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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a resolution determination unit claimed in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an imaging frequency determination unit claimed in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130” has been used to designate both “a type determination unit” and “a density information acquisition unit”.
Figures 2 and 3 are objected to because suitable descriptive legends are required for structural elements (110, 120, 130, 140, 141, 142, 150, 151, 152, and 170) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(o).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: a radiographic imaging apparatus 100.
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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGING APPARATUS COMPRISING A DENSITY INFORMATION ACQUISITION UNIT, A TYPE DETERMINATION UNIT, AND AN IMAGE MODE DETERMINATION UNIT, AND RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGING METHOD.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
A reference character “130” designates both “a type determination unit” and “a density information acquisition unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
2. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging mode determination unit comprises a rotation angle determination unit configured to determine an angle range in which the radiation source rotates around the breast (claim 12) according to the type of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the type determination unit comprise at least one of:
a thickness measurement unit configured to measure a thickness of the breast;
an area measurement unit configured to measure a plane area of the breast; and
a density information acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative density information [[on]] of the breast, and
determines the type of the breast using at least one of the thickness, the plane [[area]] area, and the relative density information of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the rotation angle determination unit determines the angle range in an inverse proportion to [[a]] the relative density information (a previously recited limitation in claim 3) of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the density information acquisition unit acquires the relative density information [[on]] of the breast using the radiation transmission value obtained by a pre-shot.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 5, wherein [[a]] the relative density information (a previously recited limitation in claim 3) of the breast is inversely proportional to the radiation transmission value.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the imaging mode determination unit further comprises an irradiation dose determination unit configured to determine an irradiation dose to the breast according to at least one of the thickness, the plane [[area]] area, and the relative density information of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the imaging mode determination unit further comprises a resolution determination unit configured to determine a radiographic image resolution according to at least one of the irradiation dose to the breast and the angle range.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the imaging mode determination unit further comprises an imaging frequency determination unit configured to determine [[the]] a number (a lack of an antecedent basis) of radiographic imaging runs according to at least one of the irradiation dose to the breast and the angle range.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 11, wherein the determining the radiographic mode for the breast comprises determining an angle range in which a radiation source rotates around the breast according to the type of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 12, wherein the determining the type of the breast determines the type of the breast using at least one of a thickness, a plane [[area]] area, and a relative density information of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 13, wherein the determining the angle range determines the angle range in an inverse proportion to [[a]] the relative density information (a previously recited limitation in claim 13) of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
16. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 15, wherein the performing the pre-shot on the breast is performed at an irradiation dose determined according to the thickness of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
17. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 15, wherein the acquiring the relative density information of the breast calculates [[a]] the relative density information (a previously recited limitation) of the breast according to an equation inversely proportional to the detection value of the radiation detector.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
18. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 13, wherein the determining the radiographic mode for the breast further comprises determining an irradiation dose to the breast according to at least one of the thickness, the plane [[area]] area, and the relative density information of the breast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
19. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 18, wherein the determining the radiographic mode for the breast further comprises determining a radiographic image resolution according to at least one of the irradiation dose to the breast and the angle range.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Proposed Amendments) The radiographic imaging method according to claim 18, wherein the determining the radiographic mode for the breast further comprises determining [[the]] a number (a lack of an antecedent basis) of radiographic imaging runs according to at least one of the irradiation dose to the breast and the angle range.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a type determination unit, an imaging mode determination unit, a rotation angle determination unit, a thickness measurement unit, an area measurement unit, a density information acquisition unit, an irradiation dose determination unit, a resolution determination unit, and an imaging frequency determination unit in claims 1-10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1 recites a limitation “a type determination unit configured to determine a type of the breast using a radiation transmission value for the breast obtained from the radiation detector” in lines 6-7. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 1 recites a limitation “an imaging mode determination unit configured to determine a radiographic mode for the breast according to the type of the breast” in lines 8-9. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 2 recites a limitation “a rotation angle determination unit configured to determine an angle range in which the radiation source rotates according to the type of the breast” in lines 2-3. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 3 recites a limitation “a thickness measurement unit configured to measure a thickness of the breast” in lines 3-4. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 3 recites a limitation “an area measurement unit configured to measure a plane area of the breast” in lines 5-6. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 3 recites a limitation “a density information acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative density information of the breast” in lines 7-8. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 8 recites a limitation “an irradiation dose determination unit configured to determine an irradiation dose to the breast according to at least one of the thickness, the plane area and the relative density information of the breast” in lines 2-4. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 9 recites a limitation “a resolution determination unit configured to determine a radiographic image resolution according to at least one of the irradiation dose and the angle range” in lines 2-4. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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 10 recites a limitation “an imaging frequency determination unit configured to determine a number of radiographic imaging runs according to at least one of the irradiation dose and the angle range” in lines 2-4. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim 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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites a functional limitation “determines the type of the breast using at least one of the thickness, the plane area, and the relative density information of the breast” in lines 9-10, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure performs the functional limitation.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is a best practice to make the record clear during prosecution by explaining the BRI of claim terms, as necessary, including explaining the BRI of any functional language. When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the BRI of the “means-plus-function” limitation is restricted to a corresponding structure in the supporting disclosure, and its equivalents (a corresponding specification that identifies and links a structure, material, or act to the function recited in the claim is considered to be part of the claim limitation). When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and an element is recited along with a function, that element is construed as being capable of performing the function – in other words, the BRI of that element is limited by the function.
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is a distinction between reciting a function compared to reciting an intended use or result. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the function of a structure, material, or action. Typically, no patentable distinction (no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
While functional limitations may be properly used in claims, the boundaries imposed by a functional limitation must be clearly defined to be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. Consider the following to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language has clear boundaries: whether one of ordinary skill in the art can determine what structure, material, or act in the claim performs this function; whether the limitation has well defined boundaries or only expresses a problem solved or intended result; and what an anticipatory reference would need to disclose in order to satisfy this claim limitation. These considerations are not all-inclusive or limiting.
When 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked, the specification must adequately disclose a corresponding structure, material, or act that performs the function. For “means”-type claims, an adequate disclosure requires that a corresponding structure or material is: (a) disclosed in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand what specific structure or material the inventor has identified to perform the recited function; (b) sufficient to perform the entire function recited in the claim limitation; and (c) clearly linked to the function in the written description.
When the examiner determines that the boundaries of a claim are not reasonably clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. Such a rejection puts the applicant on notice that it must fulfill its statutory duty under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to ensure that claim language clearly defines the boundaries of the claim scope sought. In making a rejection, the examiner must identify the specific claim language that is indefinite, and explain why that language renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. When possible, the examiner should suggest how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved.
The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a radiation source, a radiation detector, a type determination unit, an image mode determination unit, a rotation angle determination unit, a thickness measurement unit, an area measurement unit, and a density information acquisition unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radiographic imaging apparatus in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“determines the type of the breast using at least one of the thickness, the plane area, and the relative density information of the breast”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a radiation source, a radiation detector, a type determination unit, an image mode determination unit, a rotation angle determination unit, a thickness measurement unit, an area measurement unit, and a density information acquisition unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radiographic imaging apparatus in a certain manner.
Claim 7 recites a functional limitation “the pre-shot is performed at an irradiation dose determined according to the thickness of the breast” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structure performs the functional limitation.
The limitation is unclear because it merely states a function (“the pre-shot is performed at an irradiation dose determined according to the thickness of the breast”) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., a radiation source, a radiation detector, a type determination unit, an image mode determination unit, a rotation angle determination unit, a thickness measurement unit, an area measurement unit, and a density information acquisition unit, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radiographic imaging apparatus in a certain manner.
Claim limitation “a type determination unit configured to determine a type of the breast using a radiation transmission value for the breast obtained from the radiation detector” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an imaging mode determination unit configured to determine a radiographic mode for the breast according to the type of the breast” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a rotation angle determination unit configured to determine an angle range in which the radiation source rotates according to the type of the breast” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a thickness measurement unit configured to measure a thickness of the breast” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an area measurement unit configured to measure a plane area of the breast” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a density information acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative density information of the breast” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an irradiation dose determination unit configured to determine an irradiation dose to the breast according to at least one of the thickness, the plane area, and the relative density information of the breast” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a resolution determination unit configured to determine a radiographic image resolution according to at least one of the irradiation dose and the angle range” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an imaging frequency determination unit configured to determine a number of radiographic imaging runs according to at least one of the irradiation dose and the angle range” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses a corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what a corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 fails to set forth an additional structural limitation in the radiographic imaging apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,219,756 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Nakayama et al. disclosed a radiographic imaging apparatus comprising:
a radiation source (24) configured to irradiate radiation to a subject's breast and to be rotatable around the breast;
a radiation detector (42) configured to detect radiation that has passed through the breast;
a type determination unit (47) configured to determine a type of the breast using a radiation transmission value for the breast obtained from the radiation detector (column 17, lines 4-22); and
an imaging mode determination unit (46) configured to determine a radiographic mode for the breast according to the type of the breast (column 16, line 58 - column 18, line 58).
With respect to claim 2, Nakayama et al. disclosed the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging mode determination unit comprises a rotation angle determination unit configured to determine an angle range (an incident angle range) in which the radiation source rotates around the breast according to the type of the breast (column 16, line 58 - column 18, line 58).
With respect to claim 3, Nakayama et al. disclosed the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the type determination unit comprise at least one of:
a thickness measurement unit configured to measure a thickness of the breast;
an area measurement unit configured to measure a plane area of the breast; and
a density information acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative density information (a mutation site) of the breast, and
determines the type of the breast using at least one of the thickness, the plane area, and the relative density information of the breast (column 17, lines 4-22).
With respect to claim 5, Nakayama et al. disclosed the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the density information acquisition unit acquires the relative density information of the breast using the radiation transmission value obtained by a pre-shot (a two-dimensional image) (column 17, lines 4-22).
With respect to claim 11, Nakayama et al. disclosed a radiographic imaging method comprising the steps of:
positioning a subject's breast (N) between a radiation detector (42) and a compression unit (26), for radiography (column 5, line 58 - column 6, line 57);
determining a type of the breast (column 18, lines 48-58); and
determining a radiographic mode for the breast according to the type of the breast (column 16, line 58 - column 18, line 58).
With respect to claim 12, Nakayama et al. disclosed the radiographic imaging method according to claim 11, wherein the determining the radiographic mode for the breast comprises determining an angle range (an incident angle range) in which a radiation source (24) rotates around the breast according to the type of the breast (column 16, line 58 - column 18, line 58).
With respect to claim 13, Nakayama et al. disclosed the radiographic imaging method according to claim 12, wherein the determining the type of the breast determines the type of the breast using at least one of a thickness, a plane area, and a relative density information (a mutation site) of the breast (column 17, lines 4-22).
With respect to claim 15, Nakayama et al. disclosed the radiographic imaging method according to claim 13, further comprising the steps of:
performing a pre-shot (a two-dimensional image) on the breast, and
wherein the determining the type of the breast comprises acquiring the relative density information of the breast by obtaining a detection value of the radiation detector detected in the performing the pre-shot (column 17, lines 4-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Fukuda et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,299,749 B2) disclosed a mammography device, a radiographic imaging method, and a program.
Nakayama et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,219,757 B2) disclosed a radiography device, a radiography method, and a radiography program.
Nakayama et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,219,756 B2) disclosed a radiography device, a radiography method, and a radiography program.
Masumoto et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,913,713 B2) disclosed a radiographic image-generation device and a method.
Smith et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8,571,174 B2) disclosed methods and systems for detecting a possible error in a position of a patient.
Eberhard et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,751,285 B2) disclosed a dose management system for a mammographic tomosynthesis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David J. Makiya can be reached on (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884