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 of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aufrichtig et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20030058998) in view of Narayanaswamy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200297302) and Topfer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100020933).
[Examiner note: Claims 1, 13, and 15 are rejected together because claim 13 recites the method performed by the processor of claim 1 and claim 15 recites executable instructions causing a processor to perform substantially the same method recited in claim 13].
As per claim 1, 13 and 15, Aufrichtig et al. disclose:
a memory (37) that stores a plurality of instructions (Fig. 1; ¶[0016]);
a processor (39) coupled to the memory (37) and configured to execute the plurality of instructions to (Fig. 1; ¶[0016]);
receive an unexposed image acquired by an X-ray detector (22) (Fig. 3b, step 122); and
analyze the received unexposed image to determine whether there is an anomaly in the received unexposed image (Fig. 3b, steps 122-126).
Aufrichtig et al. do not explicitly disclose:
metadata associated with the acquired unexposed image;
determining whether there is an anomaly in the received unexposed image that is indicative of an image disturbance caused by an external source;
in response to the detection of an anomaly that is indicative of an image disturbance caused by an external source, to generate a single image anomaly report comprising the received unexposed image in full or data-size-reduced form and the received metadata; and
provide a generated single image anomaly report.
Narayanaswamy et al. teach determining if there is an anomaly in the received unexposed image that is indicative of an image disturbance caused by an external source (¶[0020]).
Topfer et al. teach metadata associated with an acquired unexposed image (Figs. 8A and 8B; ¶[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the anomaly detection process of Aufrichtig et al., to determine whether the anomaly in a received unexposed image is indicative of an image disturbance caused by an external source as taught by Narayanaswamy et al., and to associate metadata with the acquired unexposed image as taught by Topfer et al. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to generate a single image anomaly report, thereby improving troubleshooting of detected anomalies by correlating anomaly information with disturbance sources and image-acquisition conditions.
Claims 2-4 recite comparing the received unexposed image with previously acquired unexposed images, analyzing the detected anomaly, and providing analytical information including artefact type, signal frequencies, size and location information, and strength of the detected anomaly.
These features characterize the detected anomaly and provide information describing the nature, source, and severity of the anomaly.
It would have been obvious to compare acquired unexposed images with previously acquired unexposed images and to characterize detected anomalies using frequency, location, size, type, and strength information in order to improve identification, evaluation, and diagnosis of detector disturbances.
Claims 5-7 recite creating a thumbnail image of the detected anomaly, providing the thumbnail image to the single image anomaly report, providing one or more action proposals for reducing future anomalies, and providing action proposals relating to investigation of artefacts, identification of disturbance-causing devices, identification of recurring artefacts, and identification of regularly occurring disturbances.
These features provide additional information about detected anomalies and provide guidance for addressing or reducing future occurrences of the anomalies.
It would have been obvious to include representative anomaly images and corrective recommendations in the anomaly report in order to facilitate review, diagnosis, and mitigation of recurring detector disturbances.
Claim 8 recites providing the single image anomaly report to a data storage.
This feature preserves anomaly information for later access and review.
It would have been obvious to store the anomaly report in data storage in order to permit subsequent review, analysis, and record retention of detected detector disturbances.
Claim 9 recites metadata comprising one or more of date and time, customer identifier, detector identifier, examination type, detector position, detector orientation, detector motion, and detector temperature.
These features associate anomaly information with detector operating conditions and image acquisition conditions.
It would have been obvious to include acquisition-condition and detector-condition information within the metadata in order to improve correlation of detected anomalies with the conditions under which the anomalies occurred.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2496. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 AM - 5 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.
/COURTNEY D THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights