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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hseih et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0350081), hereinafter “Hsieh”
Regarding claim 13, Hseih 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 a quantity related to a body motion of the subject (determine amount of motion using the captured video frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]) and calculating an indicator of the body motion by using the quantity and a coefficient 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]);
estimating the state of the subject by using the indicator of the body motion (determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [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]).
Regarding claim 14, Hseih 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]).
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.
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 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 as being unpatentable over 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.”
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]);
one or more processors (one or more processors configured to perform the operations of the medical imaging system, [0057], [0072]-[0074]) configured to 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]) and analyze a motion of the subject (analyze motion of the subject in the captured video image frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]);
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]),
wherein one or more processors (one or more processors configured to perform the operations of the medical imaging system, [0057], [0072]-[0074]) are configured to
calculate a quantity related to a body motion of the subject by using the video from the imaging device (determine amount of motion using the captured video frames, [0016]-[0023], [0037]-[0040]) and calculate an indicator of the body motion by using the quantity and a coefficient 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]), and
estimate a state of the subject by using the indicator of the body motion calculated by the body motion indicator calculation section (determine whether the subject is in a suitable or unsuitable state using the determined motion, [0022]-[0024], [0034]-[0036], [0038]-[0051], [0062]), and
the display control unit outputs alert information to the console based on an estimation result of the patient state estimation section (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.
Regarding claim 2, Hseih 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 3, Hseih discloses the one or more processors are configured to calculate an amplitude and a duration time of the body motion of the subject as the quantity related to the body motion and calculate the indicator by using the amplitude and the duration time of the body motion (determine motion using the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0038], [0060], [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Hseih discloses the coefficient is a weighting value for the amplitude and the duration time of the body motion (motion sensitivity weights the amount of motion and the time over which the motion occurs, [0033]-[0036], [0038], [0060], [0066]).
Regarding claim 8, Hseih 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, Hseih 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, Hseih 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, Hseih does not appear to disclose the user interface unit receives adjustment of the coefficient 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 coefficient 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 Hseih’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, Hseih 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]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hseih in further view of Kwon as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Solf et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0299747), hereinafter “Solf.”
Regarding claim 5, Hseih 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 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, Hseih 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 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 Hseih in further view of Kwon’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, Hseih 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 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, Hseih 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 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 Hseih in further view of Kwon’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, Hseih 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, Hseih 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 Hseih in further view of Kwon’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 Hseih in further view of Kwon 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, Hseih discloses the imaging unit is a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (medical imaging device is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, [0010]).
However, Hseih 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 Hseih in further view of Kwon’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].
Conclusion
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 M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798