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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2023-119162 dated 21 July 2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 19 July 2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Specification - Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Increasing Signal to Noise Ratio in Radiation Images.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
MPEP 2111.05(III) directs “However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.” Here, all of the claim elements in claims 6-14 related to “visual effects” are printed matter and thus not entitled to patentable weight. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Office Action has mapped them anyway.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process using images/ drawings (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, prediction, etc.), and mathematical calculations for likelihood/ probability (e.g., - P(A) = f / N Where P(A) = Probability of an event (event A) occurring; f = Number of ways an event can occur (frequency); N = Total number of outcomes possible).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 17, 19 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claims 19 is directed to a method, i.e., process, and claims 1, 19 and 20 are directed to a system i.e., a machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The apparatus in claim 1, for example, comprises a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
integrating a plurality of radiation images obtained by image capturing;
generate a second integrated image different from the first integrated image using the plurality of radiation images and at least one radiation image obtained by the image capturing after the plurality of radiation images are obtained.
These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could present image(s)/ drawing(s) and overlay the image(s)/ drawing(s) associated with corresponding radiation exposures with a degree of error or lack thereof either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, Claims 1- 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Thus, since Claims 1 are/is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the other claims 2-20 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 15-20 (all claims except 3, 7 and 10-14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2020 0334792 A1, (Themelis et al.). The references are listed in a PTO-892 from the Office Action in which they are first used.
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Themelis et al. teach an information processing apparatus ("computer program may have a program code for, when executed on a processor, causing the execution of a SNR adjustment method," paragraph [0019]) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions ("a floppy disc, a DVD, a Blu-Ray, a CD, a ROM, a PROM, and EPROM, an EEPROM or a FLASH memory, having electronically readable control signals stored thereon, which cooperate ( or are capable of cooperating) with a programmable computer system such that the respective method is performed," paragraph [0062]); and
at least one processor ("a processor, a microprocessor, a programmable computer or an electronic circuit," paragraph [0061]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a first integrated image by integrating a plurality of radiation images obtained by image capturing using a radiation generating apparatus that generates radiation and a radiation imaging apparatus ("the at least two images to be combined may be images of a video sequence of a fluorescence camera," paragraph [0037]), and generate a second integrated image different from the first integrated image using the plurality of radiation images and at least one radiation image obtained by the image capturing after the plurality of radiation images are obtained ("Different image characteristics or image types may be white light images, fluorescence images, thermal images, x-ray images, TEM images, REM image, AFM images or STM images," paragraph [0041]); and
control a display device to change a display ("display may be a LED display, an OLED display, a LED or an OLED display with an implemented touch panel or a CRT screen or monitor," paragraph [0050]) based on a determination regarding an image quality of the first integrated image to a display based on a determination regarding an image quality of the second integrated image ("only pixel values fulfilling a predetermined criterion derived from the calculated statistical distribution may be taken into account for combining the at least two images," paragraph [0008] where predetermined criterion teaches a determination).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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 to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, because Themelis et al. explicitly motivates doing so at least in paragraphs [0025], [0026] and [0027] including “when a functionality is subsequently described as being implemented using multiple elements, further examples may implement the same functionality using a single element or processing entity” and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization.
The rejection of apparatus claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of apparatus claim 17, method claim 19 and apparatus claim 20 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. Claims 17, 19 and 20 are mapped below for clarity of the record and to specify any new limitations not included in claim 1.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a third integrated image using the plurality of radiation images and the at least one radiation image used for generating the second integrated image, and at least one radiation image obtained by the image capturing after the at least one radiation image used for generating the second integrated image is obtained ("The SNR adjustment circuit is further configured to generate a third image having an increased SNR as compared to the first image or the second image if the SNR is below the first threshold and if the variation is below the second threshold," paragraph [0004]), and
further control the display device to change the display based on the determination regarding the image quality of the second integrated image to a display based on a determination regarding an image quality of the third integrated image ("generating the third image may comprise combining at least two images to provide the third image, which may improve the image quality of the video sequence by increasing the signal to noise ratio while not introducing significant impairments," paragraph [0006]).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the display device to display, as a moving image, the plurality of radiation images obtained by the image capturing ("generating the third image may comprise combining at least two images to provide the third image, which may improve the image quality of the video sequence by increasing the signal to noise ratio while not introducing significant impairments," paragraph [0006]).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the determinations regarding the image qualities is a determination of an SNR that is a ratio of a signal component to a noise component ("generating the third image may comprise combining at least two images to provide the third image, which may improve the image quality of the video sequence by increasing the signal to noise ratio while not introducing significant impairments," paragraph [0006]).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: in a case where the SNR is determined to be greater than a predetermined value, control the display device to display at least one of the SNR and an integrated image used for determining the SNR ("In a case in which the display of the superimposed image data 48 of the test object 11 that is a test target is continued, situations (types) of defects included in the test object 11 and distributions of the respective defects are confirmed by appropriately performing turning on or off the display of the magnified image data 53 or performing the selective display of any one of the differential region 47 where the differential values are positive and the differential region 47 where the differential values are negative (YES in step S12, and steps S7 to Sll)," paragraph [0117]).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: store the SNR and an integrated image used for determining the SNR to a storage device in a case where the SNR is determined to be greater than a predetermined value ("The implementation can be performed using a non-transitory storage medium such as a digital storage medium," paragraph [0062] where implementing using a storage medium teaches to store acceptable images).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate the second integrated image in a case where the SNR is determined to be smaller than a predetermined value ("The SNR adjustment circuit is further configured to generate a third image having an increased SNR as compared to the first image or the second image if the SNR is below the first threshold and if the variation is below the second threshold," paragraph [0004]).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: after the plurality of radiation images are obtained, generate the second integrated image every time at least one radiation image is obtained ("The SNR adjustment circuit is further configured to generate a third image having an increased SNR as compared to the first image or the second image if the SNR is below the first threshold and if the variation is below the second threshold," paragraph [0004] and "generating the third image may comprise combining at least two images to provide the third image, which may improve the image quality of the video sequence by increasing the signal to noise ratio while not introducing significant impairments," paragraph [0006]).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the display device to display a fourth integrated image obtained at a different time from a time when the image capturing is performed ("The SNR adjustment circuit is further configured to generate a third image having an increased SNR as compared to the first image or the second image if the SNR is below the first threshold and if the variation is below the second threshold," paragraph [0004] and "generating the third image may comprise combining at least two images to provide the third image, which may improve the image quality of the video sequence by increasing the signal to noise ratio while not introducing significant impairments," paragraph [0006]).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, Themelis et al. teach an information processing apparatus ("computer program may have a program code for, when executed on a processor, causing the execution of a SNR adjustment method," paragraph [0019]) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions ("a floppy disc, a DVD, a Blu-Ray, a CD, a ROM, a PROM, and EPROM, an EEPROM or a FLASH memory, having electronically readable control signals stored thereon, which cooperate ( or are capable of cooperating) with a programmable computer system such that the respective method is performed," paragraph [0062]); and
at least one processor ("a processor, a microprocessor, a programmable computer or an electronic circuit," paragraph [0061]), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a first integrated image by integrating a plurality of radiation images obtained by image capturing using a radiation generating apparatus that generates radiation and a radiation imaging apparatus ("the at least two images to be combined may be images of a video sequence of a fluorescence camera," paragraph [0037]), and generate a second integrated image different from the first integrated image using the plurality of radiation images and at least one radiation image obtained by the image capturing after the plurality of radiation images are obtained ("Different image characteristics or image types may be white light images, fluorescence images, thermal images, x-ray images, TEM images, REM image, AFM images or STM images," paragraph [0041]); and
output a signal based on a determination regarding an image quality of the second integrated image ("display may be a LED display, an OLED display, a LED or an OLED display with an implemented touch panel or a CRT screen or monitor," paragraph [0050] where teaching a display teaches outputting results).
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, Themelis et al. teach an information processing system comprising:
a radiation imaging apparatus ("Different image characteristics or image types may be white light images, fluorescence images, thermal images, x-ray images, TEM images, REM image, AFM images or STM images," paragraph [0041] and "As another exemplary embodiment, a microscope system may comprise a Fluorescence camera, a display and a SNR adjustment circuit." paragraph [0016] ); and
the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is communicably connected to the radiation imaging apparatus ("It will be understood that when an element is referred to as being "connected" or "coupled" to another element, the elements may be directly connected or coupled or via one or more intervening elements. If two elements A and B are combined using an "or", this is to be understood to disclose all possible combinations, i.e. only A, only B as well as A and B, if not explicitly or implicitly defined otherwise. An alternative wording for the same combinations is "at least one of A and B" or "A and/or B"," paragraph [0026]).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, Themelis et al. teach an information processing method ("computer program may have a program code for, when executed on a processor, causing the execution of a SNR adjustment method," paragraph [0019])comprising:
generating a first integrated image by integrating a plurality of radiation images obtained by image capturing using a radiation generating apparatus that generates radiation and a radiation imaging apparatus ("the at least two images to be combined may be images of a video sequence of a fluorescence camera," paragraph [0037]), and generating a second integrated image different from the first integrated image using the plurality of radiation images and at least one radiation image obtained by the image capturing after the plurality of radiation images are obtained ("Different image characteristics or image types may be white light images, fluorescence images, thermal images, x-ray images, TEM images, REM image, AFM images or STM images," paragraph [0041]); and
controlling a display device to change a display based on a determination regarding an image quality of the first integrated image to a display based on a determination regarding an image quality of the second integrated image ("display may be a LED display, an OLED display, a LED or an OLED display with an implemented touch panel or a CRT screen or monitor," paragraph [0050] where teaching a display teaches outputting results).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, Themelis et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer ("computer program may have a program code for, when executed on a processor, causing the execution of a SNR adjustment method," paragraph [0019]), cause the computer to:
generate a first integrated image by integrating a plurality of radiation images obtained by image capturing using a radiation generating apparatus that generates radiation and a radiation imaging apparatus ("the at least two images to be combined may be images of a video sequence of a fluorescence camera," paragraph [0037]), and generate a second integrated image different from the first integrated image using the plurality of radiation images and at least one radiation image obtained by the image capturing after the plurality of radiation images are obtained("Different image characteristics or image types may be white light images, fluorescence images, thermal images, x-ray images, TEM images, REM image, AFM images or STM images," paragraph [0041]); and
control a display device to change a display based on a determination regarding an image quality of the first integrated image to a display based on a determination regarding an image quality of the second integrated image ("display may be a LED display, an OLED display, a LED or an OLED display with an implemented touch panel or a CRT screen or monitor," paragraph [0050] where teaching a display teaches outputting results).
2nd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 7 and 10-14 (all remaining claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2020 0334792 A1, (Themelis et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2018 0052120 A1, (Murakami). The references are listed in a PTO-892 from the Office Action in which they are first used.
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, as noted above.
Themelis et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of a display prompting to end the image capturing.
[AltContent: textbox (Murakami, Fig. 10, showing a display arrangement.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
508
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Murakami teaches wherein each of the displays based on the determinations is either a display prompting to end the image capturing or a display prompting to continue the image capturing ("in a case in which the inspector switches a test object (NO in step S12 and Yes in step S13), the inspector re-specifies the radiation image data 12 of the test object 11 that is to be subjected to a test using the keyboard 27, the mouse 28, or the like. Thus, the processes from step S3 to step S12 are repeatedly executed, so that new superimposed image data 48 is displayed on the display unit 32," paragraph [0118] where teaching to display switching objects on a screen teaches prompting to continue).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Themelis et al. and Murakami as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Signal To Noise Ratio Adjustment Circuit, Signal to Noise Ration Adjustment Method and Signal to Noise Ratio Adjustment Program as taught by Themelis et al. to use Image Processing Device, Image Processing Method and Program as taught by Murakami. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “As a result, it is difficult to directly specify a defect of a test object from a radiation transmission image.” as noted by the Murakami disclosure in paragraph [0004], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that different material will be more or less resistant to x-rays; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, as noted above.
Themelis et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of display a display prompting to end the image capturing.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: in a case where the SNR is determined to be greater than a predetermined value, control the display device to display a display prompting to end the image capturing ("in a case in which the inspector switches a test object (NO in step S12 and Yes in step S13), the inspector re-specifies the radiation image data 12 of the test object 11 that is to be subjected to a test using the keyboard 27, the mouse 28, or the like. Thus, the processes from step S3 to step S12 are repeatedly executed, so that new superimposed image data 48 is displayed on the display unit 32," paragraph [0118] where teaching to display switching objects on a screen teaches prompting to end).
Themelis et al. and Murakami are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, as noted above.
Themelis et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of control the display device to display the plurality of radiation images and the SNR.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the display device to display the plurality of radiation images and the SNR of the plurality of radiation images ("in a case in which the inspector switches a test object (NO in step S12 and Yes in step S13), the inspector re-specifies the radiation image data 12 of the test object 11 that is to be subjected to a test using the keyboard 27, the mouse 28, or the like. Thus, the processes from step S3 to step S12 are repeatedly executed, so that new superimposed image data 48 is displayed on the display unit 32," paragraph [0118] where teaching to display switching objects on a screen teaches prompting to continue).
Themelis et al. and Murakami are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, as noted above.
Themelis et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of control the display device to display a graph.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the display device to display a graph indicating a change in the SNR of the plurality of radiation images ("As shown in (a) of FIG. 3, the standard image correction unit 41 detects, in a case in which the density correction process is performed, a pixel value ( displayed by a solid line in the figure) of each pixel of the standard image data 20 and a pixel value ( displayed by a dashed line in the figure) of each pixel of the radiation image data 12, respectively. Here, in a case in which a defect is included in the test object 11, a pixel value of a pixel included in a defect region F corresponding to the defect in the radiation image data 12 greatly changes compared with pixel values of pixels included in a region other than the defect region F," paragraph [0075] where Fig. 3 teaches to display a graph).
Themelis et al. and Murakami are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, as noted above.
Themelis et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of control the display device to display time information.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the display device to display time information that is obtained using the change and indicates a time required until an integrated image having an SNR greater than a predetermined value is obtained ("As a result, it is necessary for an inspector to determine whether the density difference between the plurality of pieces of superimposed image data 48 results from a defect or from variation in the imaging conditions, and thus, it takes time for the test," paragraph [0150] which teaches time to complete, which teaches showing time to complete).
Themelis et al. and Murakami are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, as noted above.
Themelis et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of control the display device to display a warning.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the display device to display a warning in a case where a change rate of the SNR obtained using the change is smaller than a first threshold ("As a result, an inspector does not need to determine whether the density difference between the plurality of pieces of superimposed image data 48 is caused by a defect or caused by variation in imaging conditions, and thus, it is possible to shorten time necessary for the test," paragraph [0164] which teaches displaying times necessary for the test, which teaches warnings when the time is greater or lesser than a threshold).
Themelis et al. and Murakami are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Themelis et al. teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, as noted above.
Themelis et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of control the display device to display a warning.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the display device to display a warning in a case where the time indicated by the time information is longer than a second threshold ("As a result, an inspector does not need to determine whether the density difference between the plurality of pieces of superimposed image data 48 is caused by a defect or caused by variation in imaging conditions, and thus, it is possible to shorten time necessary for the test," paragraph [0164] which teaches displaying times necessary for the test, which teaches warnings when the time is greater or lesser than a threshold).
Themelis et al. and Murakami are combined as per claim 3.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Non Patent Publication “Geometric averaging of X-ray signals in automatic exposure control” to Snoeren et al. discloses geometric averaging outperforms the existing techniques and significantly improves the image quality. The approach reduces the highlight influence and guarantees an adequate Contrast-to-Noise ratio for decentered objects.
US Patent Publication 2012 0148090 A1 to Omi discloses a conversion acquisition unit configured to acquire a gradation conversion characteristic based on an X-ray image captured by an X-ray sensor, a storage unit configured to store a pixel value range in which a signal-to-noise ratio is higher than a threshold value according to a characteristic of the X-ray sensor, a determination unit configured to determine whether a pixel value range in which gradation is widened according to the gradation conversion characteristic is included in the stored pixel value range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATH E WELLS whose telephone number is (703)756-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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.
/Heath E. Wells/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 10 June 2026
Prosecution Insights