CTNF 18/911,534 CTNF 81022 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2025 and 10/10/2024 are being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: all the particular claimed “units” (i.e., image data acquisition unit, offset correction data acquisition unit, offset correctio unit, determination unit, update unit and the like) in claims 1 – 7 and 9 without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof is considered a generic placeholder. Applicants’ specification teaches, see US Pub. No. 2025/0114060 A1), a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or that includes one or more circuits (e.g., application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)) for performing the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s), and by a method performed by the computer of the system or apparatus by, for example, reading out and executing the computer executable instructions from the storage medium to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or controlling the one or more circuits to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s). More importantly, that the computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions. The computer executable instructions may be provided to the computer, for example, from a network or the storage medium. The storage medium may include, for example, one or more of a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a storage of distributed computing systems, an optical disk (such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray Disc (BD)™), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like [0021], [0027], [0064]. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 8 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topfer et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0170627 A1) in view of Topfer et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0020933 A1), hereinafter, Topfer 2010 and Hoshino (US Pub. No. 2016/0367211 A1) . With regards to claim 1, Topfer discloses a radiation imaging system 100 using a DR detector 10 with X-ray source 60, scintillator screen 14, flat panel detector 20, readout elements 25, control logic processor 70, host computer 80 and image correction/calibrating circuity 88 [0031] – [0033] (Figures 1 and 2). Topfer further discloses that radiographic detectors have multiple modes of operations, including projection radiography, dual energy, long length imaging and tomosynthesis and that detector operation mode 810 controls detector operation 820, detector calibration 830, and image correction 840 [ 0029], [0072] – [[0074] (Figures 8 – 10). Topfer additionally teaches offset correction and removing the offset from the x-ray exposure [0033] – [0040], [0004], (Figure 3). Topfer discloses sharing calibration procedures, data, and algorithm between detector operations modes to reduce operation time and computational complexity and share simple offset correction algorithms [0075] – [0079]. Topfer also teaches calibration updates can be shared between different detector operation modes and field update of gain, offset, defeat or geometry correction maps updates respective calibration files of more than one mode [0073] Topfer fails to expressly disclose the exactly a determination unit configured to determine, out of the plurality of photography modes, photography modes for which common offset correction data shared with one another is usable, and select, out of pieces of offset correction data corresponding to the respective determined photography modes, a piece of offset correction data to be used by the offset correction unit in correction of the determined photography modes; and an update unit configured to control the offset correction data acquisition unit so that, in order to update offset correction data to be used for the photography modes determined to be suitable for shared use of the common offset correction data, offset correction data corresponding to the selected offset correction data is acquired. Topfer 2010 teaches the missing selection determination logic. Topfer 2010 teaches recording current user/image data, compares the current data with stored data corresponding to stored offset adjustment maps, and forms a selected/interpolated offset adjustment map [0087] – [0094] (Figures 9 – 13). Topfer 2010 further teaches selection by smallest absolute difference, a 2DIM offset map pattern, and statistical measures such as image mean and the like [0092] – [0094] (Figures 11 – 13). Hoshino discloses the update control. Hoshino discloses a setting unit 1490 that sets an order for generating offset correction data in association with imaging modes, a correction data generation unit 19 that generates offset correctio data in the set order and a correctio processing unit 18 that corrects image data using the offset correction data [0026] – [0034] (Figures 2 – 3). Hoshino further teaches prioritizing offset correction data based on output gain, image size and frame rate so that highly needed offset data is acquired or updated despite limited lime [0037] – [0048], [0051]- [0064] (Figures 4A, 4B and 5 – 7). In view of the utility, to reduce that amount of calibration procedures and files while still preserving image quality for multiple detectors modes, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topfer to include the teachings such as that taught by Topfer 2010 and Hoshino. With regards to claim 8, Topfer teaches a radiographic imaging system 100 including x-ray source 60 and/or generator 64, detector 10, computer 80 and control logic/image correction and/or calibration circuity [0031] (Figure 1). With regards to claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1. With regards to claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1 as claim 10 is the method counterpart of claim 1. With regards to claim 11, Topfer teaches a non-transitory tangible medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to perform steps of the method of controlling a radiation imaging apparatus according to claim 10 [0082] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 - 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topfer et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0170627 A1) in view of Topfer et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0020933 A1), hereinafter, Topfer 2010, Hoshino (US Pub. No. 2016/0367211 A1) and Ryu et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0366351 A1) . With regards to claim 2, Topfer discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose that the determination unit is configured to determine the photography modes for which the common offset correction data shared with one another is usable, based on an average value of the offset correction data. Topfer 2010 teaches statistical measures including image mean for the offset adjustment map [0092]. Hoshino teaches offset correction data is an average of plurality non-exposure images [0033]. Ryu expressly discloses a radiation imaging apparatus and control method of the same wherein a determination step in S113 may also be performed in accordance with, for example, whether each signal value forming the image data read out in S112 satisfies a predetermined reference. For example, this determination step may also be performed based on whether each signal value is smaller than a reference value. As another example, this determination step may also be performed based on whether the difference between signal values from two sensors PX adjacent to each other in the sensor array 110 is smaller than another reference value. As still another example, this determination step may also be performed based on the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, or the like of signal values from the plurality of sensors PX. Furthermore, this determination step may also be performed by another known method of determining the presence/absence of an image lag in image data [0053] – [0055]. In view of the utility, to provide a technique advantage in shortening a time required to obtain offset data for each operation mode in a radiation imaging apparatus having a plurality of operation modes, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topfer to include the teachings such as that taught by Topfer 2010, Hoshino and Ryu. With regards to claim 3, Topfer discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1 and also teaches averaging dark images yields a less noisy offset approximation [0035] Topfer fails to expressly disclose that the determination unit is configured to determine the photography modes for which the common offset correction data shared with one another is usable, based on a noise amount of the offset correction data. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Topfer 2010 teaches high/low frequency processing to reduce noise in the offset adjustment map and ROI stand deviation measurers [0103] – [0112], (Figures 13 – 18). Ryu teaches standard deviation as a determination criterion [0054]. In view of the utility, to select/share maps/images/data based on noise to preserve image quality, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topfer to include the teachings such as that taught by Topfer 2010 and Ryu. With regards to claim 4, Topfer discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1 and also teaches offset maps are 2-DIM image/maps containing pixel-by-pixel dark variations [0033]. Topfer fails to expressly disclose that the determination unit is configured to determine the photography modes for which the common offset correction data shared with one another is usable, based on in-plane distribution of the offset correction data. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Topfer 2010 teaches a reference offset adjust map characterizes a 2-DIM pattern with ROI analysis over the map. In view of the utility, to improve the overall imaging, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topfer to include the teachings such as that taught by Topfer 2010. With regards to claim 5, Topfer discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose that the determination unit is configured to select, out of pieces of offset correction data to be used for the photography modes determined to be suitable for shared use of the common offset correction data, a piece of offset correction data that corresponds to a photography mode highest in frame rate. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Hoshino teaches higher priority for higher frame rate [0044] – [0055], (Figures 5 and 7). Ryu teaches that time to acceptable image lag shortens as frame rate increases and offset data is obtained in order form the one corresponding to the high frame rate, first holding high frame rate offset data and than lower frame rate offset data [0047] – [0051], (Figures 4 – 6) In view of the utility, to select the highest frame rate representatives reducing updated time and image lag, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topfer to include the teachings such as that taught by Hoshino and Ryu. With regards to claim 6, Topfer discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1 and also teaches long exposure mode readout can reduce dark noise [0077]. Topfer fails to expressly disclose that the determination unit is configured to select, out of pieces of offset correction data to be used for the photography modes determined to be suitable for shared use of the common offset correction data, a piece of offset correction data that corresponds to a photography mode smallest in noise amount of the offset correction data. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Hoshino teaches reducing noise in offset adjustment maps and using ROI standard deviations/noise measures [0103] – [0112]. Ryu teaches standard deviation as a criterion [0054]. In view of the utility, to choose the lowest noise offset data to improve corrected image quality as is known and predicable among candidate maps, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topfer to include the teachings such as that taught by Hoshino and Ryu. With regards to claim 7, Topfer discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose that the determination unit is configured to select, out of pieces of offset correction data to be used for the photography modes determined to be suitable for shared use of the common offset correction data, a piece of offset correction data that corresponds to a photography mode smallest in average value of the offset correction data. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Topfer 2010 teaches using image mean as statistical measure of the offset adjustment map and selecting maps by smallest absolute different to data [0092] – [0094]. Hoshino teaches changing mode-update priority based on imaging conditions [0051] – [0055]. Ryu teaches mean as deamination criterion [0054]. In view of the utility, to select the smallest average offset among suitable shared use candidates to avoid excessive steps or values in the mean-based statistical selection as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Topfer to include the teachings such as that taught by Topfer 2010, Hoshino and Ryu. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571) 272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5). 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995 . 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. /DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 2 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 3 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 4 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 5 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 6 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 7 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 8 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 9 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 10 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 11 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 12 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/911,534 Page 13 Art Unit: 2884
Prosecution Insights