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.
(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, 3-6, 8-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshima (U.S. 2018/0353150).
Regarding Claim 1:
Takeshima discloses a radiation detection system that performs stop control to stop radiation irradiation of a radiation generation apparatus, based on a result of dose detection performed by a radiation detection apparatus, the radiation detection system involving a communication between the radiation detection apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus via a network in an execution of the stop control, the radiation detection system comprising:
a notification device configured to notify a user of information ([0059], message displayed; [0076], notification); and
one or more controllers (Fig. 4, 225) configured to perform functions including
determining a communication state of the network ([0059], RSSI is determined); and
issuing a predetermined notification based on a result of the determination ([0059] and [0076], message notification),
wherein the notification device notifies of notification information for the stop control, based on the predetermined notification ([0076], stop signal notification).
Regarding claim 3:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 1, wherein the determination is based on a comparison between a threshold value for a communication time period and an actual communication time period between the apparatuses ([0059], RSSI and SNR compared with the threshold).
Regarding claim 4:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 3, wherein the threshold value is changeable ([0050], threshold is changed).
Regarding claim 5:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 3, wherein a plurality of values is stored as the threshold value ([0053], threshold includes communication intensity and communication speed).
Regarding claim 6:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 3, wherein the actual communication time period is a statistical value obtained in a plurality of communications ([0067], time information).
Regarding claim 8:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the communication state changes from favorable to defective, warning information is notified as the notification information ([0076], communication failure notification).
Regarding claim 9:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 5, wherein a content of the notification information is changed in accordance with a value, among the plurality of values stored as the threshold value, used for the determination ([0059], either RSSI or SNR is used to determine whether the signal is good or bad).
Regarding claim 13:
Takeshima discloses a control device included in a radiation detection system that performs stop control to stop radiation irradiation of a radiation generation apparatus based on a result of dose detection performed by a radiation detection apparatus, the radiation detection system involving a communication between the radiation detection apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus via a network in execution of the stop control, the control device comprising:
one or more controllers (Fig. 4, 225) configured to perform functions including
determining a communication state of the network ([0059], RSSI is determined); and
issuing a predetermined notification based on a result of the determination ([0059] and [0076], message notification),
wherein the notification device notifies of notification information for the stop control, based on the predetermined notification ([0076], stop signal notification).
Regarding claim 14:
Takeshima discloses an information processing apparatus including a control device included in a radiation detection system that performs stop control to stop radiation irradiation of a radiation generation apparatus based on a result of dose detection performed by a radiation detection apparatus, the radiation detection system involving a communication between the radiation detection apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus via a network in execution of the stop control, the control device comprising: one or more controllers (Fig. 4, 225) configured to perform functions including
determining a communication state of the network ([0059], RSSI is determined); and
issuing a predetermined notification based on a result of the determination ([0059] and [0076], message notification),
wherein the notification device notifies of notification information for the stop control, based on the predetermined notification ([0076], stop signal notification).
Regarding claim 15:
Takeshima discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the information processing apparatus is either a radiation detection apparatus (Fig. 4, 1001) or a radiation generation apparatus.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshima (U.S. 2018/0353150) in view of Ohta (U.S. 2021/0378621).
Regarding claim 2:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 1.
However, Takeshima fails to disclose wherein the determination is based on a retransmission frequency in the communication via the network.
Ohta teaches wherein the determination is based on a retransmission frequency in the communication via the network ([0060], retransmission of signals ever 10 ms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date to combine the radiation detection system of Takeshima with the retransmission frequency taught by Ohta to prevent deterioration of accuracy in exposure control caused by communication issues (Ohta; [0004]). 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 Takeshima (U.S. 2018/0353150) in view of Ishioka (U.S. 2017/0031035).
Regarding claim 7:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 1.
However, Takeshima fails to disclose wherein, in the determination, a comparison between a plurality of communication time periods obtained in the plurality of communications and the threshold value is performed at a plurality of times, and based on a number of times of communication that satisfies a predetermined condition with respect to the threshold value, a determination of whether the network is defective is performed.
Ishioka teaches wherein, in the determination, a comparison between a plurality of communication time periods obtained in the plurality of communications and the threshold value is performed at a plurality of times ([0106], time comparison), and based on a number of times of communication that satisfies a predetermined condition with respect to the threshold value, a determination of whether the network is defective is performed ([0176], comparison with threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date to combine the radiation detection system of Takeshima with the comparison taught by Ishioka in order to improve efficiency by providing stable communication (Ishioka; [0009]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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:
The closest prior art is Takeshima (U.S. 2018/0353150).
Regarding claim 10:
Takeshima discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 5.
However, Takeshima fails to disclose wherein, based on at least either one of an index indicating an event probability of a communication delay and an index indicating an influence in occurrence of the communication delay, the one or more controllers control the notification device to notify of information about a risk level due to the communication delay as the notification information.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claims 11-12 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
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