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 § 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(s) 1-5, 7-9 and13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawanishi (US 2021/0401393), and further in view of Sabol et al. (US 2011/0013220) hereinafter known as Sabol.
With regards to claim 1, 13-14, Kawanishi discloses X-ray imaging system and control method [0001] capable of performing X-ray imaging by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and general imaging, the X-ray imaging system ([0002]; FIG. 1) comprising:
an radiation generation units/apparatuses ([0027]; radiation generation units/ apparatuses; 114A) capable of individually emitting a plurality of radiations having different energies ([0044]; “…a plurality of substances (e.g., soft tissue and bone tissue) that form an object using a plurality of radiation images obtained by different radiation energies…”), and
the hardware processor (control unit 211) of calibration controls the execution or execution of image processing [0072] of the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [0002] is performed or when capturing of the calibration image is determined to be necessary [0072].
Kawanishi discloses a Radiology Information Systems (RIS), Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS), Hospital Information Systems (HIS) and further discloses a network 120 that can transmit/receive radiation images, patient information, and the like [0028]. Also, the reference teaches of a portable radiation generation unit [0030]. Also, the reference discloses a display unit 112 that displays imaging examination information, imaged radiation images, various kinds of information, and the like [0029]. Finally, the reference teaches of a status obtaining unit that obtains as current operation information of the radiation imaging system [0085]. Finally, the reference teaches of a storage unit 215 that stores setting information relating to an operation log of the radiation imaging system [0042].
Kawanishi do not specifically disclose;
an X-ray emitter
a portable X-ray detector that captures an X-ray image based on an X-ray emitted by the X-ray emitter;
a hardware processor that provides, under a predetermined condition, a first notification related to capturing of a calibration image by the X-ray detector.
Sabol discloses systems and methods discloses for managing autonomous detector and imager subsystems communicating as nodes on a network (Abstract). Sabol discloses a portable digital detector ([0028]; FIG. 2; 22) that may operate autonomously from a radiation source 12, such as an X-ray tube [0027][0064]. Sabol further teaches of a detector subsystem 32 that includes diagnostic circuitry which can determine an operational status of the said detector subsystem 32. During examination procedure, the detector subsystem 32 notifies the application server, via the network interconnection 102, the operation status of the subsystem. The operational status can be information of an exposure event may be prevented during an examination when the detector subsystem 32 is not ready and/or capable of functioning properly [0047][0066]. Further, the imager subsystem 30 and detector subsystem 32, the application server 62 may be utilized for dual-energy imaging [0045][0057] and for obtaining calibration data [0045][0064].
In view of Sabol, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to modify the dual-energy X-ray imaging system’s network and communication units, of Kawanishi, with a portable x-ray detector and an application server capable of transmitting notifications relating to the operational status of the imaging system. The motivation is to gain a mobile x-ray detector utilizing network communication servers/processors that can transmit notification messages relating to the operation status of the imaging system and information on whether the detector is not ready and/or capable of functioning properly based on obtained calibration images/data.
With regards to claim 2, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, discloses the X-ray imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the calibration image is an image captured by the X-ray detector in a state in which no subject is present between the X-ray emitter and the X-ray detector. (Kawanishi; [0093]; “…calibration is executed prior to imaging for bone mineral amount measurement and the pixel value of the calibration image and the pixel value of the preset reference image are compared.”) (Kawanishi; [0072]; “The control unit 211, based on comparison of the difference between the pixel value of the calibration image and the pixel value of the reference image and the threshold range set for determining whether the temperature state of the radiation tube is stable, controls continuation of calibration execution or execution of image processing for obtaining the amount of substance that forms the object using a plurality of radiation images”)
With regards to claim 3, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, discloses the X-ray imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not capturing of the calibration image is necessary, based on a change in a state of the X-ray emitter (Kawanishi; [0061][0063][0072] in view of the claim 1 rejection)
With regards to claim 4, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, discloses the X-ray imaging system according to claim 3, wherein the change in the state is a change in a period from previous capturing of the calibration image to capturing of a subject image. (Kawanishi; [0085]; The status obtaining unit 216 obtains the operation duration of the radiation imaging system 100 as a duration,…”; [0086])
With regards to claim 5, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, discloses the X-ray imaging system according to claim 3, wherein the change in the state is a change in a distance between the X-ray emitter and the X-ray detector. (Sabol; [0064]; “Example of properties of the imager subsystems 30 that may be maintained in the list 182 of imager subsystem properties include, but are not limited to, does the source, e.g., X-ray tube, … does the source translate … to enable tomosynthesis acquisitions,…”)
With regards to claim 7, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, disclose the X-ray imaging system according to claim 3, wherein, when the hardware processor determines that capturing of the calibration image is not necessary, the hardware processor does not provide the first notification. (see the rejection of claim 1)
With regards to claim 8, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, disclose the X-ray imaging system according to claim 1, wherein an association between capturing of the calibration image and capturing of a subject image is changeable. (Kawanishi; [0073])
With regards to claim 9, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, disclose the X-ray imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor causes a notifier provided in an X-ray imaging controller that controls X-ray imaging and/or an imaging stand to execute the first notification. (see the rejection of claim 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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:
With regards to claim 6, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, do not disclose the X-ray imaging system according to claim 3, wherein the change in the state is attachment or detachment of the X-ray detector to or from an imaging stand.
With regards to claim 10, Kawanishi, in view of Sabol, do not disclose the X-ray imaging system according to claim 1 wherein
the hardware processor determines whether a subject is present on an imaging stand, and
the hardware processor further provides a second notification that the subject is present on the imaging stand when the subject is present on the imaging stand at a time of capturing the calibration image.
Claims 11-12 are objected due to dependency on objected base claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Millioni De Carvalho et al. (US 2021/0259649)
Akahori (US 2014/0119500)
Kelly et al. (US 2022/0225957)
Kuwabara et al. (US 2014/0211922)
Highnam et al. (US 2012/0189175)
Haase et al. (US 2021/0153836)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 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, 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884