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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-13 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20110274251 A1 and US 20050169425 A1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,044,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates the claimed invention.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP 2017127444 A) in view of D2 (US 20110274251 A1) and D3 (US 20050169425 A1).
With regards to claims 1 and 9-11, D1 discloses a control apparatus for a radiation imaging system configured to capture a radiographic image and having a plurality of radiation detection/receptor fields for performing automatic exposure control (AEC) [0012-0013, 028-0029], wherein information is acquired regarding the radiation detection imaging system, namely orientation information, and selecting one or more receptor fields based on the acquired detector orientation information and the part of the subject to be imaged [0028-0031]. D1 fails to teach a detection unit configured to detect setting a radiation detection apparatus to be used for image capturing, selecting one or more of the plurality of receptor fields based on information of a subject and wherein the information regarding the radiation detection apparatus includes at least any one of a size of the radiation detection apparatus, a distance between two different receptor fields, and a size of the plurality of receptor fields. D2 teaches detection circuitry configured to detect the status of radiation detectors [0017-0020]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 to verify the status of the detectors in order to ensure that the intended detector is used for exposure to avoid imaging with an unintended detector. D3 teaches a radiographic imaging and control apparatus and method comprising acquiring patient information and selecting AEC regions based on information specific to the subject [0055-0058] and further wherein the positions and sizes of AEC regions are set for each sensor [0048-0050, 0073]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 to acquire the sensor specific AEC receptor field size information and to use subject information as taught by D3 in order to permit the system to identify and select the appropriate AEC receptor fields for a particular patient, detector, and imaging procedure.
Claims 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3.
With regards to claim 12 and 13, D1 discloses a control apparatus for a radiation imaging system configured to capture a radiographic image and having a plurality of radiation detection/receptor fields for performing automatic exposure control (AEC) [0012-0013, 028-0029], and a control apparatus configured to communicate with the radiation detection apparatus to perform operation control, wherein information is acquired regarding the radiation detection imaging system, namely orientation information, and selecting one or more receptor fields based on the acquired detector orientation information and the part of the subject to be imaged [0012, 0013, 0028-0031]. D1 fails to teach selecting one or more of the plurality of receptor fields based on information of a subject and wherein the information regarding the radiation detection apparatus includes at least any one of a size of the radiation detection apparatus, a distance between two different receptor fields, and a size of the plurality of receptor fields. D3 teaches a radiographic imaging and control apparatus and method comprising acquiring patient information and selecting AEC regions based on information specific to the subject [0055-0058] and further wherein the positions and sizes of AEC regions are set for each sensor [0048-0050, 0073]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 to acquire the sensor specific AEC receptor field size information and to use subject information as taught by D3 in order to permit the system to identify and select the appropriate AEC receptor fields for a particular patient, detector, and imaging procedure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) and 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:
None of the prior art teach a determination unit configured to determine an inclusive relationship between a subject area that is determined using the information of the subject and the information of the part of the subject to be imaged, and a receptor field area that is determined using the information regarding the radiation detection apparatus and the information of the part of the subject to be imaged, wherein the selection unit selects the one or more of the plurality of receptor fields based on the inclusive relationship between the subject area and the receptor field area determined by the determination unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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 on 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights