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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I.A in the reply filed on 8/11/2025 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 4-6 and 9-11 are withdrawn from consideration, and claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12-13 are currently examined as fully disclosed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2023 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical calculations) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referred to establish ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: the claim recites a radiation image processing device, which would be categorized as a process under the four recognized statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One: However, the claim is further directed to the abstract ideas of deriving a thickness of a composition for each pixel of the radiation image and deriving a composition image based on the thickness, which are mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include generic computer elements (at least one processor). The addition of generic computer elements amounts to merely an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer elements, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Step 2B: The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 7, additional limitations do not amount to significantly more and therefore the claims are all ineligible.
Regarding claims 12-13, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the radiation image processing device of claim 1 corresponds to the method of claim 12 as well as the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is eligible under 35 USC 101 and are considered statutory as the claim is doing more than an abstract idea in the form of displaying the composition image on a display.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamura (US Pub 20210100520), included in the IDS dated 7/10/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura discloses a radiation image processing device (Kawamura Fig. 1, image apparatus) comprising:
at least one processor (Kawamura Fig. 2, Element 21, CPU),
wherein the processor
derives, based on at least one radiation image based on radiation that is transmitted through a subject including a plurality of compositions, a thickness of at least one composition of the plurality of compositions for each pixel of the radiation image (Kawamura Par. [0032], derives the body thickness of the subject H for the pixels of the radiographic image), and
derives a composition image for the at least one composition by using an attenuation coefficient based only on the thickness of the at least one composition (Kawamura Par. [0032], derives composition image into a thickness by using an attenuation coefficient in the muscle of the subject).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamura discloses the radiation image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the two radiation images are acquired by two radiation detectors stacked on each other by simultaneously irradiating the two radiation detectors with the radiation transmitted through the subject (Kawamura Par. [0068], simultaneously irradiating the two detection units through the subject).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamura discloses the radiation image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays the composition image on a display (Kawamura Par. [0069], displays a distribution of the composition ratios in superimposition with any of the two radiographic images).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US Pub 20210100520), included in the IDS dated 7/10/2023.
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura discloses the radiation image processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the processor
acquires two radiation images based on radiation that is transmitted through the subject and has different energy distributions from each other (Kawamura Par. [0028] and [0032], derives first and second radiographic images from which the scattered radiation components are removed, such that the first and second radiographic image have energy distributions different from one another),
derives body thicknesses of the subject as a first body thickness and a second body thickness, respectively, for each pixel for each of the two radiation images by using an attenuation coefficient according to an order in which the radiation is transmitted through the plurality of compositions (Kawamura Par. [0032] and [0046], derives the body thickness of the subject H for the pixels of the first and second radiographic image by using an attention coefficient of the radiations for different energy distributions for a plurality of compositions), and
derives the thickness of the at least one composition based on the first body thickness and the second body thickness (Kawamura Par. [0046], derive the thickness of the thickness of the composition between the first body thickness and second body thickness).
Although different embodiments of Kawamura have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kawamura by combining Kawamura’s similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (Kawamura Par. [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura discloses the radiation image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the processor derives the thickness of the at least one composition by regarding the subject as a model that is divided such that the plurality of compositions each are grouped together to have one thickness (Kawamura Par. [0056], derive the muscle composition by dividing the derived muscle thickness).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights