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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and written response filed 01/02/2026 have been entered and considered.
Canceled claims: 1 – 20
Pending claims: 21 – 36
Independent claims: 21, 25, 26, 34 and 35
Amended claims: 21, 25, 26, 34 and 35
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 02, 2026 with respect to claims 21 – 36 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for claim 21, 34 and 35. Applicants argument has been found persuasive for claim 25 and 26.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that Obara is silent on the following limitations below. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below for claim 21, 34 and 35:
In the Remarks (p. 13) regarding claim 21, 34 and 35 applicants assert, “The Applicant respectfully disagrees. In Obara et al, the "purpose of imaging" and "user settings" refer to image processing preferences (such as whether the operator wants faster display or higher image quality), or to capture conditions such as frame rate. Obara et al does not teach or suggest that the selection is performed based on the type of medical diagnostic dynamic analysis indicated by the information related to the type of medical diagnostic dynamic analysis included in the order information (such as tumor tracking, adhesion analysis, macroscopic ventilation analysis, and so on.)”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Obara in [0020] discloses “The mode selection unit 203 selects a mode of scattered ray reduction processing such as speed priority or image quality priority according to the purpose of imaging, the system configuration, and the user's setting. In the present embodiment, the plurality of modes include “image quality priority”, “speed priority”, and “no scattered ray reduction processing” wherein purpose of imaging in medical radiography inherently corresponds to clinical objective that is selection based on the type of diagnostic analysis.
For the reasons above, the rejections of claims 21, 34 and 35 as established in the last Office Action (Non-Final, 10/02/2025) are proper and are hereby maintained and incorporated in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 21 – 23, 28, 29, 30, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obara et al. Patent Application Publication No. JP-2020081326-A1 (hereinafter Obara).
Regarding claim 21, Obara discloses a dynamic image processing device comprising: a receiver configured to receive order information of dynamic image photography (In [0014], Fig. 1; Obara discloses about radiation control device 101 (to input order information e.g., user settings) and radiation imaging apparatus 10 that captures moving image (dynamic image photography); an acquirer configured to acquire a dynamic image that is obtained by performing the dynamic image photography (Obara in [0014] and [0019] discloses about a radiation imaging apparatus 400 (acquirer) captures radiation moving image and the image is processed by the image generation unit 201 to create moving image (dynamic image)); and a hardware processor configured to select a process from among a plurality of processes related to removal of scattered radiation components to be used in the dynamic image based on the order information (In [0019] Obara discloses about scattered radiation reduction process (scattered radiation component removal) and in [0020] Obara discloses about users setting (order information)) and mode selection, “The mode selection unit 203 selects a mode of scattered ray reduction processing such as speed priority or image quality priority according to the purpose of imaging” (select a process from among a plurality of processes), wherein the plurality of processes related to the removal of scattered radiation components include a first process for removing scattered radiation components from the dynamic image, and at least one of a second process for removing scattered radiation components from the dynamic image by a method simplified more than the first process and a third process that does not remove scattered radiation components from the dynamic image (Obara in [0020] discloses, “The mode selection unit 203 selects a mode of scattered ray reduction processing such as speed priority or image quality priority according to the purpose of imaging, the system configuration, and the user's setting. In the present embodiment, the plurality of modes include “image quality priority”, “speed priority”, and “no scattered ray reduction processing” wherein “image quality processing” is the first process, “speed priority” is the second process (Obara in [0021] discloses that the speed priority have smaller processing time with simplified parameter “the speed priority is selected so that the scattered radiation estimation parameter is acquired with a smaller processing amount than when the image quality priority is selected. The reduction of the processing amount is, for example, to simplify the parameter acquisition process in the case of speed priority compared to the case of image quality priority”) and “no scattered ray reduction processing” implies to third process), the order information includes information related to a type of medical diagnostic dynamic analysis to be performed with respect to a subject patient using the dynamic image (Obara in [0020] discloses, “The mode selection unit 203 selects a mode of scattered ray reduction processing such as speed priority or image quality priority according to the purpose of imaging, the system configuration, and the user's setting”. Moreover, Obara in [0011] discloses, “The radiation imaging apparatus 400 captures a radiation image by detecting the radiation that has passed through the subject 300 ... The radiation imaging apparatus of this embodiment captures a radiation moving image”), and the hardware processor is further configured to select the process related to the removal of scattered radiation components to be used in the dynamic image, based on the type of medical diagnostic dynamic analysis indicated by the information related to the type of medical diagnostic dynamic analysis included in the order information (Obara in [0002] discloses about medical diagnostic. Additionally, Obara in [0020] discloses that the reduction processing unit 202 perform the removal of scattered process based on the mode selection unit 203 that is selected by the user from the three modes, “image quality priority”, “speed priority”, and “no scattered ray reduction processing; “The mode setting unit 204 notifies the reduction processing unit 202 and the acquisition processing switching unit 205 of the mode of the scattered radiation reduction processing selected by the mode selection unit 203, and sets the mode), by referring to a memory in which a plurality of different types of medical diagnostic dynamic analyses are respectively stored in association with any one of the first process, the second process, or the third process, and selecting the one of the first process, the second process, or the third process that is stored in association with the type of medical diagnostic dynamic analysis indicated by the information related to the type of medical diagnostic dynamic analysis included in the order information (Obara in [0020] discloses “The mode selection unit 203 selects a mode of scattered ray reduction processing such as speed priority or image quality priority according to the purpose of imaging, the system configuration, and the user's setting. In the present embodiment, the plurality of modes include “image quality priority”, “speed priority”, and “no scattered ray reduction processing” wherein purpose of imaging in medical radiography inherently corresponds to clinical objective that is selection based on the type of diagnostic analysis. Obara in [0011] discloses about the image processing apparatus 200 performs scattered radiation reduction processing on the radiation image and the image processing device 200 may be configured by a computer (processor) and a memory that stores a program provided to the computer).
Summary of Citations (Obara)
Paragraph [0002]; “In medical image diagnosis and non-destructive inspection, a radiation imaging apparatus using a flat panel detector (flat panel detector: FPD) made of a semiconductor material is widely used”.
Paragraph [0011]; “The radiation imaging apparatus 400 captures a radiation image by detecting the radiation that has passed through the subject 300 ... The radiation imaging apparatus of this embodiment captures a radiation moving image. The image processing apparatus 200 performs scattered radiation reduction processing on the radiation image obtained by imaging by the radiation imaging apparatus 400, and outputs an image with reduced scattered radiation”.
Paragraph [0012]; “The image processing device 200 may be configured by a computer (processor) and a memory that stores a program provided to the computer”.
Paragraph [0014]; “The radiation imaging system 10 includes a radiation generation device 100, a radiation control device 101, an image processing device 200, and a radiation imaging device 400... The radiation imaging apparatus of this embodiment captures a radiation moving image”.
Paragraph [0019]; “The image generation unit 201 generates and outputs image data (radiation image) from the image signal (electrical signal) input from the radiation imaging apparatus 400... The image generation unit 201 acquires a radiation moving image and outputs it by generating a radiation image from these image signals. The reduction processing unit 202 performs scattered radiation reduction processing for reducing scattered radiation for each frame of the radiation moving image acquired by the image generation unit 201. The radiation imaging apparatus 400 captures a radiation image at the set frame rate and supplies the image signal to the image generation unit 201. The image generation unit 201 acquires a radiation moving image and outputs it by generating a radiation image from these image signals”.
Paragraph [0020]; “The mode selection unit 203 selects a mode of scattered ray reduction processing such as speed priority or image quality priority according to the purpose of imaging, the system configuration, and the user's setting. In the present embodiment, the plurality of modes include “image quality priority”, “speed priority”, and “no scattered ray reduction processing ... The mode setting unit 204 notifies the reduction processing unit 202 and the acquisition processing switching unit 205 of the mode of the scattered radiation reduction processing selected by the mode selection unit 203, and sets the mode”.
Paragraph [0021]; “The acquisition process switching unit 205 and the parameter acquisition unit 206 switch the processing method when the speed priority is selected so that the scattered radiation estimation parameter is acquired with a smaller processing amount than when the image quality priority is selected. The reduction of the processing amount is, for example, to simplify the parameter acquisition process in the case of speed priority compared to the case of image quality priority, and to reduce the frequency of execution of the parameter acquisition process”.
Regarding claim 22 and 23, the ground of rejection based on Obara from the last Office Action (Non-Final, 10/02/2025) applies in here.
Regarding claim 28 – 30, the ground of rejection based on Obara from the last Office Action (Non-Final, 10/02/2025) applies in here.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer-readable dynamic image processing program claim which correspond to claim 21. Therefore, the rejection of claim 21 is applicable to claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, method claim 35 is corresponds to apparatus claim 21. Therefore, the rejection of claim 21 is applicable to claim 35.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Enomoto et al. Patent Publication No. US-10258305-B2 (hereinafter Enomoto).
Regarding claim 24, the ground of rejection based on Obara in view of Enomoto from the last Office Action (Non-Final, 10/02/2025) applies in here.
Claims 27, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Enomoto et al, US Patent Publication No. US-20160249875-A1 (hereinafter Enomoto875).
Regarding claim 27, 31 and 32 the ground of rejection based on Obara in view of Enomoto and Enomoto875 from the last Office Action (Non-Final, 10/02/2025) applies in here.
Claims 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Enomoto ‘875 and further in view of Oda.
Regarding claim 33, the ground of rejection based on Obara in view of Enomoto and Enomoto875 from the last Office Action (Non-Final, 10/02/2025) applies in here.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36, which is similar in scope to claim 33 with different dependency, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 26 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 25, the applied prior arts Obara (JP-2020081326-A1), Enomoto (US-10258305-B2), Oda (JP-2016063926-A) and Enomoto875 (US-20160249875-A1) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection analysis from last office action) but fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious applicant’s claim language, particularly the limitation, emergency medical care is associated with the first process, and to select the first process associated with the diagnostic context including emergency medical care in a case in which the order information includes information related to emergency medical care. Obara discloses about the three process but doesn’t disclose about applying the first process when the diagnostic context includes emergency medical care. Furthermore, Oda discloses applying necessary image processing during emergency care but it didn’t explicitly disclose about applying first process during emergency medical care.
Regarding claim 26, the applied prior arts Obara (JP-2020081326-A1), Enomoto (US-10258305-B2), Oda (JP-2016063926-A) and Enomoto875 (US-20160249875-A1) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection analysis from last office action) but fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious applicant’s claim language, particularly the limitation, refer to a memory in which a plurality of different types of diagnostic contexts are respectively stored in association with any one of the first process or the third process, wherein a diagnostic context which is not related to emergency medical care is associated with the third process, and to select the third process associated with the diagnostic context which is not related to emergency medical care in a case in which the information related to the type of diagnosis included in the order information indicates circumstances not related to emergency medical care. Obara discloses about the three process but doesn’t disclose about applying the third process when the diagnostic context which is not related to emergency medical care.
Conclusion
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Vu Le can be reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
03/05/2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668