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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/6/2026 was accepted and entered. Accordingly, claim(s) 1 and 5-7 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-13 has/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 14-42 has/have been newly added. Thus, claims 1, 5-7, and 14-42 are currently pending in this application.
In view of the amendment, the previous objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, the previous rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the drawings, Applicant argues that the amendment removed the elements from the claims. However, the elements were merely moved to the preamble and the elements are called back to via the body of the claims. The drawings objection remains.
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant argues that specification clearly redefines the rems index and indices to mean “visually and/or tactilely identifiable markers” and points to Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraphs 17-18 and 44 of the specification (pg. 9 of response received 1/6/2026). There is no evidence of this redefining of the term.
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, the “an effective region including pixels for generating a radiation image” and “a receptor field region including pixels for measuring a dose of radiation” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ). The term “index” in claims and specification and “indices” in the specification is used. It is unclear the meaning of the terms in the context of this application. The accepted meaning is “a list of names, subjects, etc.” or “an indicator, sign, or measure of something.” The accepted meaning does not make sense in the context of the instant application, which uses index/indices as physical locations on an imaging unit (106 and 105), but without a clear redefining of the terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 14, 16, 18-23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Hayashida (US 2016/0183908).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashida teaches a radiation imaging apparatus (105) for acquiring a radiation image based on radiation incident on an effective region and having a receptor field region for measuring a dose of incident radiation during irradiation, the radiation imaging apparatus (Figs. 3A-3B and 5A-D) comprising:
a first marking element representing the effective region (for example 105 Fig. 3B), and
a second marking element (for example DOSE OBTAINING PIXEL Fig. 3B) representing the receptor field region,
wherein a line width of the first marking element is larger than a line width of the second marking element (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashida teaches first marking element and second marking element are formed on the radiation incident surface by lines of having different brightnesses (Figs. 3A-3B and 5A-D).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashida teaches the first marking element and the second marking element are formed by lines of having different chromas (Figs. 3A-3B and 5A-D).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashida teaches the first marking element and the second marking element are formed by lines having different hues (Figs. 3A-3B and 5A-D).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashida teaches the first marking element and the second marking element are formed on a surface of the radiation imaging apparatus by at least one of drawing and printing (Figs. 3A-3B and 5A-D).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashida teaches a line type of the first marking element is different from a line type of the second marking element (Figs. 3A-3B and 5A-D).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashida teaches a radiation imaging apparatus for acquiring a radiation image based on radiation incident on an effective region and having a receptor field region for measuring a dose of incident radiation during irradiation, the radiation imaging apparatus comprising: a first marking element representing the effective region; and a second marking element representing the receptor field region wherein a first color scheme of a surface of the radiation imaging apparatus, a second color scheme of a line representing the first marking element, and a third color scheme of a line representing the second marking element are given by a combination of different color schemes, and wherein, when the first color scheme is used as a background color, the second color scheme is visually distinguishable from the third color scheme (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 19, Hayashida the first marking element and the second marking element are formed by lines having different brightnesses (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashida teaches the first marking element and the second marking element are formed by lines having different chromas (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 21, Hayashida teaches the first marking element and the second marking element are formed by lines having different hues (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 22, Hayashida teaches the first color scheme of the surface of the radiation imaging apparatus is white, the second color scheme of the line representing the first marking element is black, and the third color scheme of the line representing the second marking element is gray (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 23, Hayashida teaches the first marking element and the second marking element are formed on a surface of the radiation imaging apparatus by at least one of drawing and printing (Fig. 5A).
Regarding 25, Hayashida teaches a line width of the first marking element is larger than a line width of each of the second marking element (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 26, Hayashida teaches a line type of the first marking element is different from a line type of each of the second marking element (Fig. 5A).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida (US 2016/0183908).
Regarding claims 15 and 24, Hayashida is silent regarding a centerline indicating a center position of a surface of the radiation imaging apparatus. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that the use of a centerline indicating a center of a position is well known in the art for the benefit of increasing alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a centerline indicating a center position of a surface of the radiation imaging apparatus for the benefit of increasing alignment.
Regarding claim 17, Hayashida teaches an imaging unit configured to detect irradiated radiation (105); however, Hayashida is silent regarding a housing that accommodates the imaging unit, wherein the housing has a radiation incident surface. The Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to include a housing that accommodates the imaging unit, wherein the housing has a radiation incident surface for the benefit of protecting of the imaging unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a housing that accommodates the imaging unit, wherein the housing has a radiation incident surface for the benefit of protecting of the imaging unit.
Regarding claim 27, Hayashida teaches an imaging unit configured to detect irradiated radiation (105); however, is silent regarding a housing that accommodates the imaging unit, wherein the surface of the radiation imaging apparatus is a radiation incident surface of the housing. The Examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art to include a housing that accommodates the imaging unit, wherein the housing has a radiation incident surface for the benefit of protecting of the imaging unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a housing that accommodates the imaging unit, wherein the housing has a radiation incident surface for the benefit of protecting of the imaging unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-42 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In addition to what Hayashida teaches, as further explained above, Miyoaka et al. (US 2021/0228078) teaches a dosimetry garment including guide markings ([0045]; Figs 1A and 1B).
Additionally, MCKENNA (US 2019/0060673) teaches a radiotherapy phantom including markings (42; Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 28-37, the prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, along with the other claimed limitations, a radiation imaging apparatus for acquiring a radiation image based on radiation incident on an effective region and having a receptor field region for measuring a dose of incident radiation during irradiation comprising: namely, a first marking element representing the effective region; and a second marking element representing the receptor field region, wherein each of the second marking element is formed by a non-solid line type selected from:(i) a broken line comprising a plurality of discrete marks separated by gaps, each discrete mark being a dot or a short line segment; and(ii) a dot-dash line comprising a repeating pattern including at least one dash segment and at least one dot element, wherein the first marking element comprises a solid-line portion.
Regarding claims 38-42, the prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, along with the other claimed limitations, a radiation imaging apparatus for acquiring a radiation image based on radiation incident on an effective region and having a receptor field region for measuring a dose of incident radiation during irradiation comprising: namely, a first marking element representing the effective region; and a second marking element representing the receptor field region, wherein the first marking element is provided on a surface of the radiation imaging apparatus by at least one of drawing and printing, and wherein each of the second marking element is provided on the surface of the radiation imaging apparatus by an unevenness pattern formed so as to be identifiable by touch.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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 FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884