DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 7, and 19 have been amended. Claims 4-5 and 12-17 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 4, 2026 with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amended claims resulted in changes to the scope and contents; therefore, the grounds of rejection are modified accordingly, as indicated further below.
Regarding objections to the specification previously indicated in Pg. 2 of the Final Office action (OA) of April 8, 2026, Applicant asserts that the “title of the invention is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter” (Remarks, 7-8). However, the title of the invention was not objected to in the Final OA. No issue(s) regarding the title of the invention remain, as previously indicated in Pg. 2 of the Final OA. Instead, the specification was objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, as previously indicated in Pg. 2 of the Final OA.
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. 11-12, “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 1-3, 6-11, and 18-20 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 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. [0074] of the specification of this application indicates “Returning to step S306 in FIG. 3 , in step S306, the second imaging condition is set for the radiation generation unit 101. Here, the second imaging condition includes, for example, the tube current, the irradiation duration, the tube voltage, and other radiation generation conditions and the irradiation angle at the radiation sensor 202, SID, collimator 106 open/close state, presence of grid, and other geometric conditions”, as shown in Fig. 3, Ref. No. S306 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
582
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, for example.
Par. [0123-129] of the specification also indicate “in FIG. 10 , the processing from step S1006 to step S1008 is similar to the processing (from step S306 to step S308) described in the first embodiment and will thus not be described… the second imaging condition is set in the radiation generation unit 101. Here, the second imaging condition includes the tube current, the irradiation duration, the tube voltage, and other radiation generation conditions and the irradiation angle at the radiation sensor 202, SID, collimator 106 open/close state, presence of grid, and other geometric conditions”, as shown in Fig. 10, Ref. No. S306 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
606
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, for example.
Paragraphs of the specification above indicate that “the second imaging condition is set” and that “the second imaging condition includes, for example, the tube current, the irradiation duration, the tube voltage, and other radiation generation conditions and the irradiation angle at the radiation sensor 202, SID, collimator 106 open/close state, presence of grid, and other geometric conditions”, for example. However, the 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 2-3, 6-11, and 18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a second imaging condition set after the first imaging condition is equal to or greater than a threshold” in lines 11-12 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 11-12 of claim 19 is not properly described by the claims, or anywhere else in the specification, as originally filed.
Par. [0074] of the specification of this application indicates “Returning to step S306 in FIG. 3 , in step S306, the second imaging condition is set for the radiation generation unit 101. Here, the second imaging condition includes, for example, the tube current, the irradiation duration, the tube voltage, and other radiation generation conditions and the irradiation angle at the radiation sensor 202, SID, collimator 106 open/close state, presence of grid, and other geometric conditions”, as shown in Fig. 3, Ref. No. S306 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
582
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, for example.
Par. [0123-129] of the specification also indicate “in FIG. 10 , the processing from step S1006 to step S1008 is similar to the processing (from step S306 to step S308) described in the first embodiment and will thus not be described… the second imaging condition is set in the radiation generation unit 101. Here, the second imaging condition includes the tube current, the irradiation duration, the tube voltage, and other radiation generation conditions and the irradiation angle at the radiation sensor 202, SID, collimator 106 open/close state, presence of grid, and other geometric conditions”, as shown in Fig. 10, Ref. No. S306 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
606
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, for example.
Paragraphs of the specification above indicate that “the second imaging condition is set” and that “the second imaging condition includes, for example, the tube current, the irradiation duration, the tube voltage, and other radiation generation conditions and the irradiation angle at the radiation sensor 202, SID, collimator 106 open/close state, presence of grid, and other geometric conditions”, for example. However, the 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 18-20 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 recites the limitation “imaging a first object with known bone density via radiation irradiation based on a first imaging condition, obtain calibration data of first bone information and calibration data of second bone information different from the first bone information… correct bone information of a second object different from the first object… the bone information of the second object being obtained using data obtained by imaging the second object” in lines 5-16 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “calibration data of first bone information” recited in lines 6-7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first object” recited in line 5 of the claim, or not, for example.
For examination purposes the claimed “obtain calibration data of first bone information” recited in lines 6-7 of the claim will be interpreted as “”obtain calibration data of first bone information of the first object”.
Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “bone information of a second object” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “bone information of a second object” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “bone information of a second object” different from the claimed “second 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 2-3, 6-11, and 18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “imaging a first object with known bone density via radiation irradiation based on a first imaging condition, obtain calibration data of first bone information and calibration data of second bone information different from the first bone information… correct bone information of a second object different from the first object… the bone information of the second object being obtained using data obtained by imaging the second object” in lines 2-13 of the claim.
However, it is not clear if the claimed “calibration data of first bone information” recited in lines 3-4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “first object” recited in line 2 of the claim, or not, for example.
For examination purposes the claimed “obtain calibration data of first bone information” recited in lines 3-4 of the claim will be interpreted as “”obtain calibration data of first bone information of the first object”.
Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “bone information of a second object” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 4 of the claim, or if the claimed “bone information of a second object” recited in line 6 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “bone information of a second object” different to the claimed “second bone information” recited in line 4 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 20 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 19.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 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.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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