Response to Amendment
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 .
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action dated 10/14/2025, as well as amendment to claims, filed on 01/05/2026 have been entered and made of record.
In light of Applicant’s amendment of the title of the application, the objection of record with respect to the specification has been withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has carefully reviewed Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed with the Office on January 5, 2026. Applicant arguments presented in Pages 7-8 of its Reply with respect to the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, and the new analyses presented below render these arguments moot. Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 1, 13, and 14 has altered the scope of the claims, and therefore, has initiated the following new ground(s) of rejection. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6The 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas R. Parks (US 2009/0257554) in view of Yannan Huang (US 2008/0279331), and in further view of Saito Motoaki (JP H11226006 – Machine Translation in English).
Consider Claim 1 (similarly method Claim 13 and computer-readable storage medium Claim 14), Parks discloses “An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor (Parks, Fig. 10:1038 and Paragraph [0095], the computing device with a suitable processor. In addition, Fig. 10:1037 and Paragraph [0112] discloses a computer-readable medium, satisfying the preamble of Claim 14), “wherein the processor is configured to: (Parks, Paragraph [0051]: “During the radiographic study, a series of radiographic images are taken (step 106), for example, using the same instrument used in step 103. The images may be taken sequentially to capture, for example, the movement of the contrast material.” Also, Figs. 6A-6D and Paragraph [0072]: acquiring of “a series of sequential radiographic images 601, 603, 605, and 607, or frames, of a barium swallow passing through a patient's esophagus”); “specify a second region of interest corresponding to the position of the first region of interest in the radiation image” (Parks, Fig. 1:Steps 106-119 and Paragraphs [0052] and [0053], wherein performing a series of radiographic images of the radiopaque/bolus material is disclosed and their position/location is identified); “monitor a position of the sample based on the plurality of radiation images” (Parks, Paragraph [0007]: “When a contrast material is introduced into the luminal organ (e.g., a bolus of suspended barium sulfate within the esophagus during a "barium swallow" study), the radiographic image intensity in these local image fields indicates the position and approximate amount of the contrast material at locations along the luminal organ”); while continuously performing the radiography, change an imaging condition for the radiography based on a temporal change in a relative positional relationship between the second region of interest and the sample in the subject”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Huang discloses “acquire at least one optical image obtained by optically imaging a subject from a first direction, estimate a position of at least one first region of interest based on the optical image” (Paragraph [0028]: The camera 400 is used to pick up an optical image of the subject before the radiographing”, therefore, it is interpreted as the estimation of the region of interest to be radiographed; see also Paragraph [0032], where it is disclosed that based on the optical image, the operator auto-positions the x-ray device).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Parks with the teachings of Huang in order to utilize an optical image to identify the region of interest to be radiographed, and to change radiographing condition based on the position of the region of interest. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the Parks and Hunag references to automatically adjust the radiographing parameters for various regions of interest with various body thicknesses (Huang, Paragraph [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Parks and Hunag to obtain the above-described limitations recited in Claim 1.
Although, as was shown above, the combination of Parks and Huang discloses changing of an imaging condition for the radiography based on a positional relationship between the second region of interest and the sample in the subject” (Huang, Fig. 7: 72 and Paragraph [0041], wherein the optical image is analyzed to yield information regarding the physical properties of the region of interest of the subject to be x-rayed. Fig. 7:73 and Paragraph [0045] discloses that the determined physical properties of the position of the region of interest are utilized for setting the radiographing condition), it does not explicitly disclose “while continuously performing the radiography, change an imaging condition for the radiography based on a temporal change in a relative positional relationship between the second region of interest and the sample in the subject.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Motoaki discloses performing high speed continuous scanning of projection data of a subject from multiple directions to acquire data that includes a temporal change and a spatial change (positional relationship) of the subject (Motoaki, Page 4, 3rd paragraph of the Machine Translated portion),
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Parks and Huang with the teachings of Motoaki in order to continuously performing the radiography based on a temporal change in a relative positional relationship between the second region of interest and the sample in the subject. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the Parks, Hunag, and Motoaki references to acquire a complete set of data, from all relevant directions, from a subject while the subject is swallowing a sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Parks, Hunag, and Motoaki to obtain the invention of Claim 1.
Consider Claim 2, the combination of Parks, Huang, and Motoaki discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: specify a body thickness of the subject based on the optical image; and change the imaging condition based on the body thickness” (Huang, Paragraph [0090]). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Parks, Huang, and Motoaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 2 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 2 is met by Parks, Huang, and Motoaki.
Consider Claim 3, the combination of Parks, Huang, and Motoaki discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: specify an imaging direction of the subject based on the optical image; and change the imaging condition based on the imaging direction” (Huang, Fig. 6 and Paragraphs [0036]-[0037], wherein it is disclosed that based on the imaging view of the camera, i.e., imaging direction, the auto-positioning of the x-ray device is changed). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Parks, Huang, and Motoaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 3 is met by Parks, Huang, and Motoaki.
Consider Claim 5, the combination of Parks, Huang, and Motoaki discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display the radiation image and a type of the second region of interest in which the sample included in the radiation image is located, on a display in association with each other” (Parks, Fig. 8 displaying the positional information of the bolus in a region of interest on a display).
Consider Claim 6, the combination of Parks, Huang, and Motoaki discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to store the radiation image and a type of the second region of interest in which the sample included in the radiation image is located, in a storage unit in association with each other” (Parks, Paragraph [0039] discloses “Movement of the contrast material may be quantitatively tracked over time from a sequence of radiographic images. Suitable methods for displaying the quantitative measurements enable a quicker and more reliable diagnosis of certain disorders of the luminal organ, such as motility disorders”, and Paragraph [0052], wherein it is disclosed “the steps may be performed at any suitable later time. For example, after the diagnostic procedure has been performed. In some embodiments, radiographic images are processed post hoc based on stored data”).
Consider Claim 9, the combination of Parks, Huang, and Motoaki discloses “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first region of interest and the second region of interest are at least one of a throat, a shoulder, an esophagus, an airway, an epiglottis, or a stomach” (Parks, Paragraph [0007] discloses When a contrast material is introduced into the luminal organ (e.g., a bolus of suspended barium sulfate within the esophagus during a "barium swallow" study), the radiographic image intensity in these local image fields indicates the position and approximate amount of the contrast material at locations along the luminal organ” (emphasis added)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas R. Parks (US 2009/0257554) in view of Yannan Huang (US 2008/0279331), and in further view of Saito Motoaki (JP H11226006 – Machine Translation in English), and yet in further view of Keiji Tsuchiya (US 2015/0327833).
Consider Claim 4, as seen earlier, although the combination of Parks, Huang, and Motoaki discloses adjusting the radiographing device based on the image analysis of an optical device (Huang, Fig. 7), the combination does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is configured to notify that the imaging condition is changed.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Tsuchiya discloses its control unit to provide a notification upon the radiographing condition changes (Tsuchiya, Paragraph [0054]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Parks, Huang, and Motoaki with the teachings of Tsuchiya in order to provide a notification upon changing the imaging condition. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Parks, Hunag, and Tsuchiya references by known methods, and each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and the result would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Parks, Hunag, and Tsuchiya to obtain the invention in Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 10-12 are 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: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in these dependent claims with the limitations of the claims they depend from.
Conclusion and Contact Information
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662