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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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 19 & 20 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 19 recites “a camera x-ray device” in L2-3. It is unclear it is unclear to one of ordinary skill if the camera is an x-ray or the camera is part of an x-ray imaging device. The limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as claim 19 for dependency reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Senegas et al. disclose: An X-ray imaging device for detecting a motion of an object (fig.1 item 12), the X-ray imaging device comprising:
an X-ray irradiator (fig.1 item 44) configured to generate X-rays and to irradiate the X-rays to the object (fig.1 item 50);
an X-ray detector (fig.1 item 32) configured to detect the X-rays irradiated by the X-ray irradiator and transmitted through the object;
a camera configured (fig.1 item 12) to obtain an object image by photographing the object positioned in front of the X-ray detector; a display (fig.1 item 24); one or more processors (fig.1 item 20) comprising processing circuitry; and a memory storing instructions (para. [0149]-[0150]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the X-ray imaging device to:
detect the motion of the object from the object image by analyzing the object; and output, on the display, a notification signal notifying a user of a result of the detecting of the motion of the object (para. [0101]).
Senegas et al. are silent about: detect the motion of the object from the object image by analyzing the object using an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
In a similar field of endeavor Vancamberg et al. disclose: detect the motion of the object from the object image by analyzing the object using an artificial intelligence (AI) model (para. [0037], [0045]) motivated by the benefits for improved ROI imaging accuracy and reducing image artifact.
In light of the benefits for improved ROI imaging accuracy and reducing image artifact, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al. with the teachings of Vancamberg et al.
Regarding claim 10, Senegas et al. and Vancamberg et al. disclose: A method of operating an X-ray imaging device, the method comprising: obtaining image data of an object by capturing the object with a camera of the X-ray imaging device;
detecting a motion of the object from the image data by analyzing the image data using an artificial intelligence (AI) model; and
outputting a notification signal notifying a user of a result of the detecting of the motion of the object (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claims 2 7 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021) and further in view of Bouhnik et al. (US 2021/0279953 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2021).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the X-ray imaging device to:
obtain a reference image of the object by capturing the object with the camera, based on the object completing positioning in front of the X-ray detector,
obtain an image frame of the object by subsequently capturing the object after obtaining the reference image, and
detect the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the reference image with the object recognized from the image frame through analysis using the AI model.
In a similar field of endeavor Bouhnik et al. disclose: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the imaging device to:
obtain a reference image of the object by capturing the object with the camera, based on the object completing positioning in front of detector,
obtain an image frame of the object by subsequently capturing the object after obtaining the reference image, and
detect the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the reference image with the object recognized from the image frame through analysis using the AI model (para. [0122]-[0123], [0184], [0371]) motivated by the benefits for improving motion tracking accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improving motion tracking accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al. and Vancamberg et al. with the teachings of Bouhnik et al.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Bouhnik et al. disclose: the obtaining of the image data comprises: obtaining a reference image of the object by capturing the object using the camera, based on the object completing positioning in front of an X-ray detector of the X-ray imaging device; and
obtaining an image frame of the object by subsequently capturing the object after obtaining the reference image,
wherein the detecting of the motion of the object comprises:
detecting the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the reference image with the object recognized from the image frame through analysis using the AI model (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Claims 3 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021) in view of Bouhnik et al. (US 2021/0279953 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2021) and further in view of AN et al. (US 2010/0073502 A1; pub. Mar. 25, 2010).
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the X-ray imaging device to:
obtain a plurality of weights of pixels representing the object recognized from the reference image by using a self-organizing map of the AI model;
detect the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the image frame with the object recognized from the reference image by using the plurality of weights, and
update the reference image and the plurality of weights based on the result of the detection of the motion of the object.
In a similar field of endeavor An et al. disclose: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the imaging device to:
obtain a plurality of weights of pixels representing the object recognized from the reference image by using a self-organizing map of the AI model;
detect the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the image frame with the object recognized from the reference image by using the plurality of weights, and
update the reference image and the plurality of weights based on the result of the detection of the motion of the object (para. [0013]-[0014], claims 7 & 12) motivated by the benefits for effective object tracking (An et al. para. [0007]).
In light of the benefits for effective object tracking as taught by An et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Bouhnik et al. with the teachings of An et al.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al., Bouhnik et al. and An et al. disclose: the detecting of the motion of the object comprises:
obtaining a plurality of weights of pixels representing the object recognized from the reference image by using a self-organizing map of the AI model;
detecting the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the image frame with the object recognized from the reference image by using the plurality of weights; and
updating the reference image and the plurality of weights based on the result of the detecting of the motion of the object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 3).
Claims 4, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021) in view of Bouhnik et al. (US 2021/0279953 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2021) and further in view of Divekar et al. (US 2023/0237700 A1; pub. Jul. 27, 2023).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the X-ray imaging device to:
extract a plurality of first key points of a landmark of the object from the reference image through inferencing using a trained deep neural network model of the AI model; extract a plurality of second key points of the landmark of the object from the image frame through inferencing using the trained deep neural network model; calculate a difference between key points by comparing the plurality of first key points with the plurality of second key points; and
detect the motion of the object by comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold.
In a similar field of endeavor Divekar et al. disclose: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the imaging device to:
extract a plurality of first key points of a landmark of the object from the reference image through inferencing using a trained deep neural network model of the AI model (para. [0016], [0048], [0050]); extract a plurality of second key points of the landmark of the object from the image frame through inferencing using the trained deep neural network model (para. [0016], [0048], [0050]); calculate a difference between key points by comparing the plurality of first key points with the plurality of second key points (para. [0048], [0050]); and
detect the motion of the object by comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold (para. [0048], [0050] teaches matching keypoints, matching is a comparison with an intended value plus or minus an expected margin of error, so it's greater than the lower bound and less than the upper bound, making the lower bound a lower threshold and the upper bound an upper threshold) motivated by the benefits for improved tracking accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved tracking accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Bouhnik et al. with the teachings of Divekar et al.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al., Bouhnik et al. Divekar et al. disclose: the detecting of the motion of the object comprises:
extracting a plurality of first key points of a landmark of the object from the reference image through inferencing using a trained deep neural network model of the AI model;
extracting a plurality of second key points of the landmark of the object from the image frame through inferencing using the trained deep neural network model;
calculating a difference between key points by comparing the plurality of first key points with the plurality of second key points; and
detecting the motion of the object by comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al., Bouhnik et al. Divekar et al. disclose: A method of operating an X-ray imaging device, the method comprising: obtaining a reference image of an object by capturing the object using a camera X-ray imaging device, based on the object completing positioning in front of an X-ray detector of the X-ray imaging device;
obtaining an image frame of the object by subsequently capturing the object after obtaining the reference image; extracting a plurality of first key points of a landmark of the object from the reference image through inferencing using a trained deep neural network model; extracting a plurality of second key points of the landmark of the object from the image frame through inferencing using the trained deep neural network model; calculating a difference between key points by comparing the plurality of first key points with the plurality of second key points; detecting a motion of the object by comparing the difference with a predetermined threshold; and outputting a notification signal notifying a user of a result of the detecting of the motion of the object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Claims 5 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021) in view of Bouhnik et al. (US 2021/0279953 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2021) in view of Divekar et al. (US 2023/0237700 A1; pub. Jul. 27, 2023) and further in view of Hugo et al. (US 2025/0157056 A1; pub. May 15, 2025).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the X-ray imaging device to:
train the trained deep neural network model using a supervised learning method by applying a plurality of obtained images as input data and location coordinates of key points of landmarks as ground truth.
In a similar field of endeavor Hugo et al. disclose: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the imaging device to:
train the trained deep neural network model using a supervised learning method by applying a plurality of obtained images as input data and location coordinates of key points of landmarks as ground truth (para. [0114]) motivated by the benefits for improved precision.
In light of the benefits for improved tracking accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al., Bouhnik et al. and Divekar et al. with the teachings of Hugo et al.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al., Bouhnik et al., Divekar et al. and Hugo et al. disclose: training the trained deep neural network model using a supervised learning method by applying a plurality of obtained images as input data and location coordinates of key points of landmarks as ground truth (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 5, especially se para. [0039] of Divekar et al. & para. [0114] of Hugo et al.).
Claims 6-7, 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021) in view of Kitano (US 2021/0383514 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2021).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: a depth measuring device comprising at least one of a stereo-type camera, a time of flight (ToF) camera, or a laser distance measurer,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the X-ray imaging device to:
detect positioning of the object by measuring, using the depth measuring device, a distance between the X-ray irradiator and the object.
In a similar field of endeavor Kitano discloses: a depth measuring device comprising at least one of a stereo-type camera, a time of flight (ToF) camera, or a laser distance measurer,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the X-ray imaging device to:
detect positioning of the object by measuring, using the depth measuring device, a distance between the X-ray irradiator and the object (para. [0013], [0044], [0101]) motivated by benefits for a real time improved imaging (Kitano para. [0095]).
In light of the benefits for a real time improved imaging as taught by Kitano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al. and Vancamberg et al. with the teachings of Kitano.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Kitano disclose: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the X-ray imaging device to:
set a motion detection sensitivity based on at least one of a source to image distance (SID), a size and a shape of the object, or an imaging protocol,
wherein the SID represents a distance between the object and the X-ray irradiator (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Kitano disclose: setting a motion detection sensitivity based on at least one of a source to image distance (SID), a size and a shape of the object, or an imaging protocol,
wherein the SID represents a distance between the object and an X-ray irradiator of the X-ray imaging device (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Kitano disclose: detecting object positioning by measuring, using a depth measuring device of the X-ray imaging device, the distance between the X-ray irradiator and the object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Claims 8-9, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021) in view of Addison et al. (US 2023/0397843 A1; pub. Dec. 14, 2023).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: the display is configured to display a graphical user interface (UI) having a predetermined color representing the motion of the object.
In a similar field of endeavor Addison et al. disclose: the display is configured to display a graphical user interface (UI) having a predetermined color representing the motion of the object (para. [0024], [0043], [0061]) motivated by the benefits for improved user experience.
In light of the benefits for improved user experience, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al. and Vancamberg et al. with the teachings of Addison et al.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Addison et al. disclose: a speaker configured to notify the user of motion information of the object by outputting at least one acoustic signal from among a voice and a notification sound (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 8, para. [0061] of Addison et al. teaches an audio signal).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Addison et al. disclose: the outputting of the notification signal comprises:
displaying a graphical user interface (UI) having a predetermined color representing the motion of the object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 8).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al. and Addison et al. disclose: notifying the user of motion information of the object by outputting, using a speaker of the X-ray imaging device, at least one acoustic signal from among a voice and a notification sound (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 9).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senegas et al. (US 2020/0029919 A1; pub. Jan. 30, 2020) in view of Vancamberg et al. (US 2021/0186450 A1; pub. Jun. 24, 2021) in view of Bouhnik et al. (US 2021/0279953 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2021) in view of Divekar et al. (US 2023/0237700 A1; pub. Jul. 27, 2023) and further in view of AN et al. (US 2010/0073502 A1; pub. Mar. 25, 2010).
Regarding claim 20, the combined references are silent about: the detecting of the motion of the object comprises:
obtaining a plurality of weights of pixels representing the object recognized from the reference image by using a self-organizing map;
detecting the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the image frame with the object recognized from the reference image by using the plurality of weights; and
updating the reference image and the plurality of weights based on the result of the detecting of the motion of the object.
In a similar field of endeavor An et al. disclose: the detecting of the motion of the object comprises:
obtaining a plurality of weights of pixels representing the object recognized from the reference image by using a self-organizing map;
detecting the motion of the object by comparing the object recognized from the image frame with the object recognized from the reference image by using the plurality of weights; and
updating the reference image and the plurality of weights based on the result of the detecting of the motion of the object (para. [0013]-[0014], claims 7 & 12) motivated by the benefits for effective object tracking (An et al. para. [0007]).
In light of the benefits for effective object tracking as taught by An et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Senegas et al., Vancamberg et al., Bouhnik et al. and Divekar et al. with the teachings of An et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
