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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake (US 2009/0292220 A1, Nov. 26, 2009) (hereinafter “Miyake”).
Regarding claim 1: Miyake discloses a medical image capturing support apparatus comprising: a processor ([0057]); and a memory in which a program to be executed by the processor is stored ([0057]), wherein the processor is configured to acquire a plurality of time-series captured images generated by capturing a subject ([0058], [0062]); acquire examination site information representing an examination site that is a target of medical image capturing ([0058] - "imaging target region"); detect, from the plurality of time-series captured images, a body movement region of the subject in the captured images in which a movement of the subject having periodicity and magnitude corresponding to a respiratory movement of the subject occurs ([0058]-[0060]), specify a position of the body movement region in the captured images with reference to the examination site information ([0059]); and identify a body position of the subject according to the position of the body movement region in the captured images ([0064]).
Regarding claim 2: Miyake discloses the medical image capturing support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to detect at least one of a chest or an abdomen of the subject in the captured images based on the body movement region ([0058], [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 7: Miyake discloses the medical image capturing support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify whether the subject is moved head-first or foot-first to the position at which the subject is to be captured as the body position of the subject ([0081], [0093]).
Regarding claim 8: Miyake discloses an operation method of a medical image capturing support apparatus, the operation method comprising causing a computer functioning as the medical image capturing support apparatus to execute: acquiring a plurality of time-series captured images generated by capturing a subject ([0058], [0062]); acquiring examination site information representing an examination site that is a target of medical image capturing ([0058] - "imaging target region"); detecting, from the plurality of time-series captured images, a body movement region of the subject in the captured images in which a movement of the subject having periodicity and magnitude corresponding to a respiratory movement of the subject occurs ([0058]-[0060]); specifying a position of the body movement region in the captured images with reference to the examination site information ([0059]); and identifying a body position of the subject according to the position of the body movement region in the captured images ([0064]).
Regarding claim 9: Miyake discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium which records thereon a program for causing a computer functioning as a medical image capturing support apparatus to realize: a function of acquiring a plurality of time-series captured images generated by capturing a subject ([0058], [0062]); a function of acquiring examination site information representing an examination site that is a target of medical image capturing ([0058] - "imaging target region"); a function of detecting, from the plurality of time-series captured images, a body movement region of the subject in the captured images in which a movement of the subject having periodicity and magnitude corresponding to a respiratory movement of the subject occurs ([0058]-[0060]); a function of specifying a position of the body movement region in the captured images with reference to the examination site information ([0059]); and a function of identifying a body position of the subject according to the position of the body movement region in the captured images ([0064]).
Regarding claim 10: Miyake discloses A medical image capturing apparatus comprising: an imaging unit configured to image a subject and generate imaging data of the subject; an image reconstruction unit configured to generate reconstruction based on the imaging data; and the medical image capturing support apparatus according to claim 1 (fig. 1, [0066], [0173]; the CT scan apparatus 3 is considered to be an implicit disclosure of the image reconstruction that would be necessary to produce CT image data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2022/0202375 A1, Jun. 30, 2022) (hereinafter “Kaneko”).
Regarding claim 3: Miyake discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to detect the body movement region by applying optical flow calculation processing of calculating an optical flow in the plurality of time-series captured images.
Kaneko, in the analogous art of respiration detection, discloses capturing a plurality of time-series images and detecting a body movement region by applying optical flow calculation processing of calculating an optical flow in the plurality of time-series captured images ([0034], [0037]-[0041]). Kaneko further discloses that the calculation process using optical flow is used to obtain the most accurate region of interest for detecting respiratory motion ([0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Miyake by configuring the processor to detect the body movement region by applying optical flow calculation processing of calculating an optical flow in the plurality of time-series captured images as taught by Kaneko in order to obtain a more accurate result as further taught by Kaneko.
Regarding claim 4: Miyake discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to acquire a plurality of time-series first captured images obtained by capturing the subject using a first camera disposed on one side of an imaging space, detect a first body movement region as the body movement region from the plurality of time-series first captured images, acquire a plurality of time-series second captured images obtained by capturing the subject using a second camera disposed on the other side of the imaging space, detect a second body movement region as the body movement region from the plurality of time-series second captured images, and identify the body position of the subject according to a comparison result between the first body movement region and the second body movement region.
Kaneko, in the analogous art of respiration detection, discloses a processor configured to acquire a plurality of time-series first captured images obtained by capturing the subject using a first camera disposed on one side of an imaging space ([0056]-[0057]), detect a first body movement region as the body movement region from the plurality of time-series first captured images ([0058] - comparing regions in the right and left images), acquire a plurality of time-series second captured images obtained by capturing the subject using a second camera disposed on the other side of the imaging space ([0056]-[0057]), detect a second body movement region as the body movement region from the plurality of time-series second captured images ([0058] - comparing regions in the right and left images), and identify the best ROI for measuring the body movement according to a comparison result between the first body movement region and the second body movement region ([0054]). Kaneko further discloses that this dual-camera technique provides improved accuracy in the detection of respiratory motion ([0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to find the best body movement region using the dual-camera technique of Kaneko to identify the body movement region of Miyake in view of the further teachings of Kaneko that this technique provides a more accurate result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Objection to claims 4-6 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/16/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dai et al. (US 2021/0153767 A1, May 27, 2021) – discloses determining a patient’s positioning direction (head first, feet first) for magnetic resonance imaging using a camera disposed outside of the imaging bore.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLYN A PEHLKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3484. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm (Central Time), Monday - Friday.
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, Chris Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/CAROLYN A PEHLKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
