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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is filed in response to the action filed on 01/03/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) filed on 09/24/2025, and 05/28/2026 have been fully considered.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0079534 A1 to MORF et al. (hereinafter “MORF”).
As per claim 1, MORF discloses a method for reducing motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography CBCT image reconstruction of a subject (a computing system and method of operation to reduce motion artifacts in medical images particularly CBCT and general/generic CT scanning images; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0003], [0018-0022], [0028-0030], [0034]), comprising: accessing CBCT data of the subject acquired with a cone-beam CT imaging system and breathing amplitude signal data of the subject acquired with the CBCT data (the computing system is adapted to access CBCT image data of a patient/subject acquired using cone beam CT imaging and generic CT imaging similar to CT MBCT imaging to track subject breathing; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0018-0022], [0028-0030], [0034]); accessing model-based CT MBCT data of the subject acquired with a CT imaging system and breathing amplitude signal data of the subject acquired with the MBCT data (accessing a reconstruction model using the CT imaging of the subject/patient wherein the imaging is performed by a CT imaging system and tracks amplitude/distances in the subjects respiration; paragraphs [0029-0033]); generating a breathing motion model and motion model data based on the MBCT data and corresponding breathing amplitude signal data (the computing system is adapted to generate and update the breathing reconstruction model of the subjects medical imaging data; paragraphs [0029-0033]); cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data, wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitudes comprises simulating CBCT projection images using the MBCT data and determining at least one breathing amplitude corresponding to the MBCT data that provides a corresponding simulated CBCT projection to an actual projection image (the system further utilizes calibration on the imaging data where the computing system is able to project the captured images over the reconstruction model and simulates the respiration of the subject based on the real captured images and respiration data available to the computing system; abstract; paragraphs [0017], [0048-0051]; claims 1-2, and 6), providing a correspondence between the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the MBCT data and the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data (the computing system is adapted to track a relationship/correspondence by using an equation/formula related to the captured data and crating the motion model based on such calculations performed; abstract; figs 1-5D; paragraphs [0027], [0041-0048]); and reconstructing the CBCT data using the breathing motion model based on the MBCT data and the breathing amplitude corresponding to the MBCT data (and performing image reconstruction of the medical images of the subject based on the measurements collected from the medical images; abstract; figs 1-5D; paragraphs [0027], [0041-0048]).
As per claim 5, MORF discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining at least one breathing amplitude corresponding to the MBCT data that provides a corresponding simulated CBCT projection to an actual projection image comprises comparing a position of at least one landmark in the simulated CBCT projection and the actual projection image (the computing system is adapted to project the images of the subject and apply motion to them via the model and uses the patients existing anatomy as landmarks to align the image to the model/motion; abstract; paragraphs [0017], [0048-0051]; claims 1-2, and 6).
As per claim 9, MORF discloses a method for reducing motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image reconstruction of a subject (a computing system and method of operation to reduce motion artifacts in medical images particularly CBCT and general/generic CT scanning images; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0003], [0018-0022], [0028-0030], [0034]), comprising: accessing first CBCT data of the subject acquired with a cone-beam CT imaging system in a first scan and breathing amplitude signal data of the subject acquired with the first CBCT data (the computing system is adapted to access CBCT image data of a patient/subject acquired using cone beam CT imaging and generic CT imaging similar to CT MBCT imaging to track subject breathing; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0018-0022], [0028-0030], [0034]); accessing second CBCT data of the subject acquired with the cone-beam CT imaging system in a second scan and breathing amplitude signal data of the subject acquired with the second CBCT data (accessing a reconstruction model using the CT imaging of the subject/patient wherein the imaging is performed by a CT imaging system and tracks amplitude/distances in the subjects respiration; paragraphs [0029-0033]); generating a breathing motion model and motion model data based on the first CBCT data and corresponding breathing amplitude signal data (the computing system is adapted to generate and update the breathing reconstruction model of the subjects medical imaging data; paragraphs [0029-0033]); cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data, wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitudes comprises simulating CBCT projection images using the first CBCT data and determining at least one breathing amplitude corresponding to the first CBCT data that provides a corresponding simulated CBCT projection to an actual projection image (the system further utilizes calibration on the imaging data where the computing system is able to project the captured images over the reconstruction model and simulates the respiration of the subject based on the real captured images and respiration data available to the computing system; abstract; paragraphs [0017], [0048-0051]; claims 1-2, and 6), providing a correspondence between the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the first CBCT data and the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the second CBCT data (the computing system is adapted to track a relationship/correspondence by using an equation/formula related to the captured data and crating the motion model based on such calculations performed; abstract; figs 1-5D; paragraphs [0027], [0041-0048]), reconstructing the second CBCT data using the breathing motion model based on the first CBCT data and the breathing amplitude corresponding to the first CBCT data (and performing image reconstruction of the medical images of the subject based on the measurements collected from the medical images; abstract; figs 1-5D; paragraphs [0027], [0041-0048]).
As per claim 10, MORF discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein determining at least one breathing amplitude corresponding to the first CBCT data that provides a corresponding simulated CBCT projection to an actual projection image comprises comparing a position of at least one landmark in the simulated CBCT projection and the actual projection image (the computing system is adapted to project the images of the subject and apply motion to them via the model and uses the patients existing anatomy as landmarks to align the image to the model/motion; abstract; paragraphs [0017], [0048-0051]; claims 1-2, and 6).
As per claim 16, MORF discloses a system for reducing motion artifacts in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image reconstruction of a subject (a computing system and method of operation to reduce motion artifacts in medical images particularly CBCT and general/generic CT scanning images; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0003], [0018-0022], [0028-0030], [0034]), the system comprising: a processor device (the computing system includes a processor; paragraphs [0049-0050]); and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions executable by the processor device (the computing system includes a memory to store instruction s to be executed by the processor; paragraphs [0049-0050]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor device, cause the system to: access CBCT data of the subject acquired with a cone-beam CT imaging system and breathing amplitude signal data of the subject acquired with the CBCT data (the computing system is adapted to access CBCT image data of a patient/subject acquired using cone beam CT imaging and generic CT imaging similar to CT MBCT imaging to track subject breathing; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0018-0022], [0028-0030], [0034]); access model-based CT (MBCT) data of the subject acquired with a CT imaging system and breathing amplitude signal data of the subject acquired with the MBCT data (accessing a reconstruction model using the CT imaging of the subject/patient wherein the imaging is performed by a CT imaging system and tracks amplitude/distances in the subjects respiration; paragraphs [0029-0033]); generate a breathing motion model and motion model data based on the MBCT data and corresponding breathing amplitude signal data (the computing system is adapted to generate and update the breathing reconstruction model of the subjects medical imaging data; paragraphs [0029-0033]); cross-calibrate the breathing amplitude signal data, wherein cross- calibrating the breathing amplitudes comprises simulating CBCT projection images using the MBCT data and determining at least one breathing amplitude corresponding to the MBCT data that provides a corresponding simulated CBCT projection to an actual projection image (the system further utilizes calibration on the imaging data where the computing system is able to project the captured images over the reconstruction model and simulates the respiration of the subject based on the real captured images and respiration data available to the computing system; abstract; paragraphs [0017], [0048-0051]; claims 1-2, and 6), providing a correspondence between the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the MBCT data and the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data (the computing system is adapted to track a relationship/correspondence by using an equation/formula related to the captured data and crating the motion model based on such calculations performed; abstract; figs 1-5D; paragraphs [0027], [0041-0048]); and reconstruct the CBCT data using the breathing motion model based on the MBCT data and the breathing amplitude corresponding to the MBCT data (and performing image reconstruction of the medical images of the subject based on the measurements collected from the medical images; abstract; figs 1-5D; paragraphs [0027], [0041-0048]).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2022/0079534 A1 to MORF et al. (hereinafter “MORF”) in view of US 2024/0371013 A1 to LOW et al. (hereinafter “LOW”).
As per claim 2, MORF discloses the method according to claim 1. MORF fails to disclose wherein the breathing motion model is a five dimensional (5D) breathing motion model.
LOW discloses wherein the breathing motion model is a five dimensional (5D) breathing motion model (the model is built as a five-dimensional 5D model 5DCT; paragraphs [0003-0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have wherein the breathing motion model is a five dimensional of LOW reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a reconstruction model able to produce a five-dimensional reconstruction as suggested by paragraphs [0003-0005] of LOW. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine LOW with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claims 3, 6-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2022/0079534 A1 to MORF et al. (hereinafter “MORF”) in view of US 2011/0176723 A1 to ALI et al. (hereinafter “ALI”).
As per claim 3, MORF discloses the method according to claim 1. MORF fails to disclose wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a free-breathing acquisition protocol.
ALI discloses wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a free-breathing acquisition protocol (the mode built on the CBCT and generic CT images includes images which were acquired during patient free breathing; paragraphs [0022-0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have a free-breathing acquisition protocol of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide treatment margins needed to correct for respiratory motion may depend largely on imaging accuracy, and poor imaging accuracy may result in larger planning target volumes (PTVs), e.g. encompassing more healthy tissue and/or critical structures, to ensure eradication of the targeted tumor as suggested by paragraph [0023] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As per claim 6, MORF discloses the method according to claim 1. MORF fails to disclose wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises generating a function to transform the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the MBCT data to the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data, wherein the function is based on the determined at least one breathing amplitude.
ALI discloses wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises generating a function to transform the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the MBCT data to the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data, wherein the function is based on the determined at least one breathing amplitude (the computing system is adapted to produce a breathing motion model by measuring the amplitudes of the subjects breath in the imaging data provided via the CT imaging system; paragraphs [0022-0025], [0037-0040], [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have wherein the function is based on the determined at least one breathing amplitude of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to approximately mimic patient respiratory motion in the model as suggested by paragraph [0040] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As per claim 7, MORF in view of ALI discloses the method according to claim 6. Modified MORE further discloses wherein the function is a linear calibration curve (the function produced provides a linearly plotted calibration/correlation curve; fig 1; paragraph [0039]).
As per claim 8, MORF discloses the method according to claim 1. MORF fails to disclose wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises performing drift correction of the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data.
ALI discloses wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises performing drift correction of the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data (during the motion correction of the motion artifacts of the con beam CT images the system is adapted to perform ct number uniformity and linear contrast spatial resolutions to correct for motion including motion artifacts such as drift using internal marker tracking to keep the model aligned with the images; fig 8-9; paragraphs [0037], [0054-0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an internal imaging marker to align the motion in the images as suggested by paragraph [0054] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
As per claim 11, MORF discloses the method according to claim 9. MORF fails to disclose wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises generating a function to transform the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the first CBCT data to the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the second CBCT data, wherein the function is based on the determined at least one breathing amplitude.
ALI discloses wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises generating a function to transform the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the first CBCT data to the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the second CBCT data, wherein the function is based on the determined at least one breathing amplitude (the computing system is adapted to produce a breathing motion model by measuring the amplitudes of the subjects breath in the imaging data provided via the CT imaging system; paragraphs [0022-0025], [0037-0040], [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have wherein the function is based on the determined at least one breathing amplitude of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to approximately mimic patient respiratory motion in the model as suggested by paragraph [0040] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As per claim 12, MORF in view of ALI discloses the method according to claim 11. Modified MORE further discloses wherein the function is a linear calibration curve (the function produced provides a linearly plotted calibration/correlation curve; fig 1; paragraph [0039]).
As per claim 13, MORF discloses the method according to claim 9. MORF fails to disclose wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises performing drift correction of the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the second CBCT data.
ALI discloses wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises performing drift correction of the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the second CBCT data (during the motion correction of the motion artifacts of the con beam CT images the system is adapted to perform ct number uniformity and linear contrast spatial resolutions to correct for motion including motion artifacts such as drift using internal marker tracking to keep the model aligned with the images; fig 8-9; paragraphs [0037], [0054-0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have drift correction of the breathing amplitudes of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an internal imaging marker to align the motion in the images as suggested by paragraph [0054] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
As per claim 14, MORF discloses the method according to claim 8. MORF fails to disclose wherein the first CBCT data and the second CBCT data are acquired using a free-breathing acquisition protocol.
ALI discloses wherein the first CBCT data and the second CBCT data are acquired using a free-breathing acquisition protocol (the mode built on the CBCT and generic CT images includes images which were acquired during patient free breathing; paragraphs [0022-0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have a free-breathing acquisition protocol of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide treatment margins needed to correct for respiratory motion may depend largely on imaging accuracy, and poor imaging accuracy may result in larger planning target volumes (PTVs), e.g. encompassing more healthy tissue and/or critical structures, to ensure eradication of the targeted tumor as suggested by paragraph [0023] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
As per claim 17, MORF discloses the system according to claim 16. MORF fails to disclose wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises performing drift correction of the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data.
ALI discloses wherein cross-calibrating the breathing amplitude signal data further comprises performing drift correction of the breathing amplitudes corresponding to the CBCT data (during the motion correction of the motion artifacts of the con beam CT images the system is adapted to perform ct number uniformity and linear contrast spatial resolutions to correct for motion including motion artifacts such as drift using internal marker tracking to keep the model aligned with the images; fig 8-9; paragraphs [0037], [0054-0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have performing drift correction of the breathing amplitudes of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an internal imaging marker to align the motion in the images as suggested by paragraph [0054] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
As per claim 18, MORF discloses the system according to claim 16. MORF fails to disclose wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a free-breathing acquisition protocol.
ALI discloses wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a free-breathing acquisition protocol (the mode built on the CBCT and generic CT images includes images which were acquired during patient free breathing; paragraphs [0022-0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have a free-breathing acquisition protocol of ALI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide treatment margins needed to correct for respiratory motion may depend largely on imaging accuracy, and poor imaging accuracy may result in larger planning target volumes (PTVs), e.g. encompassing more healthy tissue and/or critical structures, to ensure eradication of the targeted tumor as suggested by paragraph [0023] of ALI. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALI with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Claims 4, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2022/0079534 A1 to MORF et al. (hereinafter “MORF”) in view of US 2010/0166286 A1 to SONKE et al. (hereinafter “SONKE”).
As per claim 4, MORF discloses the method according to claim 1. MORF fails to disclose wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol.
SONKE discloses wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol (the CBCT data is collected by the computing system and the subject is guided through controlled coached breathing in order to provide periodic controlled breath motion; fig 2; paragraphs [0024-0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol of SONKE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide periodic consistent breath motion which is easier to track and match/model as suggested by paragraphs [0025] of SONKE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SONKE with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As per claim 15, MORF discloses the method according to claim 8. MORF fails to disclose wherein the first CBCT data and the second CBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol.
SONKE discloses wherein the first CBCT data and the second CBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol (the CBCT data is collected by the computing system and the subject is guided through controlled coached breathing in order to provide periodic controlled breath motion; fig 2; paragraphs [0024-0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have wherein the first CBCT data and the second CBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol of SONKE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide periodic consistent breath motion which is easier to track and match/model as suggested by paragraphs [0025] of SONKE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SONKE with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
As per claim 19, MORF discloses the system according to claim 16. MORF fails to disclose wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol.
SONKE discloses wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol (the CBCT data is collected by the computing system and the subject is guided through controlled coached breathing in order to provide periodic controlled breath motion; fig 2; paragraphs [0024-0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MORF to have wherein the CBCT data and the MBCT data are acquired using a coached-breathing acquisition protocol of SONKE reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide periodic consistent breath motion which is easier to track and match/model as suggested by paragraphs [0025] of SONKE. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SONKE with MORF to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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.
/D J DHOOGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights