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 .
In amendments, dated 05/20/2026, applicant(s) amended claims 1, 4 - 6, 12 and 13. Claims 1 – 8 and 10 - 13 are still pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicants have not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below.
Sugiyama et al. (U.S Patent No. 10,825,562 B2 or JP 2018121823 A) teaches a medical image display apparatus comprising a memory and processing circuitry. The memory configured to store a task management table associating a processing task executed for a medical image with state information representing whether or not the processing task has been executed. The processing circuitry configured to extract, from the task management table, state information that is associated with a processing task for a medical image requested to be displayed, and display, based on the extracted state information, information indicative of whether or not a processing task has been executed for the requested medical image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 8 and 10 - 13 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.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0207766 A1, hereinafter ‘Takagi’) in view of Okuzawa et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2007/0253531 A1, hereinafter ‘Okuzawa’).
With respect to claim 1, Takagi teaches a control device (e.g., a diagnostic console 3, Fig. 1), comprising: a hardware processor (e.g., a hardware processor, ¶0041) that: obtains a plurality of radiographs (e.g., obtain a plurality of images related to X-rays (radiography images), ¶0023, ¶0026), determines whether or not a predetermined process after display is required to be applied to the plurality of radiographs obtained (e.g., determine whether or not a re-imaging process after display is necessary to be apply to the plurality of images, ¶0056), identifies a radiograph to be subjected to the predetermined process, from among the plurality of radiographs obtained (e.g., identifies a failed image to be targeted to the re-imaging process, from the plurality of images, ¶0121 - ¶0122, Fig. 3), and executes the predetermined process on the identified radiograph (e.g., once the failed image is identified, a message (pop-up) is displayed in order to execute/launch re-imaging process, ¶0122 - ¶0123, ¶0136, Fig. 3 & Fig. 5); but fails to teach that said predetermined process is determined based on information about a radiography site; and after executing said predetermined process on said identified radiograph, displays said processed identified radiograph to which said predetermined process has been applied.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well known in the art as evidenced by Okuzawa. In general, Okuzawa teaches a predetermined process is determined based on information about a radiography site (e.g., based on information about a radiography (medical) facility/department (site), a process is determined, ¶0008, ¶0108 with ¶0126); and after executing said predetermined process on said identified radiograph, displays said processed identified radiograph to which said predetermined process has been applied (e.g., upon performing the process, display adjusted images for further diagnosis or analyzing, ¶0008 with ¶0153 - ¶0158 and ¶0165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the diagnosis console of Takagi as taught by Okuzawa since Okuzawa suggested within ¶0008 with ¶00156 - ¶0158 that such modification would judge necessity of re-imaging in order to improve diagnostic and image processing efficiency; thus an effect of improving the operability can be produced.
With respect to claim 2, Takagi in view of Okuzawa, teaches the control device according to The control device according to the plurality of radiographs obtained by the hardware processor satisfy a predetermined condition, and wherein the predetermined condition is any of a radiographic target being an identical test subject, an identical radiography date, an identical radiography site, and an identical user (e.g., where the plurality of images obtained meets a predetermined criteria, where the criteria can be any of: a radiographic target is associated with a test target site, ¶0036, ¶0044, ¶0057 - ¶0071).
With respect to claim 3, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not the predetermined process is required to be applied to a radiograph among the plurality of radiographs, based on information about an image including a previously radiographed identical radiography site (e.g., these correspond to captured past images that are necessary to be compared with current images in order to find a difference between them, ¶0044, ¶0076; if criteria is not met, then re-imaging is necessary).
With respect to claim 4, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further determines whether or not the predetermined process is required to be applied to a radiograph among the plurality of radiographs corresponding to at least one of predetermined usage, and a respiratory cycle, as the radiograph to be subjected to the predetermined process (e.g., images are associated with at least respiratory cycle, ¶0055, ¶0068, ¶0076).
With respect to claim 5, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor determines further whether or not the predetermined process is required to be applied to a radiograph among the plurality of radiographs, based on an instruction by a user (e.g., based on an instruction by an input, ¶0045 - ¶0046, Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein Bernard teaches the hardware processor further determines whether or not the predetermined process is required to be applied to a radiograph among the plurality of radiographs, based on external information that includes an optical image of the radiography site captured at a time of performing radiography to generate the radiograph (Under interpretation: wherein determine if annotations is needed; and if needed, then retrieve a medical scan image from a database or another source in order to generate, create or edit annotation(s) over time, Col 3 (lines 17 – 29), Col 4 (lines 46 – 67), Col 20 (lines 28 – 48), Col 23 (lines 20 – 41) with Col 29 (line 21) to Col 30 (line 17)).
With respect to claim 7, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor presents a display for discriminating the identified radiograph to be subjected to the predetermined process from an unidentified radiograph (e.g. the failed image shown is going to be re-imaged upon pressing button 421, ¶0056, ¶0083 - ¶0087, ¶0108 - ¶0109, Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 8, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 7, wherein Aizawa teaches the hardware processor does not display the unidentified radiograph during execution of the predetermined process (e.g., the failed image or frame is not displayed until analysis is made, ¶0008, ¶0040, ¶0113).
With respect to claim 10, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor accepts execution of the predetermined process, by a user, for the identified radiograph to be subjected to the predetermined process (e.g. this corresponds to a screen with a button to start/execute the re-imaging process, Fig. 5; Okuzawa also teaches this feature when the image is NG in order to re-output image data, ¶0156).
With respect to claim 11, Takagi in view of Okuzawa teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of radiographs include a plurality of frame images (e.g., each of the plurality of images constituting the dynamic image is referred to as a frame image, ¶0026, ¶0055 - ¶0056; Okuzawa also teaches a plurality of extracted images that can be considered as frames as shown in Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 12, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
With respect to claim 13, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The use of a non-transitory computer readable recording medium executed by at least a computer (CPU) as described in claim 13 is explicitly taught by ¶0009 - ¶0010 and ¶0036 of Takagi.
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 JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights