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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at page 10, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to box 10 of the Office Action Summary form (PTOL-326) of Non-Final Office action, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The box should have been unchecked. Box 10 of the Office Action Summary form has been corrected, i.e., unchecked.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at page 10, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 20, 27 and 30 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at page 10, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained for the reasons set forth below.
The amendment does not clarify how “adding and synthesizing” the enhanced images and/or the enhanced images and the target image in claims 16, 23 and 30 leads to obtaining “an X-ray image of the target region”. The claims do not specify how the images are added and synthesized. There is no context that relates the target image to the images being added/synthesized. Rather, the claims merely state that the X-ray image of the target region is obtained by some kind of addition and synthesis of the enhanced images, which is vague and seemingly incomplete in its description of the adding and synthesizing in order to be ascertainable in scope. Therefore, the rejection has been updated to account for the antecedent basis issue introduced by the amendment.
Since pixel values are not dose values, in the context of claims 16 and 23, particularly the claim language “according to a relationship between a predetermined pixel value average and an X-ray received dose of an X-ray receiver”, it is clear that the correspondence recited in those claims is defined by the recited “relationship”. In claims 18, 20, 21, 25, 27 and 28 however, there is no recited relationship to explain how the synthesized image parts are “corresponding” to respective candidate regions. Furthermore, “the enhanced images of different candidate regions” lacks an antecedent basis because the enhanced images of the target region are not necessarily the same as the enhanced images of the “different candidate regions”.
With respect to the rejection of claims 21 and 28, there is no clear antecedent basis for “the” overexposed and underexposed region because there are multiple instances of “an” overexposed and underexposed region.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at page 11, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16, 23 and 30 describe adding and synthesizing either the “enhanced images” or in addition, “the target image”, to thereby “obtain an X-ray image of the target region”. The claims refer to acquiring enhanced images of the target region in the target image. The target image includes the target region. However, the “enhanced images of the target region” do not necessarily correspond to or include the enhanced images of “the at least one candidate region” because “the candidate region” is only specified as being “in the target image”, not the “target region”. Furthermore, it is unclear how the adding and synthesizing leads to obtaining “an X-ray image of the target region”. The obtained “x-ray image of the target region” does not necessarily include any part of the “captured target image of a target region”. Thus, the relationship between adding and synthesizing enhanced images and obtaining an X-ray image is unclear. For purposes of applying prior art, the acquisition of “enhanced images of the target region” is assumed to include acquiring enhanced images of the candidate region and that enhanced images of the target image correspond to the “enhanced images of the target region”. It is also assumed that the adding and synthesizing refers to superimposing the enhanced images on the target region in the target image, thereby resulting in the obtained X-ray image. Dependent claims 17-22 and 24-29 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claims 16 and 23.
Claims 18, 20, 21, 25, 27 and 28 recite the phrase “corresponding to”, which creates ambiguity. Unlike claims 16, 23 and 30, which define a certain “relationship” as a correspondence, there is no such relationship specified in claims 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, and 28 for the correspondences recited therein. Taking claim 18 as an example, it is unclear how the synthesized “image parts” correspond “to respective candidate regions in ones of the enhanced images of different candidate regions”. The relationship that defines the correspondence is unspecified. Furthermore, “the enhanced images of different candidate regions” lacks an antecedent basis (emphasis added) because said enhanced images are not necessarily the same as the enhanced images of the target region or candidate region. Furthermore, “the enhanced images of different candidate regions” lacks an antecedent basis because the enhanced images of the target region are not necessarily the same as the enhanced images of the “different candidate regions”. For purposes of applying prior art, the Examiner assumes “corresponding to” in claims 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, and 28 means the candidate regions of the enhanced images occupy the same relative spatial regions and positions as the candidate regions in the target image. It is also assumed that the “enhanced images of different candidate regions” are generated in the same manner as the enhanced images of the target region.
Claim 21 recites “the overexposed region and the underexposed region”. However, claim 16 recites “an overexposed region and/or an underexposed region” and claim 21 further recites, “an overexposed region and an underexposed region”. Claim 28 recites “the overexposed region and the underexposed region”. However, claim 23 recites “an overexposed region and/or an underexposed region” and claim 28 further recites, “an overexposed region and an underexposed region”. Therefore, these limitations lack an antecedent basis. For purposes of applying prior art, it is assumed each “overexposed region” is the same thing and each “underexposed region” is the same thing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 23 and 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17-22 and 24-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 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 RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm EST.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights