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 .
Response to Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on May 4, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the notification device to notify warning information corresponding to a state in which execution of radiation imaging involving the stop control is allowable but warning is required, based on the communication state” is not adequately described by the specification. The specification fails to disclose notify warning information when stop control is allowable but warning is required. In [0162], the specification discloses the risk can be ignored but fails to describe requiring a warning even when stop control is allowable. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter that is not adequately described by the specification in such a way that conveys to one skilled in the relevant art the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-6, 16, 22-25, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saigusa (U.S. 2020/0155108).
Regarding claim 1:
Saigusa 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; and one or more controllers configured to:
determine a communication state of the network ([0076], RSSI determined);
cause the notification device to notify warning information corresponding to a state in which execution of radiation imaging involving the stop control is allowable but warning is required, based on the communication state ([0080], warning based on the communication delay is provided to the operator) .
Regarding claim 2:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 1, wherein the state in which warning is required is different from a state in which execution of the radiation imaging involving the stop control is not allowable ([0069]-[0072], AEC determination state is different from communication determination state).
Regarding claim 3:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 1, wherein the warning information includes information indicating that a delay in the stop control may occur due to the communication state ([0068] and [0076], delay time warning).
Regarding claim 4:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the communication state based on a communication time between the radiation detection apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus ([0068] and [0076], delay time determined).
Regarding claim 5:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 4, wherein the communication time includes a statistical value obtained from a plurality of communications performed before radiation irradiation ([0067], delay time average and maximum values are obtained).
Regarding claim 6:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system according to claim 4, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the notification device to notify the warning information when the communication state changes from a favorable state to the state in which warning is required ([0076] and [0080], warning based on the communication delay).
Regarding claim 16:
Saigusa discloses a radiation detection system configured to perform 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 communication between the radiation detection apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus via a network in execution of the stop control, the radiation detection system comprising: a notification device configured to notify a user of information; and one or more controllers configured to:
determine a communication state of the network ([0076], RSSI and SNR determined); and
cause the notification device to notify, based on the communication state, two or more warning information items having warning contents different from each other ([0076]-[0080] and [0083], RSSI and SNR are determined, and operator is notified of different conditions).
Regarding claim 22:
Saigusa discloses a radiation detection system configured to perform 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 communication between the radiation detection apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus via a network in execution of the stop control, the radiation detection system comprising:
a notification device (Fig. 3, 225; [0050], imaging control unit notifies) configured to notify a user of information; and
one or more controllers (Fig. 3, 403, and 404) configured to:
determine a communication state of the network ([0076], RSSI determined);
determine whether radiation imaging using an automatic exposure control function is selected ([0069], AEC selected); and
when the communication state is in a predetermined state, cause the notification device to notify warning information relating to the stop control if radiation imaging using the automatic exposure control function is selected ([0073], AEC not performed due to signal delay), and
cause the notification device not to notify the warning information relating to the stop control if radiation imaging using the automatic exposure control function is not selected ([0079], switched to an imaging condition that does not use AEC).
Regarding claim 23:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system of claim 22, wherein the predetermined state includes a communication state unsuitable for radiation imaging using the automatic exposure control function ([0075]-[0076], delay checks whether AEC can be performed; [0086]-[0087], checking to see if conditions allow AEC to be performed).
Regarding claim 24:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system of claim 22, wherein the predetermined state includes a state in which execution of radiation imaging involving the stop control is allowable but warning is required ([0080], warning based on the communication delay is provided to the operator).
Regarding claim 25:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system of claim 22, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the notification device to notify the warning information relating to the stop control when the communication state changes from a favorable state to the predetermined state ([0088], imaging cannot be performed and the operator is notified).
Regarding claim 28:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system of claim 22, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to determine the communication state based on a communication time between the radiation detection apparatus and the radiation generation apparatus ([0068] and [0076], delay time determined).
Regarding claim 29:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system of claim 28, wherein the communication time includes a statistical value obtained from a plurality of communications performed before radiation irradiation ([0067], delay time average and maximum values are obtained).
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 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saigusa (U.S. 2020/0155108) in view of Hiroike (U.S. 2013/0279657).
Regarding claim 26:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system of claim 22.
However, Saigusa fails to disclose wherein the one or more controllers are configured to start measurement of the communication state when the radiation detection apparatus transitions from an imaging disabled state to an imaging standby state.
Hiroike teaches wherein the one or more controllers are configured to start measurement of the communication state when the radiation detection apparatus transitions from an imaging disabled state to an imaging standby state ([0039], detector starts to operate).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Saigusa with the detector start-up taught by Hiroike. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to make accurate measurements by making sure the detector is ready. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the system of Saigusa with the detector start-up taught by Hiroike to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Saigusa and Hiroike discloses the radiation detection system of claim 26, wherein the one or more controllers are configured to stop the measurement of the communication state when a radiation irradiation request is issued (Saigusa; [0069], imaging exposure is allowed and the delay time is no longer measured).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-21 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 Saigusa (U.S. 2020/0155108).
Regarding claim 17:
Saigusa discloses the radiation detection system of claim 16.
However, Saigusa fails to disclose wherein the one or more controllers are configured to classify the communication state into at least three states.
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 18-21 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights