DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 06/04/2025. Presently, Claims 1-20 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to detailed illustrations in FIG. 1-2, 5-6. as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. The unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. See MPEP 608.02(b). The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels and numbers are not considered to be “descriptive text labels”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13: recites:
“[...] applying the trained function, the trained function configured to detect and to classify objects using the object measurement data [...] “ – lines 6-9.
An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). This can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015), see MPEP § 2161(I).
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for a lack of written description. Proper written description cannot be identified in the specification, claims, and drawings directed to the computer implemented steps of the trained function configured to detect and classify objects by machine learning techniques using e.g., convolutional networks. Specifically, the specification does not provide and lacks detailed a step-by-step description, any algorithmic or flowchart-based disclosure, specific functions, and/or weights for the machine learning techniques or convolutional networks used for the trained function.
These limitations are computer/processor-implemented functional claim limitation as it is directed to a processor-controlled algorithm configured to determine object classification. Yet the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions, i.e., “[...] applying the trained function, the trained function configured to detect and to classify objects using the object measurement data [...] “ in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, these claims are rejected for lack of written description. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §§ 2161, 2162-2163.07(b).
The specification paragraphs ¶0060-0066, ¶0086, ¶0096-0097 are directed to mere example of generalized machine learning models tantamount to a black box, rather than showing procession of a particular implementation. Without the level of detail regarding the weights used, parameters used, and operations of the segmentation using machine learning models, the written description requirement is not satisfied. The mere use of stating trained function is not sufficient. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement the described process without disclosure of said weights, parameters, and/or operations of the segmentation achieved by machine learning techniques in a step-by-step manner. In addition, an assertion that could be derived using simulations or test (i.e., prophetic examples) does not demonstrate that the inventor(s) actual did so or had possession of the specific functional relationships and constraints to obviate the lack of written description requirement.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve the aforementioned step. Since the instant specification fails to provide a finite sequence of steps for performing step, the aforementioned claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1-13, 16-20 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claim 14-15 are directed to an “apparatus” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine, where Claim 14, includes the method of claim 1.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ A method for checking a magnetic resonance sequence for adherence to at least one limit value, the method comprising:
determining position information of a specific part of a body of a patient on a patient table; and
checking the magnetic resonance sequence for adherence to the at least one limit value using the position information of the specific part of the body. ”
Claims 14 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“to perform the method of claim 1.” -(i.e., the method above in claim 1)
In claim 1, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, and fall squarely within the groupings of mathematical concepts. Indeed, the recited limitations can be performed as a mental process because they describe operations that can be carried out through observation, evaluation, and judgment in the human mind. A person could visually identify or otherwise perceive the position of a specific part of a patient’s body on a table and mentally note that that positional relationship. The person could then compare the perceived position against a known or remembered limit value associated with acceptable magnetic resonance conditions and determine through mental evaluation, whether the sequence adheres to those limits. This sequence of observing, recalling criteria, and making a comparison type determination reflect a mental process that can be performed entirely mentally, even if the claim is framed in the context of medical imaging. In other words, yes; the whole generically recited claim 1 is an abstract mental process. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in this method.
Prong Two: Claims 1 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of “A magnetic resonance apparatus comprising: a magnet unit surrounding a patient receiving area; a patient table movable into the patient receiving area; and a position determination apparatus”- (claim 14).
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated position information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe improvement in the process of using positional techniques, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of “A magnetic resonance apparatus comprising: a magnet unit surrounding a patient receiving area; a patient table movable into the patient receiving area; and a position determination apparatus”. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Takenouchi (US 5332972 A) discloses:
[Col. 1 l.12-21], ‘It is well known that a medical MRI system includes a bed device for putting a patient thereon, a magnet device for forming a static magnetic field, a transmitter-receiver for transmitting a high frequency wave for generating magnetic resonance to the patient and for receiving an MR signal from the patient to detect and amplify the MR signal, a gradient magnetic field generator for discriminating the position of the MR signal and a processor-controller for controlling the entire system and reconstructing the image.’
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
defining further comprising: acquiring distance measurement data for measurement of a distance between a target object and a reference object of the patient table, wherein the determining determines the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient using the distance measurement data. (claim 2)
defining wherein the distance measurement data comprises at least one of two-dimensional distance measurement data or three-dimensional distance measurement data. (claim 5)
defining further comprising: acquiring object measurement data; and verifying the target object as a head of the patient using the object measurement data. (claim 6)
Claim 9 describing wherein the object measurement data comprises at least one of two-dimensional object measurement data or three-dimensional object measurement data.
Claim 10 describing wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the object measurement data.
Claim 11 describing further comprising: providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data.
Claim 12 describing wherein a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate safety or accuracy.
Claim 16 describing wherein the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient includes position information of a head of the patient.
Claim 17 describing wherein the target object is a head of the patient and the reference object is a reference point of the patient table.
Claim 18 describing wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the object measurement data.
Claim 19 describing further comprising: providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data.
Claim 20 describing wherein a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate safety or accuracy.
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
describing wherein the acquiring acquires the distance measurement data using a distance senso. (claim 3)
describing wherein the distance sensor comprises an ultrasound sensor. (claim 4)
describing wherein the acquiring the object measurement data acquires the object measurement data using a verification sensor. (claim 7)
Claim 13 describing wherein the specific part is a head of the patient and the determining the position information of the head comprises an object classification method, the object classification method including a computer-implemented, trained function, including, inputting object measurement data into the trained function, applying the trained function, the trained function configured to detect and to classify objects using the object measurement data, and returning a classification of an object detected using the trained function.
Claim 15 describing wherein the position determination apparatus is on the patient table at a foot end of the patient table.
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferguson et al (US 20200025845 A1).
Claim 1: Ferguson discloses, A method (¶Abstract) for checking a magnetic resonance sequence for adherence to at least one limit value (loading threshold value, ¶Abstract), the method comprising:
determining position information of a specific part of a body of a patient on a patient table; and (¶Abstract, ¶0012, ¶0042-0043 Claim 1, FIG. 1, The method includes determining a body part position which constitutes as the position of a specific body part of a patient such as the patient’s head. The patient is positioned on a patient table for the MR examination.)
checking the magnetic resonance sequence for adherence to the at least one limit value using the position information of the specific part of the body. (¶Abstract, Claim 1, ¶0007, The method involves determining the spacing between the position of the local coil and the determine position of the patient’s body part. Using said spacing which relies on the position of the patient’s body part, the method checks that a predetermine loading threshold value (i.e., a specific absorption rate (SAR value)) is not exceeded during the subsequent MR examination.
Claim 14: Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim1, Ferguson discloses, A magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a magnet unit (magnetic unit 11) surrounding a patient receiving area (FIG. 1, ¶0031, ‘the patient receiving region 14 is configured as cylindrical about a longitudinal axis z and is surrounded cylindrically in a peripheral direction by the magnet unit 11.’);
a patient table (patient table 17) movable into the patient receiving area (¶0031, ‘a patient table 17 that is configured to be movable within the patient receiving region 14.’); and
a position determination apparatus configured to perform the method of claim 1 (¶0022, ‘the magnetic resonance apparatus includes a determining unit for determining a coil position and a body part position. The determining unit may include, for example, an optical detection unit for determining the body part position and/or a magnetic field sensor for determining the coil position.’).
Claim 16: Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim1, Ferguson discloses, wherein the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient includes position information of a head of the patient (¶0012, ¶0035, Claims 2-6).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-12, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al (US 20200025845 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of KRISHNAIYER RAMAN et al (US 20200178839 A1).
Claim 2: Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Ferguson fails to disclose, further comprising: acquiring distance measurement data for measurement of a distance between a target object and a reference object of the patient table, wherein the determining determines the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient using the distance measurement data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman in the context of patient position for magnetic resonance imaging discloses, further comprising: acquiring distance measurement data (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027, but this two-dimensional image where pixels contain a depth value is of the two-dimensional image (i.e., two-dimensional distance measurement data), ¶0027. Each of these depth values is a direct measurement of the distance from the camera to a specific point on the patient and/or table.) for measurement of a distance between a target object and a reference object of the patient table (The system identifies markers to determine the position of the patient with respect to the table, ¶0033. There are ¶0033, “reference features on subject support 14 and markers on 3D human subject model 32 to depict patient position with respect to table. The reference features on the subject support 14 should be imaged by the range image, and accordingly may be dedicated features such as molded grooves or ridges (providing range variation) or features such as corners off the subject support.” The system uses a coordinate system to calculate distances between the body and the support reference markers using the range image, ¶0033) wherein the determining determines the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient using the distance measurement data (The system identifies a reference point on or inside the patient, which corresponds to the specific body part or ROI to be imaged (i.e., center of the brain (head)), ¶0031-0032. The system determines the exact coordinates of this reference point in the frame of reference of the patient table by applying transitional shifts, ¶0033. These shifts are directly determined by the measured distances between the patient’s body marker and the table’s reference markers found in the distance measurement data, ¶0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferguson to further comprise, acquiring distance measurement data for measurement of a distance between a target object and a reference object of the patient table, wherein the determining determines the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient using the distance measurement data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 3: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the acquiring acquires the distance measurement data using a distance sensor.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: wherein the acquiring acquires the distance measurement data using a distance sensor (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, capturing 3D distance information, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance measurement data of modified Ferguson to including using a distance sensor as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 5: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 3, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the distance measurement data comprises at least one of two-dimensional distance measurement data or three-dimensional distance measurement data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: wherein the distance measurement data comprises at least one of two-dimensional distance measurement data or three-dimensional distance measurement data (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027, but this two-dimensional image where pixels contain a depth value is of the two-dimensional image (i.e., two-dimensional distance measurement data), ¶0027. Each of these depth values is a direct measurement of the distance from the camera to a specific point on the patient and/or table.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance measurement data of modified Ferguson to comprise at least two-dimensional distance measurement data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 6: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Ferguson fails to disclose, further comprising:
acquiring object measurement data; and
verifying the target object as a head of the patient using the object measurement data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: acquiring object measurement data; and (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027, but this two-dimensional image where pixels contain a depth value is of the two-dimensional image (i.e., two-dimensional distance measurement data), ¶0027. Each of these depth values is a direct measurement of the distance from the camera to a specific point on the patient and/or table. When the system combines all these individual pixel distance measurements, it captures three-dimensional (3D) information and real time 3D coordinates, ¶0027-0028. This resulting 3D structural data represents the physical contours and shape of the patient. The system then uses this 3D shape data to perform tracking and recognition of a ROI such as the head, ¶0027-0028)
verifying the target object as a head of the patient using the object measurement data. (per-pixel body part recognition, ¶0028, this recognition allows for identification and mapping specific body parts on a 3D model of the subject, specifically, including the head. In addition, ¶0032, the semi-automatic process where the system analyzes the range image to detect that a rod or pointer is directed at the head region, which allows the computer to automatically identify the head and place a reference point precisely at the center of the brain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Ferguson further comprise acquiring object measurement data; and verify the target object as a head of the patient using the object measurement data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 7: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 6, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the acquiring the object measurement data acquires the object measurement data using a verification sensor.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: wherein the acquiring the object measurement data acquires the object measurement data using a verification sensor.
-Specifically, Krishnaiyer Raman describes a range camera performing the functional role of verifying the object and confirming the position. Accordingly, Krishnaiyer Raman discloses, (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027, but this two-dimensional image where pixels contain a depth value is of the two-dimensional image (i.e., two-dimensional distance measurement data), ¶0027. Each of these depth values is a direct measurement of the distance from the camera to a specific point on the patient and/or table. When the system combines all these individual pixel distance measurements, it captures three-dimensional (3D) information and real time 3D coordinates, ¶0027-0028. This resulting 3D structural data represents the physical contours and shape of the patient. The system then uses this 3D shape data to perform tracking and recognition of a ROI such as the head, ¶0027-0028. Per-pixel body part recognition, ¶0028, this recognition allows for identification and mapping specific body parts on a 3D model of the subject, specifically, including the head. In addition, ¶0032, the semi-automatic process where the system analyzes the range image to detect that a rod or pointer is directed at the head region, which allows the computer to automatically identify the head and place a reference point precisely at the center of the brain.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acquiring of the object measurement data of modified Ferguson using a verification sensor as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 9: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the object measurement data comprises at least one of two-dimensional object measurement data or three-dimensional object measurement data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: wherein the object measurement data comprises at least one of two-dimensional object measurement data or three-dimensional object measurement data. (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027, but this two-dimensional image where pixels contain a depth value is of the two-dimensional image (i.e., two-dimensional distance measurement data), ¶0027. Each of these depth values is a direct measurement of the distance from the camera to a specific point on the patient and/or table. When the system combines all these individual pixel distance measurements, it captures three-dimensional (3D) information and real time 3D coordinates, ¶0027-0028. This resulting 3D structural data represents the physical contours and shape of the patient. The system then uses this 3D shape data to perform tracking and recognition of a ROI such as the head, ¶0027-0028)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the object measurement data of modified Ferguson to comprise at least three-dimensional distance measurement data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 10: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 6, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the object measurement data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the object measurement data. (¶0028, ¶0032, Claim 1, Per-pixel body part recognition, ¶0028, this recognition allows for identification and mapping specific body parts on a 3D model of the subject, specifically, including the head. In addition, ¶0032, the semi-automatic process where the system analyzes the range image to detect that a rod or pointer is directed at the head region, which allows the computer to automatically identify the head and place a reference point precisely at the center of the brain. Note, the method involves using the range image determining a reference point on or in the human subject.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining of the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient of modified Ferguson such that its “based on” the object measurement data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 11: Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Ferguson fails to explicitly teach, further comprising:
providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman in the context of patient position for magnetic resonance imaging discloses, further comprising: providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data. (Patient data is provided to assist in the determination of the exact position of the specific body part (i.e., the reference point or ROI). Specifically, either by body class input or examination data, ¶0029-0031.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Ferguson such that it further comprises providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 12: Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate safety or accuracy.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman in the context of patient position for magnetic resonance imaging discloses, wherein a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate safety or accuracy.
-Krishnaiyer Raman teaches that the measurement from the range camera is limited to the exterior surface of the image subject in that locating the reference point inside the human body is necessary to provide better positioning at the isocenter of the magnet, ¶0032. It is difficult to define a reference point inside the patient, ¶0040, there by defining that the measurement alone cannot determine the position with adequate accuracy. Because this direct exterior measurement is inadequate for accurately determining an internal point, the system defines position information using estimations by employing a “typical” depth of the brain center, ¶0040. Here the typical depth is the defined estimated value used as the position information. Because the surface data cannot be accurately determine the internal position of the body part, the system is forced to define the position information by relying on estimated values such as the typical internal depth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining of the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient of modified Ferguson such that a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate accuracy as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 17: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Ferguson discloses, wherein the target object is a head of the patient and the reference object is a reference point of the patient table.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses, wherein the target object is a head of the patient and the reference object is a reference point (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, capturing 3D distance information, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027) (The system identifies markers to determine the position of the patient with respect to the table, ¶0033. There are ¶0033, “reference features on subject support 14 and markers on 3D human subject model 32 to depict patient position with respect to table. The reference features on the subject support 14 should be imaged by the range image, and accordingly may be dedicated features such as molded grooves or ridges (providing range variation) or features such as corners off the subject support.” The system uses a coordinate system to calculate distances between the body and the support reference markers using the range image, ¶0033) (The system identifies a reference point on or inside the patient, which corresponds to the specific body part or ROI to be imaged (i.e., center of the brain (head)), ¶0031-0032. The system determines the exact coordinates of this reference point in the frame of reference of the patient table by applying transitional shifts, ¶0033. These shifts are directly determined by the measured distances between the patient’s body marker and the table’s reference markers found in the distance measurement data, ¶0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Ferguson such that wherein the target object is a head of the patient and the reference object is a reference point as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 18: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Ferguson discloses, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the object measurement data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the object measurement data. (¶0028, ¶0032, Claim 1, Per-pixel body part recognition, ¶0028, this recognition allows for identification and mapping specific body parts on a 3D model of the subject, specifically, including the head. In addition, ¶0032, the semi-automatic process where the system analyzes the range image to detect that a rod or pointer is directed at the head region, which allows the computer to automatically identify the head and place a reference point precisely at the center of the brain. Note, the method involves using the range image determining a reference point on or in the human subject.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining of the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient of modified Ferguson such that its “based on” the object measurement data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 19: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 18, Ferguson discloses,, further comprising:
providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman in the context of patient position for magnetic resonance imaging discloses, further comprising: providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data. (Patient data is provided to assist in the determination of the exact position of the specific body part (i.e., the reference point or ROI). Specifically, either by body class input or examination data, ¶0029-0031.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Ferguson such that it further comprises providing patient data, wherein the determining the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient is based on the patient data as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claim 20: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 19, Ferguson discloses, wherein a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate safety or accuracy.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman in the context of patient position for magnetic resonance imaging discloses, wherein a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate safety or accuracy.
-Krishnaiyer Raman teaches that the measurement from the range camera is limited to the exterior surface of the image subject in that locating the reference point inside the human body is necessary to provide better positioning at the isocenter of the magnet, ¶0032. It is difficult to define a reference point inside the patient, ¶0040, thereby defining that the measurement alone cannot determine the position with adequate accuracy. Because this direct exterior measurement is inadequate for accurately determining an internal point, the system defines position information using estimations by employing a “typical” depth of the brain center, ¶0040. Here the typical depth is the defined estimated value used as the position information. Because the surface data cannot accurately determine the internal position of the body part, the system is forced to define the position information by relying on estimated values such as the typical internal depth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining of the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient of modified Ferguson such that a defined estimated value is defined as position information if the position information of the specific part of the body of the patient cannot be determined with at least one of adequate accuracy as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al (US 20200025845 A1) in view of KRISHNAIYER RAMAN et al (US 20200178839 A1), as applied to claim 3, in further view of Popescu (US 20150208946 A1).
Claim 4: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 3, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the distance sensor comprises an ultrasound sensor.
However, Popescu in the context of positioning an examination object discloses, wherein the distance sensor comprises an ultrasound sensor (¶0049, ‘All of the ultrasound sensors 31 then operate in receive mode in order to capture echoes that are generated as a result of a reflection of the emitted ultrasound wave pulse at the interface between the head K of the patient O and the positioning device 35, or to capture echoes that originate from the regions within the head K. The present distance between the respective sensor and the examination object O or head K is ascertained as a function of the time period between the emission of the ultrasound wave pulse and the echoes being received at the various ultrasound sensors 31.’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance sensor of modified Ferguson to comprise a ultrasound sensor as taught by Popescu. The motivation to do this yield predictable results “such that movements of the examination object may be captured more precisely and also more easily than is possible according to the prior art. Since the creation of the image takes place on the basis of these precisely captured movements, the quality is also better than what is provided according to the prior art.”, as suggested by Popescu, ¶0028.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al (US 20200025845 A1) in view of KRISHNAIYER RAMAN et al (US 20200178839 A1), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Vija et al (US 20130281818 A1).
Claim 8: Modified Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the verification sensor.
However, Krishnaiyer Raman is relied upon above discloses: the verification sensor
-Specifically, Krishnaiyer Raman describes a range camera performing the functional role of verifying the object and confirming the position. Accordingly, Krishnaiyer Raman discloses, (range camera 10, FIG. 1 acquires two-dimensional range image of the human subject (i.e., target object) and subject support (i.e., patient table. In the range image, each pixel has a depth value corresponding to distances from the range camera, ¶Abstract, ¶0025, ¶0027, but this two-dimensional image where pixels contain a depth value is of the two-dimensional image (i.e., two-dimensional distance measurement data), ¶0027. Each of these depth values is a direct measurement of the distance from the camera to a specific point on the patient and/or table. When the system combines all these individual pixel distance measurements, it captures three-dimensional (3D) information and real time 3D coordinates, ¶0027-0028. This resulting 3D structural data represents the physical contours and shape of the patient. The system then uses this 3D shape data to perform tracking and recognition of a ROI such as the head, ¶0027-0028. Per-pixel body part recognition, ¶0028, this recognition allows for identification and mapping specific body parts on a 3D model of the subject, specifically, including the head. In addition, ¶0032, the semi-automatic process where the system analyzes the range image to detect that a rod or pointer is directed at the head region, which allows the computer to automatically identify the head and place a reference point precisely at the center of the brain.)
Note: Krishnaiyer Raman established that “Commercial range cameras typically operate in the infrared”, ¶0027.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acquiring of the object measurement data of modified Ferguson using the verification sensor as taught by Krishnaiyer Raman. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the advantage of providing for more accurate patient position respective to an imaging device, providing for patient position without the use of lasers or other high-intensity radiation, providing for patient positioning with reduce stress to the patient, providing for patient positioning with reduce likelihood of patient-bore collision, as explicitly suggested by Krishnaiyer Raman, ¶0008-0011.
Ferguson fails to disclose that the verification sensor comprises a temperature sensor.
However, Vija in the context of patient positioning in medical imaging discloses, a temperature sensor (¶0036, ‘To generate the range data, the range imaging camera 46 may be configured to transmit an infrared (IR) signal, such as an IR laser signal, detect reflections (e.g., backscattering) of the IR signal, and determine the time-of-flight of the IR signal.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the verification sensor of modified Ferguson to comprise a temperature sensor as taught by Vija. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the resolution of the range data in one or more dimensions, as suggested by Vija ¶0042.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al (US 20200025845 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Tremblay et al (US 20230043342 A1).
Claim 13: Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Ferguson discloses, wherein the specific part is a head of the patient and the determining the position information of the head (¶Abstract, ¶0012, ¶0042-0043 Claim 1, FIG. 1, The method includes determining a body part position which constitutes as the position of a specific body part of a patient such as the patient’s head. The patient is positioned on a patient table for the MR examination.)
Ferguson fails to disclose, determining the position information of the head comprises an object classification method, the object classification method including a computer-implemented, trained function, including,
inputting object measurement data into the trained function,
applying the trained function, the trained function configured to detect and to classify objects using the object measurement data, and
returning a classification of an object detected using the trained function.
However, Tremblay in the context of non-contact temperature measurement in thermal imaging systems and methods discloses, determining the position information of the head (¶0036, ¶0097, ¶0100, ¶0130) comprises an object classification method, the object classification method including a computer-implemented, trained function, (¶0045, ¶0076, ¶0093, ¶0097) including,
inputting object measurement data into the trained function (¶0085, ¶0097),
applying the trained function, the trained function configured to detect and to classify objects using the object measurement data (¶0085, ¶0093), and
returning a classification of an object detected using the trained function (¶0085, ¶0094, ¶0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining of the position information of the head of Ferguson to comprise an object classification method, the object classification method including a computer-implemented, trained function, including, inputting object measurement data into the trained function, applying the trained function, the trained function configured to detect and to classify objects using the object measurement data, and returning a classification of an object detected using the trained function as taught by Tremblay. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improved reliability and accuracy over conventional techniques for detecting elevated body and/or skin temperature, as suggested by Tremblay, ¶0063.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al (US 20200025845 A1), as applied to claim 14, in further view of MOSTAFAVI (US 20170014648 A1).
Claim 15: Ferguson discloses all the elements above in claim 14, Ferguson fails to disclose, wherein the position determination apparatus is on the patient table at a foot end of the patient table.
However, Mostafavi in the context of patient positioning monitoring discloses, wherein the position determination apparatus (130, FIG. 103) is on the patient table (14) at a foot end of the patient table. (¶0074, ‘the securing mechanism 132 is configured to secure the camera 130 to a bracket 136 at the foot of the support 14’’; ¶0123, ‘the patient monitoring system 100 may include multiple Kinect cameras to get a more complete surface model of the patient (e.g., more complete than the setup in which a camera is mounted at the foot of the patient support with a look-down angle of about 30 degrees, which produces a partial 3D surface model,’, see ¶0072, ¶0089-0090, regarding captured images by the camera 130 is processed by the processing unit to determine the position of various ROI.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position determination apparatus of Ferguson such that it is on the patient table at a foot end of the patient table as taught by Mostafavi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as it is advantageous to allow for configuration where the camera moves with the patient support and therefore the patient irrespective of the movement of the support, as suggested by Mostafavi ¶0076.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights