DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyasu (U.S PGPub 2020/0098106 A1) in view of Becker et al. (U.S Patent 9,760,830 B2) and Palma et al. (U.S PGPub 2019/0059841 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Moriyasu teaches a medical instrument (Abstract) comprising:
a memory (Fig. 1, 13) storing machine executable instructions [0028] and a tomographic data assessment module (Fig. 1, 23) [0032]; and
a processor (Fig. 1, 15) configured for controlling the medical instrument [0031], wherein execution of the machine executable instructions causes the processor [0031] to:
receive measured tomographic data (Fig. 12, S53) [0101]+[0049], wherein the measured tomographic data is configured for being reconstructed into a tomographic image of a subject [0033];
receive an image quality indicator by inputting the measured tomographic data into the tomographic data assessment module [0102], before reconstruction of the tomographic image, wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured for generating the image quality indicator in response to inputting the measured tomographic data [0102]. When the quality indicator is good, the system determines that the raw data acquisition can cease [0106].
Moriyasu fails to explicitly teach provide the image quality indicator, indicative of whether the subject is to be dismissed and whether the image reconstruction is to be executed, using an operator signaling system.
Becker teaches a system for determining a quality indictor of a tomography scan (Abstract). This system acquires tomographic data which is reconstructed into tomographic image (Col 10, lines 40-43). This system calculates an image quality indicator from raw data (Col 10, lines 40-53), and provides the image quality indicator using an operator signaling system (Col 12, lines 48-61). This image quality indicator indicates that the subject should not be dismissed (a the system needs to obtain more data) and that the image reconstruction is not to be executed (as the system needs to obtain more data) (Col 12, lines 56-62).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Moriyasu to obtain tomographic data and to provide the image quality indicator using an operator signaling system, as taught by Becker, because this allows for more timely intervention to improve the quality of a tomographic scan, as recognized by Moriyasu (Col 4, lines 6-14).
While it is implied the quality indicator suggests whether the subject should be dismissed, the combination is silent regarding the quality indicator being indicative of whether the subject should be dismissed.
Palma teaches a x-ray imaging apparatus which enhances image quality (Abstract). This system analyzes the raw images for motion data [0025]+[0029]. This motion marker functions as a quality indicator, and indicates whether the subject can be dismissed [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to have the quality indicator indicate whether a subject should be discharged, as taught by Palma, because this improves the scan results, as recognized by Palm [0006].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu further teaches wherein the medical instrument further comprises a medical imaging system (Fig. 1, 101-104) [0025] configured for acquiring the measured tomographic data from an imaging zone [0049]-[0050],
wherein the memory further comprises medical imaging system control commands configured for controlling the medical imaging system to acquire the measured tomographic data [0049]+[0105]-[0106],
wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to acquire the measured tomographic data by controlling the medical imaging system with the medical imaging system control commands [0101]+[0105]-[0106].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu further teaches control the subject support to move the at least a portion of the subject within the imaging zone before controlling the medical imaging system to acquire the measured tomographic data (Fig. 12, S57) [0093]+[0103].
Moriyasu fails to explicitly teach wherein the medical imaging system further comprises a subject support configured for moving at least a portion of the subject within the imaging zone, wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to: provide the image quality indicator to an operator using the operator signaling system while the subject is still supported at least partially within the imaging zone.
Becker further teaches wherein the medical imaging system further comprises a subject support (Fig. 7, 11) configured for moving at least a portion of the subject within the imaging zone (Col 12, lines 1-10), wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to: provide the image quality indicator to the operator using an operator signaling system while the subject is still supported at least partially within the imaging zone (Col 12, lines 1-18) (the quality signal is calculated and displayed while the patient is still in the imaging area).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Moriyasu to display the images quality indicator while the subject is still supported at least partially within the imaging zone, as taught by Becker, because this allows for more timely intervention to improve the quality of a tomographic scan, as recognized by Moriyasu (Col 4, lines 6-14).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu further teaches wherein the medical instrument further comprises a computed tomography imaging system [0049].
Moriyasu fails to explicitly teach wherein the measured tomographic data comprises measured X-ray attenuation profiles.
Becker further teaches wherein the measured tomographic data comprises measured X-ray attenuation profiles (Col 8, lines 33-49) (Hounsfield values are a measure of X-ray attenuation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined system to measure the X-ray attenuation profile, as taught by Becker, because this allows for a simple, effective, and fast method to determine image quality, as recognized by Becker (Col 8, lines 23-32).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu fails to explicitly teach wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured for accelerating the generation of the image quality indicator using any one of the following: subsampling the measured tomographic data; reconstructing a low-resolution image from the measured tomographic data, wherein the low-resolution image has a lower resolution than the tomographic image; and reconstructing a single slice of the tomographic image from the measured tomographic data.
Becker further teaches wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured for accelerating the generation of the image quality indicator (Col 5, lines 58-67) (this is considered a statement of intended use, as the system uses the low resolution image for generating the image quality indicator, it is considered “accelerating the generating of” the image quality indicator) using any one of the following: reconstructing a low-resolution image from the measured tomographic data (Col 10, lines 40-53) (real-time display data RTD), wherein the low-resolution image has a lower resolution than the tomographic image (Col 3, lines 25-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to reconstruct a low-resolution image, as taught by Becker, because this allows for more timely intervention to improve the quality of a tomographic scan, as recognized by Moriyasu (Col 4, lines 6-14).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu further teaches wherein the tomographic data assessment module is implemented at least one of: a neural network trained to receive as input the measured tomographic data and in response output the image quality indicator [0102].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu fails to explicitly teach the wherein the operator signaling system further comprises a computer display configured for displaying the image quality indicator, wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to: display a reacquire data message to the operator if the image quality indicator does not satisfy the predetermined criterion; and/or display a discharge subject message to the operator if the image quality indicator does not satisfy the predetermined criterion.
Becker teaches wherein the operator signaling system further comprises a computer display (Fig. 7, 25) configured for displaying the image quality indicator (Col 12, lines 18-24), wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to: display a reacquire data message to an operator if the image quality indicator does not satisfy a predetermined criterion (Col 12, lines 56-62) (as the alarm can prompt a use to repeat the scanning procedure, the alarm is considered as reacquire data message).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Moriyasu to provide the image quality indicator using an operator signaling system, as taught by Becker, because this allows for more timely intervention to improve the quality of a tomographic scan, as recognized by Moriyasu (Col 4, lines 6-14).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu further teaches wherein the image quality indicator is any one of the following: a binary indicator indicating a sufficient image quality and an insufficient image quality [0106] (The threshold is a binary indicator, as below the threshold is insufficient quality, and above the threshold is sufficient quality).
Regarding Claim 14, Moriyasu teaches a method of operating a medical instrument (Abstract), wherein the method comprises:
receiving measured tomographic data (Fig. 12, S53) [0101]+[0049], wherein the measured tomographic data is configured for being reconstructed into a tomographic image of a subject [0033];
receiving an image quality indicator by inputting the measured tomographic data into a tomographic data assessment module [0102], before reconstruction of the tomographic image, wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured for generating an image quality indicator in response to inputting the measured tomographic data prior to reconstruction of the tomographic image [0102].
Moriyasu fails to explicitly teach providing the image quality indicator to an operator, indicative of whether the subject is to be dismissed and whether the image reconstruction is to be executed, using an operator signaling system.
Becker teaches a system for determining a quality indictor of a tomography scan (Abstract). This system acquires tomographic data which is reconstructed into tomographic image (Col 10, lines 40-43). This system calculates an image quality indicator from raw data (Col 10, lines 40-53), and provides the image quality indicator using an operator signaling system (Col 12, lines 48-61). This image quality indicator indicates that the subject should not be dismissed (a the system needs to obtain more data) and that the image reconstruction is not to be executed (as the system needs to obtain more data) (Col 12, lines 56-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Moriyasu to obtain tomographic data and to provide the image quality indicator using an operator signaling system, as taught by Becker, because this allows for more timely intervention to improve the quality of a tomographic scan, as recognized by Moriyasu (Col 4, lines 6-14).
While it is implied the quality indicator suggests whether the subject should be dismissed, the combination is silent regarding the quality indicator being indicative of whether the subject should be dismissed.
Palma teaches a x-ray imaging apparatus which enhances image quality (Abstract). This system analyzes the raw images for motion data [0025]+[0029]. This motion marker functions as a quality indicator, and indicates whether the subject can be dismissed [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to have the quality indicator indicate whether a subject should be discharged, as taught by Palma, because this improves the scan results, as recognized by Palm [0006].
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references teaches the method of claim 14 substantially as claimed. Moriyasu further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 1, 13) storing machine executable instructions [0028] and a tomographic data assessment module (Fig. 1, 23) [0032], wherein execution of the machine executable instructions causes a processor to perform the method according to claim 14 (See rejection of claim 14 above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyasu in view of Becker and Palma as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S PGPub US 2022/0187406 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Moriyasu further teaches wherein the medical imaging system is a magnetic resonance imaging system (Fig. 1, 104) [0030].
The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the medical imaging system control commands are pulse sequence commands, and wherein the measured tomographic data is k-space data.
Wang teaches a system for MR imaging (Abstract). This system uses pulse sequences to control the MRI system [0004], and measures k-space data [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use pulse sequence commands and collect k-space data, as taught by Wang, as this allows for the user to obtain a high quality MRI scan, as recognized by Wang [0003].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyasu in view of Becker, Palma, and Wang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mendes et al (U.S. PGPub 2012/0082355 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein any one of the following: wherein the pulse sequence commands are according to a compressed sensing magnetic resonance imaging protocol configured for acquiring the measured tomographic data from multiple magnetic resonance imaging antennas, wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured for at least partially providing the image quality indicator using magnetic resonance data from a single magnetic resonance antenna selected from the multiple magnetic resonance imaging antennas; wherein the pulse sequence commands are according to a self-navigating magnetic resonance imaging protocol that embeds self-navigator data within the k-space data, wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured for at least partially providing the image quality indicator using the self-navigator data; and combinations thereof.
Mendes teaches a method of correcting MRI images (Abstract). The pulse sequence commands are according to a self-navigating magnetic resonance imaging protocol [0013] that embeds self-navigator data within the k-space data [0039] (the correlations between data points are considered self-navigating data), wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured for at least partially providing the image quality indicator using the self-navigator data (Fig. 3, 303) [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined system to provide the image quality indicator using the self-navigator data, as taught by Mendes, because this provides a better method for compensating object motion, as recognized by Mendes [0009].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyasu in view of Becker and Palma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross (U.S PGPub 2010/0253339 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the measured tomographic data comprises redundant data, wherein the tomographic data assessment module is configured to at least partially generate the image quality indicator using the redundant data.
Gross teaches an imaging system which detects incorrect data (Abstract). This imaging system comprises redundant data [0013]. This system generates at least partially generates the image quality indicator using the redundant data [0037] (if the detected point is considered an error point, that point is redundant as it is replaced with another point which is used in the reconstruction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to contain redundant data and at least partially generate the image quality using the redundant data, as taught by Gross, because this improves the image quality, as recognized by Gross [0010]-[0011].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyasu in view of Becker, and Palma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dekel (U.S PGPub 2012/0148125 A1) and Huizenga (U.S PGPub 2005/0043614 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to store the measured tomographic data in a tomographic data database system of a remote processing system, and wherein the remote processing system is configured to: retrieve the measured tomographic data from the tomographic data database; and reconstruct the tomographic image from the measured tomographic data.
Dekel further teaches wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor [0025] to store the measured tomographic data in a tomographic data database system [0019] of a remote processing system [0055] wherein the remote processing system is configured to: retrieve the measured tomographic data from the tomographic data database [0043]; and reconstruct the tomographic image from the measured tomographic data [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to store the raw data in a database, and retrieve the data to reconstruct it, as taught by Dekel, because computing a scan is more accurate when the raw data is available, as recognized by Dekel [0018]-[0019].
The combination is silent on storing the data if the image quality indicator satisfies a predetermined criterion.
Huizenga teaches a system for obtaining imaging data (Abstract). This system only processes the data if it passes an initial quality check (i.e. quality satisfies a predetermined criterion) [0051]-[0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to storing the data if the image quality indicator satisfies a predetermined criterion, as taught by Huizenga, because this ensures that the data the physician analyzes allows for a reliable output, as recognized by Huizenga [0051].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyasu in view of Becker and Palma as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Foos et al (U.S PGPub 2011/0110496 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the memory further comprises an instruction database comprising operator instructions that describe how to improve measured tomographic data quality, wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to: retrieve the operator instructions from the instruction database if the reacquire data message is displayed; and display the operator instructions on the display.
Foos teaches a system for performing imaging of a patient (Abstract). This system contains an instruction database comprising operator instructions that describe how to improve measured tomographic data quality [0079]+[0081]+[0075], wherein execution of the machine executable instructions further causes the processor to: retrieve the operator instructions from the instruction database if the reacquire data message is displayed [0075]+[0081]; and display the operator instructions on the display [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined system to display instructions to improve image quality, as taught by Foos, because it helps the user improve the quality of the image, as recognized by Foos [0015].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach “providing an image quality indicator indicative of whether the subject is to be dismissed and whether the image reconstruction is to be executed, using an operator signaling system”. The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moriyasu teaches obtaining an image quality indicator that details when imaging should cease [0106] (which one of ordinary skill would recognize that a patient can be dismissed and the reconstruction can be executed). Becker teaches an image quality indicator that indicates that the quality is insufficient, and the patient should not be dismissed and reconstruction should not occur (Col 10, line 40-53)+(Col 12, lines 48-61). This is displayed on an operator signaling system (Col 10, lines 51-53)+(Col 12, lines 56-62). Palma teaches that when quality is good, a patient would be dismissed and the reconstruction would proceed [0032]. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (MPEP 2141.03). The Examiner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art, looking the combination of references, would understand that it teaches the invention as claimed. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
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 SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798