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
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodsitt (US 2009/0175408 A1, cited in the IDS filed on 9/12/24).
With respect to independent claim 1, Goodsitt teaches in Fig. 11 A compression member 10 that puts a breast disposed between a radiation source and a radiation detector into a compressed state as shown in Fig. 11, the compression member comprising:
a first marker 14; see paragraph [0029] that is formed of a first material dental floss or dental ribbon, which is visible in an ultrasound image see paragraph [0030] and is not visible in a radiation image, and of which a position in the compression member is discriminative as shown in Figs. 1 and 3; and
a second marker leaded letters numbers; see Figs. 1 – 3; see paragraph [0037] that is provided at a position, which does not affect an image interpretation of the radiation image, and is formed of a second material which is visible in the radiation image.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Goodsitt teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the first marker is disposed on the same axis as the second marker.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Goodsitt teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the first marker is disposed in a patterned manner associated with position information in the compression member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodsitt, and further in view of JP 58-97422 (hereunder D1).
The teaching of Goodsitt has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Goodsitt is silent with wherein the first material is beryllium.
D1, a pertinent art, teaches in Abstract beryllium film as an acoustic vibrator or penetrating member of X-ray. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Goodsitt in order to use a marker. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 – 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodsitt, and further in view of DeFreitas (US 2013/0129039 A1).
The teaching of Goodsitt has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Goodsitt is silent with wherein the first marker is provided on a surface opposite to a surface with which an ultrasound probe used to capture the ultrasound image is in contact.
In paragraph [0007], DeFreitas teaches ultrasound examination and in view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Goodsitt in order to examine breast with a known imaging system. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 6, as discussed above DeFreitas teaches in Fig. 1 the image generation system comprising: at least one processor, wherein the processor generates a radiation image and in paragraph [0007] an ultrasound image in a state in which the compression member is used.
With respect to dependent claim 11, since both ultrasound breast examination and x-ray breast examination is known in DeFreitas, the limitation of “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program executed in an image generation system including the compression member according to claim 1, the program for causing a computer to execute a process comprising: generating a radiation image and an ultrasound image in a state in which the compression member is used” would be obvious choice as a dual mode imaging of breast. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 10 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:
With respect to dependent claim 6 and its dependent claims 7 – 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the processor performs position correction of the ultrasound image and the radiation image by using a first image, which is an image of the first marker included in the ultrasound image, and a second image, which is an image of the second marker included in the radiation image, and displays the ultrasound image and the radiation image, which are subjected to the position correction, side by side or displays the ultrasound image and the radiation image, which are subjected to the position correction, in a state of being superimposed on each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David Makiya can be reached at (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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884