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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informality creating antecedent basis issues: “the X-ray image” as recited in line 2. This objection may be overcome by replacing “the” with --an--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 12, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The word "preferentially", as recited in claims 2, 12, and 23, renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 24 is rejected for the above reason by virtue of its claim dependency. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the phrases following “preferentially” have been interpreted as not necessarily being part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) acquiring data, setting regions, and processing. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these steps can be considered as extra-solution data gathering and processing steps and would not be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not improve the functioning of a computer, apply the abstract idea by use of a particular machine, or effect a transformation using the abstract idea. Furthermore, the presence of a processing circuitry, memory, and/or computer program code stored in the memory that uses the processing circuitry to execute the code to perform the method merely implements the abstract idea on a generic processor and thus cannot be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugano (JP 4847041 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sugano (figs. 1-16) discloses an image processing system for generating an X-ray image, including image processing circuitry (figs. 1-2; pars. 16 and 18-19) configured to: acquire image data from an imaging plate (5) that has been irradiated, wherein the image data exhibits a stimulated emission density in response to the imaging plate having been irradiated (pars. 18-19); set an attention region of the image data having a first emission density (par. 25); set a non-attention region of the image data having a second emission density (fig. 6; pars. 14-15 and 33-34); and process a total output area (fig. 4; par. 25) included in the image data, wherein a degree of change of the first emission density in the attention region of the processed image data (par. 25) is greater than a degree of change of the second emission density in the non-attention region of the processed image data (pars. 14-15 and 33-34).
Regarding claim 2, Sugano discloses wherein the total output area of the image data is processed by logarithmic conversion (pars. 33-34).
Regarding claim 3, Sugano discloses wherein the attention region and the non-attention region are set (pars. 14-15, 25, and 33-34), prior to processing the total output area of the image data (par. 14: in order to provide a perfect image), such that an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region (par. 25) is lower (depending on the contrast and body region desired for imaging) than an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the non-attention region (pars. 14-15 and 33-34).
Regarding claim 4, Sugano discloses wherein the attention region and the non-attention region are set (pars. 14-15, 25, and 33-34), prior to processing the total output area of the image data (par. 14: in order to provide a perfect image), such that an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region (par. 25) is higher (depending on the contrast and body region desired for imaging) than an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the non-attention region (pars. 14-15 and 33-34).
Regarding claim 6, Sugano discloses wherein the total output area of the image data is processed such that the non-attention region is represented with a constant emission density by eliminating the degree of change of the second emission density in the non-attention region (par. 34).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano as applied to claim 1 above.
Sugano discloses claim 1. Sugano further discloses wherein the non-attention region includes a first non-attention region having a higher X-ray transmission dose intensity range than a dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region, or a second non-attention region having a lower X-ray transmission dose intensity range than the dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region (pars. 14-15, 25, and 33-34: depending on the contrast and body region desired for imaging), and wherein the degree of change of the first emission density in the attention region (par. 25) is greater than the degree of change of the second emission density in both the first and second non-attention regions (pars. 14-15 and 33-34).
However, Sugano fails to disclose both higher and lower ranges.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sugano with both higher and lower ranges, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Thus, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious. on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for more choices (Sugano: pars. 33-34).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komaki et al. (US 4356398; hereinafter Komaki).
Sugano discloses claim 1.
However, Sugano fails to disclose wherein the total output area of the image data is processed as an analog signal, and wherein the image processing circuitry is further configured to convert the image data to digital image data using analog-digital conversion when generating the X-ray image.
Komaki teaches wherein the total output area of the image data is processed as an analog signal, and wherein the image processing circuitry is further configured to convert the image data to digital image data using analog-digital conversion when generating the X-ray image (figs. 1-8; col. 10:58-11:11).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sugano with the teaching of Komaki, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for digital processing, which may reduce noise (Sugano: col. 1:60-66 and 11:1-11).
Claim(s) 10-16 and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asano et al. (US 2007/0286467; hereinafter Asano).
Regarding claim 10, Sugano discloses claim 1. Sugano discloses wherein a first portion of the image data corresponding to the attention region having an increased degree of change of the first emission density is processed to become an image having higher contrast, and wherein a second portion of the image data corresponding to the non-attention region having constant emission density is processed to become an image having low contrast (par. 34).
However, Sugano fails to disclose no contrast.
Asano teaches no contrast (abstract and par. 47: by removing the background).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sugano with the teaching of Asano, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more accurate diagnosis (Asano: par. 9).
Regarding claim 11 and 20, Sugano discloses a method of generating an X-ray image (figs. 1-16) with a memory device (with 8), comprising: acquiring image data from an imaging object of radiography that has been irradiated, wherein the image data exhibits an emission density in response to the imaging object having been irradiated (figs. 1-2; pars. 16 and 18-19); setting an attention region of the image data having a first emission density (par. 26); setting a non-attention region of the image data having a second emission density; processing an output area included in the image data (fig. 6; pars. 14-15 and 33-34), wherein a degree of change of the first emission density in the attention region of the processed image data (par. 25) is greater than a degree of change of the second emission density in the non-attention region of the processed image data (pars. 14-15 and 33-34); and generating the X-ray image based on the processed image data (par. 14: in order to provide a perfect image).
However, Sugano fails to disclose dental radiography.
Asano teaches dental radiography (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sugano with the teaching of Asano, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for better examining the region of interest (Asano: fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Sugano discloses wherein the total output area of the image data is processed by logarithmic conversion (pars. 33-34).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Sugano discloses wherein the attention region and the non-attention region are set (pars. 14-15, 25, and 33-34), prior to processing the total output area of the image data (par. 14: in order to provide a perfect image), such that an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region (par. 25) is lower (depending on the contrast and body region desired for imaging) than an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the non-attention region (pars. 14-15 and 33-34).
Regarding claims 14 and 22, Sugano discloses wherein the attention region and the non-attention region are set (pars. 14-15, 25, and 33-34), prior to processing the total output area of the image data (par. 14: in order to provide a perfect image), such that an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region (par. 25) is higher (depending on the contrast and body region desired for imaging) than an X-ray transmission dose intensity range corresponding to the non-attention region (pars. 14-15 and 33-34).
Regarding claim 15, Sugano as modified above suggests claim 11. Sugano further discloses wherein the non-attention region includes a first non-attention region having a higher X-ray transmission dose intensity range than a dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region, or a second non-attention region having a lower X-ray transmission dose intensity range than the dose intensity range corresponding to the attention region (pars. 14-15, 25, and 33-34: depending on the contrast and body region desired for imaging), and wherein the degree of change of the first emission density in the attention region (par. 25) is greater than the degree of change of the second emission density in both the first and second non-attention regions (pars. 14-15 and 33-34).
However, Sugano fails to disclose both higher and lower ranges.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sugano with both higher and lower ranges, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Thus, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious. on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for more choices (Sugano: pars. 33-34).
Regarding claims 16 and 23, Sugano discloses wherein the total output area of the image data is processed such that the non-attention region is represented with a constant emission density by eliminating the degree of change of the second emission density in the non-attention region (par. 34).
Regarding claim 18, Sugano discloses wherein the imaging object includes teeth or other oral portion (fig. 3), and wherein the image data exhibits the emission density based on a transmission intensity of X-rays transmitted through the imaging object (abstract: via panoramic radiographs).
Regarding claim 19, Sugano discloses wherein the imaging object is acquired from an imaging plate (5) that has been irradiated, and wherein the emission density exhibited by the image data is a stimulated emission density in response to the imaging plate having been irradiated (pars. 18-19).
Regarding claim 24, Sugano discloses wherein the operations further comprise generating the X-ray image (par. 14), wherein the image data corresponding to the attention region having the increased first output density is processed to become a portion of the X-ray image having higher contrast, and wherein the image data corresponding to the non-attention region having the constant output density is processed to become a portion of the X-ray image having reduced contrast (par. 34).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano and Asano as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Komaki.
Sugano as modified above suggests claim 11.
However, Sugano fails to disclose wherein the total output area of the image data is processed as an analog signal, and wherein the image processing circuitry is further configured to convert the image data to digital image data using analog-digital conversion when generating the X-ray image.
Komaki teaches wherein the total output area of the image data is processed as an analog signal, and wherein the image processing circuitry is further configured to convert the image data to digital image data using analog-digital conversion when generating the X-ray image (figs. 1-8; col. 10:58-11:11).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sugano with the teaching of Komaki, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for digital processing, which may reduce noise (Sugano: col. 1:60-66 and 11:1-11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884