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 Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 04/22/2026. As directed by the amendment, the specification and claims 1, 4 and 6 have been amended.
The amendment to the claims note above are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 1 and the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections form the previous Office action. The said claim objection and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection are hereby withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the full description of abbreviation “APO” added in the amendment to the specification noted above is not consistent with the full expression, as it is not clear or apparent what the “O” in “APO” represents. Moreover, the suggested full expression would reasonably and/or logically be abbreviated as “APP” which now raises the question as to whether this was the original intent. Further clarification is required or an amendment consistent with the abbreviation as originally presented.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In page 7 of the remarks, first paragraph, it has been argued that Dirauf (US 20150351709) does not disclose any “close command”. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons, firstly, the argument appears to address Dirauf in isolation without taking into account the teachings of Applicant Admitted Prior Art AAPA), yet it has already been held that 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), this addresses Applicant’s arguments in the second paragraph in page 7 and second full paragraph in page 8 of the response as these arguments are directed to Dirauf in isolation. Secondly, the phrase “close command” in combination with “accept as final” is broad to read on a last command after adjustments noted in Dirauf, see for example, instant specification [0030], “it is also possible for the specification of the close command to be implicit in nature. In particular, a lapse of time (“no change during the last x seconds”) can, where appropriate, be interpreted as a close command”. That is, a final adjustment by an operator would read on a close command because no more adjustments would be made, which is the case as disclosed by Dirauf. Examiner has also taken the position that “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)” as inherent because in Dirauf, the last adjustment reads on an implicit close command as discussed above. In Dirauf, the last/final adjustment (i.e. the close command) terminates a correction process ( [0054-0056] process before dynamic correction) and triggers subsequent action ([0054-0056] the dynamic correction). This addresses argument in page 7 first and second paragraph and page 8 second paragraph.
It is maintained herein that the combination of the teachings of AAPA (see instant specification [0002] “ - wherein the control facility moves the patient couch such that the section is moved in the longitudinal direction into the isocenter of the medical imaging system” in combination with the close command as taught by Dirauf reads in the claimed invention as the combined teachings of both AAPA and Dirauf suggest acceptance of a final command (as a close command) that terminates a correction process and triggers subsequent action of moving the patient couch.
In response to arguments directed to claims 7-9, the argument directed to “learning” feature/capability, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., learning feature or learning capability) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner further notes that the term “learning” does not appear in the specification. It has been further argued that Jaber (US 20210393218 A1) does not teach tracking model parameters based on the correction made between a provisionally determined section and a final section, while acknowledging Jaber teaches projecting a silhouette or contour and identifying misalignment. Here, a silhouette or contour of the patient is a representation of the patient, hence reads on a model (by definition is a representation, standard, or simplified version of something used for analysis, planning, or display), as noted in [0150], take account of patient parameters, matching the patient in terms of size. Fig. 5-6 and associated discussion in [0151] describe tracking of a region of interest “UB" to be aligned with scanning range “AB”, here “AB” includes the final position of patient couch while “UB” includes provisionally determined section of the patient couch, Fig. 5 and 6 show tracking i.e., position relationship between “UB” and “AB”. As previously noted, in Figs. 7-10 of Jaber and associated discussion in [0152-0155], the 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. Applicant argument directed to Jaber in isolation in regards to capturing a number of images with the medical imaging system is unpersuasive for reason noted above, since this particular limitation as noted in the previous Office action is disclosed by AAPA in view of Dirauf as the system includes this step after the patient is moved into the isocenter of the medical imaging system. As modified by the teachings of Jaber, the method would include receiving positional commands, see Jaber Figs. 7-10 to move the patient couch as desired in the longitudinal direction, for example after completing capturing images, the method would include positional commands to move the patient couch away from the isocenter of the medical imaging system. It is maintained herein that the combination of AAPA, Dirauf and Jaber teach and render obvious all the claimed limitations, subject to any clarification noted above.
Maintained Rejections
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 10-11 are 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, 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 of 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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
Prosecution Insights