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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2005 and 01/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment has been received on 01/27/2025. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11 have been amended. Claim 12 has been canceled without prejudice. Claim 13 has been newly added. Claims 1-11 and 13 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 01/27/2025, with respect to claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 13 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the CT scanner" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps it should read as "a CT scanner".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a CT scanner" in line 6 but it is unclear, if it is a second CT scanner or the same one claimed in line 4. Perhaps it should read as "the CT scanner".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the CT system" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps it should read as "the CT scanner".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the CT scanner" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps it should read as "a CT scanner".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a CT scanner" in line 7 but it is unclear, if it is a second CT scanner or the same one claimed in line 5. Perhaps it should read as "the CT scanner".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the CT system" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps it should read as "the CT scanner".
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
Claims 9-11 and 13, as best understood by examiner, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With respect to claim 1, the most relevant prior art, Senegas et al. (US PAP 2015/0139520 A1) teaches a CT scanner (10) for performing a brain scan of a patient, comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0067-0080, 0083-0100 and 0107-0119):
PNG
media_image1.png
647
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a gantry (1); an X-ray tube (2) and a detector (6) within the gantry (1); a display (23) and a controller (9) configured to: derive a first field of view from the detected head position and orientation; control the CT scanner (10) to perform a low dose 3D scan with the derived first field of view; analyze the results of the low dose 3D scan to derive a proposed field of view for a full dose 3D brain scan (see paragraphs 0067-0080, 0083-0100 and 0107-0119);
PNG
media_image2.png
619
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
display a representation of the proposed field of view; and determine a final field of view as the proposed field of view or an updated version of the proposed field of view (see paragraphs 0067-0080, 0083-0100 and 0107-0119) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious a camera system for detecting a head position and orientation of the patient relative to the CT scanner as claimed in combination with the all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
With respect to claim 9, as best understood by examiner, the most relevant prior art, Senegas et al. (US PAP 2015/0139520 A1) teaches a computer implemented method of preparing a patient for a CT brain scan, comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0067-0080, 0083-0100 and 0107-0119): deriving a first field of view from the detected head position and orientation controlling a CT scanner (10) to perform a low dose 3D scan with the derived first field of view; analyzing the results of the low dose 3D scan to derive a proposed field of view for a full dose 3D brain scan; displaying the proposed field of view to a user of the CT scanner and determining a final field of view as the proposed field of view or as an updated version of the proposed field of view (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0067-0080, 0083-0100 and 0107-0119) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious a camera system for detecting a head position and orientation of the patient relative to the CT scanner as claimed in combination with the all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
With respect to claim 13, as best understood by examiner, the most relevant prior art, Senegas et al. (US PAP 2015/0139520 A1) teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for preparing a patient for a CT brain scan, the method comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0067-0080, 0083-0100 and 0107-0119): deriving a first field of view from the detected head position and orientation controlling a CT scanner to perform a low dose 3D scan with the derived first field of view; analyzing the results of the low dose 3D scan to derive a proposed field of view for a full dose 3D brain scan; displaying the proposed field of view to a user of the CT scanner; and determining a final field of view as the proposed field of view or as an updated version of the proposed field of view (see abstract; Figs. 1-12; paragraphs 0067-0080, 0083-0100 and 0107-0119) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious controlling a camera system for detecting a head position and orientation of the patient relative to the CT scanner as claimed in combination with the all of the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-8, 10 and 12 are allowed by virtue of their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prased et al. (US PAP 2021/0201476 A1) teaches a third-generation CT imaging system (100) comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; paragraphs 0017-0024, 0026):
PNG
media_image3.png
320
375
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an x-ray radiation source (104) and a detector array (108) rotated with a gantry (102) within the imaging plane and around a subject (112) such that the angle at which the beam of x-rays (106) intersects a subject (112) constantly changes. The CT imaging system (100) may include a depth camera (114) positioned on or outside the gantry (102). As shown in Fig.1, the depth camera (114) is mounted on a ceiling (116) positioned above the subject (112) and is orientated to image the subject (112) when the subject is at least partially outside the gantry (102) (see abstract; Figs. 1-9; paragraphs 0017-0024, 0026).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, David J. Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights