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 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) is/are:
A posture determiner in claim 1, because it uses “determiner” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “configured to compute, based on the measurements, output data representative of whether the patient's body is in a predefined target posture” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “determiner” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A logic in claim 4, because it uses “logic” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “configured to recommend to a user to initiate imaging, or the logic to automatically initiate the imaging, if the output data is indicative of the patient's body being determined to be in the predefined target posture” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “logic” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
An imaging geometry determiner in claim 10, because it uses “determiner” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “configured to determine based on the further measurements, a current imaging geometry of the imaging apparatus” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “determiner” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the posture determiner, page 23 line 1 discloses "posture determiner and logic L may run on different computing devices or on the same computing device”. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the posture determiner is interpreted to be a computing device.
Regarding the logic, page 23 line 1 discloses "posture determiner and logic L may run on different computing devices or on the same computing device”. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the logic is interpreted to be a computing device.
Regarding the imaging geometry determiner, the specification merely recites the function of the imaging geometry determiner and fails to disclose any structure. Additionally the IDG in figure 4 is a block diagram and fails to convey structural information.
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 the first paragraph 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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “an imaging geometry determiner” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely discloses the function of the imaging geometry determiner and not the structure, additionally figure 4 is a block diagram and does not disclose any information regarding the structure of the imaging geometry determiner. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 10, the claim limitation “an imaging geometry determiner” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation). The specification merely discloses the function of the imaging geometry determiner and not the structure, additionally figure 4 is a block diagram and does not disclose any information regarding the structure of the imaging geometry determiner. Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness (see Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talgorn et al. EP 3498173 in view of Feng et al. CN 113566857.
Regarding claim 1, Talgorn teaches a system for facilitating medical imaging (fig. 1) of a patient by a medical imaging apparatus (100), comprising: an input interface (18) for receiving measurements collected by shape sensing sensors (14, 16; para. 0040) of a shape sensing device (14; para. 0046), the shape sensing sensors (14, 16) arrangeable relative to the patient's body (fig. 1; sensors are arranged relative to patient 101), wherein the measurements are representative of a current posture of the patient's body (para. 0049-0050); and a posture determiner (10; para. 0008, 0036-0040) configured to compute, based on the measurements, output data representative of whether the patient's body is in a predefined target posture (para. 0039).
Talgorn teaches the shape sensing sensors being a camera (14; para. 0046) and force and/ pressure sensor (16; para. 0047) rather than an optical fiber based senor system.
Feng teaches a posture identifying apparatus which uses an optical fiber based sensor (abstract; claim 1; figs. 1-2) for use in medicine (Background para. 1) and that the optical fiber based sensors are not dependent on environmental lighting, improves patient privacy, and can identify posture in all directions compared to a camera based posture detection system (pg. 2 para. 3-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an optical fiber based senor system as taught by Feng in the apparatus of Talgorn for the purpose of not being dependent on environmental lighting, improving patient privacy, and being able to identify posture in all directions.
Regarding claim 2, Talgorn teaches an output interface for providing the output data, the output data including one or more of i) an indication for the current posture, ii) an indication on when the patient's body is determined to be in the predefined target posture, and iii) indication on when there is a deviation between the predefined target posture and the current target posture (para. 0027, 0040).
Regarding claim 3, Talgorn teaches wherein the output interface includes any or more of: a display device and/or, a haptic actuator (para. 0027, 0040).
Regarding claim 4, Talgorn teaches a logic configured to recommend to a user to initiate imaging, or the logic to automatically initiate the imaging, if the output data is indicative of the patient's body being determined to be in the predefined target posture (para. 0083-0088; when the patient matches the avatar is the signal that imaging can be started).
Regarding claim 5, Talgorn teaches wherein measurements include measurements collected by further shape sensing sensors arrangeable in a predefined spatial relationship to a detector module of the medical imaging apparatus (fig. 1; 14, 16 are in a predefined position with relationship to detector 104).
Regarding claim 6, Talgorn teaches wherein the further shape sensing sensors are arrangeable in a layout that defines a reference plane (fig. 3a, 3b; para. 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 7, Talgorn teaches wherein the further shape sensing sensors are arrangeable in, at or on the detector module (fig. 3b; para. 0049).
Regarding claim 8, Talgorn fails to teach wherein the shape sensing sensors are arrangeable on the patient's body.
Feng teaches wherein the shape sensing sensors are arrangeable on the patient's body (pg. 3 step 1) for the purpose of not being dependent on environmental lighting, improving patient privacy, and being able to identify posture in all directions (pg. 2 para. 3-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the shape sensing sensors are arrangeable on the patient's body as taught by Feng in the apparatus of Talgorn for the purpose of not being dependent on environmental lighting, improving patient privacy, and being able to identify posture in all directions.
Regarding claim 9, Talgorn fails to teach wherein the shape sensing sensors are includable or couplable in or to a wearable.
Feng teaches wherein the shape sensing sensors are includable or couplable in or to a wearable (pg. 3 step 1; being placed on a joint is being worn therefore is a wearable) for the purpose of not being dependent on environmental lighting, improving patient privacy, and being able to identify posture in all directions (pg. 2 para. 3-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the shape sensing sensors are includable or couplable in or to a wearable as taught by Feng in the apparatus of Talgorn for the purpose of not being dependent on environmental lighting, improving patient privacy, and being able to identify posture in all directions.
Regarding claim 10, Talgorn teaches wherein the measurements include yet further measurements collected by yet further shape sensing sensors arrangeable at the imaging apparatus (fig. 1), wherein the system further includes an imaging geometry determiner, configured to determine based on the further measurements, a current imaging geometry of the imaging apparatus (fig. 1; the system including the camera 14 then determines the apparatus geometry).
Regarding claim 13, Talgorn taches a computer-implemented method for facilitating medical imaging of a patient by a medical imaging apparatus (para. 0008), comprising: receiving measurements collected by shape sensing sensors (14, 16; para. 0040) of a shape sensing device (14; para. 0046), the shape sensing sensors (14, 16) arrangeable relative to the patient's body (fig. 1; sensors are arranged relative to patient 101), wherein the measurements are representative of a current posture of the patient's body (para. 0049-0050); and computing, based on the measurements, output data representative of whether the patient’s body is in a predefined target posture (para. 0039).
Talgorn teaches the shape sensing sensors being a camera (14; para. 0046) and force and/ pressure sensor (16; para. 0047) rather than an optical fiber based senor system.
Feng teaches a posture identifying apparatus which uses an optical fiber based sensor (abstract; claim 1; figs. 1-2) for use in medicine (Background para. 1) and that the optical fiber based sensors are not dependent on environmental lighting, improves patient privacy, and can identify posture in all directions compared to a camera based posture detection system (pg. 2 para. 3-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an optical fiber based senor system as taught by Feng in the apparatus of Talgorn for the purpose of not being dependent on environmental lighting, improving patient privacy, and being able to identify posture in all directions.
Regarding claim 16, Talgorn teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions (para. 0008) which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for facilitating medical imaging of a patient by a medical imaging apparatus, the method comprising: receiving measurements collected by shape sensing sensors (14, 16; para. 0040) of a shape sensing device (14; para. 0046), the shape sensing sensors (14, 16) arrangeable relative to the patient's body (fig. 1; sensors are arranged relative to patient 101), wherein the measurements are representative of a current posture of the patient's body (para. 0049-0050); and computing, based on the measurements, output data representative of whether the patient’s body is in a predefined target posture (para. 0039).
Talgorn teaches the shape sensing sensors being a camera (14; para. 0046) and force and/ pressure sensor (16; para. 0047) rather than an optical fiber based senor system.
Feng teaches a posture identifying apparatus which uses an optical fiber based sensor (abstract; claim 1; figs. 1-2) for use in medicine (Background para. 1) and that the optical fiber based sensors are not dependent on environmental lighting, improves patient privacy, and can identify posture in all directions compared to a camera based posture detection system (pg. 2 para. 3-8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an optical fiber based senor system as taught by Feng in the apparatus of Talgorn for the purpose of not being dependent on environmental lighting, improving patient privacy, and being able to identify posture in all directions.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights