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 5/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Hsieh does not suggest a system or means directed to patient safety monitoring.” Remarks at 10. Contrary to Applicant’s contention, Hseih discloses that a patient motion state that is determined to be unsuitable requires aborting/terminating the imaging procedure. That the imaging procedure is aborted/terminated is directed to patient safety. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly introduced subject matter in amended claims 1 and 13 (Remarks at 10-12) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As detailed in infra rejections: claims 1-2, 8-11, and 15 are rejected over the combination of Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik; claims 5-7 are rejected over the combination of Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik in further view of Solf; claim 12 is rejected over the combination of Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik in further view of Sui; and claims 13-14 are rejected over the combination of Hsieh in further view of Samalik.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350081), hereinafter “Hsieh,” in further view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0268550 having priority to KR10-2023-0025288 filed 2/24/2023), hereinafter “Kwon,” in further view of Samalik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0304645), hereinafter “Samalik.”
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh discloses an image diagnostic apparatus (system to provide motion-gated medical imaging using a medical imaging device apparatus, Abstract; see also medical imaging device such as a MRI device, [0010]) comprising:
a gantry that provides an examination space (medical imaging device includes a gantry and scanning table for performing imaging in a scan range, [0010]-[0015]);
an imaging unit that images a subject disposed in the examination space (medical imaging device images a subject on the scanning table in the scan range, [0010]-[0015]);
a console that is installed at a location different from the gantry (console is separate from the gantry, [0010]-[0011], [0014], Fig. 1) and has a user interface function (console has a user interface, [0015], [0027]); and
a display control unit that controls an output to the console (operator console has a user interface such as a display, [0015]; logic controls display output to the console, [0026]-[0027]; logic is a control unit such as one or more processors, [0020], [0056]-[0057], [0074]); and
one or more processors configured to (one or more processors configured to perform the operations of the medical imaging system, [0057], [0072]-[0074])
acquire a video from an imaging device which images an inside of the gantry (sensor device including an image capture device such as an optical camera which captures video image frames of the subject on the scanning table in the scan range inside the gantry, [0016]-[0019], [0029]-[0030], [0037]),
analyze a motion of the subject (analyze motion of the subject in the captured video image frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]),
calculate, as a quantity related to a body motion of the subject, an amplitude and a duration time of the body motion of the subject, by using the video from the imaging device (determine motion using the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0038], [0060], [0066]; (determine amount, vector, and curve of motion over time using the captured video frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040], [0060], [0066])
calculate, as an indicator of the body motion, an indicator representing a dangerous state of the subject by applying, to the amplitude and the duration time, a weighting value determined in advance based on an examination condition (determine motion using the amount of motion and a motion sensitivity determined based on the examined body part, [0033]-[0036]; determine motion using the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0038], [0060], [0066]; motion sensitivity weights the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0033]-[0036], [0038], [0060], [0066]; determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]), and
estimate a state of the subject by using the indicator of the body motion presenting the dangerous state (determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alerts are determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion based on a stored threshold, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]),
wherein the display control unit outputs alert information to the console based on an estimation result (logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alerts are determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]).
However, while Hsieh discloses the console is separate from the gantry, Hsieh may not explictly disclose that the console is installed at a location different from the gantry.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Kwon teaches a console that is installed at a location different from a gantry (workstation including an input interface and an output interface is installed at a location different from the x-ray irradiator, [0057]-[0058], Fig. 1; x-ray irradiator includes a gantry system, [0056], [0072], Figs .1, 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Kwon’s known technique of placing a workstation input and output interface at a location different from a gantry to Hsieh’s known apparatus placing a console separate from a gantry as shifting the position of the workstation/console does not modify the operation of the apparatus and console. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts.
However, while Hsieh in further view of Kwon teaches an indicator representing whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state, Hsieh in further view of Kwon does not appear to explictly teach an indicator representing a degree of a dangerous state.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Samalik teaches one or more processors configured to (processor receives optical images from a video camera and monitors patient movement, [0058]-[0059]) calculate, as an indicator of the body motion, an indicator representing a degree of a dangerous state of the subject (determine an amount of movement indicative of patient movement, determine whether the patient movement is above or below a first and/or second threshold adjusted by the structure to be imaged during medical imaging to determine the degree of dangerous movement including between no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement that requires aborting the medical imaging, [0059]-[0072]), and
estimate a state of the subject by using the indicator of the body motion presenting the degree of the dangerous state (determine an amount of movement indicative of patient movement, determine whether the patient movement is above or below a first and/or second threshold to determine the degree of dangerous movement state of the patient including between no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement that requires aborting the medical imaging and notify the patient and/or clinician, [0059]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Samalik’s known technique of monitoring and separating between degrees of motion states from least to most dangerous that require aborting medical imaging to Hsieh in further view of Kwon’s known apparatus of monitoring and separating motion states between suitable and unsuitable to achieve the predictable result that providing for motion indicators that give feedback for the motion states of no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement can reduce patient movement and reduce motion artifacts. See, e.g., Samalik, [0019], [0061], [0063], and [0068].
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh discloses the examination condition includes any one of a position and a posture of the subject in a case where the subject is inserted into the examination space, an examination body part, or presence or absence of medication pre-administration to the subject (determine motion using the amount of motion and a motion sensitivity determined based on the examined body part, [0033]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Hsieh discloses the one or more processors include an analysis control unit (logic controls whether alert issued and stopped as determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; logic is a control unit such as one or more processors, [0020], [0056]-[0057], [0074]), that controls analysis of the body motion (analyze motion of the subject in the captured video image frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]), and execution and stop of an alert output (logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alert issued and stopped as determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Hsieh discloses the analysis control unit (logic controls whether alert issued and stopped as determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; logic is a control unit such as one or more processors, [0020], [0056]-[0057], [0074]) controls the analysis of the body motion (analyze motion of the subject in the captured video image frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]) and the stop of the alert output (logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alert issued and stopped as determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]) based on a command from a user via the console (operator/user can control the analysis of body motion and output of alerts via the user interface of the console, [0011], [0013], [0012], [0015], [0027], [0031], [0032], [0033], [0041], [0071]).
Regarding claim 10, Hsieh discloses a user interface unit that is provided on at least one of the console or an outer surface of the gantry (console user interface, [0015], [0027]) and receives adjustment by a user (operator/user can control the analysis of body motion and output of alerts via the user interface of the console, [0011], [0013], [0012], [0015], [0027], [0031], [0032], [0033], [0041], [0071]).
However, Hsieh does not appear to disclose the user interface unit receives adjustment of the weighting value by a user.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Kwon teaches a user interface unit that is provided on at least one of the console or an outer surface of the gantry (user input interface provided at the workstation and/or on the outside of the gantry of the x-ray irradiator, [0070], [0079], [0091], Figs. 1, 3, 4) and receives adjustment of the weighting value by a user (motion detection sensitivity set according to a user input, [0118]-[0120]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Kwon’s known technique of providing a user interface for the user to adjust the motion detection sensitivity to Hsieh’s known apparatus providing a user interface for user input and a motion sensitivity adjustment for the motion detection to achieve the predictable result that this allows the apparatus to have expanded utility and not be limited to predetermined conditions such as the source to image distance, size and shape of the object, and an imaging protocol. See, e.g., Kwon, [0118].
Regarding claim 11, Hsieh discloses the quantity related to the body motion calculated by the one or more processors (one or more processors configured to perform the operations of the medical imaging system, [0057], [0072]-[0074]; determine amount of motion using the captured video frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]) includes vital information of the subject (captured body motion includes respiratory/breathing motion, [0017], [0045], [0047], [0052], [0069]), and
the display control unit console (operator console has a user interface such as a display, [0015]; logic controls display output to the console, [0026]-[0027]; logic is a control unit such as one or more processors, [0020], [0056]-[0057], [0074]) displays the vital information on a monitor of the console (display respiratory/breathing motion, [0026], [0053], [0070]).
Regarding claim 15, Hsieh discloses the one or more processors estimates the state of the subject by determining, based on the indicator, a body motion status, among a plurality of body motion statuses (determine motion using the amount of motion and a motion sensitivity determined based on the examined body part, [0033]-[0036]; determine motion using the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0038], [0060], [0066]; motion sensitivity weights the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0033]-[0036], [0038], [0060], [0066]; determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alerts are determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion based on a stored threshold, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]), and
wherein the display control unit outputs the alert information corresponding to the determined body motion status (logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alerts are determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]).
However, while Hsieh in further view of Kwon teaches a plurality of body motion statuses including a suitable or unsuitable state, Hsieh in further view of Kwon does not appear to explictly teach the plurality of body motion statuses, including at least an attention-required state and an accident occurrence state.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Samalik teaches the one or more processors estimates the state of the subject by determining, based on the indicator, a body motion status, among a plurality of body motion statuses, including at least an attention-required state and an accident occurrence state (determine an amount of movement indicative of patient movement, determine whether the patient movement is above or below a first and/or second threshold adjusted by the structure to be imaged during medical imaging to determine the degree of dangerous movement including between no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement that requires aborting the medical imaging, [0059]-[0072]), and
wherein the display control unit outputs the alert information corresponding to the determined body motion status (computing device/processor controls the display and outputs the alert information corresponding to the determined body movement status, [0033]-[0040], [0061], [0063]-[0066], [0068]-[0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Samalik’s known technique of monitoring and separating between degrees of motion states from least to most dangerous that require aborting medical imaging to Hsieh in further view of Kwon’s known apparatus of monitoring and separating motion states between suitable and unsuitable to achieve the predictable result that providing for motion indicators that give feedback for the motion states of no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement can reduce patient movement and reduce motion artifacts. See, e.g., Samalik, [0019], [0061], [0063], and [0068].
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Solf et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0299747), hereinafter “Solf.”
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh discloses the one or more processors (one or more processors configured to perform the operations of the medical imaging system, [0057], [0072]-[0074]; processor with memory, [0054], [0056], [0072], 0073]) are further configured to store a relationship between the indicator of the body motion, the state of the subject, and a control content set in advance (logic outputs a predetermined alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; which predetermined alert to display is determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]).
However, Hsieh does not appear to disclose the relationship is stored in a table.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Solf teaches the one or more processors (processor of an operator console, [0028]) are further configured to hold a table in which a relationship is set in advance (look up table is used to store preset messages/notifications for display on the console in relation to the physiological and/or behavioral state of the subject including subject motion captured via a camera/video recorder, [0032]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Solf’s known technique of storing message/notifications for display on the console and their relationship to the behavioral state of the subject including subject motion to Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik’s known apparatus configured to store alerts/messages/notifications for display on the console and their relationship to the suitable or unsuitable state of motion and the motion calculated from the amount of motion determined from video images captured using a camera to achieve the predictable result that this allows for improvement of the protocol by allowing for notifications that provide suitable adaptation to the protocol based on the gathered subject information. See, e.g., Solf, [0040].
Regarding claim 6, Hsieh discloses the one or more processors (one or more processors configured to perform the operations of the medical imaging system, [0057], [0072]-[0074]; processor with memory, [0054], [0056], [0072], 0073]) are further configured to refer to the stored relationship to estimate the state of the subject (determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion based on a stored threshold, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]).
However, Hsieh does not appear to disclose the stored relationship is referred from a table.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Solf teaches the one or more processors (processor of an operator console, [0028]) are further configured to refer to the relationship in a table (look up table is used to store preset messages/notifications for display on the console in relation to the physiological and/or behavioral state of the subject including subject motion captured via a camera/video recorder, [0032]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Solf’s known technique of storing message/notifications for display on the console and their relationship to the behavioral state of the subject including subject motion to Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik’s known apparatus configured to store alerts/messages/notifications for display on the console and their relationship to the suitable or unsuitable state of motion and the motion calculated from the amount of motion determined from video images captured using a camera to achieve the predictable result that this allows for improvement of the protocol by allowing for notifications that provide suitable adaptation to the protocol based on the gathered subject information. See, e.g., Solf, [0040].
Regarding claim 7, Hsieh discloses the display control unit console (operator console has a user interface such as a display, [0015]; logic controls display output to the console, [0026]-[0027]; logic is a control unit such as one or more processors, [0020], [0056]-[0057], [0074]), refers to the stored relationship to output the alert information in a case where the control content is alert issuance (logic outputs a predetermined alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; which predetermined alert to display is determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]).
However, Hsieh does not appear to disclose the stored relationship is referred from a table.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Solf teaches the display control unit (processor of an operator console including control of the display, [0028]) refers to the table to output the alert information in a case where the control content is alert issuance (look up table is used to store preset messages/notifications for display on the console in relation to the physiological and/or behavioral state of the subject including subject motion captured via a camera/video recorder, [0032]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Solf’s known technique of storing message/notifications for display on the console and their relationship to the behavioral state of the subject including subject motion to Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik’s known apparatus configured to store alerts/messages/notifications for display on the console and their relationship to the suitable or unsuitable state of motion and the motion calculated from the amount of motion determined from video images captured using a camera to achieve the predictable result that this allows for improvement of the protocol by allowing for notifications that provide suitable adaptation to the protocol based on the gathered subject information. See, e.g., Solf, [0040].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Sui et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0353517 sharing the same disclosure as WO2023027958A1), hereinafter “Sui.”
Regarding claim 12, Hsieh discloses the imaging unit is a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (medical imaging device is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, [0010]).
However, Hsieh does not appear to explictly disclose a magnetic field generation unit that generates a static magnetic field and a gradient magnetic field in the examination space, a transmission unit that irradiates the subject with a high-frequency magnetic field, and a reception unit that receives a nuclear magnetic resonance signal generated from the subject.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Sui teaches a magnetic field generation unit that generates a static magnetic field and a gradient magnetic field in the examination space (MRI system includes a B0 magnet for generating a static field and gradient coils for generating gradient magnetic fields in the target region of the imaged subject, [0035]-[0040]), a transmission unit that irradiates the subject with a high-frequency magnetic field (transmit coils for irradiating the subject with a high-frequency oscillating magnetic field, [0037], [0040]), and a reception unit that receives a nuclear magnetic resonance signal generated from the subject (receive coils receives MR signals from nuclear spins within the target region of the imaged subject, [0037], [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Sui’s known technique of the components of well-known, generally understood, ubiquitous, and routine magnetic resonance imaging devices comprising a static magnetic field magnet, gradient field coils, transmission coils, and reception coils to Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik’s known apparatus comprising a magnetic resonance imaging device to achieve the predictable result that such MRI devices can be readily incorporated into local and remotely controlled healthcare facilities. See, e.g., Sui, [0035]-[0036].
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh in further view of Kwon in further view of Samalik.
Regarding claim 13, Hsieh discloses a method of monitoring a patient during imaging (a method of motion-gated imaging capturing motion during scanning, Abstract), the method being for acquiring a video of a subject placed in an examination space of an image diagnostic apparatus (sensor device including an image capture device such as an optical camera which captures video image frames of the subject on the scanning table in the scan range inside the gantry, [0010]-[0019], [0029]-[0030], [0037]), observing a state of the subject (determine amount of motion using the captured video frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]; determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]), and issuing a necessary alert according to the state of the subject (logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alerts are determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]), the method comprising:
calculating, as a quantity related to a body motion of the subject, an amplitude and a duration time of the body motion of the subject (determine motion using the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0038], [0060], [0066]; (determine amount, vector, and curve of motion over time using the captured video frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040], [0060], [0066]);
calculating, as an indicator of the body motion, an indicator representing a dangerous state of the subject by applying, to the amplitude and the duration time, a weighting value determined in advance based on an examination condition (determine motion using the amount of motion and a motion sensitivity determined based on the examined body part, [0033]-[0036]; determine motion using the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0038], [0060], [0066]; motion sensitivity weights the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0033]-[0036], [0038], [0060], [0066]; determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]);
estimating the state of the subject by using the indicator representing the dangerous state (determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alerts are determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]; determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion based on a stored threshold, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]); and
performing a predetermined alert issuance control according to the estimated state of the subject (logic outputs an alert to the operator console for display by the user interface, [0027], [0071]; alerts are determined by whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]).
However, while Hsieh discloses an indicator representing whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state, Hsieh does not appear to explictly disclose an indicator representing a degree of a dangerous state.
However, in the same field of endeavor of diagnostic imaging, Samalik teaches calculating, as an indicator of the body motion, an indicator representing a degree of a dangerous state of the subject (determine an amount of movement indicative of patient movement, determine whether the patient movement is above or below a first and/or second threshold adjusted by the structure to be imaged during medical imaging to determine the degree of dangerous movement including between no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement that requires aborting the medical imaging, [0059]-[0072]); and
estimating the state of the subject by using the indicator representing the degree of the dangerous state (determine an amount of movement indicative of patient movement, determine whether the patient movement is above or below a first and/or second threshold to determine the degree of dangerous movement state of the patient including between no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement that requires aborting the medical imaging and notify the patient and/or clinician, [0059]-[0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Samalik’s known technique of monitoring and separating between degrees of motion states from least to most dangerous that require aborting medical imaging to Hsieh’s known process of monitoring and separating motion states between suitable and unsuitable to achieve the predictable result that providing for motion indicators that give feedback for the motion states of no/minimal movement, some non-dangerous movement, and dangerous movement can reduce patient movement and reduce motion artifacts. See, e.g., Samalik, [0019], [0061], [0063], and [0068].
Regarding claim 14, Hsieh discloses a control of stopping an operation of the image diagnostic apparatus is performed according to the estimated state of the subject (stop data acquisition automatically when the motion state of the subject is unsuitable, [0023], [0038], [0043], [0048], [0050], [0062]-[0065]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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 3, while Hsieh discloses the one or more processors calculates the indicator by multiplying the amplitude and duration time by the weighting value (motion sensitivity weights the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0033]-[0036], [0038], [0060], [0066]), Hsieh and the cited prior art does not appear to teach the one or more processors calculates the indicator by multiplying a product of the amplitude and the duration time by the weighting value.
Regarding claim 4, while Hsieh discloses applying a weighting value to the amplitude and duration time (motion sensitivity weights the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0033]-[0036], [0038], [0060], [0066]), Hsieh and the cited prior art does not appear to teach the weighting value includes a first weighting value applied to the amplitude and a second weighting value applied to the duration time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0111199 and KR20140049916A) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged including setting a second/different threshold for levels of movement such as negligible/ignorable and those requiring interruption of the imaging protocol.
Datta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0324977) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
Frost et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0337987) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
Nauts et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0059015) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
Torii (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0055473) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
Feiweier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0265219) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
Yamaguchi et al. (JP2012055474A) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
Yamaguchi (JP2012055475A) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
Yamaguchi et al. (JP2012075862A) discloses setting a motion threshold/sensitivity according to the type of protocol or body part being imaged.
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 Johnathan Maynard whose telephone number is (571)272-7977. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM.
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 571-270-1790. 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.
/J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights