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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 recites “the volumetric images for the motion states” which Examiner suggests amending to “the volumetric image of the subject for each defined motion state”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “outliers, 548)” which Examiner suggests amending to “outliers” (deleting “, 548)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “slab image reconstructor” and “motion function extractor” in claim 11.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “partly simultaneously” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “partly simultaneously” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the scope of what is considered partly simultaneously, whether it is a difference of twenty seconds, one second, one millisecond. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation as just “simultaneously”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the volumetric slab images are" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of volumetric slab images (plural), only a volumetric slab image (singular). Examiner suggests amending to “the volumetric slab image is” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the difference metric indicates" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which difference metric is being referred to since a plurality of difference metrics are disclosed in claim 1 (at least one difference metric is obtained for each of the slab images in the sequence). Examiner suggests amending to “a difference metric indicates” or “the obtained difference metrics indicate”.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the obtained difference metrics calculated for at least one separation parameter" in Lines 2-3 and “the separation parameter” in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of obtained difference metrics calculated for at least one separation parameter, only the obtained difference metrics for the sequence of slab images (calculated for the separation parameter disclosed in claim 11) and it is unclear as to which separation parameter is being referred to since Lines 2-3 recite at least one separation parameter and claim 11 recites a separation parameter. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to "obtained difference metrics calculated for at least one separation parameter" (deleting “the”) and “the at least one separation parameter”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claims 1 and 11, McClelland et al. (A continuous 4D motion model from multiple respiratory cycles for use in lung radiotherapy) discloses receiving projection image data of the subject, selecting consecutive portions of the projection image data, reconstructing each of the selected portions into a volumetric slab image to form a sequence of slab images, for each of the slab images in the sequence, register the slab image to a reference image to obtain a difference metric and form a motion function using the difference metrics, however, there is no mention of registering the slab image to at least one other slab image separated in the sequence from the slab image by a separation parameter, identifying at least one trigger point in the motion function to define motion states, grouping the projection image data into the defined motion states, and reconstructing the grouped projection data into a volumetric image of the subject for each defined motion state. Chavarrías et al. (Extraction of the respiratory signal from small-animal CT projections for a retrospective gating method) discloses forming a motion function, identifying at least one trigger point in the motion function to define motion states, grouping the projection image data into the defined motion states, and reconstructing the grouped projection data into a volumetric image of the subject for each defined motion state, however, there is no mention of slab images and extracting the motion function from a sequence of slab images. Brehm et al. (US 2017/0249740) discloses determining amplitudes to group projection images to a same phase or phase range where binned images for a specific phase can then be used to reconstruct a volumetric image for that phase, however, there is no mention of determining the amplitudes for grouping the projection image data using a motion function, where the motion function is determined by reconstructing selected consecutive portions of the projection image data into a volumetric slab image to form a sequence of slab images, extracting the motion function from the sequence of slab images by, for each of the slab images in the sequence, registering the slab image to at least one other slab image separated in the sequence from the slab image by a separation parameter to obtain at least one difference metric, selecting a sequence of difference metrics from the obtained difference metrics for the sequence of slab images, and forming a motion function using the selected sequence of difference metrics. Feng et al. (US 2018/0174360) discloses the concept of gating the ECT data into a plurality of sections, where a motion curve indicative of the motion amplitudes of different spatial points of the subject is determined, and selecting a section to reconstruct. However, there is no mention of extracting the motion curve from a sequence of slab images by, for each of the slab images in the sequence, registering the slab image to at least one other slab image separated in the sequence from the slab image by a separation parameter to obtain at least one difference metric, selecting a sequence of difference metrics from the obtained difference metrics for the sequence of slab images, and forming the motion curve using the selected sequence of difference metrics, and then identifying a trigger point in the motion curve to define motion states, grouping the projection image data into the defined motion states, and reconstructing the grouped projection data into a volumetric image of the subject for each defined motion state. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claims 4-8 and 10, they are dependent on claim 1.
With regards to claim 13, it is dependent on claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 2, 3, and 9, they are dependent on claim 1.
With regards to claim 12, it is dependent on claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights