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 filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Shimada et al. WO 2020/144972 is improper because it fails to teach “wherein the at least one processor…derives a sharpness conversion filter based on a difference between a characteristic of the sharpness of the first radiation image and a characteristic of the sharpness of the second radiation image, wherein the sharpness conversion processing is performed with the sharpness conversion filter.” Applicant argues that (1) the filter or Shimada is pre-designed and not dynamically derived and (2) the processor which derives the filter is different than the processor of the image processing device.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. (1) the filter is dynamically derived and (2) that the same processor must perform all the steps (“at least one processor” means that multiple processors may perform some or all of the steps, as long as all steps are performed by a processor)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimada et al. WO 2020/144972.
Regarding claim 1, Shimada discloses a radiation image processing device comprising: at least one processor (#204, 241; pg. 3 para. 7), wherein the at least one processor acquires a first radiation image and a second radiation image which are acquired by imaging a subject, based on radiation having different energy distributions (pg. 11 para. 2; fig. 7 step 709; high energy and low energy image), performs sharpness conversion processing on at least one of the first radiation image or the second radiation image to make sharpness of the first radiation image and the second radiation image uniform (pg. 11 para. 5 – pg. 13 para. 3; fig. 7 step 713; correcting spatial frequency characteristic (MTF: modulation transfer function) of the high energy image so that is close to the low energy image MTF, which has high frequency, is a sharpness conversion see pg. 8 para. 5), derives a component image in which a specific component in the subject is emphasized, based on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (abstract, Background Art para. 1; pg. 11 para. 5 – pg. 13 para. 3; fig. 7 step 714), derives a sharpness conversion filter based on a difference between a characteristic of the sharpness of the first radiation image and a characteristic of the sharpness of the second radiation image (pg. 12 para. 5-6), and performs the sharpness conversion processing with the sharpness conversion filter (pg. 13 para. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor performs the sharpness conversion processing to match the sharpness of one of the first radiation image and the second radiation image with the sharpness of the other of the first radiation image and the second radiation image (pg. 8 para. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor performs the sharpness conversion processing to match the sharpness of one of the first radiation image and the second radiation image with the sharpness of the other of the first radiation image and the second radiation image (pg. 8 para. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor performs the sharpness conversion processing to match the sharpness of the first radiation image and the sharpness of the second radiation image with specific sharpness (pg. 14 Third Embodiment para. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor performs the sharpness conversion processing to match the sharpness of the first radiation image and the sharpness of the second radiation image with specific sharpness (pg. 14 Third Embodiment para. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the component image by performing weighting subtraction on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (Background Art; pg. 12 para. 1, pg. 14 final paragraph; Although Shimada only explitely references “energy subtraction” it is well known in the art of dual energy radiography that “energy subtraction” refers to “weighted energy subtraction.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the dual energy context of Shimada, that Shimada is referring to a weighted subtraction).
Regarding claim 8, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the component image by performing weighting subtraction on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (Background Art; pg. 12 para. 1, pg. 14 final paragraph; Although Shimada only explitely references “energy subtraction” it is well known in the art of dual energy radiography that “energy subtraction” refers to “weighted energy subtraction.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the dual energy context of Shimada, that Shimada is referring to a weighted subtraction).
Regarding claim 9, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the component image by performing weighting subtraction on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (Background Art; pg. 12 para. 1, pg. 14 final paragraph; Although Shimada only explitely references “energy subtraction” it is well known in the art of dual energy radiography that “energy subtraction” refers to “weighted energy subtraction.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the dual energy context of Shimada, that Shimada is referring to a weighted subtraction).
Regarding claim 10, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the component image by performing weighting subtraction on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (Background Art; pg. 12 para. 1, pg. 14 final paragraph; Although Shimada only explitely references “energy subtraction” it is well known in the art of dual energy radiography that “energy subtraction” refers to “weighted energy subtraction.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the dual energy context of Shimada, that Shimada is referring to a weighted subtraction).
Regarding claim 11, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the component image by performing weighting subtraction on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (Background Art; pg. 12 para. 1, pg. 14 final paragraph; Although Shimada only explitely references “energy subtraction” it is well known in the art of dual energy radiography that “energy subtraction” refers to “weighted energy subtraction.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the dual energy context of Shimada, that Shimada is referring to a weighted subtraction).
Regarding claim 12, Shimada discloses wherein the at least one processor derives the component image by performing weighting subtraction on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (Background Art; pg. 12 para. 1, pg. 14 final paragraph; Although Shimada only explitely references “energy subtraction” it is well known in the art of dual energy radiography that “energy subtraction” refers to “weighted energy subtraction.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the dual energy context of Shimada, that Shimada is referring to a weighted subtraction).
Regarding claim 13, Shimada discloses wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are acquired by one-shot energy subtraction imaging using two radiation detectors having characteristics in which sharpness in acquired radiation images is different (pg. 5 para. 2 – pg. 6 para. 2, pg. 7 para. 1-3; fig. 3A-3B; PIXA, PIXB, and PIXC detectors are configured such that they can acquire images of different energy distributions in a single exposure and used for energy subtraction thus are “one-shot”).
Regarding claim 14, Shimada discloses wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are acquired by one-shot energy subtraction imaging using two radiation detectors having characteristics in which sharpness in acquired radiation images is different (pg. 5 para. 2 – pg. 6 para. 2, pg. 7 para. 1-3; fig. 3A-3B; PIXA, PIXB, and PIXC detectors are configured such that they can acquire images of different energy distributions in a single exposure and used for energy subtraction thus are “one-shot”).
Regarding claim 15, Shimada discloses wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are acquired by one-shot energy subtraction imaging using two radiation detectors having characteristics in which sharpness in acquired radiation images is different (pg. 5 para. 2 – pg. 6 para. 2, pg. 7 para. 1-3; fig. 3A-3B; PIXA, PIXB, and PIXC detectors are configured such that they can acquire images of different energy distributions in a single exposure and used for energy subtraction thus are “one-shot”).
Regarding claim 16, Shimada discloses wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are acquired by one-shot energy subtraction imaging using two radiation detectors having characteristics in which sharpness in acquired radiation images is different (pg. 5 para. 2 – pg. 6 para. 2, pg. 7 para. 1-3; fig. 3A-3B; PIXA, PIXB, and PIXC detectors are configured such that they can acquire images of different energy distributions in a single exposure and used for energy subtraction thus are “one-shot”).
Regarding claim 17, Shimada discloses wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are acquired by one-shot energy subtraction imaging using two radiation detectors having characteristics in which sharpness in acquired radiation images is different (pg. 5 para. 2 – pg. 6 para. 2, pg. 7 para. 1-3; fig. 3A-3B; PIXA, PIXB, and PIXC detectors are configured such that they can acquire images of different energy distributions in a single exposure and used for energy subtraction thus are “one-shot”).
Regarding claim 18, Shimada discloses wherein the first radiation image and the second radiation image are acquired by one-shot energy subtraction imaging using two radiation detectors having characteristics in which sharpness in acquired radiation images is different (pg. 5 para. 2 – pg. 6 para. 2, pg. 7 para. 1-3; fig. 3A-3B; PIXA, PIXB, and PIXC detectors are configured such that they can acquire images of different energy distributions in a single exposure and used for energy subtraction thus are “one-shot”).
Regarding claim 19, Shimada discloses a radiation image processing method comprising: via a computer (#204, 241; pg. 3 para. 7), acquiring a first radiation image and a second radiation image which are acquired by imaging a subject, based on radiation having different energy distributions (pg. 11 para. 2; fig. 7 step 709; high energy and low energy image); performing sharpness conversion processing on at least one of the first radiation image or the second radiation image to make sharpness of the first radiation image and the second radiation image uniform (pg. 11 para. 5 – pg. 13 para. 3; fig. 7 step 713; correcting spatial frequency characteristic (MTF: modulation transfer function) of the high energy image so that is close to the low energy image MTF, which has high frequency, is a sharpness conversion see pg. 8 para. 5); deriving a component image in which a specific component in the subject is emphasized, based on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (abstract, Background Art para. 1; pg. 11 para. 5 – pg. 13 para. 3; fig. 7 step 714); and derives a sharpness conversion filter based on a difference between a characteristic of the sharpness of the first radiation image and a characteristic of the sharpness of the second radiation image (pg. 12 para. 5-6), and performs the sharpness conversion processing with the sharpness conversion filter (pg. 13 para. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Shimada discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a radiation image processing program causing a computer (#204, 241; pg. 3 para. 7) to execute: a procedure of acquiring a first radiation image and a second radiation image which are acquired by imaging a subject, based on radiation having different energy distributions (pg. 11 para. 2; fig. 7 step 709; high energy and low energy image); a procedure of performing sharpness conversion processing on at least one of the first radiation image or the second radiation image to make sharpness of the first radiation image and the second radiation image uniform (pg. 11 para. 5 – pg. 13 para. 3; fig. 7 step 713; correcting spatial frequency characteristic (MTF: modulation transfer function) of the high energy image so that is close to the low energy image MTF, which has high frequency, is a sharpness conversion see pg. 8 para. 5); a procedure of deriving a component image in which a specific component in the subject is emphasized, based on the first radiation image and the second radiation image which are subjected to the sharpness conversion processing (abstract, Background Art para. 1; pg. 11 para. 5 – pg. 13 para. 3; fig. 7 step 714); and a process of deriving a sharpness conversion filter based on a difference between a characteristic of the sharpness of the first radiation image and a characteristic of the sharpness of the second radiation image (pg. 12 para. 5-6), and performs the sharpness conversion processing with the sharpness conversion filter (pg. 13 para. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein the processor derives a conversion magnification for converting an MTF characteristic of the second radiation image into an MTF characteristic of the first radiation image by dividing the MTF characteristic of the first radiation image by the MTF characteristic of the second radiation image, and derives the sharpness conversion filter based on the conversion magnification, along with other claim limitations.
Shimada, does not disclose or suggest "wherein the processor derives a conversion magnification for converting an MTF characteristic of the second radiation image into an MTF characteristic of the first radiation image by dividing the MTF characteristic of the first radiation image by the MTF characteristic of the second radiation image, and derives the sharpness conversion filter based on the conversion magnification," along with other claim limitations.
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 Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights