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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 16, 20, and 22 are amended. No claims are newly added or cancelled. Claims 20-23 are withdrawn. Claims 1-23 remain pending.
Response to Remarks
The Applicant argues that NAGATSUKA et al. (US 20220398713 A1) fails to disclose “(1) acquiring a contrast resolution of the image, a spatial resolution of the image, a time resolution of the image, and (2) outputting the acquired imaging capability indicating a relation to a required imaging capability for a predetermined dynamic analysis” (REMARKS filed 05/26/2026, p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. NAGATSUKA discloses a quality control analysis comprising (1) extracting information on the obtained image data ([0095]) including a contrast resolution ([0101]) and a time resolution (time interval between a frames, i.e. framerate; [0111]).
The Applicant further argues that NAGATSUKA fails to disclose (2) outputting the acquired imaging capability indicating a relation to a required imaging capability for a predetermined dynamic analysis (REMARKS, p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. NAGATSUKA discloses outputting analysis results including information on whether the value is appropriate (comparison of calculated value with a range/threshold setting; [0116]) and information on a relation with a value at the time of at least any other of the operations (FIG 4, 8; [0107-0109]).
Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection in view of the previously cited art is maintained.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NAGATSUKA (US Pub # 20220398713).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, NAGATSUKA discloses a capability determination apparatus (system 100; FIG 1) and method of using (FIGURE 3, 5) comprising:
providing a hardware processor configured for:
acquiring an imaging capability from an image obtained by a radiation detector by irradiation of a model with radiation, the imaging capability being a contrast resolution of the image, a spatial resolution of the image, a time resolution of the image, or any combination thereof (steps S3/S22 obtains image data by capturing a phantom, [0095, 0096, 0109]; Step S4/S23 the controller 21 generated the information on quality control based on captured image data (contrast resolution, time resolution (framerate), etc.), [0101, 0111]); and
outputting the acquired imaging capability in such a manner as to indicate a relation with a required imaging capability for a predetermined dynamic analysis (S5/S24 describes outputting information on quality control parameters of a dynamic image with comparison to appropriate values, [0095-0096, 0115, 0116]; FIG 4).
Regarding claim 2, NAGATSUKA discloses wherein the outputting includes outputting a comparison result between the acquired imaging capability and the required imaging capability for the predetermined dynamic analysis is an imaging capability for each dynamic analysis (controller 21 displays information indicating whether quality control regarding the smoothness of the dynamic image is within the appropriate range (appropriateness); [0098, 0119, 0123-0129]; FIG 4).
Regarding claim 3, NAGATSUKA discloses the required imaging capability for the predetermined dynamic analysis is an imaging capability for the dynamic analysis of a plurality of dynamic analyses, and the outputting includes outputting whether or not the imaging capability for the dynamic analysis of a plurality of dynamic analyses is included (S5/S24 describes outputting information comparison of dynamic image data, [0095-0096, 0098, 0115, 0123-0129]; FIG .4).
Regarding claim 4, NAGATSUKA discloses the imaging capability is an imaging capability of the radiation detector (dynamic image data includes frame rate, which is a detector capability; [0083]).
Regarding claim 5, NAGATSUKA discloses wherein the imaging capability is an imaging capability of a radiography apparatus (dynamic image data includes frame rate, which is a radiography apparatus capability; [0083]).
Regarding claim 6, NAGATSUKA discloses the radiography apparatus includes a radiation generating apparatus and the radiation detector (generation device 3; FIG 1; [0031-0037]).
Regarding claim 7, NAGATSUKA discloses the radiography apparatus further includes a console (console 2; FIG 1; [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, NAGATSUKA wherein the model includes a plurality of regions having different radiolucencies (FIG 4; phantom F includes different radiolucencies, including absorbing site F1; [0075]).
Regarding claim 11, NAGATSUKA does not disclose wherein the imaging capability includes a time resolution that is a frame rate (dynamic image data includes frame rate; [0083]).
Regarding claim 17, NAGATSUKA computer-readable recording medium storing a capability determination program for causing a computer to execute the capability determination method according to claim 1 ([0014]).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGATSUKA (US Pub # 20220398713) in view of NAGATSUKA et al. (hereafter N2)(US Pub # 20220351358).
Regarding claim 18, NAGATSUKA discloses phantom used as a model in the capability determination method according to claim 1, the phantom comprising: a plurality of regions having different radiolucencies. NAGATSUKA does not disclose the phantom comprising a plurality of granules having different sizes, the plurality of granules being disposed at positions downstream of the plurality of regions along passing radiation. In the same field of endeavor, N2 discloses a phantom for dynamic imaging comprising a plurality of regions having different radiolucencies (radiolucent disc 62a, metal discs 62b, etc.; [0082-0091]) and a plurality of granules having different sizes (FIG 3A-B show dynamic phantom 6 having granules of different sizes, e.g. numbers 62c and discs 62b), the plurality of granules being disposed at positions downstream of the plurality of regions along passing radiation (subject to the alignment of phantom to imaging system), with the benefit of enhanced quality control within dynamic imaging. In light of the teachings of N2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of NAGATSUKA.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, N2 discloses wherein the plurality of granules having different sizes are movable ([0082-0091]; FIG 3A-3B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGATSUKA (US Pub # 20220398713) in view of NAGATSUKA et al. (hereafter N3)(US Pub # 20220346739).
Regarding claim 10, NAGATSUKA does not disclose wherein the imaging capability includes a contrast resolution that is an amount of change in contrast of a captured image. In the same field of endeavor, N3 discloses it is known in the art of dynamic radiography to perform a quality check based on a contrast resolution ([0135, 0151]), with the benefit of improved image quality. In light of the teachings of N3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of NAGATSUKA.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGATSUKA (US Pub # 20220398713) in view of STETTNER (AT 524993 A1).
Regarding claim 12, NAGATSUKA does not disclose wherein the imaging capability includes a spatial resolution that is an image resolution of a captured image. In the same field of endeavor, STETTNER discloses it is known in the art of radiography to perform a quality check based on a spatial resolution (abstract), with the benefit of improved image quality. In light of the teachings of STETTNER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of NAGATSUKA.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGATSUKA (US Pub # 20220398713) in view of Fyles et al.1
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 15, NAGATSUKA does not disclose wherein the predetermined dynamic analysis is a dynamic analysis relevant to pulmonary embolism, valve regurgitation or heart failure, with required imaging capability in contrast resolution, spatial resolution, and a frame rate for a body thickness of 5 cm. However, it is well known in the art to apply dynamic chest radiography (DCR) when analyzing a respiratory condition (e.g. embolism, valve regurgitation, etc.) or cardiovascular condition (e.g. arrest, failure, etc.), as taught by Fyles (abstract; Introduction: page 2, col. 1, para. 2). Furthermore, Fyles discloses it is known in the art to provide sufficient resolution and frame rate for a given measurement condition (Introduction: page 2, col. 1, para. 1). Based on the application at hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select optimal imaging parameters (contrast, resolution, frame rate, etc.) for a given imaging to balance known constraints including image quality, patient dose, and computational burden.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 Fyles et al., “Dynamic chest radiography: a state-of-the-art review”, Insights into Imaging (2023), 14:107
Prosecution Insights