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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first acquisition unit” recited in claim 1, lines 6 and 9; claim 3, line 3; and claim 1, lines 8 and 11;
“analysis unit” recited in claim 1, lines 8 and 13-14; claim 3, lines 2 and 7; claim 4, lines 5-6; claim 10, line 4; and claim 11, lines 10 and 15-16;
“determination unit” recited in claim 1, lines 11 and 16; claim 2, line 4; claim 4, lines 3 and 8-9; claim 5, line 4; claim 8, line 3; claim 9, lines 2 and 4; claim 10, line 2; and claim 11, line 13;
“second acquisition unit” recited in claim 7, lines 3 and 6; and
“display control unit” recited in claim 7, line 5; claim 8, lines 1-2; and claim 9, line 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure appears in at least paragraph [0018] of the specification filed 11/19/2024: “[m]ore specifically, the control apparatus 100 includes one or more processors and memories, and implements various functional units described below by causing the one or more processors to execute a program stored in the one or more memories. However, part or all of the functional units may be implemented by dedicated hardware, such as, but not limited to, one or more processors that operate to perform the one or more functions.”
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacLaughlin (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0110495), hereinafter “MacLaughlin.”
Regarding claim 1, MacLaughlin discloses a radiographic imaging control apparatus that operates or is configured to control radiographic imaging, the radiographic imaging being performed by emitting radiation to at least one radiation detection apparatus using at least one radiation generation apparatus from among a plurality of radiation generation apparatuses, the radiographic imaging control apparatus (host processor controls the activation of a radiographic imaging system, Abstract, [0008], [0030]-[0035]; radiographic imaging system includes a x-ray generator and source for emitting radiation detected by a digital radiography detector, [0029]; host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]) comprising:
a first acquisition unit that operates or is configured to acquire information about the radiographic imaging (a wireless router configured to acquire motion and location of persons being imaged using a radiographic imaging system, Abstract);
an analysis unit that operates or is configured to analyze the information acquired by the first acquisition unit to determine at least whether a target or subject to be examined is present (host processor analyzes the signals from the wireless router to determine the presence of a body, Abstract, [0030]-[0035]); and
a determination unit that operates or is configured to determine a radiation generation apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging among the plurality of radiation generation apparatuses, based on a result of analysis performed by the analysis unit (host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]),
wherein the radiographic imaging control apparatus makes or generates a setting related to the radiation generation apparatus determined by the determination unit to be used for the radiographic imaging (host processor provides that the activation and ready state comprises setting of variables for the image acquisition using the radiographic imaging system, [0022], [0035], [0037], [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 2, MacLaughlin discloses one or more processors of the radiographic imaging control apparatus operate to perform the setting related to the radiation generation apparatus on the radiation generation apparatus determined by the determination unit to be used for the radiographic imaging (host processor performs the setting of variables for the image acquisition using the radiographic imaging system to perform the image acquisition, [0022], [0035], [0037], [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 3, MacLaughlin discloses the analysis unit further performs analysis related to the radiation detection apparatus on the information acquired by the first acquisition unit (host processor analyzes the signals from the wireless router to determine the presence of a body, Abstract, [0030]-[0035]), and
wherein the determination unit determines the radiation generation apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging among the plurality of radiation generation apparatuses, based also on a result of the analysis related to the radiation detection apparatus performed by the analysis unit (host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, MacLaughlin discloses in a case where a plurality of radiation detection apparatuses is present, the determination unit determines a radiation detection apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging among the plurality of radiation detection apparatuses, based on the result of the analysis related to the radiation detection apparatus performed by the analysis unit (host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]), and
wherein the radiographic imaging control apparatus makes or generates a setting related to radiation detection on the radiation detection apparatus determined by the determination unit to be used for the radiographic imaging (host processor provides that the activation and ready state comprises setting of variables for the image acquisition using the radiographic imaging system, [0022], [0035], [0037], [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 5, MacLaughlin discloses one or more processors of the radiographic imaging control apparatus operate to perform the setting related to the radiation detection on the radiation detection apparatus determined by the determination unit to be used for the radiographic imaging (host processor performs the setting of variables for the image acquisition using the radiographic imaging system to perform the image acquisition, [0022], [0035], [0037], [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 6, MacLaughlin discloses the radiographic imaging control apparatus does not make or generate a setting related to a radiation generation apparatus other than the radiation generation apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging among the plurality of radiation generation apparatuses (host processor provides that the activation and ready state comprises setting of variables for the image acquisition using the radiographic imaging system for the activation of the one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0022], [0031], [0033], [0035], [0037], [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 7, MacLaughlin discloses a second acquisition unit that operates or is configured to acquire information related to a radiation image from the radiation detection apparatus (digital radiographic detector captures radiographic image data, Abstract, [0026]); and
a display control unit that operates or is configured to output the information acquired by the second acquisition unit to a display apparatus (display, [0029]; acquired data is displayed, [0047], [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, MacLaughlin discloses the display control unit operates or is configured to output a result of determination made by the determination unit to the display apparatus (host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]; display, [0029], determined activation is displayed for verification, [0041]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MacLaughlin.
Regarding claim 11, MacLaughlin discloses a radiographic imaging system (radiographic imaging system, Abstract), comprising:
a radiation detection apparatus (digital radiography detector, [0029]); and
a radiographic imaging control apparatus that operates or is configured to control radiographic imaging, the radiographic imaging being performed by emitting radiation to at least one radiation detection apparatus using at least one radiation generation apparatus from among a plurality of radiation generation apparatuses, the radiographic imaging control apparatus (host processor controls the activation of a radiographic imaging system, Abstract, [0008], [0030]-[0035]; radiographic imaging system includes a x-ray generator and source for emitting radiation detected by a digital radiography detector, [0029]; host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]) comprising:
a first acquisition unit that operates or is configured to acquire information about the radiographic imaging (a wireless router configured to acquire motion and location of persons being imaged using a radiographic imaging system, Abstract);
an analysis unit that operates or is configured to analyze the information acquired by the first acquisition unit to determine at least whether a target or subject to be examined is present (host processor analyzes the signals from the wireless router to determine the presence of a body, Abstract, [0030]-[0035]); and
a determination unit that operates or is configured to determine a radiation generation apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging among the plurality of radiation generation apparatuses, based on a result of analysis performed by the analysis unit (host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]),
wherein the radiographic imaging control apparatus makes or generates a setting related to the radiation generation apparatus determined by the determination unit to be used for the radiographic imaging (host processor provides that the activation and ready state comprises setting of variables for the image acquisition using the radiographic imaging system, [0022], [0035], [0037], [0039]-[0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLaughlin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Beck et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0027557), hereinafter “Beck.”
Regarding claim 10, while MacLaughlin discloses the determination unit determine the radiation generation apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging among the plurality of radiation generation apparatuses, based on the result of the analysis performed by the analysis unit (host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]), MacLaughlin does not appear to disclose the determination unit determines a probability thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor of tomographic imaging and in solving substantially the same problem of selecting one or more systems for operation based on the presence of a patient, Beck teaches the determination unit determines a probability of the apparatus to be used for the imaging among the plurality of apparatuses, based on the result of the analysis performed by the analysis unit (control system determines the probability/possibility of the system to be used for imaging among a plurality of systems based on the position/presence of a patient, [0008]-[0012], [0052]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Beck’s known technique of assigning a probability/possibility to the use of a system for imaging based on the position/presence of a patient to MacLaughlin’s known apparatus for determining the use of a system for imaging based on the position/presence of a patient to achieve the predictable result that this allows for the user to select between possible energy-saving scenarios from a list of possible scenarios that makes it easier for the user to reduce energy consumption. See, e.g., Beck, [0012]-[0019].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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:
While MacLaughlin discloses the display control unit operates or is configured to output a result of determination made by the determination unit to the display apparatus (host processor determines the activation of one or more needed x-ray imaging apparatuses, [0031], [0033], [0035]; display, [0029], determined activation is displayed for verification, [0041]), MacLaughlin does not disclose in a case where the determination unit is not able to determine a radiation generation apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging, the display control unit outputs to the display apparatus information indicating that the determination unit is not able to determine a radiation generation apparatus to be used for the radiographic imaging as recited in claim 9. Further, the prior art, including Beck and the pertinent art cited below, do not appear to teach the features recited in claim 9 in combination with the features incorporated from claims 1, 7, and 8 from which claim 9 depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haraguchi et al. (JP-2019198691-A) discloses determining the posture and position of a body to activate one x-ray/CT apparatus from a plurality of x-ray/CT apparatuses.
Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0017538) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate one of a table or standing x-ray/CT apparatus.
Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0064456) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate one or more x-ray/CT point sources.
Aulbach (DE-102012214148-A1) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Okumura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0367848) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Ishii et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0250439) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Haider et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0414187) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Srivastava (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0153702) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Spahn (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0188063) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Takata et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0047163) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate an x-ray/CT apparatus.
Horiuchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0293134) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus room.
Yamayoshi (U.S. Patent No. 6,707,880) discloses determining the presence of a body using a camera to activate an x-ray/CT apparatus.
Takahashi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0312999) discloses determining the presence of a body to activate an x-ray/CT apparatus.
Goto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0333110) discloses determining the presence of a body to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Chakrabarti et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0187877) discloses determining the presence of a body to activate a x-ray/CT apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnathan Maynard whose telephone number is (571)272-7977. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/Johnathan Maynard/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights