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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/05/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 09/05/2025, the non-patent literature documents (Notice of reasons for refusal which was issued for corresponding Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-034900 and Office action which was issued for the corresponding Chinese Patent Application No. 202310213498.9) are not considered because these non-patent literatures were not submitted with the IDS.
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.
Claims 1, and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka et al. (US 2020/0074677; hereinafter Tezuka), in view of MA et al. (US 2017/0238882; hereinafter MA).
Regarding claim 1, Tezuka discloses an image display apparatus and radiation imaging system. Tezuka shows mobile radiographic imaging apparatus capable of performing dynamic imaging of radiographic imaging (see abstract, par. [0101], and fig. 6A), comprising a hardware processor (see fig. 5A and 6B; par. [0046]) and a display (5A) that wirelessly outputs a first dynamic image including a plurality of frames obtained by the dynamic imaging to an external apparatus (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040]), performs image processing on the first dynamic image and cause the display to play the image-processed first dynamic image on a screen of the display (see fig. 5A and 6B; par. [0046], [0131], [0224]); and after obtaining at least two frames of the plurality of frames, wirelessly outputs a second dynamic image for display based on the first dynamic image to an external display apparatus (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]).
But, Tezuka fails to explicitly state that the second dynamic image is based on screen captures obtained by screen capturing as the image processed first dynamic is played on the screen of the display.
MA discloses a system and method for medical imaging. MA teaches image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display (see par. [0005], [0167], [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display in the invention of Tezuka, as taught by MA, to be able to capture specific portion of the image to better diagnosis the patient. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of MA with the invention of Tezuka will provide the second dynamic image is based on screen captures obtained by screen capturing as the image processed first dynamic is played on the screen of the display.
Regarding claim 3, Tezuka shows wherein after generating frames for output of all the frames of the first dynamic image obtained by a series of steps of the dynamic imaging, the hardware processor starts to output the frames for output as the first dynamic image (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]).
Regarding claim 4, Tezuka shows wherein before completing generating frames for output of all the frames of the first dynamic image obtained by a series of steps of the dynamic imaging, the hardware processor starts to output the second dynamic image (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]).
Regarding claim 5, Tezuka and MA disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, shows wherein the hardware processor, during the series of steps of the dynamic imaging of the image-processed first dynamic image, does not obtain generating the second dynamic image (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]).
Regarding claim 6, Tezuka shows wherein the hardware processor during the series of steps of the dynamic imaging of the image-processed first dynamic image, does not obtain the screen captures for generating the second dynamic image (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]), and MA discloses a system and method for medical imaging. MA teaches image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display (see par. [0005], [0167], [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing in the invention of Tezuka, as taught by MA, to be able to capture specific portion of the image to better diagnosis the patient. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of MA with the invention of Tezuka will the processor, during the series of steps of dynamic imaging of the image-processed first dynamic image, does not obtain the screen captures for generating the second dynamic image.
Regarding claim 7, Tezuka shows wherein after completing outputting the second dynamic image, the hardware processor outputs the first dynamic image to the external apparatus (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]).
Regarding claim 8, Tezuka shows comprising wherein the hardware processor outputs the second dynamic image based on at least one of (i) completion of the dynamic imaging (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]).
Regarding claim 9, Tezuka shows wherein the hardware processor starts to generate the second dynamic image based on the first dynamic image during a series of steps of the dynamic imaging (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]).
Regarding claim 10, Tezuka discloses an image display apparatus and radiation imaging system. Tezuka shows a dynamic image output method that is performed by a mobile radiographic imaging apparatus capable of performing dynamic imaging of radiographic imaging (see abstract, par. [0101], and fig. 6A), comprising: wirelessly outputting a first dynamic image including a plurality of frames obtained by the dynamic imaging to an external apparatus (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040]); performing image processing on the first dynamic image and causing the display to play the image-processed first dynamic image on a screen of the display (see fig. 5A and 6B; par. [0046], [0131], [0224]); and after obtaining at least two frames of the plurality of frames, wirelessly outputting a second dynamic image for display based on the first dynamic image to an external display apparatus (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040]).
But, Tezuka fails to explicitly state that the second dynamic image is based on screen captures obtained by screen capturing as the image processed first dynamic is played on the screen of the display.
MA discloses a system and method for medical imaging. MA teaches image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display (see par. [0005], [0167], [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display in the invention of Tezuka, as taught by MA, to be able to capture specific portion of the image to better diagnosis the patient. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of MA with the invention of Tezuka will provide the second dynamic image is based on screen captures obtained by screen capturing as the image processed first dynamic is played on the screen of the display.
Regarding claim 11, Tezuka discloses an image display apparatus and radiation imaging system. Tezuka shows non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes, of a mobile radiographic imaging apparatus capable of dynamic imaging of radiographic imaging (see abstract, par. [0101], and fig. 6A), a computer to: wirelessly output a first dynamic image including a plurality of frames obtained by the dynamic imaging to an external apparatus (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040]); performing image processing on the first dynamic image and causing the display to play the image-processed first dynamic image on a screen of the display (see fig. 5A and 6B; par. [0046], [0131], [0224]); and after obtaining at least two frames of the plurality of frames, wirelessly output a second dynamic image for display based on the first dynamic image to an external display apparatus (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040]).
But, Tezuka fails to explicitly state that the second dynamic image is based on screen captures obtained by screen capturing as the image processed first dynamic is played on the screen of the display.
MA discloses a system and method for medical imaging. MA teaches image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display (see par. [0005], [0167], [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display in the invention of Tezuka, as taught by MA, to be able to capture specific portion of the image to better diagnosis the patient. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of MA with the invention of Tezuka will provide the second dynamic image is based on screen captures obtained by screen capturing as the image processed first dynamic is played on the screen of the display.
Regarding claim 12, Tezuka teaches wherein the first dynamic image is cine/continuously displayed on the mobile radiographic imaging apparatus (see fig. 4; par. [0014], [0066], [0092]) and displaying the second image (see abstract, fig. 6A, 9 and 10; par. [0014], [0035], [0037], [0039], [0040], [0095], [0127]), but Tezuka fails to explicitly state the second dynamic image is generated by generating screen captures of the cine displayed first image.
MA discloses a system and method for medical imaging. MA teaches image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display (see par. [0005], [0167], [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of image is based on screen captures obtain by screen capturing as the image processed image is played on the screen of the display in the invention of Tezuka, as taught by MA, to be able to capture specific portion of the image to better diagnosis the patient. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of MA with the invention of Tezuka will provide the second dynamic image is generated by generating screen captures of the cine displayed first image.
Regarding claim 13, Tezuka and MA disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, MA teaches the processor generates the screen captures by capturing at least a part of the screen of the display (see par. [0005], [0167], [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the processor generates the screen captures by capturing at least a part of the screen of the display in the invention of Tezuka, as taught by MA, to be able to capture specific portion of the image to better diagnosis the patient.
Regarding claim 14, Tezuka and MA disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, MA teaches the processor generates the screen captures by capturing an entire part of screen of the display (see par. [0005], [0167], [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the processor generates the screen captures by capturing entire part of the screen of the display in the invention of Tezuka, as taught by MA, to be able to capture specific portion of the image to better diagnosis the patient.
Claims 2 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka et al. (US 2020/0074677; hereinafter Tezuka), in view of MA et al. (US 2017/0238882; hereinafter MA) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koeda (US 2021/0401394).
Regarding claim 2, Tezuka and MA disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein the hardware processor outputs the second dynamic image at a frame rate higher than a frame rate of the dynamic imaging.
Koeda discloses a radiographic imaging device. Koeda teaches a processor outputs different images at different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image (see fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of processor outputs different images as different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image in the invention of Tezuka and MA, as taught by Koeda, to provide a better quality of images with reduced motion. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Tezuka to incorporate the teaching of processor outputs different images as different rate, and one image is at higher frame rather than the other image as taught by Koeda will provide hardware processor outputs the second dynamic image at a frame rate higher than a frame rate of the dynamic imaging.
Regarding claim 15, Tezuka and MA disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein the hardware processor outputs the second dynamic image at a frame rate higher than a frame rate of the dynamic imaging to the external display apparatus.
Koeda discloses a radiographic imaging device. Koeda teaches a processor outputs different images at different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image (see fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of processor outputs different images as different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image in the invention of Tezuka and MA, as taught by Koeda, to provide a better quality of images with reduced motion. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Tezuka and MA to incorporate the teaching of Koeda will provide wherein the hardware processor outputs the second dynamic image at a frame rate higher than a frame rate of the dynamic imaging to the external display.
Regarding claim 16, Tezuka and MA disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein a frame rate of playing the image-processed first dynamic image on the screen of the display is the same as a frame rate of the dynamic imaging, and the screen captures are obtained at a multiple of the frame rate of the dynamic imaging.
Koeda discloses a radiographic imaging device. Koeda teaches a processor outputs and displaying different images at different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image (see fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of processor outputs and displaying different images as different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image in the invention of Tezuka and MA, as taught by Koeda, to provide a better quality of images with reduced motion. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Tezuka to incorporate the teaching of Koeda will provide wherein a frame rate of playing the image-processed first dynamic image on the screen of the display is the same as a frame rate of the dynamic imaging, and the screen captures are obtained at a multiple of the frame rate of the dynamic imaging.
Regarding claim 17, Tezuka and MA disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein the screen captures are obtained at double the frame rate of the dynamic imaging
Koeda discloses a radiographic imaging device. Koeda teaches a processor outputs and displaying different images at different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image (see fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of processor outputs and displaying different images as different rate, and one image is at higher frame than the other image in the invention of Tezuka and MA, as taught by Koeda, to provide a better quality of images with reduced motion. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Tezuka and MA to incorporate the teaching of Koeda will wherein the screen captures are obtained at double the frame rate of the dynamic imaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art MA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797