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 with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Gotoh is the new reference applied in view of the newly added limitations which change the scope of the invention. Please kindly see the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a typographical error in line 1 of the claim where the claim status identifier ends and the claim begins.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Claims 1-12, 15 are directed an apparatus; thus these claims comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, are directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 13 IS directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 14 IS directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong 1) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to perform a notification of information indicating recommended imaging equipment to be used by a photographer at a destination, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
the recommended imaging equipment being determined based on examination information about radiographic imaging.
The identified limitations in the claims describing the instructing how to perform a notification of information indicating recommended imaging equipment to be used by a photographer at a destination (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since the identified limitations can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.
Dependent claims 3-9, 15 recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea; therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the hardware processor in claim 1, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program in claim 14, as used in the pending claims, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor.
Additional elements such as imaging to be performed on a subject by a movable radiographic imaging apparatus do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology further these limitations only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
Similarly, additional elements in claims 2, 10, 11, 12, do not yield an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the hardware additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements such as imaging to be performed on a subject by a movable radiographic imaging apparatus do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology further these limitations only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Similarly, additional elements in claims 2, 10, 11, 12, do not yield an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gotoh (US 20200196976A1; June 25, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Gotoh teaches a radiographic imaging support apparatus comprising a hardware processor that performs notification of information indicating recommended imaging equipment to be used by a photographer at a destination (Paragraph 48, Additionally, the X-ray imaging device includes an image processor 4 that performs image processing based on the X-ray detected by the FPD 3, a controller 5 that totally controls each component, and a memory 6 that stores an X-ray image obtained by various kinds of image processing performed by image processor 4 under the control of the controller 5 and stores imaging order information (to be described later), an input unit 7 used to input data and a command by an operator such as a technician, and a display 8 that displays the X-ray image of the image processor 4 and explicitly displays the automatically-chosen FPD 3 (to be described later). The controller 5 corresponds to the control device of the present invention, and the input unit 7 corresponds to the priority setting unit of the present invention. Paragraph 65 - a confirmation dialog (notification) is displayed on the display 8 when the FPD 3 having another size different from the recommended detector size is chosen as illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 4 or FIG. 5 to be described later (refer to step S18 in FIG. 4 or step S27 in FIG. 5; Abstract), the recommended imaging equipment being determined based on examination information about radiographic imaging to be performed on a subject by a movable radiographic imaging apparatus (Paragraph 69 - The FPD selector 52 selects the FPD 3 that is a choice target based on the imaging order information stored in the memory 6. In the embodiment, as described above, the imaging order information is the sensitivity of the FPD 3 in addition to the FPD size (recommended detector size) necessary for the inspection.).
Regarding claim 2, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the recommended imaging equipment is at least one of a radiographic imaging apparatus, a grid that is detachably attached to the radiographic imaging apparatus, a jig for fixing the subject, an assisting tool and the movable radiographic imaging apparatus (Paragraph 69 - The FPD selector 52 selects the FPD 3 based on the recommended detector size).
Regarding claim 3, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the examination information includes information on a type of radiographic imaging (Paragraph 2 - Examples of the imaging order information include a size of a test object, a size of a region of interest that is an imaging target, a region (imaging region) of the region of interest, a technique (for example, a front of a chest and a side of a chest) of imaging the imaging region from a direction, and sensitivity of the X-ray detector.).
Regarding claim 4, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the examination information is examination information on a plurality of subjects (Paragraph 4 - In the latter method, for example, a large X-ray detector is associated with the imaging order relating to a normal imaging region such as a chest and an abdomen, and a small X-ray detector is associated with the imaging order for limbs and children, whereby the imaging can be performed using an X-ray detector having an optimum size corresponding to the imaging region without requiring an operation to manually switch the X-ray detector to be used before the imaging).
Regarding claim 5, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the recommended imaging equipment is determined based on one piece of the examination information (Paragraph 110- The X-ray detector selecting unit (FPD selector 52) chooses the X-ray detector (FPD 3) among the X-ray detectors (FPDs 3) detected by the X-ray detector detecting unit (FPD detector 51) based on the inspection order information (imaging order information). Paragraph 2 - Examples of the imaging order information include a size of a test object, a size of a region of interest that is an imaging target, a region (imaging region) of the region of interest, a technique (for example, a front of a chest and a side of a chest) of imaging the imaging region from a direction, and sensitivity of the X-ray detector.).
Regarding claim 6, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the recommended imaging equipment is determined based on a plurality of pieces of the examination information ( Paragraph 110- The X-ray detector selecting unit (FPD selector 52) chooses the X-ray detector (FPD 3) among the X-ray detectors (FPDs 3) detected by the X-ray detector detecting unit (FPD detector 51) based on the inspection order information (imaging order information). Paragraph 2 - Examples of the imaging order information include a size of a test object, a size of a region of interest that is an imaging target, a region (imaging region) of the region of interest, a technique (for example, a front of a chest and a side of a chest) of imaging the imaging region from a direction, and sensitivity of the X-ray detector.).
Regarding claim 7, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the recommended imaging equipment is determined based on the examination information and related information related to the examination information (Paragraph 110- The X-ray detector selecting unit (FPD selector 52) chooses the X-ray detector (FPD 3) among the X-ray detectors (FPDs 3) detected by the X-ray detector detecting unit (FPD detector 51) based on the inspection order information (imaging order information).; Paragraph 2 - Examples of the imaging order information include a size of a test object, a size of a region of interest that is an imaging target, a region (imaging region) of the region of interest, a technique (for example, a front of a chest and a side of a chest) of imaging the imaging region from a direction, and sensitivity of the X-ray detector.).
Regarding claim 8, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 7. Gotoh further teaches wherein the related information is at least one of a condition of the subject, an age of the subject, a weight of the subject, a medical precaution about the subject, a medical history of the subject, an in-facility residence of the subject, and past radiographic imaging information ( Paragraph 110- The X-ray detector selecting unit (FPD selector 52) chooses the X-ray detector (FPD 3) among the X-ray detectors (FPDs 3) detected by the X-ray detector detecting unit (FPD detector 51) based on the inspection order information (imaging order information). Paragraph 2 - Examples of the imaging order information include a size of a test object, a size of a region of interest that is an imaging target, a region (imaging region) of the region of interest, a technique (for example, a front of a chest and a side of a chest) of imaging the imaging region from a direction, and sensitivity of the X-ray detector.).
Regarding claim 9, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the recommended imaging equipment is determined based on the examination information and information on a state of the imaging equipment (Paragraph 110 - In this way, the corresponding X-ray detector (FPD 3) is chosen among the usable X-ray detectors (FPDs 3) based on the inspection order information (imaging order information), so that the X-ray detector FPD 3 suitable for the purpose (of the imaging order) can automatically be chosen from the usable X-ray detectors (FPDs 3) in the case that there is a possibility that the usable X-ray detector (FPD 3) is dynamically changed at the timing of performing the inspection (in the embodiment, the imaging) (in the embodiment, the X-ray imaging device for round visit travels by the mobile truck 1 to dynamically change the peripheral X-ray imaging device sharing the FPD 3). ).
Regarding claim 10, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh further teaches wherein the hardware processor performs the notification of the information on the recommended imaging equipment based on a predetermined operation by a user (Paragraph 64 - The input unit 7 is constructed with a pointing device typified by a mouse, a keyboard, a joystick, a trackball, or a touch panel. In the embodiment, in order that the operator manually sets the priority for using the FPD 3, the priority is input based on the imaging order information such as the recommended detector size and the sensitivity of the FPD 3.).
Regarding claim 11, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 10. Gotoh further teaches wherein the predetermined operation is one of specification by the user of an examination for a radiographic imaging target, an instruction by the user to update the examination information, an input by the user of related information related to the examination information, and a click input by the user onto an icon indicating the recommended imaging equipment (Paragraph 64 The input unit 7 is constructed with a pointing device typified by a mouse, a keyboard, a joystick, a trackball, or a touch panel. In the embodiment, in order that the operator manually sets the priority for using the FPD 3, the priority is input based on the imaging order information such as the recommended detector size and the sensitivity of the FPD 3.).
Regarding claim 13, Gotoh teaches a radiographic imaging support method comprising performing notification of information indicating recommended imaging equipment to be used by a photographer at a destination(Paragraph 48, Additionally, the X-ray imaging device includes an image processor 4 that performs image processing based on the X-ray detected by the FPD 3, a controller 5 that totally controls each component, and a memory 6 that stores an X-ray image obtained by various kinds of image processing performed by image processor 4 under the control of the controller 5 and stores imaging order information (to be described later), an input unit 7 used to input data and a command by an operator such as a technician, and a display 8 that displays the X-ray image of the image processor 4 and explicitly displays the automatically-chosen FPD 3 (to be described later). The controller 5 corresponds to the control device of the present invention, and the input unit 7 corresponds to the priority setting unit of the present invention. Paragraph 65 - a confirmation dialog (notification) is displayed on the display 8 when the FPD 3 having another size different from the recommended detector size is chosen as illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 4 or FIG. 5 to be described later (refer to step S18 in FIG. 4 or step S27 in FIG. 5; Abstract); Paragraph 66 - the console 9 includes a controller 5, and a display 8 ), the recommended imaging equipment being determined based on examination information about radiographic imaging to be performed on a subject by a movable radiographic imaging apparatus (Paragraph 69 - The FPD selector 52 selects the FPD 3 that is a choice target based on the imaging order information stored in the memory 6. In the embodiment, as described above, the imaging order information is the sensitivity of the FPD 3 in addition to the FPD size (recommended detector size) necessary for the inspection.).
Regarding claim 14, Gotoh teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a hardware processor of a radiographic imaging support apparatus to perform notification of information indicating recommended imaging equipment to be used by a photographer at a destination (Paragraph 48, Additionally, the X-ray imaging device includes an image processor 4 that performs image processing based on the X-ray detected by the FPD 3, a controller 5 that totally controls each component, and a memory 6 that stores an X-ray image obtained by various kinds of image processing performed by image processor 4 under the control of the controller 5 and stores imaging order information (to be described later), an input unit 7 used to input data and a command by an operator such as a technician, and a display 8 that displays the X-ray image of the image processor 4 and explicitly displays the automatically-chosen FPD 3 (to be described later). The controller 5 corresponds to the control device of the present invention, and the input unit 7 corresponds to the priority setting unit of the present invention. Paragraph 65 - a confirmation dialog (notification) is displayed on the display 8 when the FPD 3 having another size different from the recommended detector size is chosen as illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 4 or FIG. 5 to be described later (refer to step S18 in FIG. 4 or step S27 in FIG. 5; Abstract), the recommended imaging equipment being determined based on examination information about radiographic imaging to be performed on a subject by a movable radiographic imaging apparatus Paragraph 69 - The FPD selector 52 selects the FPD 3 that is a choice target based on the imaging order information stored in the memory 6. In the embodiment, as described above, the imaging order information is the sensitivity of the FPD 3 in addition to the FPD size (recommended detector size) necessary for the inspection.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (US 20200196976A1; June 25, 2020) in view of Kamitake (JP2011110199A; December 4, 2013).
Regarding claim 12, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the hardware processor performs the notification in response to a radiographic imaging apparatus stored in a storage provided in the movable radiographic imaging apparatus not matching a radiographic imaging apparatus determined as the recommended imaging equipment to be used by the photographer at the destination.
Kamitake teaches wherein the hardware processor performs the notification in response to a radiographic imaging apparatus stored in a storage provided in the movable radiographic imaging apparatus not matching a radiographic imaging apparatus determined as the recommended imaging equipment to be used by the photographer at the destination. (Abstract, Claim 1)
Therefore, from the teaching of Kamitake, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify the invention as taught by Gotoh in order to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to allow for maximum efficiency of the user to ensure all correct equipment is prepared for the imaging.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (US 20200196976A1; June 25, 2020) in view of Matsuoka (US 2004/0044470 A1; March 4, 2004).
Regarding claim 15, Gotoh teaches the radiographic imaging support apparatus according to claim 1. Gotoh teaches wherein the recommended imaging equipment is determined based on the examination information (Paragraph 110 - The X-ray imaging device of the embodiment includes the X-ray detector detecting unit (in the embodiment, the FPD detector 51) that detects the usable X-ray detector (in the embodiment, the FPD 3) and the X-ray detector selecting unit (in the embodiment, the FPD selector 52) that selects the X-ray detector (FPD 3) that is the choice target based on the inspection order information (in the embodiment, the imaging order information).).
Gotoh does not teach wherein the recommended imaging equipment is determined based on the examination information and statistical information indicating frequency of use of a radiographic imaging apparatus with the movable radiographic imaging apparatus, a frequency of use of the subject with the radiographic imaging apparatus, or a frequency of use of the photographer with a fixing jig or an assisting tool.
Matsuoka teaches when the terminal equipment transmits its present position and the destination to the central apparatus, the terminal equipment also transmits routes that the terminal equipment has passed in the past, and receives the recommended-route information that the central apparatus generated by considering the frequency of use of the routes. (Paragraph 34)
Therefore, from the teaching of Matsuoka, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to make a recommendation of imaging equipment based statistical information indicating frequency of use of a radiographic imaging apparatus with the movable radiographic imaging apparatus as it is a known methodology for selecting a recommendation that allows for optimized equipment utilization and minimized down time as the technician will be properly prepared with the equipment needed to image the patient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-US 2007/0239489 A1 teaches a medical imaging diagnosis supporting apparatus.
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 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 GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights