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 .
Detailed Action
Overview
This is first action on the merits (FAOM) to this instant application in which claims 1-32 are pending. Claim 1 is independent and claims 2-32 are dependent.
The sole independent claim 1 is directed to a phantom to be used in a multimodality imaging system. The claimed phantom is described to comprise markers embedded in a holding structure.
Examiner’s search found prior art references that meet at least all features of independent claim 1. Hence the application is receiving a non-final rejection in this FAOM.
Rejection under 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-9, 15, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tavakoli (US-2014/0069215-A1).
Claim No
Claim feature
Prior art
Tavakoli (US-2014/0069215-A1)
1
A phantom for registration of a plurality of modalities of a multimodality imaging system, the phantom comprising:
Tavakoli discloses a phantom (10) for registration of a plurality of modalities of a multimodality imaging system.
The multimodality imaging system in Tavakoli may include MRI and ultrasound modalities, see the abstract in Tavakoli.
a plurality of markers, which are embedded in a holding structure.
a plurality of markers (PVA-C particles, i.e., PVA-Cryogel particles), which are embedded in a holding structure (“body structure 20” of the phantom 10).
2
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers exhibit a greater visibility than the holding structure in at least one of MR or CT images.
Tavakoli meets claim 2 as it discloses the phantom 10 to be used in MRI, and ultrasound imaging, see the abstract1. Fig. 6 suggests the imaging may include CT imaging, see item 130 in Fig. 6.
4
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers include a solid material.
Tavakoli meets claim 4 because PVA-C is solid material at room temperature.
5
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers comprise an elastomer material.
Tavakoli meets claim 5 because PVA-C is an elastomer.
6
The phantom according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of markers consist of the elastomer material.
Tavakoli meets claim 6 as the marker described to consist of PVA-cryogel and nothing else.
8
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers lack ferromagnetic material additives.
Tavakoli meets claim 8 as it discloses not to include any ferromagnetic material additives, see para [0063]2.
9
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers have one of a spherical shape, a u-shape or an x-shape.
Tavakoli meets claim 9 as it discloses the PVA-C can be of spherical shape as it discloses the PVA-C can be in the form microspeheres of diameter up to 3 mm, see para [0006]3.
10
The phantom according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of markers have a spherical shape with a diameter of less than or equal to 50 mm.
Tavakoli meets claim 10 as the diameter of the PVA-C particles can be 3 mm which is less than 50 mm.
15
The phantom according to claim 1, further comprising: a mounting structure on which the holding structure is mounted.
Tavakoli meets claim 15 as it discloses a mounting structure (plastic clamp 200, plastic screws 205) to which the holding structure (PVA) is mounted.
25
A multimodality imaging system, comprising a phantom according to claim 1.
Tavakoli meets claim 25 as it discloses the phantom can be used in MRI, ultrasound and CT imaging. The claim does not detail the structure of the claimed multimodal imaging system and hence based on the use of the phantom 10, the imaging system in Tavakoli can be a multimodal imaging system as claimed.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-14, 17, 25-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tavakoli (US-2014/0069215-A1).
Claim No
Claim feature
Prior art
Wilk (US-2003/0212320-A1)
1
A phantom for registration of a plurality of modalities of a multimodality imaging system, the phantom comprising:
Wilk discloses a phantom (calibration phantom 70) for registration of a plurality of modalities of a multimodality imaging system (“dual modality imaging system”), see the title in Wilk.
a plurality of markers, which are embedded in a holding structure.
Wilk discloses a plurality of markers (72), which are embedded in a holding structure (support material (not shown4), cf. Fig. 2 and also see para [0040]).
2
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers exhibit a greater visibility than the holding structure in at least one of MR or CT images.
Wilk meets claim 2 as the markers (72) are formed encapsulated water and water has greater visibility in MR imaging and in CT imaging compared to that of the holding structure (Styrofoam material).
3
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the holding structure is invisible in MR images.
Wilk meets claim 3 as it is well-known that the holding material (Styrofoam) is invisible to MRI.
7
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers include a material that exhibits a single-peak frequency response in an MR-measurement.
Wilk meets claim 7 as it is well-known that water has a single-peak NMR spectrum.
8
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers lack ferromagnetic material additives.
Wilk meets claim 8 as the MRI phantoms cannot have any ferromagnetic material additives.
9
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers have one of a spherical shape, a u-shape or an x-shape.
Wilk meets claim 9 as the phantoms (72) are spherical in shape.
10
The phantom according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of markers have a spherical shape with a diameter of less than or equal to 50 mm.
Wilk meets claim 10 as the phantoms (72) are spherical of diameter of about 16 mm which is less than 50 mm.
11
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers are made of a material that shows a level of attenuation with regard to the holding structure sufficient to identify the plurality of markers using intrinsic radiation emitted by scintillator crystals of PET detectors of a multimodal imaging system.
Wilk meets claim 11 as the Styrofoam material to have very small attenuating factor to signals (gamma ray from positron annihilation process) of PET detectors.
13
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the holding structure comprises a foam material.
Wilk meets claim 13 as the holding structure is made from Styrofoam which is a foam.
14
The phantom according to claim 13, wherein the holding structure consists of the foam material.
Wilk meets claim 14 as holding structure, in Wilk, is formed of Styrofoam and nothing else.
17
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the holding structure comprises cavities to receive the plurality of markers, and wherein dimensions of the cavities match dimensions of the plurality of markers.
Wilk meets claim 17 as the holding structure (Styrofoam) includes cavities into which the encapsulated water is placed.
25
A multimodality imaging system, comprising a phantom according to claim 1.
Wilk meets claim 25 as the it discloses a multimodality imaging system (dual modality scanner 20) comprising a phantom (70).
26
The multimodality imaging system according to claim 25, wherein the phantom comprises: a mounting structure on which the holding structure is mounted, wherein the mounting structure is fixed to the multimodality imaging system such that the holding structure is placeable within the isocenter of the multimodality imaging system.
Wilk meets claim 26 as it discloses mounting structure (couch 46) which is used to place the phantom (70) at the isocenter of the dual modality imaging system (20).
27
The multimodality imaging system according to claim 25, further comprising: a patient table; and wherein the phantom includes a mounting structure on which the holding structure is mounted, the mounting structure being fixed to the patient table.
Wilk meets claim 27 as it discloses and patient table (46) and a mounting structure (top of the couch 46) which is used to place the phantom (70) and top of the couch is fixed to couch frame.
29
The phantom according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of markers have a spherical shape with a diameter of less than or equal to 40 mm.
Wilk meets claim 29 as the markers (72) are 16 mm in diameter which is less than 40 mm.
30
The phantom according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of markers have a spherical shape with a diameter of less than or equal to 30 mm.
Wilk meets claim 29 as the markers (72) are 16 mm in diameter which is less than 30 mm.
Claims 1 and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teppaz (US-2003/0086535-A1).
Claim No
Claim feature
Prior art
Teppaz (US-2003/0086535-A1)
1
A phantom for registration of a plurality of modalities of a multimodality imaging system, the phantom comprising:
Teppaz discloses a phantom for registration of a plurality of modalities of a multimodality imaging system, see title and abstract in Teppaz
a plurality of markers, which are embedded in a holding structure.
a plurality of markers (22), which are embedded in a holding structure (20), see Fig. 3 and 4 in Teppaz
23
The phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers are uniformly distributed along an axis of the phantom.
Teppaz meets claim 23 as it discloses an arrangement of markers (22) in fig 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 16, 18-22, 24, 28, and 31-32 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 12, the claim would be allowable if written in independent form because the prior art of the record neither discloses nor reasonably suggests the phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers are distributed inside the holding structure according to a weighted random spatial distribution.
As to claim 16, the claim would be allowable if written in independent form because the prior art of the record neither discloses nor reasonably suggests the phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers are placed in a vertical drilling of the holding structure.
As to claim 18, the claim would be allowable if written in independent form because the prior art of the record neither discloses nor reasonably suggests the phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers are arranged in the form of a helix.
As to claims 19 and 20, these claims would be allowable if claim 18 is written in independent form because each of these claims depends from claim 18.
As to claim 21, the claim would be allowable if written in independent form because the prior art of the record neither discloses nor reasonably suggests the phantom according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of markers are arranged a same distance from a central point.
As to claims 22, and 31-32, these claims would be allowable if claim 18 is written in independent form because each of these claims depends from claim 21.
As to claim 24, the claim would be allowable if written in independent form because the prior art of the record neither discloses nor reasonably suggests the phantom according to claim 23, wherein the plurality of markers are placed in drillings of the holding structure, and a direction of the drillings is perpendicular to the axis of the phantom.
As to claim 28, the claim would be allowable if written in independent form because the prior art of the record neither discloses nor reasonably suggests the multimodality imaging system according to claim 27, wherein the mounting structure is fixed to the patient table such that the holding structure is placed beyond a head end of the patient table.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G.M. HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM- 5 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
G.M. HYDER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/G.M. A HYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
1 A multimodal cardiac phantom has a body structure with a shape and properties that mimic the elasticity, ultrasound, and magnetic properties of cardiac tissue. The multimodal cardiac phantom is advantageously produced from a polymer such as polyvinyl alcohol. The polyvinyl alcohol may include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers and ultrasound markers. The multimodal cardiac phantom can be used to evaluate and to configure apparatuses for imagining cardiac tissue.
2 [0063] Referring now to FIG. 6 along with FIGS. 1 and 2, the present cardiac phantoms 10, 110 can be used to simulate a heart's function. This can be accomplished by pumping a fluid through the cardiac phantoms 10, 110 or a pathologic cardiac phantom using pump 120. The simulation can be evaluated using an appropriate cardiac imaging apparatus 130. Referring now to FIG. 7 along with FIGS. 1, 2, and 6, to assemble the apparatus, the cardiac phantom 10, 110 is attached to a step-like connection of a connecting tube 220 using a large caliber plastic clamp 200 and three plastic screws 205 in order to keep the set-up free of ferromagnetic parts. The connection is designed as a wide and solid tube to decrease the additional resistance or nonlinear response of the fluid. A solution of 50% water and 50% glycerol was used to mimic the blood since glycerol is able to simulate blood viscosity and ultrasound scattering. Two different approaches can be considered to periodically contract and expand the cardiac phantom via a fluid waveform generator 140 such as: 1) Computer controlled fluid wave generation; and 2) Human controlled wave generation.
3[0006] The cardiac phantoms can be produced from a suitable material and will vary depending on the cardiac imaging apparatus and technique. One advantageous cardiac phantom material comprises polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) including polyvinyl alcohol cryogel (PVA-C). Further, the polyvinyl alcohol (base material) may include additional material such as ultrasound markers and MRI markers. For example, an ultrasound marker can be plastic microspheres made of silicon particles having an average diameter size of 1-2 mm. In some embodiments, dense PVA-C particles having an average diameter of 1-3 mm can be used as MRI markers.
4 [0040] In FIG. 2 a calibration phantom 70 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, is positioned on couch 46. Calibration phantom 70 comprises by way of example five fiducial regions 72 rigidly positioned and maintained relative to each other at different locations by a suitable support material (not shown). Calibration phantom 70 is optionally formed from Styrofoam or a Styrofoam like material and fiducial regions 72 are optionally glass or plastic balls embedded in the Styrofoam. Optionally, three of fiducial regions 72 lie in a first plane indicated by a dashed rectangle 74 and three of the fiducial regions 72 lie in a second plane indicated by a dashed rectangle 76 perpendicular to the first plane. One of the five fiducial regions 72 lies along an intersection 78 of planes 74 and 76. Optionally, fiducial regions 72 in a same plane are not collinear. Optionally, a feature of a fiducial region 72, which is used in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention to determine alignment displacements, is the fiducial region's centers of gravity.