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 Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on June 23, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that Stein fails to disclose obtaining a dynamic image of a movement of a subject while restricting movement of the subject in direction perpendicular to a detector plane since Stein discloses not allowing any movement. Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 11. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “obtain a dynamic image of movement of the subject” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the jig is configured to restrict the movement of the subject in the direction perpendicular to the detector plane and simultaneously allow the movement of the subject to obtain the dynamic image” renders the claim indefinite. As currently written, the jig simultaneously restricts movement in perpendicular direction and allows movement. The claim fails to define how the jig restricts and allows movement at the same time. The direction of the movement allowed is not defined by the claim. Further, the claim fails to how the dynamic image is obtained. As currently written, the claim relies upon claim 11 which recites the using a radiation generator and a detector to obtain an image in the preamble. However, neither claim 11 nor claim 17 recite the apparatus further comprising: a radiation generator and a detector. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the jig is configured to restrict the movement of the subject in the direction perpendicular to the detector plane”.
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.
(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.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stein (U.S. 5,657,369).
Regarding claim 11:
Stein discloses A dynamic imaging apparatus that detects radiation irradiated to a subject by a radiation generator using a detector to obtain a dynamic image of movement of the subject, the dynamic imaging apparatus comprising:
a jig (Fig. 27, 164) that restricts the movement of the subject in a direction perpendicular to a detector plane (Fig. 25 and 29, 252 and 262 limit movement vertically).
Regarding claim 12:
Stein discloses the dynamic imaging apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the jig has a restriction surface (Fig. 25, 252) that is provided in parallel with the detector plane and at a position where the subject comes into contact during imaging (Fig. 25, 262 limits movement parallel).
Regarding claim 13:
Stein discloses the dynamic imaging apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the jig has a part that is connected to the subject during imaging (Col. 14, lines 1-60, hand support).
Regarding claim 15:
Stein discloses the dynamic imaging apparatus according to claim 11, wherein
the jig restricts movement of a target part to be imaged in the direction perpendicular to the detector plane at a part other than the target part without touching the target part (Fig. 27, 258 prevents moment in a direction perpendicular without touching the wrist/forearm), and
the jig has a restriction surface that is provided in parallel with the detector plane and at a position where the subject comes into contact during imaging (Fig. 25, 262 limits movement parallel).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood:
Stein discloses the dynamic imaging apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the jig is configured to restrict the movement of the subject in the direction perpendicular to the detector plane (Fig. 25 and 29, 252 and 262 limit movement vertically).
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.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein (U.S. 5,657,369) in view of Schuellein (U.S. 5,342,290).
Regarding claim 14:
Stein discloses the dynamic imaging apparatus according to claim 11.
However, Stein fails to disclose wherein the jig has an elastic member that expands and contracts as the subject moves in parallel with the detector plane.
Schuellein teaches wherein the jig has an elastic member (Fig. 2, 16) that expands and contracts as the subject moves in parallel with the detector plane (Fig. 2, 16 expands or contracts).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Stein with the elastic member taught by Schuellein. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to provide improved patient stabilization for better imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Stein with the elastic member taught by Schuellein to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 16:
Stein discloses the dynamic imaging apparatus according to claim 11, the jig has a restriction surface that is provided in parallel with the detector plane and at a position where the subject comes into contact during imaging (Fig. 25, 262 limits movement parallel).
However, Stein fails to disclose wherein the jig has an elastic member that expands and contracts as the subject moves in parallel with the detector plane. at a position where the subject comes into contact during imaging.
Schuellein teaches wherein the jig has an elastic member (Fig. 2, 16) that expands and contracts as the subject moves in parallel with the detector plane (Fig. 2, 16 expands or contracts).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Stein with the elastic member taught by Schuellein. One would have been motivated to make such combination in order to provide improved patient stabilization for better imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Stein with the elastic member taught by Schuellein to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights