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 Interpretation
It is determined that “a control apparatus” in combination with “to control” and “a radiation imaging apparatus” recited in claim 1 are devices themselves.
It is determined that “a determining unit” recited in claim 8 is a device itself as shown in Fig. 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iijima (JP 2018 – 42782 A; see provided a translation copy).
With respect to independent claim 1, Iijima teaches in Figs. 1 – 2 and in the first embodiment a radiation imaging system comprising:
a control apparatus 108: see paragraph [0028] configured to control a radiation generating apparatus arranged to expose a radiation; and
a radiation imaging apparatus 101; see paragraph [0027] arranged to detect the exposed radiation and generate a radiation image,
wherein:
the radiation imaging apparatus has a first communication mode a second communication mode in paragraph [0042] in which a signal related to a stop of exposure of the radiation is wirelessly transmitted and a second communication mode a first communication mode in paragraph [0043] in which at least one signal not related to the stop of exposure of the radiation is wirelessly transmitted; and
communication in the first communication mode includes communication at power lower than communication in the second communication mode in paragraph [0024] “a second communication mode in which power consumption is lower than the first mode”.
With respect to independent claim 14, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1, Iijima teaches a method of operating a radiation imaging system comprising a controlling apparatus configured to control a radiation generating apparatus arranged to expose a radiation and a radiation imaging apparatus arranged to detect the exposed radiation and generate a radiation image, the method comprising: wirelessly transmitting a signal related to a stop of exposure of the radiation in a first communication mode by the radiation imaging apparatus; and wirelessly transmitting at least one signal not related to the stop of exposure of the radiation in a second communication mode by the radiation imaging apparatus, wherein communication in the first communication mode includes communication at power lower than communication in the second communication mode.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 – 3 and 10 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima, and further in view of Iwakiri (JP 2012 – 135524 A, see provided a translation copy).
The teaching of Iijima has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Iijima is silent with wherein: the radiation imaging apparatus includes a first antenna and a second antenna; the radiation imaging apparatus is configured to perform the communication in the first communication mode using the first antenna; and the radiation imaging apparatus is configured to perform the communication in the second communication mode using the second antenna. However, Iijima teaches two separate communication modes, and therefore Iijima would have this limitation of claim 2.
Iwakiri, a pertinent art, teaches a plurality of antennas in paragraph [0026] and in paragraph [0090] two communication mode. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iijima in order to perform multi-streaming (see paragraph [0025] of Iwakiri). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Iijima is silent with wherein the radiation imaging apparatus is arranged to perform the communication in the first communication mode using the first antenna and the second antenna. However, Iwakiri teaches in paragraph [0026] channel bonding, which combines adjacent channels in order to significantly boost data throughput. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iijima modified by Iwakiri in order to perform fast data transmission. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 10, since Iijima teaches two communication modes and Iwakiri teaches a plurality of antennas, the limitation of “wherein a communication system of the first communication mode communication is the same as a communication system of the second communication mode” would be within ordinary skilled in the art as an engineering design choice in order to save a component for cost-saving
With respect to dependent claim 11, Iwakiri teaches in paragraph [0026] wherein the communication system of the first communication mode includes communication in IEEE802.11 standard.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Iwakiri teaches in paragraph [0026] wherein: the communication in the first communication mode includes communication in a first communication frequency band, and the communication in the second communication mode includes communication in a second communication frequency band different from the first communication frequency band.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Iwakiri teaches in paragraph [0026] wherein the first communication frequency band includes a communication frequency band in a 2.4 GHz band IEEE 802.11b and g use 2.4 GHz.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima, and further in view of Sako (US 2002/0080918 A1).
The teaching of Iijima has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Iijima is silent with wherein: the radiation imaging system is capable of controlling radiation imaging by auto exposure control; and the radiation imaging apparatus includes a determining unit configured to determine whether a dose of the detected radiation reaches a threshold.
In paragraph [0082], Sako, a pertinent art, teaches auto exposure control that monitors X-ray dose and controls to close exposure at a predetermined threshold dose. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iijima in order to control X-ray intensity (see paragraph [0082] of Sako). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima, and further in view of Wayama (US 2016/0025865 A1).
The teaching of Iijima has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Iijima is silent with wherein: the radiation imaging system is capable of controlling radiation imaging by auto exposure control; and the controlling apparatus includes a determining unit configured to determine whether a dose of the radiation detected by the radiation imaging apparatus reaches a threshold.
In paragraph [0081], Wayama, a pertinent art, teaches a monitoring unit 106b, which corresponds to “a determining unit”, determines whether the irradiation dose of radiation has reached the threshold based on the signal detected by the sensors 212, which corresponds “the radiation imaging apparatus”. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iijima in order to control the irradiation dose to subject. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima.
With respect to independent claim 15, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1, Iijima teaches a method of operating a radiation imaging system, the method comprising: wirelessly transmitting a signal related to a stop of exposure of the radiation in a first communication mode by a radiation imaging apparatus; and wirelessly transmitting at least one signal not related to the stop of exposure of the radiation in a second communication mode by the radiation imaging apparatus, wherein communication in the first communication mode includes communication at power lower than communication in the second communication mode, but is silent with a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program, for causing, when executed by a computer. This limitation is within the ordinary skilled art in order to perform design function by a computer for automation. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 7 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 respect to dependent claim 4 and its dependent claims 5 – 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the communication in the first communication mode includes communication using the first antenna at power lower than that in the second communication mode and communication using the second antenna at power equivalent to that in the second communication mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884