camera (infrared position sensor, [0125]).
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 system of Yu, Luhta, Hampton, Holland, and Gordon such that the camera comprises an infrared camera, as taught by Guertin. Infrared cameras are well-known in the art for obtaining imaging data.
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, Jeffrey Hoekstra can be reached at (572)272-7232. 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