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
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 26 February 2026 wherein: claims 1-13 are amended; claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 7, first line through page 12, last line), filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered.
Examiner acknowledges the prior specification objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been overcome by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner acknowledges amended claim 1 cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulpinski (US 2008/0142732 A1). However, it can be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair (US 2014/0070104 A1) in view of Kulpinski as described below.
Claim Numbering
The numbering of the claims is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g) which states in part “all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.” See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). Claim 10 is unnecessarily separated from claim 5 by claims 8-9. The numbering of the claims should not be changed now. Examiner will correct the numbering of the claims if still necessary if the application is allowed. Due to the irregular numbering of the claims, the following rejections of the claims may not necessarily be in numerical order.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-13
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the claim includes the recitation “the first detector detects the photostimulated light emitted by the imaging plate in response to the excitation light, the second detector detects reflected illumination light reflected from the imaging plate”. It is unclear why this recitation is present in the claim as claim 1 already recites “a first detector configured to detect photostimulated light emitted by the imaging plate in response to irradiation with the excitation light … a second detector configured to detect reflected illumination light reflected from the imaging plate”.
Claims 4-13
Regarding claims 4-13, the claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair (US 2014/0070104 A1) in view of Kulpinski (US 2008/0142732 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, a copy of Figure 1 of Mair annotated by Examiner is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
887
1395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Mair, annotated by Examiner to show features of Applicant’s claimed inventions.
With particular reference to the annotated figure above, Mair discloses a radiography imaging reading apparatus configured to read a radiographic image from an imaging plate (1), comprising: a first light source (2) configured to irradiate the imaging plate (1) with excitation light (stimulating light); a first detector (7) configured to detect photostimulated light (emission light) emitted by the imaging plate (1) in response to irradiation with the excitation light (stimulating light); wherein the first light source (2) is configured to irradiate the imaging plate (1) with illumination light (stimulating light); and wherein the first detector (7) is configured to detect reflected illumination light (stimulating light) reflected from the imaging plate (1) (¶¶ 34-47; Fig. 1; ¶ 41: “The hereby reflected or scattered, respectively, stimulating light or emitted luminescent light, respectively, is collected--similar to the emission light excited in the storage phosphor plate 1--by the optical collecting device 6, forwarded to the optical detector 7, and converted there into a corresponding detector signal S”).
Examiner notes Applicant’s disclosure (see claims 2 and 4 as originally filed, and presently) describes a single source and a single detector performing both the excitation and illumination functions, as does Mair. However, while Mair does not expressly disclose a second source and a second detector also configured to perform both the excitation and illumination functions, this feature is suggested by Kulpinski.
A copy of Figure 1C of Kulpinski annotated by Examiner is provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
851
1398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1C of Kulpinski, annotated by Examiner to show features of Applicant’s claimed inventions.
With particular reference to the annotated figure above, Kulpinski discloses a radiography imaging reading apparatus (20) configured to read a radiographic image from an imaging plate (10), comprising: a first light source (22a) configured to irradiate the imaging plate with excitation light (stimulating radiation); a first detector (26b) configured to detect photostimulated light (stimulated radiation) emitted by the imaging plate (10) in response to irradiation with the excitation light (stimulating radiation); a second light source (22b) configured to irradiate the imaging plate (10 previously irradiated by element 22a) with excitation light (stimulating radiation); and a second detector (26b) configured to detect photostimulated light (stimulated radiation) emitted by the imaging plate (10) in response to irradiation with the excitation light (stimulating radiation), wherein the first light source and the second light source have different stimulating radiation characteristics (¶¶ 34-47, Fig. 1C describing and showing apparatus components; ¶¶ 41-43, describing two readout systems with light sources and detectors for different stimulating radiation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mair in view of the teachings of Kulpinski to include the claimed second light source and detector.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Kulpinski of improving image quality (Kulpinski, ¶ 47).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first light source (2) also functions as the second light source, and irradiates the imaging plate (1) with the excitation light as the illumination light (Mair, ¶¶ 34-47, Fig. 1; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first detector (7) detects the photostimulated light emitted by the imaging plate (1) in response to the excitation light, the second detector (7) detects reflected illumination light reflected from the imaging plate (1), and the first detector and the second detector output an imaging plate light image signal (S) representing light emitted and light reflected from the imaging plate (Mair, ¶¶ 34-47, Fig. 1, modified to have two sources and detectors as described in the rejection of claim 1 above; Mair, ¶ 41: “The hereby reflected or scattered, respectively, stimulating light or emitted luminescent light, respectively, is collected--similar to the emission light excited in the storage phosphor plate 1--by the optical collecting device 6, forwarded to the optical detector 7, and converted there into a corresponding detector signal S”).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first detector (7) also functions as the second detector, and the first detector outputs the imaging plate light image signal (Mair, ¶¶ 34-47, Fig. 1, modified to have two sources and detectors as described in the rejection of claim 1 above; see also the rejection of claim 3 above).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising: at least one processor (16) configured to identify a size of the imaging plate (1) based on the imaging plate light image signal (Mair, ¶¶ 34-47, Fig. 1; identifying the size is particularly described in Mair, ¶¶ 41-42; Mair, ¶ 42: “size of the storage phosphor plate 1”).
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair in view of Kulpinski as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Forrest (US 2016/0220323 A1).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 5, including identifying a size of the plate (see rejection of claim 5 above), but does not expressly disclose the at least one processor identifies, based on the identified size, a standardized imaging plate size classification.
Forrest discloses a medical image reading apparatus (¶ 51) and identifying a size (standard AP distance) of a plate, and identifying, based on the identified size, a closest standard size (closest standard AP distance; ¶ 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Mair in view of the teachings of Forrest so that the at least one processor identifies, based on the identified size, a standardized imaging plate size classification.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Forrest of using a more accurate standard size as compared to a less accurate measured size (Forrest, ¶ 56).
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair in view of Kulpinski as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shoji (US 2003/0063708 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first detector, which is configured to detect photostimulated light, also detects reflected illumination light from the imaging plate and outputs an imaging plate image signal, wherein the at least one processor identifies the size of the imaging plate based on the imaging plate image signal (see rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5 above).
Mair modified does not expressly disclose the radiography imaging reading apparatus is configured to erase the radiograph, such that the detected reflected illumination light is detected after a radiographic image stored on the imaging plate has been erased, the imaging plate image signal is an erasing-time imaging plate image signal, and the imaging plate size identification is based on the erasing-time imaging plate signal.
Shoji discloses erasing a radiograph from an imaging plate (19; ¶ 142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Mair in view of the teachings of Shoji so that the radiography imaging reading apparatus is configured to erase the radiograph, such that the detected reflected illumination light is detected after a radiographic image stored on the imaging plate has been erased, the imaging plate image signal is an erasing-time imaging plate image signal, and the imaging plate size identification is based on the erasing-time imaging plate signal.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage disclosed by Shoji of erasing remaining radiation energy from prior radiographing so as to not affect new radiographing (Shoji, ¶ 142).
Claims 8-9
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair in view of Kulpinski as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 6,412,978 B1).
Regarding claims 8-9, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising at least one processor (16) configured to obtain the imaging plate light image signal perform image processing to form an image from the imaging plate light image signal (Mair, ¶¶ 34-47, Fig. 1; see rejections of claims 1 and 3 above).
Mair modified does not expressly disclose identifying a tilt angle of the imaging plate relative to a reference orientation based on the imaging plate light image signal and correcting a tilt of an image of the imaging plate based on the tilt angle.
Watanabe discloses a processor configured to: identify a tilt angle of a planar imaging detector relative to a reference orientation (central axis) based on an image signal from the detector; and correct a tilt of an image of the detector based on the tilt angle (col. 3, l. 51 – col. 4, l. 26, col. 5, ll. 28-47, col. 7, l. 61 – col. 8, l. 5, Fig. 2, claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Mair in view of the teachings of Watanabe to include identifying a tilt angle of the imaging plate relative to a reference orientation based on the IP acted light image signal and correcting a tilt of an image of the imaging plate based on the tilt angle.
as claimed.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain the well-known advantage recited in Watanabe of correcting for image distortion due to tilt angle (Watanabe, claim 3).
Claims 10 and 12
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair in view of Kulpinski as applied to claims 3 and 5 above, and further in view of Motoki (US 2005/0222871 A1).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform image processing on a detected image signal from at least one of the first detector and the second detector, and the at least one processor generates an imaging-plate-based biological radiographic image derived from a biological radiographic image (Mair, ¶¶ 34-47; an image can be considered a “biological radiographically captured image” because the images are of a patient; Mair, ¶ 2).
Mair modified does not expressly disclose setting a cutout range of the imaging-plate-based biological radiographic image.
Motoki discloses setting a cutout range (cutout size/position) of an imaging-plate-based biological radiographic image (imaging plate 17/18 in ¶ 7, Fig. 16; cutout range in ¶¶ 109-112, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Mair in view of the teachings of Motoki to include setting a cutout range of the imaging-plate-based biological radiographic image.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage disclosed by Motoki of preparing for printing (Motoki, ¶¶ 109-112, Fig. 13).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising: a display (42); and at least one processor (40) configured to control the display (40), wherein the at least one processor causes the display to display an acquired image acquired in biological radiography by performing processing on the imaging plate light image signal (display and processor, Kulpinski, ¶ 39, Fig. 1C; an image can be considered “acquired in biological radiography” because the images are of a patient, Kulpinski, ¶ 20; Mair also discloses a processor for image processing as described in the rejection of claim 5 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Mair in view of the further teachings of Kulpinski.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide a convenient means for showing images to a user.
Mair modified does not expressly disclose simultaneously and separately displaying the acquired image acquired in biological radiography and an imaging plate shape extraction image representing a shape of the imaging plate extracted by performing processing on the imaging plate light image signal.
Motoki discloses setting a cutout range (cutout size/position) of an imaging plate biological radiographically captured image by simultaneously and separately displaying an imaging plate shape extraction image representing a shape of the imaging plate extracted by performing processing on the image along with the capture image (imaging plate 17/18 in ¶ 7, Fig. 16; cutout range and simultaneous and separate display of images in ¶¶ 109-112, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Mair in view of the teachings of Motoki to include simultaneously and separately displaying the acquired image acquired in biological radiography and an imaging plate shape extraction image representing a shape of the imaging plate extracted by performing processing on the imaging plate light image signal.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage disclosed by Motoki of preparing for printing (Motoki, ¶¶ 109-112, Fig. 13).
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair in view of Kulpinski and Watanabe as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Motoki.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 8. For the further limitations of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mair in view of Kulpinski and Motoki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kay (US 2007/0081631 A1).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Mair modified teaches the radiography imaging reading apparatus according to claim 12, but does not expressly disclose the at least one processor identifies an unexposed region image of a portion not exposed to radiation in the acquired image acquired in biological radiography.
Kay discloses makers are used to form on a radiographic image an unexposed region that is subsequently detected (¶¶ 51, 146; claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the invention of Mair in view of the teachings of Kay so that the at least one processor identifies an unexposed region image of a portion not exposed to radiation in the acquired image acquired in biological radiography.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Kay of ensuring a correct viewing orientation (Kay, claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schweizer (US 2009/0078874 A1) discloses a computed radiography system, comprising a stimulating light source, a photostimulable glass imaging plate (PGIP) substantially transparent to the stimulating light positioned such that the stimulating light impinges the PGIP perpendicularly thereto producing photostimulated luminescence light (PLL) having a wave length different from the stimulating light source, a light collector having a light reflecting inner surface proximate the PGIP for collecting PLL emitted from the PGIP and having a hole or slot therein for admitting stimulating light into the light collector and onto the PGIP, an optical filter in communication with the light collector for blocking stimulating light waves and passing PLL therethrough, a light detector receiving PLL from the optical filter and the light collector, mechanism providing relative movement between the PGIP and the stimulating light source, and mechanism including an analog to digital converter for converting the collected and detected PLL to a diagnostic readout (¶ 8).
Philipps (US 2014/0252252 A1) discloses a device configured to read an exposed imaging plate, comprising a light-source that generates read-out light, a deflection unit that directs the read-out light in a scanning movement over the imaging plate, and a detector unit that detects fluorescent light which is emitted from the imaging plate at locations where the read-out light impinges (Abstract).
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 BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights