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 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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joerger (US 2019/0183439 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Joerger discloses an x-ray diagnostic apparatus (Fig.3) and method of operation (Fig.1), including:
a) an imaging apparatus 1 having an x-ray tube 3 configured to generate an x-ray, an x-ray detector 4 configured to detect an x-ray that has been emitted from the x-ray tube 3 and passes through a subject P, and a processor 12 configured to:
b) obtain an examination protocol U including an imaging condition corresponding to contents of an examination for the subject P;
c) obtain a camera image PA in which the subject P has been captured (via camera 6); and
d) determine whether at least one examination item corresponding to the examination protocol is executable based on first geometric information and second geometric information, the first geometric information including a geometric positional relation between the subject P and the imaging apparatus 1 associated with the examination protocol U, and the second geometric information including a geometric positional relation between the subject P and the imaging apparatus 1 detected based on the camera image PA (pars.0077, 0109-0111, and 0119-0122); where
e) the first geometric information and the second geometric information are each information directly representing an angle of the x-ray tube 3 (arrow in Fig.3) and a position of the x-ray detector 4, relative to the subject P (pars.0066, 0071-0073 and 0109; Figs.1 and 3).
With respect to claim 2, Joerger further discloses that, when the at least one examination item corresponding to the examination protocol U is determined to be executable, the processor 12 is configured to execute the executable item (par.0122).
With respect to claim 3, Joerger further discloses that the processor is configured to:
f) determine whether the first geometric information and the second geometric information do not agree with each other, determine the at least one examination item corresponding to the examination protocol U to be not executable; and
g) perform movement control such that the imaging apparatus 1 is moved to a position corresponding to the first geometric information by moving at least one of the x-ray tube 3 or the x-ray detector 4 (see at least pars.0070, 0128 and 0134).
With respect to claim 5, Joerger further discloses that the processor 12 is configured to calculate a movement position for the x-ray tube 3 or the x-ray detector 4 such that the imaging apparatus 1 is moved to the position corresponding to the first geometric information by moving at least one of the x-ray tube 3 and the x-ray detector 4 (see at least pars.0073 and 0119-0121).
With respect to claim 6, Joerger further discloses that the processor 12 is configured to perform control such that movement information about movement of the imaging apparatus 1 to a movement position is displayed on a display unit (see at least par.0119).
With respect to claim 4, Joerger further discloses that the first geometric information includes a body position of the subject P, the angle of the x-ray tube 3, and the position of the x-ray detector 4, each associated with the examination protocol U (pars.0068-0070), and that the second geometric information includes a body position of the subject P, the angle of the x-ray tube 3, and the position of the x-ray detector 4, each detected based on the camera image PA (pars.0066, 0071, 0073 and 0109; Figs.1 and 3).
With respect to claim 7, Joerger further discloses an optical camera 6 capable of collecting the camera image PA in a same direction as the x-ray illuminates in an x-ray tube 3 retaining unit that retains the x-ray tube 3 (par.0071).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Joerger anticipating former claim 4 (part of which being included in amendment claim 1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argue that:
A) Joerger does not determine whether the examination protocol may proceed based on whether the first and second geometric information align; nor
B) that the first geometric information includes an angle of the x-ray source and a position of the detector.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees on both points.
Joerger discloses automatically determining whether the examination item is executable based on the first and second position information, where the position and orientation of at least the x-ray source 3 is changed if the examination item cannot be performed by comparing the first and second information.
Specifically, the x-ray source may be automatically controlled to raise/lower, tilt or rotate (par.0128), and/or the detector position may be changed (par.0109: “Of course the pre-positioning of the detector can also be changed”). The x-ray source and detector are initially positioned based on the first information from the examination item U (pars.0133-0134), where the first information includes at least an angle of the x-ray source and a position of the detector is included in the examination item (par.0068: “the organ program…contains all the parameters needed for a specific radiography acquisition, for example…and/or the device position”; also see par.0070: “If the examination requirement comprises relevant control commands, or the method has access to a database containing control commands that are computationally linked to information from an examination requirement, this pre-positioning can be performed completely automatically.”; also see par.0103: “the examination requirement preferably specifies, in addition to the positioning,”).
The second information is then determined from the 3D camera and corresponding model fitting and the parameters from the examination item U (pars.0135-0137). A discrepancy is determined, including what components need to be adjusted and by how much (pars.0106 and 0109). At least the x-ray source and/or the detector are then automatically moved based on the discrepancy (par.0109) and continues until the second information matches the first information (par.0110).
The examination protocol may not proceed until the first information matches the second information; at which time the examination item automatically proceeds (par.0110).
As such, it is the Examiner’s position that the first and second information of Joerger each contain the raise/lower, tilt or rotate information of the source and the position of the detector, and that at least the source (and/or detector) are automatically moved based on the determined discrepancy between the first and second information, where the examination item may not proceed unless the first and second information substantially match (Fig.1).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is being maintained.
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 THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884