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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claims are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the offset characteristic value represents a positional offset of an anatomical structure of the scan subject relative to a reference position associated with the medical imaging system” in the application as filed (MPEP § 2163.04).
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The newly added term “reference” in claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are a term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reference” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a criteria, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Any position can be associated with the medical imaging system. However, the specification does not appear disclose any criteria for distinguishing a “reference” position from positions that are not reference.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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) 1-9, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boettger et al. (US 2017/0311842).
In regard to claim 1 in so far as understood, Boettger et al. disclose a method for automatic scan subject positioning in medical imaging, comprising the following steps:
(a) acquiring scan information of a scan subject to be imaged and determining a scan subject scanning feature (e.g., “… patient data of the patient for examination 103 such as a gender, a date of birth, a weight, a position, a height, a body mass index, an ethnicity and/or an age of the patient 103. The ascertainment device 107 is designed to ascertain the correction data based on previous manual positionings of the table 101 in conjunction with the corresponding patient data of the patient for examination 103 … While isocentering can be automatically approached with this method, the best longitudinal table position can be determined less deterministically from 3-D measured values but also depends on the desired clinical issue. Furthermore, the longitudinal table position depends on the preference of the operator, in particular, whether the operator would like to have a somewhat larger overview image across the target organs of the patient 103 in the topogram or whether the operator chooses the most concise topogram possible to reduce radiation exposure …” in paragraphs 85 and 139);
(b) identifying, on the basis of the scan subject scanning feature, a corresponding offset characteristic value from a mapping table between scanning features and offset characteristic values (e.g., “… ascertains the predetermined table position by entering an organ or body part of the patient for examination 103 based on a look-up table … ascertainment device 107 is, for example, likewise constituted … correct table position can be estimated in advance …” in paragraphs 83, 84, and 107); and
(c) adjusting, on the basis of the corresponding offset characteristic value, a target position of the scan subject during the automatic scan subject positioning (e.g., “… isocentering can be automatically approached with this method …” in paragraph 139),
wherein the offset characteristic value represents a positional offset (Fig. 1 shows that a “patient 103” located on top of a “… positionable table 101 …” and also shows a positional offset of the “patient 103” relative to the position of the “… positionable table 101 …”) of an anatomical structure (e.g., the “… organ or body part of the patient …” of paragraph 83 discloses that each of the “organ or body part” have a positional offset relative to the position of the “… positionable table 101 …”) of the scan subject relative to a position associated with the medical imaging system (e.g., see “… FIG. 1 shows a diagrammatic representation of a medical imaging device 100 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 81).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Boettger et al. also disclose that the mapping table is established via the following steps: acquiring historical imaging scan data, the historical imaging scan data comprising historical scan information and historical offsets associated with a plurality of scanning procedures (e.g., “… From this patient data, the correct table position can be estimated in advance, taking into account a demographic distribution … data of individual facilities with a patient population which is sufficiently similar in terms of physiognomy can be chosen selectively … database in the central data storage device makes it possible to ensure that upon delivery i.e. without a single patient 103 having been positioned thereon, imaging devices 100 are already able to usefully model the table position …” in paragraphs 107, 131, and 133); determining, from said historical scan information of each of said scanning procedures, a scanning feature of a scan subject of the scanning procedure, the scanning feature of the scan subject comprising an anatomical structure category of the scan subject (e.g., “… patient population in the USA has different properties to a patient population in Japan … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report …” in paragraphs 109 and 111); for the same scanning feature, calculating a statistical value of historical offsets thereof, and determining the statistical value or an inverse of the statistical value as an offset characteristic value corresponding to the scanning feature (e.g., “… average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics …” in paragraph 111); and generating a mapping table between different scanning features and offset characteristic values thereof (e.g., “… ascertains the predetermined table position by entering an organ or body part of the patient for examination 103 based on a look-up table … ascertainment device 107 is, for example, likewise constituted … correct table position can be estimated in advance …” in paragraphs 83, 84, and 107).
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 2, Boettger et al. also disclose that the historical scan information comprises a scanning protocol and/or a scanning descriptor, and the anatomical structure category of the scan subject is determined on the basis of the scanning protocol and/or the scanning descriptor (e.g., “… examination procedure … Depending on which organ characteristics such as, for example, head, liver or legs, are stored in a previously selected examination report … patient population in the USA has different properties to a patient population in Japan … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report …” in paragraphs 4, 5, 109, and 111).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 2, Boettger et al. also disclose that the scanning feature further comprises an age range, sex, and/or a body type of the scan subject, and the historical scan information comprises information for determining the age range, the sex, and/or the body type of the scan subject (e.g., “… patient data comprises a gender, a date of birth, a weight, a position, a height, a body mass index, an ethnicity and/or an age of the patient … From this patient data, the correct table position can be estimated in advance, taking into account a demographic distribution … data of individual facilities with a patient population which is sufficiently similar in terms of physiognomy can be chosen selectively … database in the central data storage device makes it possible to ensure that upon delivery i.e. without a single patient 103 having been positioned thereon, imaging devices 100 are already able to usefully model the table position …” in paragraphs 77, 107, 131, and 133).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 2, Boettger et al. also disclose that the historical scan information further comprises a positioning identifier for identifying whether manual positioning or automatic positioning is used in each scanning procedure, wherein the mapping table is generated only for scanning procedures using automatic positioning among the plurality of scanning procedures (e.g., “… enabling a manual readjustment of the table position to be omitted … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report …” in paragraphs 65 and 111).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Boettger et al. also disclose that the scanning feature comprises an anatomical structure category, the scan information comprises a scanning protocol and/or a scanning descriptor, and the step of determining a scan subject scanning feature comprises: determining an anatomical structure category of the scan subject on the basis of the scanning protocol and/or the scanning descriptor (e.g., “… examination procedure … Depending on which organ characteristics such as, for example, head, liver or legs, are stored in a previously selected examination report … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report …” in paragraphs 4, 5, and 111).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, Boettger et al. also disclose that the scanning feature comprises an anatomical structure category, the scan information comprises a scan range, and the step of determining a scan subject scanning feature comprises: identifying a plurality of landmarks of the scan subject by using a 3D camera, and determining an anatomical structure category of the scan subject on the basis of a positional relationship between at least one of the plurality of landmarks and the scan range (e.g., “… examination procedure … Depending on which organ characteristics such as, for example, head, liver or legs, are stored in a previously selected examination report … step S305, a 3-D camera determines a three-dimensional model with three-dimensional data of the patient 103 and an ideal isocenter and a table position for the examination are determined … 3-D autopositioning. An algorithm can be used to automatically ascertain the table height from the height profile measured by a 3-D camera. The longitudinal table position can either be predefined by the operator or likewise ascertained from the landmarks of the height profile and approached automatically … While isocentering can be automatically approached with this method, the best longitudinal table position can be determined less deterministically from 3-D measured values but also depends on the desired clinical issue. Furthermore, the longitudinal table position depends on the preference of the operator, in particular, whether the operator would like to have a somewhat larger overview image across the target organs of the patient 103 in the topogram or whether the operator chooses the most concise topogram possible to reduce radiation exposure …” in paragraphs 4, 5, 99, 137, and 139).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 6, Boettger et al. also disclose that the scanning feature further comprises an age range, sex, and/or a body type of the scan subject, and the scan information comprises information for determining the age range, the sex, and/or the body type of the scan subject (e.g., “… examination procedure … Depending on which organ characteristics such as, for example, head, liver or legs, are stored in a previously selected examination report … patient data comprises a gender, a date of birth, a weight, a position, a height, a body mass index, an ethnicity and/or an age of the patient …” in paragraphs 4, 5, and 77).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8, Boettger et al. also disclose that the information for determining the body type of the scan subject comprises a BMI of the scan subject, or a body contour of the scan subject acquired by using a 3D camera (e.g., “… step S305, a 3-D camera determines a three-dimensional model with three-dimensional data of the patient 103 and an ideal isocenter and a table position for the examination are determined …” in paragraph 99).
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 1, Boettger et al. also disclose that the scan subject to be imaged is movable in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction via a scan subject moving table, and the horizontal direction comprises a transverse direction and a longitudinal direction, wherein the step of adjusting a target position of the scan subject comprises adjusting a target position of the scan subject in the vertical direction or the transverse direction (e.g., “… Positioning can take place in a vertical direction by altering the table height and positioning can take place in a horizontal direction by altering the longitudinal table position … 3-D autopositioning …” in paragraphs 82 and 137).
In regard to claim 15 in so far as understood, Boettger et al. disclose a medical imaging system, comprising:
(a) a medical imaging apparatus, configured to perform scanning and imaging on a scan subject (e.g., “… imaging device 100 is, for example, a computer tomography scanner (CT), a positron emissions tomography scanner (PET-CT), a magnet resonance tomography scanner (MRT) or a single-photon emission computer tomography scanner and computer tomography scanner (SPECT-CT). For this purpose, a medical imaging device 100 comprises a positionable table 101 for positioning a patient 103 for the medical imaging examination which brings the patient 103 into the isocenter for examination …” in paragraphs 81 and 82);
(b) a scan subject moving table, configured to support the scan subject and movable in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, the horizontal direction comprising a transverse direction and a longitudinal direction, wherein the scan subject moving table is moved in the longitudinal direction during the scanning and imaging (e.g., “… suitable initial position for the topogram … Positioning can take place in a vertical direction by altering the table height and positioning can take place in a horizontal direction by altering the longitudinal table position …” in paragraphs 81 and 82);
(c) a 3D depth camera, configured to acquire a body contour of the scan subject (e.g., “… step S305, a 3-D camera determines a three-dimensional model with three-dimensional data of the patient 103 and an ideal isocenter and a table position for the examination are determined …” in paragraph 99);
(d) an automatic positioning module, configured to perform automatic positioning of the scan subject according to scan information of the scan subject and the acquired body contour (e.g., “… While isocentering can be automatically approached with this method, the best longitudinal table position can be determined less deterministically from 3-D measured values but also depends on the desired clinical issue. Furthermore, the longitudinal table position depends on the preference of the operator, in particular, whether the operator would like to have a somewhat larger overview image across the target organs of the patient 103 in the topogram or whether the operator chooses the most concise topogram possible to reduce radiation exposure …” in paragraph 139); and
(e) a positioning optimization module, configured to perform the following: (e1) acquiring the scan information and determining a scan subject scanning feature (e.g., “… patient data of the patient for examination 103 such as a gender, a date of birth, a weight, a position, a height, a body mass index, an ethnicity and/or an age of the patient 103. The ascertainment device 107 is designed to ascertain the correction data based on previous manual positionings of the table 101 in conjunction with the corresponding patient data of the patient for examination 103 … While isocentering can be automatically approached with this method, the best longitudinal table position can be determined less deterministically from 3-D measured values but also depends on the desired clinical issue. Furthermore, the longitudinal table position depends on the preference of the operator, in particular, whether the operator would like to have a somewhat larger overview image across the target organs of the patient 103 in the topogram or whether the operator chooses the most concise topogram possible to reduce radiation exposure …” in paragraphs 85 and 139); (e2) identifying, on the basis of the scan subject scanning feature, a corresponding offset characteristic value from a mapping table between scanning features and offset characteristic values (e.g., “… ascertains the predetermined table position by entering an organ or body part of the patient for examination 103 based on a look-up table … ascertainment device 107 is, for example, likewise constituted … correct table position can be estimated in advance …” in paragraphs 83, 84, and 107); and (e3) adjusting, on the basis of the corresponding offset characteristic value, a target position of the scan subject in the automatic positioning (e.g., “… While isocentering can be automatically approached with this method, the best longitudinal table position can be determined less deterministically from 3-D measured values but also depends on the desired clinical issue. Furthermore, the longitudinal table position depends on the preference of the operator, in particular, whether the operator would like to have a somewhat larger overview image across the target organs of the patient 103 in the topogram or whether the operator chooses the most concise topogram possible to reduce radiation exposure …” in paragraph 139),
wherein the offset characteristic value represents a positional offset (Fig. 1 shows that a “patient 103” located on top of a “… positionable table 101 …” and also shows a positional offset of the “patient 103” relative to the position of the “… positionable table 101 …”) of an anatomical structure (e.g., the “… organ or body part of the patient …” of paragraph 83 discloses that each of the “organ or body part” have a positional offset relative to the position of the “… positionable table 101 …”) of the scan subject relative to a position associated with the medical imaging system (e.g., see “… FIG. 1 shows a diagrammatic representation of a medical imaging device 100 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 81).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 15, Boettger et al. also disclose that the mapping table is established via the following steps: acquiring historical imaging scan data, the historical imaging scan data comprising historical scan information and historical offsets associated with a plurality of scanning procedures (e.g., “… From this patient data, the correct table position can be estimated in advance, taking into account a demographic distribution … data of individual facilities with a patient population which is sufficiently similar in terms of physiognomy can be chosen selectively … database in the central data storage device makes it possible to ensure that upon delivery i.e. without a single patient 103 having been positioned thereon, imaging devices 100 are already able to usefully model the table position …” in paragraphs 107, 131, and 133); determining, from historical scan information of each scanning procedure, a scanning feature of a scan subject of the scanning procedure, the scanning feature of the scan subject comprising an anatomical structure category of the scan subject (e.g., “… patient population in the USA has different properties to a patient population in Japan … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report …” in paragraphs 109 and 111); for the same scanning feature, calculating a statistical value of historical offsets thereof, and determining the statistical value or an inverse of the statistical value as an offset characteristic value corresponding to the scanning feature (e.g., “… average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics …” in paragraph 111); and generating a mapping table between different scanning features and offset characteristic values thereof (e.g., “… ascertains the predetermined table position by entering an organ or body part of the patient for examination 103 based on a look-up table … ascertainment device 107 is, for example, likewise constituted … correct table position can be estimated in advance …” in paragraphs 83, 84, and 107).
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 16, Boettger et al. also disclose that the historical scan information further comprises a positioning identifier for identifying whether manual positioning or automatic positioning is used in each scanning procedure, wherein the mapping table is generated only for scanning procedures using automatic positioning among the plurality of scanning procedures (e.g., “… enabling a manual readjustment of the table position to be omitted … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report …” in paragraphs 65 and 111).
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 15, Boettger et al. also disclose that the operation of adjusting a target position of the scan subject comprises adjusting a target position of the scan subject in the vertical direction or the transverse direction (e.g., “… Positioning can take place in a vertical direction by altering the table height and positioning can take place in a horizontal direction by altering the longitudinal table position … 3-D autopositioning …” in paragraphs 82 and 137).
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 of this title, 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boettger et al. (US 2017/0311842) in view of Goossen et al. (US 2014/0348296).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 8, while Boettger et al. also disclose (paragraphs 85 and 107) “… patient data … such as … a body mass index, … an age … demographic distribution …”, the method of Boettger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… age …” such as adult and pediatric ages and details of the “… body mass index …” such as obese, normal, and thin. However, “… demographic distribution …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Average anatomy models of each application are obtained, for example, via statistical shape modelling. In order to increase the granularity and better match with different patients, it is provided to derive different models for different populations, e.g. patient age, such as children, adults, BMI (body mass index) indices, such as normal or obese …” in paragraph 136 of Goossen et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional demographic (e.g., comprising details such as “different populations, e.g. patient age, such as children, adults, BMI (body mass index) indices, such as normal or obese”) for the unspecified demographic of Boettger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional demographic (e.g., comprising details such as age ranges of the scan subject comprise adult and pediatric, and body types of the scan subject comprises obese, normal, and thin) as the unspecified demographic of Boettger et al.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boettger et al. (US 2017/0311842) in view of Deshpande et al. (US 2024/0404055).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 2, while Boettger et al. also disclose that an anatomical structure categories comprise head and chest (e.g., “… determine a table position as a function of an organ or body part of the patient for examination … head, chest …” in paragraphs 18 and 141), the method of Boettger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… organ or body part …” such as abdomen-pelvis, pelvis, lumbar spine, and heart. However, “… organ or body part …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… anatomy (e.g. chest, spine, heart, pelvis, abdomen and combined anatomies such as chest-abdomen, abdomen-pelvis and chest-abdomen-pelvis). There could also be different models for different demographic categories, such as different age groups …” in paragraph 145 of Deshpande et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional body part (e.g., comprising details such as “abdomen-pelvis, pelvis, lumbar spine, and heart” for the unspecified body part of Boettger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional body part (e.g., comprising details such as an anatomical structure categories comprise head, chest, abdomen-pelvis, pelvis, lumbar spine, and heart) as the unspecified body part of Boettger et al.
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boettger et al. (US 2017/0311842) in view of Muller et al. (US 2019/0000407).
In regard to claims 12 and 13 which are dependent on claim 1, while Boettger et al. also disclose that by using the scan subject scanning feature and the current offset, adjusting the offset characteristic value corresponding to the scan subject scanning feature in the mapping table, wherein the adjusting step comprises performing statistical computation on the offset characteristic value corresponding to the scan subject scanning feature and a current offset, and determining a new offset characteristic value (e.g., “… weight and the height of the patient 103 are automatically determined if the imaging device 100 includes corresponding sensors … algorithmic model based on the additional data set with the patient data and the manual adjustment of the table 101 is trained by the operator … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report … height or position can be entered in real time as parameters in interpolation algorithms to predict the table position before conclusion of the positioning process. In this case, a positioning functionality which does not require any further manual fine positioning is achieved …” in paragraphs 93, 103, 111, and 123), the method of Boettger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… weight and the height of the patient 103 are automatically determined if the imaging device 100 includes corresponding sensors …” such as performing scanning and imaging on an anatomical structure of the scan subject according to the scan information by using a medical imaging system, so as to generate an image file, wherein the scan subject is moved in a horizontal direction during the scanning and imaging; processing the image file to acquire a center point of the anatomical structure; and calculating the current offset in a vertical direction between the center point of the anatomical structure and an isocenter point of the medical imaging system. However, “… sensors …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… patient contour information, either acquired by one or more scout images, stored patient size and/or shape data, patient height, weight, BMI, or other physical measurements can be used to determined adjustments of the source position, table position, detector position and/or position of the gantry 12. In an embodiment, a digital patient model may be created and/or already stored in the patient's EMR. In embodiments, the system 10 may include an imaging device, for example, but not limited to a digital camera that acquires one or more images of the patient, the images may be acquired from one or more positions and patient size/length/volume measurements obtained from these images. In other embodiments, an initial, low dose, or scout scan of the patient may be acquired from which patient measurements may be made. The patient contour may exemplarily be an envelope bounded by the surface of the table on one side and a depth/height (D in FIG. 3) above the table representing the patient. In embodiments, the contour may exemplarily be a predetermined distance or clearance height (C) above the highest portion of the patient. If more detailed models or measurements of the patient are available, the patient contour may similarly be adjusted to more accurately reflect anatomical portions of the patient relative to the table …” in paragraph 37 of Muller et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional height sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “an initial, low dose, or scout scan of the patient may be acquired from which patient measurements may be made. The patient contour may exemplarily be an envelope bounded by the surface of the table on one side and a depth/height (D in FIG. 3) above the table representing the patient” for the unspecified height sensor of Boettger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional height sensor (e.g., comprising details such as performing scanning and imaging on an anatomical structure of the scan subject according to the scan information by using a medical imaging system, so as to generate an image file, wherein the scan subject is moved in a horizontal direction during the scanning and imaging; processing the image file to acquire a center point of the anatomical structure; and calculating the current offset in a vertical direction between the center point of the anatomical structure and an isocenter point of the medical imaging system) as the unspecified height sensor of Boettger et al.
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 15, while Boettger et al. also disclose that by using the scan subject scanning feature and a current offset, adjusting the offset characteristic value corresponding to the scan subject scanning feature in the mapping table (e.g., “… weight and the height of the patient 103 are automatically determined if the imaging device 100 includes corresponding sensors … algorithmic model based on the additional data set with the patient data and the manual adjustment of the table 101 is trained by the operator … adjusting the organ-specific table position for each automatic positioning to the average value of previous table positions which have been used for these organ characteristics or the selected examination report … height or position can be entered in real time as parameters in interpolation algorithms to predict the table position before conclusion of the positioning process. In this case, a positioning functionality which does not require any further manual fine positioning is achieved …” in paragraphs 93, 103, 111, and 123), the system of Boettger et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… weight and the height of the patient 103 are automatically determined if the imaging device 100 includes corresponding sensors …” such as the medical imaging apparatus is configured to perform scanning and imaging on an anatomical structure of the scan subject according to the scan information, so as to generate an image file, and the medical imaging system further comprises an adjustment module configured to perform the following: processing the image file to acquire a center point of the anatomical structure; and calculating the current offset in a vertical direction between the center point of the anatomical structure and an isocenter point of the medical imaging system. However, “… sensors …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… patient contour information, either acquired by one or more scout images, stored patient size and/or shape data, patient height, weight, BMI, or other physical measurements can be used to determined adjustments of the source position, table position, detector position and/or position of the gantry 12. In an embodiment, a digital patient model may be created and/or already stored in the patient's EMR. In embodiments, the system 10 may include an imaging device, for example, but not limited to a digital camera that acquires one or more images of the patient, the images may be acquired from one or more positions and patient size/length/volume measurements obtained from these images. In other embodiments, an initial, low dose, or scout scan of the patient may be acquired from which patient measurements may be made. The patient contour may exemplarily be an envelope bounded by the surface of the table on one side and a depth/height (D in FIG. 3) above the table representing the patient. In embodiments, the contour may exemplarily be a predetermined distance or clearance height (C) above the highest portion of the patient. If more detailed models or measurements of the patient are available, the patient contour may similarly be adjusted to more accurately reflect anatomical portions of the patient relative to the table …” in paragraph 37 of Muller et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional height sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “an initial, low dose, or scout scan of the patient may be acquired from which patient measurements may be made. The patient contour may exemplarily be an envelope bounded by the surface of the table on one side and a depth/height (D in FIG. 3) above the table representing the patient” for the unspecified height sensor of Boettger et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional height sensor (e.g., comprising details such as the medical imaging apparatus is configured to perform scanning and imaging on an anatomical structure of the scan subject according to the scan information, so as to generate an image file, and the medical imaging system further comprises an adjustment module configured to perform the following: processing the image file to acquire a center point of the anatomical structure; and calculating the current offset in a vertical direction between the center point of the anatomical structure and an isocenter point of the medical imaging system) as the unspecified height sensor of Boettger et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Boettger et al. fails to teach or suggest an offset characteristic value, wherein the offset characteristic value represents a positional offset of an anatomical structure of the scan subject relative to a reference position associated with the medical imaging system because the only offset mentioned by Boettger et al. refers to an offset value depending on a gender of a patient. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Boettger et al. disclose that the offset characteristic value represents a positional offset (
PNG
media_image1.png
1199
1520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
shows that a “patient 103” located on top of a “… positionable table 101 …” and also shows a positional offset of the “patient 103” relative to the position of the “… positionable table 101 …”) of an anatomical structure (e.g., the “… organ or body part of the patient …” of paragraph 83 discloses that each of the “organ or body part” have a positional offset relative to the position of the “… positionable table 101 …”) of the scan subject relative to a position associated with the medical imaging system (e.g., see “… FIG. 1 shows a diagrammatic representation of a medical imaging device 100 …” in Fig. 1 and paragraph 81). Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0258243 teaches a 3D camera.
US 2021/0330272 teaches a 3D camera.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights