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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, on page 9, that Bao does not disclose the rounds imaging information including quality information, examiner disagrees. Paragraph 113 specifically discloses that for different imaging purposes/locations, different quality settings can be stored and applied to image data obtained under the image acquisition parameters recommended by the historical imaging protocol (paragraph 65 discloses that acquisition parameters leading to high quality images are stored). Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
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)(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.
1) Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-16 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2023/0063828 by Bao et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Bao teaches a radiographic imaging apparatus comprising: a hardware processor (paragraph 189; item 110 has a processor) that acquires an imaging order related to radiographic imaging of an imaging subject when making rounds (paragraph 154; specific body portion can be input for imaging [i.e. an imaging order]), acquires rounds imaging information (paragraph 156; posture information for example) according to the acquired imaging order based on data in a table stored in a storage (paragraph 158 and 159; historical protocol information is a stored table), and outputs, based on the acquired rounds imaging information and the data stored in the table, decision support information supporting a decision regarding whether radiograph data generated by the radiographic imaging satisfies a prescribed image quality (paragraphs 174, 175 and 181; quality is determined based upon, for example, whether a portion of a subject to be imaged is within the imaging area [i.e. based upon the posture information and protocol]), wherein the radiographic imaging apparatus is a rounds car (figure 1, item 110; imaging apparatus can be a rounds car as shown), and wherein the rounds imaging information includes quality information (paragraph 113; for different imaging purposes/locations, different quality settings can be stored and applied to image data obtained under the image acquisition parameters recommended by the historical imaging protocol [paragraph 65 discloses that acquisition parameters leading to high quality images are stored]).
3) Regarding claim 2, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor determines a type of the decision support information to be generated based on the rounds imaging information (paragraph 181; repositioning instructions [i.e. part of decision support information] are based upon patient posture and body part selected to be imaged).
4) Regarding claim 3, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor uses the rounds imaging information to generate the decision support information (paragraphs 174, 175 and 181; posture information [i.e. part of rounds imaging information] is used to generate decision support such as a properly imaged area determination or a re-evaluation of imaging parameters determination).
5) Regarding claim 4, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor generates the decision support information by using the rounds imaging information directly, processing the rounds imaging information, or combining and processing the radiograph data of the radiographic imaging and the rounds imaging information (paragraph 168, 179 and 181; decision information is generated using posture information directly and after processing/imaging utilizing the posture information).
6) Regarding claim 5, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rounds imaging information includes at least one of information for performing radiographic imaging, information associated with the radiograph data obtained as a result of performing the radiographic imaging, and information related to the radiographic imaging apparatus (paragraph 156; posture information is information for performing the imaging operation).
7) Regarding claim 6, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the decision support information is support information for making a decision regarding whether image retake due to imaging error in the radiograph data is necessary (paragraph 181; system determines a retake is necessary).
8) Regarding claim 7, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor displays the decision support information on a display (paragraphs 35 and 181; operator can be notified).
9) Claims 11 and 12 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
10) Regarding claim 13, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the imaging order includes at least information on an imaging area (paragraph 154; specific body portion can be input for imaging [i.e. an imaging order]), the rounds imaging information further includes comparative information (paragraph 158; posture is compared to historical information), and the decision support information includes at least information on a positioning (paragraphs 174 and 181; information on whether target portion is located in the imaging window is output).
11) Regarding claim 14, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the decision support information comprises error information regarding an error in information in the radiograph data, the error being at least one of a panel alignment error and a body axis deviation (paragraph 181; error can cause reminding of user to adjust acquisition parameters that include posture [i.e. body axis]).
12) Regarding claim 15, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the data in the table, an imaging purpose of a given imaging order is associated with corresponding predetermined quality information and predetermined decision support information, for each of a plurality of imaging orders having different imaging purposes (paragraph 113; different quality levels can be preset for different types of scans).
13) Regarding claim 16, Bao teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the imaging order includes at least information on an imaging area, the rounds imaging information comprises ROI information for radiographic imaging, and the decision support information comprises indication of at least one of (i) a left- right mistake of the imaging area and (ii) a wrong imaging area (paragraphs 174 and 181; bad image quality of an incorrect imaging area can be output and cause determination of a new required scan with different acquisition parameters).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
14) Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2023/0063828 by Bao et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0350109 by Sevenster et al.
15) Regarding claim 8, Bao does not specifically teach the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the decision support information includes past radiograph data of the imaging subject or radiographic data of another imaging subject, and the hardware processor displays the generated radiograph data and the past radiograph data in association with each other.
Sevenster teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the decision support information includes past radiograph data of the imaging subject or radiographic data of another imaging subject, and the hardware processor displays the generated radiograph data and the past radiograph data in association with each other (paragraphs 52 and 53; figure 1; recommendation information F0 can be displayed with past patient image data and current patient image data).
Sevenster and Bao are combinble because they are both from the machine learning in medical imaging field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Sevenster and Bao to add a comparison display. The motivation for doing so would have been for alerting the user of the outcome (paragraph 53). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Sevenster with Bao to obtain the invention of claim 8.
16) Regarding claim 10, Sevenster (as combined with Bao in the rejection of claim 8 above) teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the hardware processor superimposes an assistance image supporting the decision-making onto the radiograph data (paragraph 53; recommendation can be displayed in area F0 of figure 1).
17) Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2023/0063828 by Bao et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0350109 by Sevenster et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2022/0172064 by Peng et al.
Bao does not specifically teach the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the radiograph data of the imaging subject in the past or of another imaging subject includes radiograph data of normal or abnormal disease condition in the past.
Peng teaches the radiographic imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the radiograph data of the imaging subject in the past or of another imaging subject includes radiograph data of normal or abnormal disease condition in the past (paragraph 69; radiographic data can be classified as normal or abnormal).
Bao and Peng are combinble because they are both from the machine learning in medical imaging field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Bao and Peng to add disease classification. The motivation for doing so would have been for better patient diagnosis. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Bao and Sevenster with Peng to obtain the invention of claim 9.
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 BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights