DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is noted that the claimed “a motion monitor camera” and “a setup camera” as specifies in the claim, lacks clarity as to what applicant refers to. For the purpose of art rejection, the above cameras, considered as just cameras with different FOVs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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)(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.
5. Claims 1-3,6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Laurence et al. (US 2025/0018223).
Regarding claim 1, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system for a bore based medical apparatus having at least one of an imaging apparatus configured to record diagnostic images of a patient and a treatment apparatus integrated into the bore based medical apparatus (e.g., figs. 3A-4B, abstract, paragraphs 0005,0007,0055), the camera monitoring system comprising; a motion monitor camera looking from inside a bore of the bore based medical apparatus, with a first field of view oriented in a direction inside the bore, and configured to record images of at least a target area of the patient during use of the medical apparatus (e.g., figs. 3A-4A, patient-monitoring imaging system as shown in the figures is configured to acquire images of target regions inside bore, also see paragraph 0008,0033, etc.), a setup camera oriented with a second field of view in a direction outside of the bore (e.g., figs. 2a-4a, paragraphs 0002,0008,0033-0034,0046,0051, etc.) and configured to record images of the patient during a positioning of the patient onto a couch (e.g., figs. 5a-5b, imaging system has a field-of-view that includes the patient area that is outside of the bore, also patient positioning devices, paragraphs 0015,0036,0047,0051,0058,0070,0074, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the motion monitor camera is configured to be integrated into the bore of the bore based medical apparatus (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0005,0033,0039,0041-0042,0046,etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system according to claim 1,
wherein the motion monitor camera is configured to be inserted in the bore of the bore based medical apparatus along an inside top surface of the bore in such manner that a top portion of the camera is aligned with the inside top surface of the bore (e.g., ceiling and/or wall-mounted cameras, paragraphs 0005,0039,0042,0046,etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, comprising two motion monitor cameras, wherein a first motion monitor cameras is configured to be integrated into a first side of the bore and the second motion monitor cameras is configured to be integrated into a second side of said bore (e.g., fig. 3B, paragraphs 0005,0039,etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, further comprising at least one couch monitor camera having a third field of view oriented in a direction towards an end of the couch and facing away from the bore (e.g., camera that is mounted at the foot of the patient platform, considered equivalent, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 11, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the motion monitor camera and the setup camera are 3D cameras (e.g., paragraphs 0008,
0015,0035,0041).
Regarding claim 12, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system according to claim 11, wherein the 3D cameras are selected from the group comprising: stereoscopic cameras; 3D time of flight cameras, and 3D cameras utilizing the projection of structured light onto the surface of an object being monitored (e.g., paragraphs 0008,0015,0035,0041).
Regarding claim 13, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, further comprising a patient monitor processor configured to be in data communication with the motion monitor camera and the setup camera, and configured to receive image data from the motion monitor camera and the setup camera (e.g., system controller disclosed throughout the disclosure, paragraphs 0008,0056,0084-0085,etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Laurence discloses a camera monitoring system in accordance with claim 13, wherein the patient monitor processor is configured to: i) process image data from the setup camera in a setup stage, to generate a 3D surface model of the patient lying on the couch and to correlate the generated 3D model surface with a reference surface stored in the patient monitor processor; and subsequently to ii) process image data received from the motion monitor camera in a monitoring stage to create time-dependent 3D surface models of said patient lying on the couch and when said couch is moved into the bore of the medical apparatus (e.g., figs. 2a-3b, paragraph 0010,0013,0044,etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurence et al. (US 2025/0018223) in view of Olcott et al. (US 2019/0070437).
Regarding claim 4, Laurence teaches a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, including the motion monitor camera is mounted inside the bore based medical apparatus enclosure structure, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Laurence is silent in regards to details of mount, such as, a camera mount having a branch in a mounted position on the bore based medical apparatus arranged to follow the surface of a bore based medical apparatus enclosure structure.
Olcott, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraph 0058) teaches a camera and/or lighting mount attached to the internal wall of the bore. In some variations, the camera and/or lighting
Mount may comprise a groove or recess, for attaching the camera into the bore, and considered equivalent to the limitation as claimed.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Olcott, into the system of Laurence, for mounting the imaging sensors into the bore. It is noted that the differences are considered as design choice.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Laurence and Olcott teach a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the motion monitor camera is mounted on a camera mount having a branch in a mounted position on the bore based medical apparatus arranged to abut the surface of a bore based medical apparatus enclosure structure (please see claim 4 above).
9. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurence et al. (US 2025/0018223) in view of Berlinger et al. (US 2019/0111279).
Regarding claim 8, Laurence teaches a camera monitoring system according to claim 1, related to patient monitoring system/imaging system and calibration of the imaging system.
Laurence is silent to explicitly teach, cameras configured so as to have a field of view
covering at least a setup iso-center, whereas the motion monitor camera is configured to cover at least a treatment iso-center.
However, the above claimed limitation is known and used in the conventional prior art of patient monitoring/imaging and scanning, as evidenced by Berlinger et al. US 20190111279 (e.g.,
paragraphs 0007,0011,0069-0070.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching, since it is necessitated by the patient imaging and treatment applications.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Laurence and Berlinger teach a camera monitoring system according to claim 8, wherein the setup camera is configured to cover the setup iso-center without obstructing the field of view of the motion monitor camera (e.g., fig. 9 of ‘279).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see
http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact
the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights