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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litzenberger (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20240138784) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (U.S. Patent 6,222,906) and Exelmans et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170143286).
As per claims 1, 15 and 16, Litzenberger discloses a radiography system capable of executing fluoroscopy and including a radiation detector and imaging control system (¶ [0023]; ¶ [0031]). Litzenberger further teaches at least one processor configured to set a fluoroscopy mode and initialize fluoroscopy operation (¶ [0038]; Fig. 9). Litzenberger additionally teaches continuous acquisition of fluoroscopic images by the radiation detector (¶ [0031]).
Litzenberger does not explicitly teach:
(i) setting the fluoroscopy mode based on whether an irradiation area on the detection surface is equal to or less than a maximum area capable of detecting radiation; and (ii) causing the radiation detector to start processing of continuously acquiring images regardless of whether an instruction to start irradiation with the radiation is received.
Sakaguchi et al. disclose determining an irradiation region on the detector based on X-ray beam limiting conditions and source-detector geometry (col. 13, lines 3-33; Fig. 20; Fig. 21). Sakaguchi et al. further disclose controlling detector operation according to the irradiation region (col. 14, line 15 – col. 15, line 5).
Exelmans et al. teach detector acquisition initiated independently of a generator trigger signal by detecting incident radiation and initiating acquisition when a detection threshold is satisfied (¶¶ [0018]-[0024]; Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the irradiation-region determination of Sakaguchi et al. into the fluoroscopy system of Litzenberger in order to assess whether the irradiation area can be accommodated within the detectable area of the detector, because Sakaguchi et al. controls detector operation according to the irradiation region. It would have been further obvious to employ the trigger-independent acquisition technique of Exelmans et al. in the modified system in order to initiate detector acquisition without reliance on a separate irradiation-start instruction.
[Examiner note: Claims 1, 15, and 16 are rejected together because claims 15 and 16 recite the method and computer-readable-medium implementation of substantially the same radiography control operations recited in claim 1].
Claims 2-4 recite notifying that the condition that the irradiation area is equal to or less than the maximum area is satisfied and setting the imaging mode to a general imaging mode when the condition is not satisfied.
These features tell the user when fluoroscopy can be used and switch to general imaging when it cannot. It would have been obvious to provide such notification and mode selection because they help the system operate in the appropriate imaging mode.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 recite defining the condition using a distance from a radiation source to the detection surface and receiving designation of the corresponding set value.
These features use source-to-detector distance to decide when fluoroscopy should be used and allow the corresponding threshold to be adjusted. It would have been obvious to use source-to-detector distance because it affects the size of the irradiation area on the detector, and to allow adjustment of the threshold to accommodate different imaging situations.
Claims 7-10 recite providing separate processors for image processing performed in the general imaging mode and fluoroscopy mode, wherein the processor used for fluoroscopy image processing includes a logic circuit programmed in advance.
These features use different processing resources for different imaging modes and employ dedicated logic for fluoroscopy image processing. It would have been obvious to separate these processing functions because doing so helps perform image processing more efficiently.
Claims 11 and 12 recite generating a single radiation still image using one or more radiation images obtained by fluoroscopy in response to a still-image instruction.
These features use fluoroscopy images to create a still image. It would have been obvious to generate a still image from fluoroscopy images because the images have already been acquired and can be reused to create a snapshot image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2496. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 AM - 5 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/COURTNEY D THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights