Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/081,138

Imaging Modality with Patient Positioning Specification

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 17, 2025
Examiner
NGANGA, BONIFACE N
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Siemens Healthineers AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
344 granted / 539 resolved
-6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
588
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 539 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Objections Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “patient him/herself” is verbose, it is suggested to delete the pronoun “him/herself” as the word patient encompasses the said pronoun. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first instance of “APO” in the specification [0006] must be accompanied with the full expression. Appropriate correction is required. 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 6 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. Claim 6 recites in part “due to the specification of the close command, the control facility terminating the actuation of the display facility” which contradicts the “close command recited in claim 1 “based on the specification of the close command, the control facility accepting as final the section onto which the marking is projected”. For examination purposes, it is presumed that claim 6 recites a distinct additional close command. 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. Claims 1-6 and 10-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Dirauf et al., US 20150351709 A1 ("Dirauf"). Regarding claim 1, the following limitations have been described by Applicant as “generally known” APO method (see e.g. [0006], [0010] of instant specification) operating method for a medical imaging system having a patient couch that is movable in a longitudinal direction such that different regions of a patient lying on the patient couch are movable in the longitudinal direction into an isocenter of the medical imaging system, the operating method comprising: a control facility of the medical imaging system receiving from an operator data which characterizes properties of the patient him/herself and the approximate arrangement of the patient on the patient couch; the control facility receiving a selection command from the operator for a selection of a region of the patient which is to be examined using the medical imaging system; the control facility utilizing the data about the patient, viewed in the longitudinal direction of the patient couch, to provisionally determine a section of the patient couch at which the selected region of the patient is assumed; and moving the patient couch such that the section is moved in the longitudinal direction into the isocenter of the medical imaging system ([0002]). The following limitations are not described as being associated with the known APO method: the control facility actuating a display facility, so that a marking is projected onto the provisionally determined section of the patient couch; based on correction commands which it receives from the operator, the control facility relocating the marking in the longitudinal direction, until it receives a close command from the operator; and based on the specification of the close command, the control facility accepting as final the section onto which the marking is projected during specification of the close command. However, Dirauf discloses a known method in the same field of endeavor ([abstract]) comprising a control facility actuating a display facility, so that a marking is projected onto a provisionally determined section of a patient couch ([0058] “the projector 3 projects control elements 10 in the form of demarcation lines which delimit the interaction zone 28”and as illustrated in Fig. 7); based on correction commands which it receives from the operator, the control facility relocating the marking in the longitudinal direction, until it receives a close command from the operator ([0058] “The extent of the interaction zone 28 can then be controlled in two dimensions by a corresponding positioning and/ or movement of the input elements 11”; [0064] “… a movement of the user's hands along the system axis 17 leads to a displacement of the demarcation lines. A movement of the input elements 11 therefore permits the interaction zone 28 to be modified dynamically”); and based on the specification of the close command, the control facility accepting as final the section onto which the marking is projected during specification of the close command (inherent step after dynamically modifying the interaction zone 28). In view of the teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have modified the generally known APO method to include the teachings of Dirauf discussed above, so as to facilitate quick and easy control of a medical device with little susceptibility to error by indicating an interaction zone of medical device with the patient during control of the medical device and use of projected control elements with predefined shape at an acquisition angle to realize precise control of the medical device ([0005-0006], [0012]). Regarding claim 2, as modified by the teachings of Dirauf, the markings comprise a line running transversely to the longitudinal direction of the patient couch (See Fig. 7 of Dirauf and/or [0032] “… the schematic control element 10 can be embodied in the shape of a rectangle, an ellipse or a line”). Regarding claims 3-4, as modified by Dirauf the marking comprises an image of the selected region of the patient (Dirauf [0041] “… camera 2 is used for recording an image of a projection surface. In the exemplary embodiment shown here, the image data Dat_I, which corresponds to the image of the projection surface”), in modified AAPA, the size of the image would be ascertained as a function of data characterizing the properties of the patient as the control facility utilizes the patient data. Regarding claim 5, as modified by Dirauf, the control facility receives the correction commands are gestures (Dirauf [0063]). Regarding claim 6, as modified by Dirauf, see teachings in [0062-0063], the control facility receives gestures to controlling the medical device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to modify the control facility of modified AAPA to receive a gesture to terminate the control facility, as a means of controlling the medical device r procedure. Regarding claims 10-11, see claim 1 above, and further [0003] in regards to a control program to execute the method and [0005] in regards to a medical imaging system. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Dirauf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaber et al., US 20210393218 A1 ("Jaber"). Regarding claim 7-9, AAPA the modified method of AAPA in view of Dirauf would include capturing images of the region of the patient using the medical imaging system and outputting them to the operator as the system is directed to an imaging system. AAPA in view of Dirauf does not explicitly disclose the control facility utilizing a model of the patient in addition to the data about the patient in connection with the provisional determination of the section of the patient couch, wherein the model is parameterized with parameters; and the control facility tracking at least one of the parameters of the model by utilizing the location of the final section of the patient couch or the difference between the provisionally determined section of the patient couch and the final section of the patient couch and/or the control facility receiving positioning commands from the operator, on the basis of moving the couch in the longitudinal direction. Jaber discloses in [0150] and Fig. 3-4, use of a silhouette or contour the patient projected on the couch (i.e., a model) that take into account patient parameters, [0151] teaches the control facility tracking at least one parameter of the model by utilizing the location of a final section of the patient couch or the difference between the provisionally determined section of het patient couch and he final section of the patient couch [([0152] “…the patient 5 is too close to the head end of the patient couch 6. This enables the user to identify and correct a misalignment of the patient 5 immediately.”, Figs. 5-6) [0152-0155] and Figs. 7-10 wherein imaging system 7 capture images that include the region of interest and display output the images to the operator, and receiving positioning command from the operator (illustration Fig. 7) to move the patient couch in the longitudinal direction. In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the teachings of Jaber discussed above into the method of AAPA in view of Dirauf, to enable a user to identify and correct misalignment of the patient. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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. /BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588846
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR DETERMINING A STATUS OF BRAIN AND/OR NERVE FUNCTIONS OF A PATIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12564445
METHODS FOR OPERATING A MEDICAL CONTINUUM ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564455
Systems And Methods For Controlling Robotic Movement Of A Tool Based On A Virtual Boundary
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557993
Temperature Detection
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12551135
MOBILE ULTRAWIDEBAND RADAR FOR MONITORING THORACIC FLUID LEVELS AND CARDIO-RESPIRATORY FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+30.0%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 539 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month