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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered and is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim(s) 1, and 8-10 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.
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.
Claim 1-12 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. In particular, the claimed invention does not specify or clearly disclose what the abbreviated limitation of an “AP-direction scanogram image” may relate to. At best, the examiner understands the claimed AP-direction may refer to an “anterior- posterior view (AP) direction” as disclosed on ¶4 of the specification of the instant application. However, this interpretation cannot be read into the limitation since it is not claimed in the limitations of the claims themselves. For this reason, the claimed “AP-direction scanogram image” is indefinite. Until this is addressed, or the purposes of examination, “AP-scanogram image” will be interpreted as “AP-scanogram (anterior-posteriori scanogram) image”.
Additionally, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, the claimed invention does not specify or clearly disclose what the abbreviated limitation of a “GUI” may relate to. At best, the examiner understands a GUI may refer to a graphical user interface as disclosed in the description of Fig. 10 in ¶17 of the specification of the instant application. However, this interpretation cannot be read into the limitation since it is not claimed in the limitations of the claims themselves. For this reason, the claimed “GUI” is indefinite. Until this is addressed, or the purposes of examination, “GUI” will be interpreted as “a GUI (graphical user interface)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1,8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being taught by BERGTHOLDT; MARTIN et al. (US 20240148351 A1) in view of GOTO; Takahiro et al. (US 20160120496 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Bergtholdt teaches,
An information processing apparatus (¶76-93 and fig. 3, “system for planning an image acquisition of an object” depicted in fig. 3) comprising a processor, (¶82 and fig. 3, system 10 depicted in fig. 3 comprises “a processor 16, e.g. a computer or other processing device”)
wherein the processor (¶82-83 and fig. 3, “processor 16” suitable for “performing the functions described”) is configured to:
acquire an AP-direction scanogram image (¶78,65 and fig. 3, processor 16 “receiving a pre-scan image of the object” from input 12 as depicted in fig. 3 which could be an “anterior-posterior projection radiograph”) obtained by imaging a subject (¶78, pre-scan image may be a “three-dimensional tomographic scan image”) and a camera image (¶81 and fig. 3, “camera system 14” depicted in fig. 3) obtained by imaging the subject (¶81, “camera system 14 for capturing at least one image of the object”) with an optical camera or a depth camera; (¶81, camera system 14 comprise a range camera “such as a time-of-flight depth imaging system, a structured light imaging system” to determine depth information “describing points on the surface”)
estimate a second imaging range (¶87-88, processor 16 adapted for planning tomographic image acquisition “determine parameters of the image acquisition” that includes a “scan range in one dimension” to allow a user to plan “image acquisition”) based on body thickness information (¶88, “scan range” determined with respect to “pre-scan image” transformed to a same “volume in the object as observed by the camera system”) indicating a body thickness of the subject (¶88 and 65, scan range for scan associated with “contour of the body” extracted from the “volumetric” pre-scan image) obtained from the camera image; (¶88, volume in the object as “observed by the camera system”) and
But does not explicitly teach,
estimate a first imaging range using the AP-direction scanogram image;
determine an imaging range for main imaging based on the first imaging range and the second imaging range.
However, Goto teaches additionally,
estimate a first imaging range (¶42 and fig. 2, “execute imaging volume setting function” as step S2 depicted in fig. 2) using the AP-direction scanogram image; (¶42-43 and fig. 2, execute imaging volume setting function using “a scanogram image” along the “rotation axis Z in the imaging range of the imaging”)
estimate a second imaging range (¶42 and fig. 2, execute imaging volume setting function which includes a second imaging volume among a set “plurality of imaging volumes along the rotation axis Z in the imaging range of the imaging”)
determine an imaging range for main imaging (¶48 and fig. 2, “determining a reference volume is executed in Step S5” as depicted in fig. 2) based on the first imaging range and the second imaging range. (¶48,42, and fig. 2, “reference volume is an imaging volume that is included among a plurality of imaging volumes” which includes the imaging volume using a scanogram and a second imaging volume of the “imaging volumes along the rotation axis Z in the imaging range of the imaging”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto which generates multiple imaging volumes using a scanogram image. This determination allows for using the highest quality image as a reference volume.
Regarding claim 8, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Bergtholdt teaches additionally,
the information processing apparatus according to claim 1; (¶82-83 and fig. 3, system comprising “processor 16” suitable for “performing the functions described” as depicted in fig. 3) and
a radiography apparatus (¶89 and fig. 3, “tomographic imaging scanner 20” depicted in fig. 3) controlled by the information processing apparatus. (¶89 and fig. 3, “output 18 to output the determined plan” to tomographic imaging scanner 20 to “execute the planned imaging procedure” output from processor 16 as depicted in fig. 3)
Regarding claim 9, it is the method claim of apparatus claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of apparatus claim 1.
Bergtholdt teaches additionally,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (¶99, computing system comprising a “non-transitory memory such as a physical digital memory” as a computer readable storage medium) storing an information processing program executable (¶99, “computer readable storage medium may store computer readable instructions”) by a computer to execute a process (¶99, “processor may be adapted for executing computer readable instructions”)
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the additional limitations of claim 10.
Claim(s) 2-4,6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGTHOLDT; MARTIN et al. (US 20240148351 A1) in view of GOTO; Takahiro et al. (US 20160120496 A1) in view of Prasad; Raghu et al. (US 20210201476 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Bergtholdt teaches additionally,
wherein the camera image (¶81, camera system 14 capturing “image of the object”) is a depth camera image (¶81, image of the object comprising “depth information” such as “three-dimensional image and/or a surface image with three-dimensional” from a “time-of-flight depth imaging system”) obtained by imaging with the depth camera, (¶81, camera system 14 may comprise a “range camera (such as a time-of-flight depth imaging system” for imaging the object from different viewpoints to determine “depth information from a plurality of images”)
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitation of claim 2,
However, Prasad teaches,
the body thickness information (¶65 and fig. 4A, “patient size” including an indication of “thickness of the patient”) is information including a body thickness profile estimated (¶65 and fig. 4A, preliminary calculation of “patient size” performed including a “patient thickness estimation”) by using the depth camera image. (¶65, “patient thickness estimation may be determined using depth camera images”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the patient size estimation of Prasad which estimates patient size based on the depth camera images. This allows for using information received from a depth camera that can predict subject information before imaging that can be used to perform some forms of prediction, overlay, and landmarking.
Regarding claim 3, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Bergtholdt teaches additionally,
wherein the camera image (¶81, camera system 14 capturing “image of the object”) is an optical camera image (¶81, image of the object comprising “depth information” such as “three-dimensional image and/or a surface image with three-dimensional” from a “structured light imaging system”) obtained by imaging with the optical camera, (¶81, camera system 14 may comprise a “range camera” such as “a structured light imaging system” for imaging the object from different viewpoints to determine “depth information from a plurality of images”)
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitation of claim 3,
However, Prasad teaches,
the body thickness information (¶65 and fig. 4A, “patient size” including an indication of “thickness of the patient”) is information including a body thickness profile estimated (¶65 and fig. 4A, preliminary calculation of “patient size” performed including a “patient thickness estimation”) by analyzing a subject image included in the optical camera image. (¶65, “patient thickness estimation may be determined using depth camera images” based on “subject position relative to the table and the depth camera 114” information based on “visible light information” from the depth camera 114)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the patient size estimation of Prasad which estimates patient size based on the depth camera images. This allows for using information received from a depth camera that can predict subject information before imaging that can be used to perform some forms of prediction, overlay, and landmarking.
Regarding claim 4, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitation of claim 4,
However, Prasad teaches,
determine the imaging range (¶66,71, and fig. 4A, patient size is greater than a threshold to determine filling “missing depth information in the original depth image” using data from “underexposed and/or overexposed images”) by including a predetermined margin (¶66 and fig. 4A, “determined if the patient size is greater” than a “predetermined size threshold” depicted in fig. 4A) in the body thickness information. (¶65-66, “patient size” including a “thickness of the patient”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the patient size estimation of Prasad which estimates patient size based on the depth camera images. This allows for using information received from a depth camera that can predict subject information before imaging that can be used to perform some forms of prediction, overlay, and landmarking.
Regarding claim 6, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitation of claim 6,
However, Prasad teaches,
reflect a body motion of the subject in the imaging range. (¶81, “detect the shape/orientation/pose of the patient” based on extracted “raw shape of the patient” so that “patient motion may be detected”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the patient size estimation of Prasad which estimates patient size based on the depth camera images. This allows for using information received from a depth camera that can predict subject information before imaging that can be used to perform some forms of prediction, overlay, and landmarking.
Claim(s) 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGTHOLDT; MARTIN et al. (US 20240148351 A1) in view of GOTO; Takahiro et al. (US 20160120496 A1) in view of ODA; Yoshinari (US 20230005168 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitation of claim 5,
However, Oda teaches,
notify (¶80, “derivation unit 62 outputs information indicating the derived body thickness to a predetermined output destination”), on a GUI, (¶80 and 72, predetermined output destination of specific content such as “displayed on the display unit 58 in at least one of a visible display manner”) that the imaging range is determined using the body thickness information. (¶80, derivation unit 62 output “information indicating the derived body thickness to a predetermined output destination in order to set the imaging conditions”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the information processing of Oda which outputs information to set imaging conditions. This allows for using techniques that can support appropriately measuring a distance between a radiation source and detector.
Claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGTHOLDT; MARTIN et al. (US 20240148351 A1) in view of GOTO; Takahiro et al. (US 20160120496 A1) in view of Xing; Weiwei et al. (US 20240144556 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitation of claim 7,
However, Xing teaches,
adjust the determined imaging range (¶49, first scan “overview (first data) of patient information”) using an axial image of the subject (¶49, “second scan (the main scan, i.e., an axial scan)”) to reconstruct the axial image in the main imaging. (¶49, “stitching and compensating the data obtained by the two scans, and performing image reconstruction by using the compensated data”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the computed tomography of Xing which performs image reconstruction using compensated data between two scans. This addition allows for the possibility of using methods which can improve data sampling rates.
Claim(s) 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGTHOLDT; MARTIN et al. (US 20240148351 A1) in view of GOTO; Takahiro et al. (US 20160120496 A1) in view of EBATA; Tetsurou et al. (US 20210353261 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitation of claim 11,
However, Ebata teaches,
estimate the second imaging range (¶140, “diameter of the bladder B”) such that a maximum value of the body thickness is a size in a lateral direction. (¶140 and fig. 1, maximum diameter measurement unit 13 may “measure the maximum diameter of the bladder B in the lateral direction D1” as depicted in fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the diameter measurement of Ebata which determines a maximum measure of a bladder. Using the maximum diameter measure allows for possible improvements to the measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, Bergtholdt with Goto teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Goto teaches additionally,
imaging range for main imaging (¶48 and fig. 2, “reference volume” as disclosed in fig. 2) is an imaging range having a larger size, (¶48 and fig. 2, “determine the imaging volume having the greatest water-equivalent thickness as the reference volume” at step S5 as disclosed in fig. 2) of the first imaging range and the second imaging range. (¶48,42, and fig. 2, “reference volume is an imaging volume that is included among a plurality of imaging volumes” which includes the imaging volume using a scanogram and a second imaging volume of the “imaging volumes along the rotation axis Z in the imaging range of the imaging”)
But does not explicitly teach,
having a larger size in a lateral direction,
However, Ebata teaches,
main imaging is an imaging range having a larger size in a lateral direction, (¶140, “maximum diameter measurement unit 13 may measure the maximum diameter of the bladder B in the lateral direction D1” where the distance is “greater than the given threshold value HE”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image-based planning of Bergtholdt with the image volumes of Goto with the diameter measurement of Ebata which determines a measure of a bladder in the lateral direction. Using the maximum diameter measure allows for possible improvements to the measurement accuracy.
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 JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM EST.
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, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights