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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Representative submits that the prior art (Taki) does not teach that the first image processing parameter for the first radiation and the second image processing parameter for the second radiation image have a permissible correlation because Taki does not compare the first parameter and the second parameter, determine a correlation between those parameters, or determine whether those parameters have a permissible relationship.
Applicant’s Representative further submits that the correlation between processed images and correlation between image processing parameters are technically distinct determinations and are not changeable, and Taki fails to teach the claimed notification condition because Taki does not provide a notification in response to determining that the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter do not have permissible correlation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not specify what exactly the image processing parameters correspond to. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the image processing parameters can correspond to any parameters, numbers, variables, metrics, elements, factors, etc. derived from the image or used for processing the images, e.g., image acquisition values, camera settings, thresholds, lighting, etc. The claims further do not specify what a permissible correlation is, and therefore the limitation has been interpreted as any correlation, relationship, association, etc. that is permissible, allowable, tolerable, acceptable, satisfies, etc. a predetermined correlation, condition, situation, etc.
Taki teaches that the two image parameters (e.g., radiation energies, level) are compared and evaluated for a permissible correlation (e.g., satisfying an image quality indicator), and a warning notification is generated when this correlation is not permissible (e.g., not satisfying the image quality requirement) (see Taki ¶¶0015, ¶¶0023, ¶¶0141).
In view of this reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the examiner respectfully submits that the rejections set forth below remain proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tomoko Taki (US 2024/0020849 A1), hereinafter referred to as Taki .
Regarding claim 1, Taki teaches a radiation image processing apparatus including an image processor configured to perform image processing of a radiation image, comprising:
an obtainer configured to obtain a first image processing parameter for a first radiation image and a second image processing parameter for a second radiation image (Taki ¶¶0007: “An aspect of the present invention relates to a radiation image processing apparatus comprising a processor. The processor … generates a first emphasis image by performing first emphasis processing on the two radiation images using an arithmetic expression including a first parameter”; Taki ¶¶0015: “It is preferable that the second emphasis processing includes processing of weighting one radiation image of the two radiation images by using a second parameter, and then subtracting the weighted radiation image from the other radiation image”; Taki ¶¶0023: “the method comprising a step of acquiring two radiation images in which a specific subject is imaged by respectively using two types of radiation energies different from each other … a step of generating correlation information indicating a correlation between the first emphasis image and the second emphasis image, and a step of performing control of displaying, on a display unit, the first emphasis image, a level value corresponding to a value of the first parameter, and an image quality indicator indicating a degree of difference between the first emphasis image and the second emphasis image, which is quantified based on the correlation information”);
a determiner configured to determine whether the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter have permissible correlation (Taki ¶¶0023 discussed above; Taki ¶¶0141: “in a case in which the image quality indicator is out of the reference range for the generated first emphasis image in a case in which the ES image quality indicator is displayed, warning display 72 can be displayed or turned on and off on the ES image quality indicator display unit 24”); and
a notification unit configured to make a notification if the determiner determines that the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter do not have the permissible correlation (Taki ¶¶0141 discussed above – image quality indicator not meeting the requirement does not have a permissible correlation and a warning is displayed).
Regarding claim 2, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a composition unit configured to composite the first radiation image and the second radiation image to generate a composite image (Taki ¶¶0023 discussed above; Taki Figs. 7-8 & ¶¶0004: “The subtraction processing is processing of calculating a difference by weighting at least two types of radiation images in which the energy of the radiation used for imaging is different, and is processing utilizing the fact that an attenuation coefficient of the radiation is different depending on a composition of the subject”; Taki ¶¶0134: “an estimation primary ray image and an estimation scattered ray image obtained by radiography of the virtual model are combined to generate an estimation image”),
wherein if the determiner determines that the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter do not have the permissible correlation, the composition unit does not generate the composite image (Taki Fig. 10 & ¶¶0139: “even in a case in which the image quality does not meet the certain reference, the change of the ES level value may be repeated a plurality of times, and the changed ES image quality indicator is displayed each time, so that it is possible to know of how much the ES image quality indicator is to be improved or deteriorated by converting the numerical value” – the process is repeated until the image quality is adjusted to satisfy the predetermined conditions).
Regarding claim 3, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein if the determiner determines that the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter have the permissible correlation, the composition unit generates the composite image after the image processor performs image processing of the first radiation image and the second radiation image (Taki Fig. 10 & ¶¶0023, ¶¶0139, & ¶¶0141 discussed above).
Regarding claim 4, Taki the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are captured at different timings (Taki ¶¶0109: “In a case in which a large amount of radiography such as a medical examination is required, the radiologist should complete the imaging one after another in a short time”), and
the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter each include a setting of scattered ray reduction processing and a setting of noise reduction processing (Taki ¶¶0050: “The image processing unit 12 generates a first emphasis image by performing first emphasis processing on the two radiation images acquired by the image acquisition unit 11 by an arithmetic expression including a first parameter. In addition, the image processing unit 12 generates a second emphasis image by performing second emphasis processing using at least any radiation image of the two radiation images acquired by the image acquisition unit 11. The emphasis processing is processing of emphasizing a structure, an edge, or the like included in the radiation image by the image processing. The emphasis processing includes subtracting processing of removing a specific structure, noise, and the like from the radiation image. It should be noted that the radiation image also includes the radiation image after the image processing”; Taki ¶¶0156: “a scattered ray component estimated according to a body thickness of the subject is removed for each pixel”).
Regarding claim 5, Taki the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are captured at the same timing (Taki ¶¶0129: “the first radiation image G1 and the second radiation image G2 are radiation images obtained substantially simultaneously by the so-called 1-shot ES method”), and
the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter each include a setting of noise reduction processing (Taki ¶¶0050 & ¶¶0156 discussed above).
Regarding claim 7, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a setting unit used by an operator to set an imaging condition of the second radiation image (Taki Figs. 6-9 discussed above),
wherein the imaging condition for capturing of the second radiation image is set via the setting unit after the first radiation image is captured (Taki Figs. 2-4 discussed above), and
the obtainer obtains a setting of image processing included in an imaging condition for the first radiation image as the first image processing parameter, and obtains a setting of image processing included in the imaging condition of the second radiation image as the second image processing parameter (Taki Figs. 6-10, ¶¶0023, ¶¶0050, ¶¶0139, ¶¶0141 & ¶¶0156 discussed above; also see Taki ¶¶0049: “In a case of acquiring the two radiation images, the image acquisition unit 11 may acquire a radiation image subjected to various types of processing, such as scattered ray correction processing or other image processing, in addition to a so-called original image (image that is not subjected to the image processing or the like). In addition, the image acquisition unit 11 may be configured to obtain, as at least one of the two acquired radiation images, the radiation image subjected to the scattered ray correction processing or the like. The scattered ray correction processing is image processing of performing correction of reducing scattered rays of the radiation due to the subject or the like. The scattered ray correction processing may be processing of removing a scattered ray component estimated according to a thickness of the subject for each pixel. The scattered ray correction processing may be performed by the image processing unit 12”).
Regarding claim 8, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter each include a setting of emphasis processing (Taki ¶¶0050 discussed above).
Regarding claim 9, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter each include a setting of image processing of brightness and contrast (Taki ¶¶0070: “the image processing unit 12 performs, on the acquired radiation image, the contrast correction processing of correcting a difference in contrast according to the tube voltage during the imaging of the two radiation images and a decrease in the contrast due to an influence of beam hardening”; Taki ¶¶0088: “displaying the option, which is not selected, darkly and displaying the selected option brightly”; Taki Fig. 6: 22).
Regarding claim 10, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an extraction unit configured to extract a parameter of a comparison target out of the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter (Taki ¶¶0128: “estimates the scattered rays for each pixel of a correction target image to be corrected based on the acquired body thickness distribution, and removes the scattered rays from each pixel of the correction target image. For the correction target image in which the removal of the scattered rays is completed, the subsequent processing is recommended”).
Regarding claim 11, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein if the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter match, the determiner determines that the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter have the permissible correlation (Taki Fig. 10 & ¶¶0023, ¶¶0139, & ¶¶0141 discussed above).
Regarding claim 12, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein if values of the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter fall within a preset range, the determiner determines that the first image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter have the permissible correlation (Taki Fig. 10 & ¶¶0023, ¶¶0139, & ¶¶0141 discussed above).
Regarding claim 13, Taki teaches a radiation imaging system comprising:
the radiation image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (Taki Fig. 1; refer to the rejection of claim 1 above); and
a radiation imaging unit configured to generate a radiation image (Taki Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 15, Taki teaches a radiation image processing method (Taki Fig. 10 & ¶¶0002: “The present invention relates to a radiation image processing apparatus, an operation method of a radiation image processing apparatus, and a non-transitory computer readable medium that provide an energy subtraction function”) for performing image processing of a radiation image, comprising the steps described in claim 1 (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above).
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Taki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the method according to claim 15 (Taki ¶¶0002 discussed above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoko Taki (US 2024/0020849 A1), in view of Ying Zhao (US 2021/0244374 A1), hereinafter referred to as Taki and Zhao, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Taki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a setting unit used by an operator to set an imaging condition of the second radiation image (Taki Figs. 6-9 teaches UI allowing the user to set the image parameters),
wherein the imaging condition for capturing of the second radiation image is set via the setting unit after the first radiation image is captured (Taki Figs. 2-4: the emphasis processing, e.g., scatter and/or noise reduction are performed after the acquisition of both the first and second radiation images),
a setting of image processing for the first radiation image is added to the first radiation image (Taki Figs. 6-9 discussed above; also see Taki Fig. 10 & ¶¶0139 discussed above – the adjustments made by the emphasis processing is added to the image), and
the obtainer obtains the setting of image processing of the first image processing parameter, and obtains a setting of image processing included in the imaging condition of the second radiation image as the second image processing parameter (Taki Figs. 6-10, ¶¶0023, ¶¶0049, ¶¶0050, ¶¶0139, ¶¶0141 & ¶¶0156 discussed above).
However, Taki does not appear to explicitly teach obtaining when the first radiation image was captured.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches obtaining information regarding when the first radiation image was captured (Zhao ¶¶0018: “a method of monitoring an x-rayed subject in real time using two-dimensional x-ray detectors can comprise: obtaining a plurality of first x-ray measurements of the subject at a first time point; obtaining a plurality of second x-ray measurements of the subject at a second time point later than the first time point, the subject or a portion thereof having or not having moved between the first and second time points; matching the plurality of second x-ray measurements to the plurality of first x-ray measurements; and outputting 6D positioning of at least one target, component, and/or region of interest of the subject between the first and second time points”; Zhao ¶¶0193: “Such time label can be associated with the time at which the image or data is acquired. Each image or dataset may or may not be acquired at the same facility. The time sensitive database may store images of the subject from one or more locations or facilities or different imaging sites, such as location 1 or 2 or 3 in FIG. 8, which may be linked with unstructured and structured data other than x-ray images relating to or of the subject with the same identifier or related identifier”).
Taki and Zhao are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to radiation image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the radiation image processing apparatus, method, and medium (as taught by Taki) to obtain the image acquisition time information (as taught by Zhao) because the combination allows different images taken at different facilities and times to be correlated (Zhao ¶¶0193).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record teaches that it was known at the time the application was filed to use a radiation imaging system comprising:
the radiation image processing apparatus according to claim 6 (Taki Fig. 1; refer to the rejection of claim 6 above); and
a radiation imaging unit configured to generate a radiation image (Taki Fig. 11),
wherein if the determiner determines that the firs image processing parameter and the second image processing parameter do not have the permissible correlation, the radiation imaging unit does not generate the composite radiation image (Taki ¶¶0141 discussed above).
However, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not appear to teach or suggest that when the correlation is not permissible, the radiation imaging unit does not generate the second radiation image.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 571-272-9753
soo.shin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights