DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 5, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Claims 3, 5-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
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 5, 8, and 12 are 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 5 recites “wherein a superimposed display is possible” in line 2. It is not clear if the information processing device is capable of displaying the “superimposed display” on the display unit, or if this is generally suggesting it is possible for someone to superimpose the images. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, “or the like” will encompass anything that could replace part of the image.
Claim 12 recites “the information related to the status of the subject” in lines 4-5. It is not clear if this is referring to the “status information pertaining to the subject” in line 9, or if this is referring to information regarding a different status. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S PGPub 2022/0022835 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugahara discloses a radiographic imaging device (Abstract) comprising:
an optical image capture device (Fig. 1, 20) that captures an optical image of a subject of radiography [0041]+[0048]; and
an information processing device (Fig. 1, 30) [0041] that causes 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 acquires information on a step according to progress from among a plurality of steps related to the radiography [0072] (obtains information regarding executing imaging), and
wherein the information processing device stops the display of the optical image on the display unit (Fig. 7, 113) on the basis of the step indicated by the information being a predetermined step among the plurality of steps [0072] (after radiography was executed, the systems displays only the radiation image, which means the display of the optical image was stopped).
Regarding Claim 2, Sugahara discloses an information processing device (Fig. 1, 30) [0041] capable of communicating with an optical image capture device (Fig. 1, 20) that captures an optical image of a subject of radiography [0041]+[0048] (Abstract), the information processing device comprising:
one or more controllers [0049] (processor) configured to:
acquire, from the optical image capture device, an optical image (Fig. 6, 103) acquired by the optical image capture [0053]+[0071] (as the console displays the camera image, it must acquire the image from the optical capture device); and
stop the display of the optical image on a display unit (Fig. 7, 113) in accordance with progression to a predetermined step among a plurality of steps related to the radiography [0072] (after radiography starts, the systems displays only the radiation image, which means the display of the optical image was stopped).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugahara discloses the invention as claimed. Sugahara further discloses wherein the predetermined step is a step in which a radiographic imaging device starts an imaging operation [0072] (the x-ray image is shown when the radiographic imaging device starts the imaging operation).
Regarding Claim 9, Sugahara discloses the invention as claimed. Sugahara further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to: display, on the display unit, status information pertaining to the subject (Fig. 9, 201) on the basis of an analysis result regarding the optical image [0073]-[0074].
Regarding Claim 10, Sugahara discloses the invention as claimed. Sugahara further discloses 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 apparatus (Fig. 1, 30) [0041] capable of communicating with an optical image capture device (Fig. 1, 20) that captures an optical image of a subject of radiography [0041]+[0048] (Abstract), the method comprising:
acquiring, from the optical image capture device, an optical image (Fig. 6, 103) acquired by the optical image capture [0053]+[0071] (as the console displays the camera image, it must acquire the image from the optical capture device); and
stopping the display of the optical image on a display unit (Fig. 7, 113) in accordance with progression to a predetermined step among a plurality of steps related to the radiography [0072] (after radiography starts, the systems displays only the radiation image, which means the display of the optical image was stopped).
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).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Kimura (U.S PGPub 2020/0348426 A1) in view of Horiuchi et al. (U.S PGPub 2023/0267608 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugahara teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined step is a step for ending an examination.
Kimura teaches a system for obtaining a camera image during radiography (Abstract). This system sends a signal to a camera to end an examination (Fig. 6, S609-S610) [0056]+[0072]-[0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the camera stop imaging after the end of the examination, as taught by Kimura, because this lets the camera system record the appropriate video during a radiographic procedure, thereby improving the resulting radiation imaging and reducing the patient’s exposure to ionizing radiation, as recognized by Kimura [0003]+[0134].
Kimura is silent that the camera image is displayed.
Horiuchi teaches a radiographic device used with a camera (Abstract). This system displays the live image from the camera [0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to display the live optical image, as taught by Horiuchi, because this allows the radiographer to immediately know if the patient is in the correct position, and move them if they are not, thereby increasing the safety of the procedure [0109]. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, if the camera image is a live image as taught by Horiuchi, and the camera image stops, as taught by Kimura, the displayed image would also stop as there is no longer a signal coming from the camera.
Claims 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Lee et al. (U.S PGPub 2017/0020469 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugahara teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Sugahara fails to explicitly teach wherein a superimposed display is possible in which a radiograph acquired by the radiography and the optical image are superimposed onto one another, and wherein, in the superimposed display, the optical image is displayed at a smaller size than the radiograph.
Lee teaches an x-ray system that also uses a camera (Abstract). This system obtains a superimposed display in which a radiograph acquired by the radiography (Fig. 2, 170) and the optical image (Fig. 2, 180) are superimposed onto one another (Fig. 2, 180 is superimposed on 170) [0139], and wherein, in the superimposed display, the optical image is displayed at a smaller size than the radiograph (Fig. 2, 180 is a smaller size than 170) [0139].
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].
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 on the display unit, on the basis of information related to a status of the subject, and wherein the predetermined process is any of the following: displaying; not displaying; 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 on the display unit (Fig. 5, S502) [0159], 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; not displaying; 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 is for mosaicing or replacing all or part of the optical image with figures or the like.
Lee further teaches wherein the image alteration is for mosaicing or replacing all or part of the optical image with figures or the like [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].
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Horiuchi et al. (U.S PGPub 2023/0274425 A1) (Horiuchi’425).
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.
Horiuchi’245 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 [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 different 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara 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 information processing device displays 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Imamura (U.S PGPub 2019/0046130 A1).
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, on the basis of the information related to the status of 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].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara in view of Kimura.
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].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hannemann et al. (U.S PGPub 2017/0224298 A1), which teaches a method for controlling the scanning region of an imaging procedure.
Wick et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0219255 A1), which teaches a method for reducing patient misidentification.
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