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
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 – 4, 7 – 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai (WO 2021/203602 A1; see attached a translation copy).
With respect to independent claim 1, Cai teaches in paragraph [0006 – 00012] A method for an imaging system, comprising:
acquiring scan data two position imaging scans in paragraph [0010] of a phantom;
determining the actual distance between the phantom’s centroid and the rotation center of the scanning frame in paragraph [0011] one or more distances to a center of the imaging system of the phantom; and
automatically adjusting a position automatic positioning method in paragraph [0006] of the phantom based on the one or more distances to center since achieving phantom position in paragraph [0012] occurs, this limitation is anticipated.
With respect to dependent claim 2, since three-dimensional position of phantom is measured in paragraph [0010 – 0011] of Cai the limitation of “wherein determining the one or more distances to the center comprises: locating edges of the phantom; determining a first distance to center in the z-direction of the one or more distances to center; and determining second and third distances to center in an x-direction and a y-direction, respectively, of the one or more distances to center” is anticipated.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Cai teaches wherein automatically adjusting the position of the phantom based on the one or more distances to the center comprises adjusting a table scanning bed in paragraphs [0009 and 0020] of the imaging system the first distance to center in the z-direction, the second distance to center in the x-direction, and the third distance to center in the y-direction.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Cai teaches in paragraph [0011] via “calculate the expected position of the scanning bed” wherein automatically adjusting the position of the phantom based on the one or more distances to the center comprises adjusting a table of the imaging system the first distance to center in the z-direction and the third distance to center in the y-direction.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Cai teaches in paragraph [0001] a readable storage medium and therefore, Cai should have a computer and a monitor and in view of these, the limitation of “outputting the one or more distances to center to an operator console” is anticipated.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Cai teaches wherein the imaging system is one of a photon counting computerized tomography (PCCT) system and a computerized tomography (CT) system as shown in Fig. 2.
With respect to independent claim 18, since in paragraph [0011] Cai determines three-dimensional position of phantom, Cai teaches A method for automatically centering a phantom, comprising: acquire scan data of the phantom on a table with an imaging system; determine a first distance from a center of the phantom to an isocenter of the imaging system in a z-direction; determine a second distance from the center of the phantom to the isocenter in a y-direction; determine a third distance from the center of the phantom to the isocenter in an x-direction; and move the table the first, second, and third distances to align the center of the phantom with the isocenter of the imaging system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 9 – 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai, and further in view of Caruba (US 2012/0076371 A1).
The teaching of Cai has been discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 9, as discussed in the rejection justification to claim 1, Cai teaches a system, comprising:
a computing device inherently taught by “readable storage medium” in paragraph [0001] communicably coupled to an imaging system configured to image a phantom, the computing device configured with instructions in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the computing device to: acquire scan data of the phantom; determine amount of misalignment of the phantom in one or more directions; and automatically adjust a position of the phantom based on the amount of misalignment as discussed above.
Cai is silent with identify the phantom to be imaged. In paragraph [0025], Caruba, a pertinent art, teaches recognizing phantom. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Cai in order to perform automatic positioning of desired phantom. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Cai is silent with wherein identifying the phantom comprises one or more of receiving user input selecting the phantom from a menu of phantom options and radiofrequency identification tag (RFID) confirmation. However, Caruba teaches RFID reader to identify phantom in paragraph [0020]. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Cai in order to perform automatic positioning of desired phantom. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 11, as discussed above Cai teaches wherein, to determine the amount of misalignment of the phantom, the computing device is further configured with instructions stored in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the computing device apply an edge finding algorithm to determine position of edges of the phantom in a z-direction.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Cai teaches in paragraph [0006] wherein the scan data is an axial scan of the phantom and wherein the computing device is further configured with instructions that when executed, cause the computing device to extract scan views at 180 and 90 degrees.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Cai teaches in paragraph [0011] wherein, to determine the amount of misalignment of the phantom, the computing device is further configured with instructions stored in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the computing device to: finding and extracting the phantom from each of the scan views at 180 and 90 degrees; determining a position of a center of the phantom in an x-direction and a position of the center of the phantom in the y-direction; and comparing the position of the center of the phantom to an isocenter of the imaging system.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Cai teaches in paragraph [0011] three dimensional position of the phantom, and therefore, the limitation of “wherein, to determine the amount of misalignment of the phantom, the computing device is further configured with instructions stored in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the computing device to: determine a first pixel count of left-most pixels of the scan data; determine a second pixel count of right-most pixels of the scan data; and determine a difference between the first and second pixel counts to determine tilt misalignment of the amount of misalignment” would be within ordinary skilled art in order to find three-dimensional position of the phantom.
With respect to dependent claim 15, as discussed above Cai teaches wherein the computing device is configured to automatically adjust the position of the phantom by adjusting a position of a table on which the phantom is placed in a z-direction and a y-direction via a table motor controller.
With respect to dependent claim 16, since Cai teaches automatic positioning of phantom, the limitation of “wherein the computing device is additionally configured to automatically adjust the position of the table in an x-direction via the table motor controller” would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to move desired medical bed. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 17, since Cai performs CT in paragraph [0006], the limitation of “wherein, to determine the amount of misalignment of the phantom, the computing device is further configured with instructions in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the computing device to: reconstruct a sinogram of a single row of a detector of the imaging system; track three or more designated points of the phantom across different angle views of an axial scan; determine distances between each of the three or more designated points and an isocenter channel of the imaging system for each of the different angle views; based on the distances between each of the three or more designated points and the isocenter channel and an angle of a gantry of the imaging system, determine locations of each of the three or more designated points; and determine a position of the phantom relative to an isocenter of the imaging system based on the locations of the three or more designated points” would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to determine three-dimensional position of phantom. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 19, Cai teaches in paragraph [0006 and 0009] determining a rotation to level about a z-axis and rotating the table to level the table.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai.
The teaching of Cai has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 20, since three dimensional position of phantom is determined in paragraph [0011] via CT, the limitation of “wherein determining the first distance comprises applying an edge finding algorithm to determine whether the phantom is in view” would be within the ordinary skilled art in order to determine positional information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 6 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:
With respect to dependent claim 5 and its dependent claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein, when the phantom is a step phantom, determining the one or more distances to the center comprises, for each step of the step phantom: applying an edge finding algorithm to the scan data; determining an amount of lateral misalignment of the step phantom in x and y directions; and determining an amount of tilt misalignment of the step phantom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884