DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-15, and 19-23 are pending in the application. Claims 1-15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 1-15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “display of the optical image” in line 3. It should recite “the display of the optical image”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15, and 19-23 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.
Claim 1 recites “a start of radiography” in line 11. It is not clear if this is referring to “radiography” previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new radiography. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 2 recites “an optical image” in line 8. It is not clear if this is referring to the optical image previously set forth, or if this is setting forth a new optical image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 5 recites “the display area for displaying the first radiographic image” in lines 8-9. However, lines 4-5 state that the display area is displaying the second radiographic image. It is not clear if the display area is displaying the first or second radiographic image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting the second radiographic image.
Claim 5 recites “the first radiographic image” in lines 9-10. However, lines 4-5 state that the display area contains the second radiographic image, not the first radiographic image. It is not clear if the display area is displaying the first or second radiographic image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting the second radiographic image.
Claim 14 recites “an optical image” in line 7. It is not clear if this is referring to the optical image previously set forth, or if this is setting forth a new optical image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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.
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.
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 1-4, 6, 9-10, 14-15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (U.S PGPub 2022/0022835 A1) in view of Imamura et al. (U.S PGPub 2019/0046130 A1) and Horiuchi et al. (U.S PGPub 2023/0274425 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugahara teaches a radiographic imaging system (Abstract) comprising:
a radiographic imaging device (Fig. 1, 13) configured to acquire a radiographic image by radiography [0041]-[0042];
an optical image capture device (Fig. 1, 20) configured to optically capture a subject of the radiography to acquire an optical image [0041]+[0048]; and
an information processing device (Fig. 1, 30) [0031] configured to cause a display unit (Fig. 3, 52) [0051] to display the optical image acquired by the optical image capture device (Fig. 6, 103) [0060]+[0071],
wherein the information processing device is configured to cause the display unit to stop the display of the optical image (Fig. 7, 113) [0072], and then display the radiographic image (Fig. 7, 113) acquired by the radiograph [0072].
Sugahara fails to explicitly teach stopping display of the optical image in response to a start of radiography.
Imamura teaches a system which obtains both a camera image and a radiation image (Abstract). This system stops obtaining an optical image in response to the start of radiography [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the trigger for stopping acquisition of the optical image of Sugahara with a trigger that to stop obtaining the optical image in response to a start of radiography, as taught by Imamura, as the substitution for one known trigger for stopping acquisition of an optical image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of stopping acquiring the optical image in response to radiography starting are reasonably predictable.
The combined system fails to explicitly teach stopping the display of the optical image in response to the radiography.
Horiuchi teaches a system which obtains both optical and radiographic images (Abstract). This system does not display an optical image when the optical image is not being obtained [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the method of controlling display of the optical image the combined system to stop display of the optical image when it is not being acquired, as taught by Horiuchi, as the substitution for one known method of controlling display of the optical image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of not displaying the optical image when it is not being acquired are reasonably predictable. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, in the combined system, the acquisition of the optical image stops in response to the start of radiography (as taught by Imamura), which results in the stopping of the display of the optical image (as taught by Horiuchi).
Regarding Claim 2, Sugahara teaches an information processing device (Fig. 1, 30) [0041] for use in a radiographic imaging system including a radiographic imaging device (Fig. 1, 13) configured to acquire a radiographic image by radiography [0041]-[0042] and an optical image capture device (Fig. 1, 20) configured to optically capture a subject of the radiography to acquire an optical image [0041]+[0048] the information processing device comprising:
one or more controllers [0049] (processor) configured to:
acquire an optical image (Fig. 6, 103) from the optical image capture device [0053]+[0071],
cause a display unit to display the optical image in a predetermined display area of the display unit (Fig. 6, 103) [0060]+[0071];
cause the display unit to stop the display of the optical image (Fig. 7, 113) [0072];
acquire a first radiographic image from the radiographic imaging device [0041]-[0042]; and
cause the display unit to display the first radiographic image acquired by the first radiography (Fig. 7, 113) [0072].
Sugahara fails to explicitly teach stopping display of the optical image in response to a start of radiography.
Imamura teaches a system which obtains both a camera image and a radiation image (Abstract). This system stops obtaining an optical image in response to the start of radiography [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the trigger for stopping acquisition of the optical image of Sugahara with a trigger that to stop obtaining the optical image in response to a start of radiography, as taught by Imamura, as the substitution for one known trigger for stopping acquisition of an optical image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of stopping acquiring the optical image in response to radiography starting are reasonably predictable.
The combined system fails to explicitly teach stopping the display of the optical image in response to the radiography.
Horiuchi teaches a system which obtains both optical and radiographic images (Abstract). This system does not display an optical image when the optical image is not being obtained [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the method of controlling display of the optical image the combined system to stop display of the optical image when it is not being acquired, as taught by Horiuchi, as the substitution for one known method of controlling display of the optical image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of not displaying the optical image when it is not being acquired are reasonably predictable. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, in the combined system, the acquisition of the optical image stops in response to the start of radiography (as taught by Imamura), which results in the stopping of the display of the optical image (as taught by Horiuchi).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the start of the first radiography corresponds to a start of an accumulation operation by the radiographic imaging device for acquiring the radiographic image.
Imamura further teaches that irradiation start signal for stopping the optical image comes from irradiation detection at the electronic cassette [0076]. The electronic cassette performs an accumulation operation for acquiring the radiographic image [0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the trigger for stopping acquisition of the optical image of Sugahara with a trigger that to stop obtaining the optical image in response to a start of radiography which is the start of an accumulation operation, as taught by Imamura, as the substitution for one known trigger for stopping acquisition of an optical image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of stopping acquiring the optical image in response to a start of an accumulation operation are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially a claimed. Sugahara is silent regarding wherein the start of the first radiography corresponds to a start of radiation irradiation by a radiation emitting device.
Horiuchi further teaches that the start of radiography corresponds to the start of radiation irradiation by a radiation emitting device [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the method of starting the radiography of Sugahara so it is the start of irradiation of a radiation emitting device, as taught by Horiuchi, as the substitution for one known method of starting radiography with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of the start of radiography being the start of irradiation are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Sugahara teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara is silent regarding a screen displayed on the display unit includes a selection object for turning on or turning off the display of the optical image in the predetermined display area.
Horiuchi teaches a system that obtains both an optical and radiographic image (Abstract). This system has a screen display on the display unit (Fig. 11, 95) which includes a selection for turning on or turning off the display of the optical image in the predetermined display area [0084].
It would have been obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the screen of Sugahara with a selection object for turning on/off the display of the optical image, as taught by Horiuchi, as the prior art contains each of the claimed elements, and the only difference between the claimed invention and the art is the lack of combination. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (i.e. the screen still displays the images, and the button still turns on/off the display). The results of such a combination would have been reasonably predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination teaches the invention as claimed. Sugahara further teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to display, on the display unit, status information pertaining to the subject (Fig. 9, 201) based on an analysis result regarding the optical image [0073]-[0074].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination teaches the invention as claimed. Sugahara further teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to display the status information and the optical image on a same screen (Fig. 9, 201 is on same screen as camera image 123) of the display unit [0073]-[0074].
Regarding Claim 14, Sugahara teaches a method of controlling an information processing device (Fig. 1, 30) [0041] for use in a radiographic imaging system including a radiographic imaging device (Fig. 1, 13) configured to acquire a radiographic image by radiography [0041]-[0042] and an optical image capture device (Fig. 1, 20) configured to optically capture a subject of the radiography to acquire an optical image [0041]+[0048] the method comprising:
acquiring an optical image (Fig. 6, 103) from the optical image capture device [0053]+[0071],
causing a display unit to display the optical image in a predetermined display area of the display unit (Fig. 6, 103) [0060]+[0071];
causing the display unit to stop the display of the optical image (Fig. 7, 113) [0072];
acquiring a first radiographic image from the radiographic imaging device [0041]-[0042]; and
causing the display unit to display the first radiographic image acquired by the first radiography (Fig. 7, 113) [0072].
Sugahara fails to explicitly teach stopping display of the optical image in response to a start of radiography.
Imamura teaches a system which obtains both a camera image and a radiation image (Abstract). This system stops obtaining an optical image in response to the start of radiography [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the trigger for stopping acquisition of the optical image of Sugahara with a trigger that to stop obtaining the optical image in response to a start of radiography, as taught by Imamura, as the substitution for one known trigger for stopping acquisition of an optical image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of stopping acquiring the optical image in response to radiography starting are reasonably predictable.
The combined system fails to explicitly teach stopping the display of the optical image in response to the radiography.
Horiuchi teaches a system which obtains both optical and radiographic images (Abstract). This system does not display an optical image when the optical image is not being obtained [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the method of controlling display of the optical image the combined system to stop display of the optical image when it is not being acquired, as taught by Horiuchi, as the substitution for one known method of controlling display of the optical image with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of not displaying the optical image when it is not being acquired are reasonably predictable. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, in the combined system, the acquisition of the optical image stops in response to the start of radiography (as taught by Imamura), which results in the stopping of the display of the optical image (as taught by Horiuchi).
Regarding Claim 15, Sugahara discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [0049] which stores a program for causing a computer to execute the method of controlling [0118]-[0120] according to Claim 14 (See rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara further teaches wherein, before the start of the first radiography, the predetermined display area (Fig. 6, 103) extends over an entirety of a display area for displaying the first radiographic image (Fig. 7, 113) [0072] (the predetermined display area clearly extends over the entirety of the area where the first radiographic image is displayed).
Claims 5, 7-8, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Imamura and Horiuchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S PGPub 2017/0020469 A1) and Sato (U.S PGPub 2019/0343479 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to, during a second radiography performed after the first radiography, cause the display unit to display a screen in which the predetermined display area is superimposed on a display area for displaying a second radiographic image acquired by the second radiography, wherein the predetermined display area is smaller than the display area for displaying the first radiographic image, and wherein the predetermined display area is positioned relative to the display area for displaying the first radiographic image such that information regarding the first radiographic image displayed in a region surround the predetermined display area remains visible.
Lee teaches an x-ray system that also uses a camera (Abstract). This system contains one or more controllers (Fig. 1, 113) [0113] are further configured to cause the display unit to display a screen in which the predetermined display area (Fig. 2, 180) is superimposed on a display area for displaying a second radiographic image acquired by the second radiography (Fig. 2, 170) [0139], wherein the predetermined display area is smaller than the display area for displaying the first radiographic image (Fig. 2, 180 is a smaller size than 170) [0139], and wherein the predetermined display area is positioned relative to the display area for displaying the first radiographic image such that information regarding the first radiographic image displayed in a region surround the predetermined display area remains visible (Fig. 2, 180, region around 180 remains visible) [0139]+(Fig. 12, 170-X shows that the areas surrounding the marking regions remain visible) [0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to display the radiography image and optical image superimposed, as taught by Lee, because this allows the user to verify the X-ray image is correct and the radiologist did not make a mistake, thereby improving the quality of care, as recognized by Lee [0141].
The combination fails to explicitly teach a second radiography performed after the first radiography.
Sato teaches an x-ray imaging system (Abstract). This system performs a second radiography after a first radiography (Fig. 13, S5) [0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of references to perform a second radiography, as taught by Sato, because this allows the system to obtain longer and more complete x-ray imaging sets, thereby increasing the diagnostic efficacy of the x-ray procedure and allowing the physician to easily view multiple positions of interest, as recognized by Sato [0065]+[0124].
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined display area is arranged such that information pertaining to the subject or the first radiography displayed in a peripheral portion or a corner portion of the display area for displaying the first radiographic image remains visible.
Lee further teaches wherein the predetermined display area (Fig. 12, 170-N) is arranged such that information pertaining to the subject or the first radiography displayed in a peripheral portion or a corner portion of the display area for displaying the first radiographic image remains visible (Fig. 12, 170 the peripheral portions are visible) [0193]-[0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to display the radiography image and optical image superimposed with the peripheral portions visible, as taught by Lee, because this allows the user to verify the X-ray image is correct and the radiologist did not make a mistake while not overlapping areas of high information, thereby improving the quality of care, as recognized by Lee [0141]+[0194].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Imamura and Horiuchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S PGPub 2017/0020469 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugahara teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to execute predetermined processing as a process of displaying the optical image in the predetermined display area, based on of information related to a status of the subject, and wherein the predetermined processing is one of: displaying the optical image; not displaying the optical image; or performing image alteration and displaying an altered image.
Lee teaches an x-ray system that uses a camera (Abstract). This system executes predetermined processing as a process of displaying the optical image in the predetermined display area (Fig. 5, S502) [0159]+[0139], on the basis of information related to a status of the subject [0172] (the status of the patient is that the patient wants privacy, or is being imaged in sensitive area), and wherein the predetermined process is any of the following: displaying the optical image; not displaying the optical image; or performing image alteration and displaying an altered image [0172].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Sugahara to perform a predetermined processing, as taught by Lee, because this provides additional privacy for sensitive areas of the patient, increasing the patient’s comfort with the procedure, as recognized by Lee [0172].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the image alteration includes mosaicing all or part of the optical image or replacing all or part of the optical image with one or more graphic figures.
Lee further teaches wherein the image alteration is for mosaicing all or part of the optical image or replacing all or part of the optical image with one or more graphic figures [0172]-[0173]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Sugahara to perform mosaicking on the image, as taught by Lee, because this provides additional privacy for sensitive areas of the patient, increasing the patient’s comfort with the procedure, as recognized by Lee [0172].
Claims 11-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Imamura and Horiuchi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sendai (U.S PGPub 2021/0161501 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more controls are further configured to display the status information on a screen of the display unit without displaying the optical image.
Sendai teaches a radiography system (Abstract) that includes a visible light camera [0068]. This apparatus display a status of the patient on a screen while displaying a radiograph image (i.e. without an optical image) (Fig. 15, 301) [0116]+[0108].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the display screen of Sugahara to display the status without the optical image, as taught by Sendai, as the substitution for one known method of displaying a status with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of displaying the status without the optical image are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to: determine to save the optical image, not save the optical image, or perform image alteration on the optical image and save an altered image, based on of the status information pertaining to the subject.
Imamura teaches a radiographic system (Abstract). This system decides whether to save optical images based on the position of the subject, and does not save clearly erroneous positions [0152].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not save images based on a position of the patient, as taught by Imamura, because this reduces the time required for the operator to find the optimal frame, as recognized by Imamura [0152].
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to display the status information based on the analysis result regarding the optical image while the optical image is not displayed.
Sendai teaches a radiography system (Abstract) that includes a visible light camera [0068]. This apparatus display a status of the patient on a screen while displaying a radiograph image (i.e. without an optical image) (Fig. 15, 301) [0116]+[0108].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the display screen of Sugahara to display the status without the optical image, as taught by Sendai, as the substitution for one known method of displaying a status with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of displaying the status without the optical image are reasonably predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Imamura and Horiuchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kimura (U.S PGPub 2020/0348426 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the Sugahara teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to save the optical image in association with examination information pertaining to the radiography.
Kimura teaches a radiological method (Abstract). This system save the optical image in association with examination information pertaining to the radiography (Fig. 16, S1614) [0192].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to save the optical image in association with examination information, as taught by Kimura, because this allows the system to record an appropriate video, and better set up the radiographic settings for future procedures, as recognized by Kimura [0194]-[0195].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Imamura and Horiuchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tsunomori (U.S PGPub 2022/0079538 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara further teaches wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to display the optical image in a display area for displaying the radiographic image before the start of the first radiography [0071]-[0072]
Sugahara fails to explicitly teach displaying the optical image outside the display area for displaying the radiographic image after the start of a second radiography.
Tsunomori teaches a system which obtains dynamic x-ray images (Abstract). This system displays the optical image (Fig. 10, 341e) outside the display area for displaying the radiographic image (Fig. 10, 341b) after the start of a second radiography [0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to shows the optical image outside the display area, as taught by Tsunomori, because this allows both the camera and radiographic images to be seen simultaneously, thereby allowing the physician to more effectively judge the quality and effectiveness of the medical treatment, as recognized by Tsunomori [0114]-[0115].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Imamura and Horiuchi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cheng (U.S PGPub 2022/0178712 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara further teaches wherein a screen displayed on the display unit includes an optical image window (Fig. 8, 123) [0073] including: an analysis-in-progress icon indicating whether analysis of the optical image [0064] is being executed (Fig. 8, 135) [0073] (this mark indicates that the analysis is completed, which indicates the analysis is no longer being executed).
Sugahara fails to explicitly teach camera information regarding the optical image capture device; a first selection object for turning on or turning off display of the optical image; and.
Horiuchi further teaches camera information regarding the optical image capture device (Fig. 12, 98) and a first selection object for turning on or turning off display of the optical image (Fig. 12, 99) [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the screen of Sugahara with the camera information and the first selection object of Horiuchi. One of ordinary skill could have combined the features using known methods, and the features perform the same functions in the combination as they would perform separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the combination reasonably predictable.
The combination fails to explicitly teach a second selection object for rotating the optical image displayed in the optical image window.
Cheng teaches an X-ray imaging system (Abstract). This system displays images with a selection object for rotating the image (Fig. 7F, 763) [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the screen of Sugahara with the second selection object of Cheng. One of ordinary skill could have combined the features using known methods, and the features perform the same functions in the combination as they would perform separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the combination reasonably predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims are now rejected under 35 USC 103, as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
