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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rothschild et al (US 20090103686 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rothschild et al discloses an X-ray diagnosis apparatus (paragraph [0022]) comprising: an X-ray tube (10) that generates X-rays (paragraph [0022]); an X-ray detector that detects the X-rays (paragraph [0028}); processing circuitry configured to generate an X-ray image based on the detected X-rays, and causes a display to display the X-ray image (paragraph [0005]); a first operator that receives an operation of inputting a central position for a displayed image to be displayed on the display; and a second operator that receives an operation of inputting a field-of-view size of the displayed image in a stepless (continuous) manner (paragraph [0022]), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to change the field-of-view size of the displayed image in response to an operation at the second operator (paragraph [0022]), while the central position of a current displayed image is being maintained.
Regarding claim 2, Rothschild et al discloses further comprising an X-ray diaphragm that limits an irradiation range of the X-rays, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control driving of the X-ray diaphragm and control the irradiation range in accordance with an operation at the first operator or the second operator (paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Rothschild et al discloses wherein the second operator receives a move operation that is input by a user, and an input of the field-of-view size based on the move operation that is input by the user (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, Rothschild et al discloses a console apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to cause a display to display an x-ray image (paragraph [0005]); a first operator that receives an operation of inputting a central position for a displayed image to be displayed on the display; and a second operator that receives an operation of inputting a field-of-view size of the displayed image in a stepless (continuous) manner (paragraph [0022]), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to change the field-of-view size of the displayed image in response to an operation at the second operator (paragraph [0022]), while the central position of a current displayed image is being maintained.
Regarding claim 17, Rothschild et al discloses further comprising an x-ray diaphragm that limits the irradiation range of the x-rays, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control driving of the x-ray diaphragm and control the irradiation range in accordance with an operation at the first operator or he second operator (paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Rothschild et al discloses wherein the second operator receives a move operation that is input by a user, and an input of the field-of-view size based on the move operation that is input by the user (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Rothschild et al discloses wherein the second operator receives a reception of a move operation that is input by a user, receives an input regarding a reduction of the field-of-view size in accordance with a move operation that is input by the user for a movement in a first direction, and receives an input regarding an enlargement of the field-of-view size in accordance with a move operation that is input by the user for a movement in a direction opposite to the first direction (paragraphs [0021], [0025], [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 3-4, 6-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothschild et al (US 20090103686 A1) in view of Yoshimasa et al (JP 2019005346 A).
Regarding claim 3, Rothschild et al discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as described supra however, Rothschild et al is silent with regards to the x-ray diaphragm including diaphragm blades as claimed. Yoshimasa et al discloses an x-ray diagnostic apparatus comprising: wherein x-ray diaphragm (21) includes four diaphragm blades (21a)(21b)(22a)(22b); the processing circuitry is configured to control the irradiation range by separately moving positions of the four diaphragm blades (page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Rothschild et al with the teaching of Yoshimasa et al so as to enable x-rays to be focused on the ROI.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshimasa et al discloses further comprising a third operator that receives an operation of separately inputting a degree of opening of the X-ray diaphragm corresponding to a top and a bottom of the X-ray image and a degree of opening (aperture) of the X-ray diaphragm corresponding to a right and a left of the X-ray image, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the X-ray diaphragm based on an operation at the third operator (pages 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein the second operator receives a move operation that is input by a user, receives an input relating to a reduction of the field-of-view size in accordance with a move operation that is input by the user for a movement in a first direction, and receives an input relating to an enlargement of the field-of-view size in accordance with a move operation that is input by a user for a movement in a direction opposite to the first direction (page 9).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein the second operator is a slide bar (i.e. joystick, trackball, switch button, mouse, keyboard, touch pad, etc.) (page 8), and the second operator receives an input of a field-of-view size in accordance with an amount of movement of the slide bar by a user (page 8).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein the second operator receives an operation of canceling an input of a field-of-view size in addition to the operation of inputting a field-of-view size (page 9).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein a second operator is a button provided in the first operator, the processing circuitry is configured to determine an amount of change in the field-of-view size of the displayed image in accordance with how the button is pressed by a user and an input operation to the first operator (See Abstract and page 8).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the display to display an entire image including the X-ray irradiation range and an enlarged image in which a part of the entire image is enlarged (page 9).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein further comprising: an x-ray diaphragm that limits the irradiation range of the X-rays, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: control driving of the X-ray diaphragm; control the irradiation range in accordance with a field-of-view range of the entire image; and generate the enlarged image by image processing on the entire image (pages 4-7).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform a first operating mode of controlling a field-of-view range of the entire image and a second operating mode of controlling a field-of-view range of the enlarged image (page 7).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein the processing circuitry (7) is configured to switch from the first operating mode to the second operating mode in response to a performance of an operation at the second operator (page 8).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein if a field-of-view range of the enlarged image is changed to a position that includes an area outside of the irradiation range, the processing circuitry (7) is configured to change the irradiation range to a range that includes the field-of-view range of the enlarged image (page 8).
Regarding claim 20, Rothschild et al discloses all of the limitations of claim 19, as described supra however, Rothschild et al is silent with regards to a slider bar. Yoshimasa et al discloses wherein the second operator is a slide bar (i.e. joystick, trackball, switch button, mouse, keyboard, touch pad, etc.) (page 8), and the second operator receives an input of a field-of-view size in accordance with an amount of movement of the slide bar by a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Rothschild et al with the teaching of Yoshimasa et al so as to enable control in a stepless manner using UI controls such as (slide bar, joystick, trackball, switch button, mouse, keyboard, touch pad, etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein if a field-of-view range of the enlarged image is changed to a position that includes an area outside of a setting area of the X-ray detector, the processing circuitry is configured to change the field-of-view range of the enlarged image SO that the field-of-view range of the enlarged image is included in the setting range of the X-ray detector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights