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 .
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 9 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. The claimed invention refers to “via a processor” without a clear reference to what the processor relates to. Not only is there no clear reference to what the claimed processor relates to, it is also grammatically awkward since “via a processor” is unclear as to what is being done by said processor. At best, the applicant appears to be inferring that the claimed information processing method is implemented via the processor, which the method comprises the limitations which follows “via the processor”. Although this may be what the applicant intends by the claimed limitation, it is presently in an indefinite form and is rejected until the applicant clarifies what is being claimed “via a processor”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1,8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being taught by BERGTHOLDT; MARTIN et al. (US 20240148351 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 a scanogram image (¶78 and fig. 3, processor 16 “receiving a pre-scan image of the object” from input 12 as depicted in fig. 3) 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”) and
determine an imaging range for main imaging (¶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”) using 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 the scanogram image. (¶88 and 78, “scan range” determined with respect to “pre-scan image” that is a “three-dimensional tomographic scan image”)
Regarding claim 8, Bergtholdt 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 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) 2-4,6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGTHOLDT; MARTIN et al. (US 20240148351 A1) in view of Prasad; Raghu et al. (US 20210201476 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Bergtholdt 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ODA; Yoshinari (US 20230005168 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Bergtholdt 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”) 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 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 Xing; Weiwei et al. (US 20240144556 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Bergtholdt 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 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.
Conclusion
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