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 Objections
Claims 1-11, and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a radiation image” in line 9 should be changed to “the radiation image” in order to correct the antecedence. Claims 2-10 are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a radiation image” in line 9 should be changed to “the radiation image” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a radiation image” in line 12 should be changed to “the radiation image” in order to correct the antecedence.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a radiation image” in line 7-8 should be changed to “the radiation image” in order to correct the antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chakrabarti (U.S. 2020/0187877).
Regarding claim 1:
Chakrabarti discloses a radiation imaging apparatus comprising:
a radiation detector (Fig. 1, XD) configured to be subjected to an incident radiation to obtain a radiation image; and
one or more controllers (Fig. 1, PU) configured to:
acquire radiation dose information of the radiation incident on the radiation detector ([0074], obtaining exposure information);
acquire imaging condition information for radiation imaging for subjecting the radiation detector to the incident radiation for up to a target radiation dose to acquire a radiation image ([0060]-[0062], imaging setting/protocol selected); and
issue, in a case where, after a start of the radiation imaging based on the imaging condition information, radiation dose information acquired by a predetermined timing does not satisfy a predetermined condition, a notification for stopping the radiation irradiation by a radiation generation apparatus so that the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus stops before the incident radiation dose reaches the target radiation dose ([0090], predictor signal indicating under exposure or sufficient exposure),
wherein the predetermined timing is a timing determined based on radiation irradiation time set in the radiation generation apparatus ([0060]-[0062], imaging setting/protocol selected; [0058], imaging setting include exposure frequency and duration).
Regarding claim 2:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the notification is issued in a case where, after the start of the radiation imaging based on the imaging condition information, the radiation dose information acquired by the predetermined timing does not satisfy the predetermined condition ([0090], message displayed on the screen), and
wherein the notification is not issued in a case where, after the start of the radiation imaging based on the imaging condition information, the radiation dose information acquired by the predetermined timing satisfies the predetermined condition ([0090], message is displayed during under exposure only).
Regarding claim 3:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined timing is a timing starting from any one of a start of a radiation dose detection operation, an exposure permission ([0058], exposure duration), a start of an accumulation operation, and a start of radiation.
Regarding claim 8:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging condition information includes any one of an X-ray tube voltage and an X-ray tube current in a radiation tube ([0058], tube settings), the target radiation dose, a threshold value for normal stop determination, set irradiation time ([0058], duration of exposure), timing information for early stop determination, threshold value information for early stop determination, and lighting field information.
Regarding claim 9:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in the radiation detector, imaging pixels for acquiring the radiation image and detection pixels for acquiring the radiation dose information are disposed on a same single substrate ([0102], pixels are used as sensors).
Regarding claim 10:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein detection pixels for acquiring the radiation dose information are disposed on a substrate different from a substrate of imaging pixels for acquiring the radiation image ([0102], X-ray sensors are different from the imager).
Regarding claim 11:
Chakrabarti discloses a radiation imaging system comprising a radiation imaging apparatus (Fig. 1, XSYS) having a radiation detector (Fig, 1, XD) configured to be subjected to an incident radiation to obtain a radiation image, and a radiation generation apparatus (Fig. 1, XI) configured to perform radiation irradiation, the radiation imaging system comprising one or more controllers (Fig. 1, PU) configured to:
acquire radiation dose information of the radiation incident on the radiation detector ([0074], obtaining exposure information);
acquire imaging condition information for radiation imaging for subjecting the radiation detector to the incident radiation for up to a target radiation dose to acquire a radiation image ([0060]-[0062], imaging setting/protocol selected); and
stop, in a case where, after a start of the radiation imaging based on the imaging condition information, radiation dose information acquired by a predetermined timing does not satisfy a predetermined condition, the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus before the incident radiation dose reaches the target radiation dose ([0106], imaging apparatus is disabled when exposure is not sufficient),
wherein the predetermined timing is a timing determined based on radiation irradiation time set in the radiation generation apparatus ([0060]-[0062], imaging setting/protocol selected; [0058], imaging setting include exposure frequency and duration).
Regarding claim 12:
Chakrabarti discloses a radiation imaging system comprising:
a radiation imaging apparatus (Fig. 1, XSYS) configured to:
acquire radiation dose information of the radiation incident on the radiation detector ([0074], obtaining exposure information);
acquire imaging condition information for radiation imaging for subjecting the radiation detector to the incident radiation for up to a target radiation dose to acquire a radiation image ([0060]-[0062], imaging setting/protocol selected); and
issue a notification to a notification apparatus in a case where, after a start of the radiation imaging based on the imaging condition information, radiation dose information acquired by a predetermined timing does not satisfy a predetermined condition, based on radiation dose information acquired by a predetermined timing before the target radiation dose is reached ([0090], predictor signal indicating under exposure or sufficient exposure), and a notification apparatus configured to notify a user of information based on the notification ([0090], predictor signal indicating under exposure or sufficient exposure).
Regarding claim 13:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging system according to claim 12, wherein the notification notifies the user of insufficient incident radiation ([0090], predictor signal indicating under exposure or sufficient exposure).
Regarding claim 14:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging system according to claim 12, wherein the notification notifies the user of no incident radiation ([0090], predictor signal indicating under exposure or sufficient exposure).
Regarding claim 15:
Chakrabarti discloses a radiation imaging system comprising a radiation imaging apparatus (Fig. 1, XSYS) having a radiation detector (Fig, 1, XD) configured to be subjected to an incident radiation to obtain a radiation image, and a radiation generation apparatus (Fig. 1, XI) configured to perform radiation irradiation, the radiation imaging system comprising one or more controllers (Fig. 1, PU) configured to:
permit the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus ([0057], start X-ray exposure);
acquire time information since the permission is issued till the radiation generation apparatus performs the radiation irradiation ([0060]-[0062], imaging setting/protocol selected; [0058], imaging setting include exposure frequency and duration), the time information corresponding to a radiation condition ([0060]-[0062], imaging setting/protocol selected; [0058], imaging setting include exposure frequency and duration);
acquire radiation dose information of the radiation incident on the radiation detector; acquire imaging condition information for radiation imaging for subjecting the radiation detector to the incident radiation for up to a target radiation dose to acquire a radiation image ([0090], predictor signal indicating under exposure or sufficient exposure); and
issue, in a case where, after a start of the radiation imaging based on the imaging condition information, radiation dose information acquired by a predetermined timing based on at least the time information satisfies a predetermined condition, a notification for stopping the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus so that the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus stops before the incident radiation dose reaches the target radiation dose ([0106], imaging apparatus is disabled when exposure is not sufficient).
Regarding claim 16:
Chakrabarti discloses a radiation imaging system comprising a radiation imaging apparatus (Fig. 1, XSYS) having a radiation detector (Fig, 1, XD) configured to be subjected to an incident radiation to obtain a radiation image, and a radiation generation apparatus (Fig. 1, XI) configured to perform radiation irradiation, the radiation imaging system comprising one or more controllers (Fig. 1, PU) configured to:
acquire imaging condition information for radiation imaging for subjecting a predetermined lighting field group out of a plurality of lighting fields of the radiation imaging apparatus to the incident radiation for up to a target radiation dose to acquire a radiation image ([0095]-[0096],Fig. 3, grid sizes); and
issue, in a case where, after a start of the radiation imaging based on the imaging condition information, radiation dose information of the predetermined lighting field group does not satisfy a predetermined condition, a notification for stopping the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus so that the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus stops before a radiation dose incident on the predetermined lighting field reaches the target radiation dose ([0106], imaging apparatus is disabled when exposure is not sufficient).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti (U.S. 2020/0187877) in view of Wislocki (U.S. 4,845,771).
Regarding claim 4:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 2.
However, Chakrabarti fails to disclose wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the radiation dose information acquired by the predetermined timing exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
Wislocki teaches wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the radiation dose information acquired by the predetermined timing exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Col 7, lines 10-20, threshold of 40 mv).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Chakrabarti with the condition taught by Wislocki in order to improve safety by preventing unnecessary radiation exposure (Wislocki; Col. 3, lines 33-44). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Chakrabarti fails to disclose wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to issue a further notification for stopping the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus to complete the radiation imaging after subjecting the radiation detector to the incident radiation for up to the target radiation dose.
Wislocki teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to issue a further notification for stopping the radiation irradiation by the radiation generation apparatus to complete the radiation imaging after subjecting the radiation detector to the incident radiation for up to the target radiation dose (Col.8, lines 11-42, exposure is terminated).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Chakrabarti with the notification taught by Wislocki in order to improve safety by preventing unnecessary radiation exposure (Wislocki; Col. 3, lines 33-44). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 6:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Chakrabarti fails to disclose wherein the notification is preferentially processed over other communications.
Wislocki teaches wherein the notification is preferentially processed over other communications (Col.8, lines 11-42, further processing is stop).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Chakrabarti with the notification processing taught by Wislocki in order to improve safety by preventing unnecessary radiation exposure (Wislocki; Col. 3, lines 33-44). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti (U.S. 2020/0187877) in view of Kuwata (U.S. 2020/0120783).
Regarding claim 7:
Chakrabarti discloses the radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Chakrabarti fails to disclose wherein the notification is based on a communication delay between the radiation imaging apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus.
Kuwata teaches wherein the notification is based on a communication delay between the radiation imaging apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus ([0186], time delay).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Chakrabarti with the time delay taught by Kuwata in order to improve image quality by reducing thermal effects (Kuwata; [0962]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884