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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/19/25. Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The newly added recitation of "responsive to a determination that the one or more modified protocol parameters are acceptable, unlocking the one or more locked protocol parameters, wherein the one or more locked protocol parameters are unlocked by at least one of a radiotherapy device or a medical imaging apparatus; and using the one or more unlocked protocol parameters for performing at least one of: image acquisition by the medical imaging apparatus or delivery of radiotherapy treatment by the radiotherapy device" within claims 1, 19, and 20 appear to constitute new matter.
In particular, Applicant does not point to, nor was the Examiner able to find support for this newly added language within the specification as originally filed. As such, Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the above issues and to specifically point out support for the newly added limitations in the originally filed specification and claims.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 9-11 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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected because it is unclear whether the limitations of claim 9 (and dependent claims 10 and 11) are required to be performed since the limitation regarding “scalar length” is optional in claim 7 (note the “one or more of” language) from which claim 9 depends.
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) 1-6 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira et al. (US 2012/0010495 A1) in view of Ladenburger (US 2007/0162159 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, de Oliveira discloses A computer-implemented method for modifying one or more locked medical imaging protocol parameters, comprising (para. 3, 37, & 44 and Fig. 1 of de Oliveira):
receiving one or more modified protocol parameters for an imaging protocol (para. 37-44 of de Oliveira; One or more setting parameters for generating the MR images are automatically modified, depending on the failed quality inspection or quality inspections, such that an image quality of those MR images that are subsequently generated with the modified setting parameters is improved compared to the image quality of the MR image in which the quality inspection failed.);
determining whether the one or more modified protocol parameters are acceptable for unlocking the one or more locked medical imaging parameters based on at least one of: i) an acquired image acceptability check or ii) a parameter acceptability check (para. 3, 31-37, 83-85 of de Oliveira; Quality inspection, during which the MR image to be inspected is compared to predefined MR images, for example by way of a cross correlation. Only if the results of this cross correlation lie within a predetermined bandwidth does this quality inspection count as passed. This quality inspection can automatically be improved evermore by way of machine learning. To this end, classification methods that classify the MR images to be inspected as acceptable or not acceptable can for example be learned with the aid of algorithms for machine learning. One or more setting parameters for generating the MR images are automatically modified, depending on the failed quality inspection or quality inspections, such that an image quality of those MR images that are subsequently generated with the modified setting parameters is improved compared to the image quality of the MR image in which the quality inspection failed.).
de Oliveira does not expressly disclose receiving, via a user interface, one or more modified protocol parameters for an imaging protocol; responsive to a determination that the one or more modified protocol parameters are acceptable, unlocking the one or more locked protocol parameters, wherein the one or more locked protocol parameters are unlocked by at least one of a radiotherapy device or a medical imaging apparatus, and using the one or more unlocked protocol parameters for performing at least one of: image acquisition by the medical imaging apparatus or delivery of radiotherapy treatment by the radiotherapy device.
Ladenburger discloses receiving, via a user interface, one or more modified protocol parameters for an imaging protocol (para. 14-18, 31, and 32 of Ladenburger; a first display module that is designated to display on a user interface control parameters that can be modified in the selected process control protocols; a parameter value detection module that is designated to detect parameter values according to which the control parameters are to be modified in the selected process control protocols); responsive to a determination that the one or more modified protocol parameters are acceptable, unlocking the one or more locked protocol parameters, wherein the one or more locked protocol parameters are unlocked by at least one of a radiotherapy device or a medical imaging apparatus, and using the one or more unlocked protocol parameters for performing at least one of: image acquisition by the medical imaging apparatus or delivery of radiotherapy treatment by the radiotherapy device (para. 53, 68-70, and 101 of Ladenburger; a parameter type comprises control parameters of a scan process and/or image reconstruction process to be implemented with an imaging medical-technical system and in that a scan mode selection signal is detected for selection of process control protocols with regard to which the modification actions are to be implemented with which process control protocols an activation of the medical-technical system ensues in a specific scan mode.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Ladenburger within de Oliveira. The motivation for doing so would have been to modify protocols in a simple and safe manner (para. 7 of Ladenburger).
(B) Referring to claim 2, de Oliveira discloses further comprising: updating one or more protocol parameters based on the one or more modified protocol parameters (para. 11 & 37-44 of de Oliveira).
(C) Referring to claim 3, de Oliveira discloses wherein the acquired image acceptability check comprises: acquiring an image of a subject using a protocol with the one or more modified protocol parameters; determining a similarity metric value between the acquired image and a validated image; and determining whether the one or more modified protocol parameters are acceptable based at least in part on the similarity metric value (para. 31-37 of de Oliveira).
(D) Referring to claim 4, de Oliveira discloses further comprising: performing an artefact detection on the acquired image, and wherein at least one of: i) performing the artefact detection comprises at least one of detecting, locating, or segmenting one or more artefacts in at least one of the acquired image and the validated image, or ii) performing the artefact detection comprises reporting an image quality of at least one of the acquired image and the validated image (para. 27-37 of de Oliveira).
(E) Referring to claim 5, de Oliveira discloses wherein a computer vision tool outputs an alternative modified protocol parameter based at least in part on at least one of: i) a reported image quality of the acquired image or ii) the validated image (para. 31-37 of de Oliveira).
(F) Referring to claim 6, de Oliveira discloses wherein the similarity metric value is associated with a geometrical transformation between the acquired image and the validated image (para. 29-37 of de Oliveira).
(G) Referring to claim 12, de Oliveira discloses wherein determining the geometrical transformation between the acquired image and the validated image comprises attempting to register the acquired image to the validated image (para. 27-32 of de Oliveira).
(H) Referring to claim 13, de Oliveira discloses wherein when at least one of: i) an attempt to register the acquired image to the validated image is unsuccessful or ii) the geometrical transformation cannot be determined, the one or more modified protocol parameters are determined to be unacceptable (para. 3 & 32-37 of de Oliveira).
(I) Referring to claim 14, de Oliveira discloses wherein the validated image is acquired using the imaging protocol with one or more unmodified or validated protocol parameters (para. 44-48 of de Oliveira).
(J) Referring to claim 15, de Oliveira discloses wherein the similarity metric value is associated with at least one of: i) a structural similarity index metric or ii) a normalized cross correlation metric between the acquired image and the validated image (para. 29-31 of de Oliveira).
(K) Referring to claim 16, de Oliveira discloses wherein the parameter acceptability check comprises: identifying whether a particular modified protocol parameter of the one or more modified protocol parameters is a critical parameter or a performance parameter; and checking the identified particular modified protocol parameter against a predetermined value (para. 37-51 of de Oliveira).
(L) Referring to claim 17, de Oliveira discloses wherein identifying whether the particular modified protocol parameter is a critical parameter or a performance parameter comprises: identifying whether the particular modified protocol parameter corresponds to at least one of: a bandwidth, a three-dimensional (3D) geometrical distortion, a field of view, a sound pressure level, or a specific absorption rate (para. 32 & 40-43 of de Oliveira).
(M) Referring to claim 18, de Oliveira discloses wherein identifying whether the particular modified protocol parameter is a performance parameter or a performance parameter comprises: identifying whether the particular modified protocol parameter corresponds to at least one of: a signal-to-noise ratio, a contrast, a view of a body, a time of acquisition, a resolution of acquisition, or a fat suppression (para. 21-23 of de Oliveira).
(N) Claims 19 and 20 differ from claim 1 by reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to…” (para. 103 of de Oliveira; The program may be stored on a tangible computer readable medium and is adapted to perform any one of the aforementioned methods when run on a computer device (a device including a processor). Thus, the tangible storage medium or tangible computer readable medium, is adapted to store information and is adapted to interact with a data processing facility or computer device to execute the program) and “A system for medical imaging, comprising: a medical imaging apparatus; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to…” (para. 72 & 103 of de Oliveira; FIG. 1 shows a schematic illustration of a magnetic resonance scanner 5 (a magnetic resonance imaging scanner or a nuclear magnetic resonance machine). The program may be stored on a tangible computer readable medium and is adapted to perform any one of the aforementioned methods when run on a computer device (a device including a processor). Thus, the tangible storage medium or tangible computer readable medium, is adapted to store information and is adapted to interact with a data processing facility or computer device to execute the program).
The remainder of claims 19 and 20 repeat substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons given above.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Oliveira et al. (US 2012/0010495 A1) in view of Ladenburger (US 2007/0162159 A1), and further in view of Valadez (US 2006/0224363 A1).
(A) Referring to claims 7 and 8, de Oliveira and Ladenburger do not disclose wherein the geometrical transformation comprises a deformation vector field and determining one or more of: i) at least one of an x, y, or z displacement component of the deformation vector field, and ii) a scalar length of the at least one of the x, y, or z displacement component and wherein the determining whether the one or more modified protocol parameters are acceptable is based at least in part on: i) the at least one of the x, y, or z displacement component of the deformation vector field or ii) the scalar length of the at least one of the x, y, or z displacement component.
Valadez discloses wherein the geometrical transformation comprises a deformation vector field and determining one or more of: i) at least one of an x, y, or z displacement component of the deformation vector field, and ii) a scalar length of the at least one of the x, y, or z displacement component (para. 41 of Valadez) and wherein the determining whether the one or more modified protocol parameters are acceptable is based at least in part on: i) the at least one of the x, y, or z displacement component of the deformation vector field or ii) the scalar length of the at least one of the x, y, or z displacement component (para. 40-43 of Valadez).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Valadez within de Oliveira and Ladenburger. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable detection of potential problems at earlier and more treatable stages and to determine quality (para. 3 & 41 of Valadez).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687