DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendment of March 23, 2026 overcomes the following:
Specification objections related to title of the invention
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Applicant has amended claims 1-17 and 19. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 23, 2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amended claims resulted in changes to the scope/contents and also raised new issue(s) indicated below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 1, Ln. 14-15, “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold”. The aforementioned claimed subject matter has no antecedent basis the specification.
In claim 19, Ln. 9-10, “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold”. The aforementioned claimed subject matter has no antecedent basis the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold” in lines 14-15 of the claim. However, the claimed feature limitation “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold” recited in lines 14-15 of claim 1 is not properly described by the claims, or anywhere else in the specification, as originally filed.
Par. [0091-0112] of the specification of this application indicate “degree of opening of the collimator 106 is changed in the closed direction is equal to or greater than a specific variation amount… the degree of opening of the collimator 106 is changed in the open direction is equal to or greater than a specific variation amount… the variation amount in the bone information (bone density) is equal to or greater than a specific value… the variation amount in the bone information (bone density) is equal to or greater than a specific value… the first comparison information (M1) is equal to or greater than the first threshold (804) and the second comparison information (M2) is equal to or greater than the second threshold (806)… a multilayered radiation sensor 202, low energy radiation passes through the upper layer radiation sensor 202 and is detected, the radiation after passing through the upper layer radiation sensor 202 hardens… compares the irradiation field region (step S1009) obtained on the basis of imaging using the second imaging condition and the plurality of irradiation field regions 1102, 1104, and 1106 (step S1004) obtained on the basis of imaging using the first imaging condition… comparison information is equal to or greater than the threshold… ”, for example.
However, examiner was not able to find support for the claimed “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold” in the original disclosure.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 19 now recites the limitation “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold” in lines 9-10 of the claim. However, the claimed feature limitation “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold” recited in lines 9-10 of claim 19 is not properly described by the claims, or anywhere else in the specification, as originally filed.
Par. [0091-0112] of the specification of this application indicate “degree of opening of the collimator 106 is changed in the closed direction is equal to or greater than a specific variation amount… the degree of opening of the collimator 106 is changed in the open direction is equal to or greater than a specific variation amount… the variation amount in the bone information (bone density) is equal to or greater than a specific value… the variation amount in the bone information (bone density) is equal to or greater than a specific value… the first comparison information (M1) is equal to or greater than the first threshold (804) and the second comparison information (M2) is equal to or greater than the second threshold (806)… a multilayered radiation sensor 202, low energy radiation passes through the upper layer radiation sensor 202 and is detected, the radiation after passing through the upper layer radiation sensor 202 hardens… compares the irradiation field region (step S1009) obtained on the basis of imaging using the second imaging condition and the plurality of irradiation field regions 1102, 1104, and 1106 (step S1004) obtained on the basis of imaging using the first imaging condition… comparison information is equal to or greater than the threshold… ”, for example.
However, examiner was not able to find support for the claimed “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold” in the original disclosure.
Claims 20 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 19.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 now recites the limitation “imaging a first object with known bone information via radiation irradiation based on a first imaging condition, obtain calibration data of first bone information and calibration data of second bone information” in lines 5-8 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “first bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “object with known bone information” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, or if the claimed “first bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments relating other “bone information” different from the claimed “known bone information” of the claimed “object” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, for example.
Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “object with known bone information” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, or if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to other “bone information” different from the claimed “known bone information” of the claimed “object” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, for example.
Furthermore, it is not clear if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “first bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to other “bone information” different from the claimed “first bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 2 now recites the limitation “obtain a first irradiation field region of radiation irradiated on a basis of the first imaging condition” in lines 8-9 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “a first irradiation field region of radiation irradiated on a basis of the first imaging condition” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 2 encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “an irradiation field region obtained via radiation irradiation based on the first imaging condition” recited in lines 13-14 of claim 1, or the claimed “a first irradiation field region of radiation irradiated on a basis of the first imaging condition” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 2 encompass embodiments relating another “irradiation field region of radiation irradiated on a basis of the first imaging condition” different from the claimed “an irradiation field region obtained via radiation irradiation based on the first imaging condition” recited in lines 13-14 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-17 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 2.
Claim 4 now recites the limitation “obtain the calibration data of the bone information” in line 10 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “the bone information” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “object with known bone information” recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the bone information” recited in line 10 of claim 4 encompass embodiments relating the claimed “first bone information” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the bone information” recited in line 10 of claim 4 encompass embodiments relating the claimed “second bone information” recited in lines 7-8 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 4.
Claim 5 now recites the limitation “obtain the calibration data of the bone information” in line 4 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “the bone information” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “object with known bone information” recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the bone information” recited in line 4 of claim 5 encompass embodiments relating the claimed “first bone information” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 1, or if the claimed “the bone information” recited in line 4 of claim 5 encompass embodiments relating the claimed “second bone information” recited in lines 7-8 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 now recites the limitation “a variation amount in bone information” in lines 4-10 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “bone information” recited in lines 4-10 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “object with known bone information” recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “bone information” recited in lines 4-10 of claim 12 encompass embodiments relating the claimed “first bone information” recited in lines 6-7 of claim 1, or if the claimed “bone information” recited in lines 4-10 of claim 12 encompass embodiments relating the claimed “second bone information” recited in lines 7-8 of claim 1, or if the claimed “bone information” recited in lines 4-10 of claim 12 encompass embodiments relating other “bone information” different from the claimed “bone information” recited in claim 1, for example.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the comparison information of when a variation amount in bone information obtained” in lines 6-11 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “the comparison information” recited in lines 6-11 of claim 12 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first comparison information” recited in line 4 of claim 11, or if the claimed “the comparison information” recited in lines 6-11 of claim 12 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “second comparison information” recited in line 7 of claim 11, or if the claimed “the comparison information” recited in lines 6-11 of claim 12 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “comparison information” recited in line 5 of claim 10, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 12.
Claim 14 now recites the limitation “obtain the calibration data of the bone information for a plurality of irradiation field regions” in lines 4-10 of the claim.
However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the calibration data of the bone information for a plurality of irradiation field regions” limitation recited in lines 4-10 of the claim.
Therefore, based on above, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claim 14 further recites the limitation “the highest comparison information… the plurality of irradiation field regions obtained via comparison of the comparison information using the plurality of irradiation field regions… the highest of the comparison information… weighting according to the comparison information” in lines 7-15 of the claim.
However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the highest comparison information”, claimed “the plurality of irradiation field regions”, and “the highest of the comparison information” recited in lines 7-15 of the claim.
Therefore, based on above, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the comparison information” recited in lines 8-15 of claim 14 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “comparison information” recited in line 6 of claim 10, or if the claimed “the comparison information” recited in lines 8-15 of claim 14 encompass embodiments corresponding other “comparison information” different from the claimed “comparison information” recited in line 6 of claim 10, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 19 now recites the limitation “imaging a first object with known bone information via radiation irradiation based on a first imaging condition, obtain calibration data of first bone information and calibration data of second bone information” in lines 2-3 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “first bone information” recited in lines 2-3 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “object with known bone information” recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “first bone information” recited in lines 2-3 of the claim encompass embodiments relating other “bone information” different from the claimed “known bone information” of the claimed “object” recited in line 2 of the claim, for example.
Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “object with known bone information” recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to other “bone information” different from the claimed “known bone information” of the claimed “object” recited in line 2 of the claim, for example.
Furthermore, it is not clear if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to the claimed “first bone information” recited in lines 2-3 of the claim, or if the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments relating to other “bone information” different from the claimed “first bone information” recited in lines 2-3 of the claim, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 19.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8am - 5pm Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights