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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2020/0218922 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 4, 16, and 17, Chen discloses; a medical diagnosis apparatus and associated method of operation (abstract) comprising: a processor (210), wherein the processor acquires subject information of a subject placed on a bed (via image acquisition module, par. [0029, 0132]]), acquires a positioning image based on at least any of an optical image of the subject in a state of being placed on the bed or a scanogram (image of the subject positioning image is acquired as an optical image, par. [0215]), on the basis of the subject information, and projects the acquired positioning image onto the bed or a space above the bed (projection of image on subject, which is located on a table/bed, thus the image is “above the bed”, par. [0029]). With further respect to claim 17, Chen discloses a program to perform the disclosed method (par. [0279-0280]).
With respect to claim 5, Chen discloses a reference image that is generated by cutting out a predetermined reference site from the optical image of the subject (region of interest is entered as a portion of an image corresponding to an ROI of the subject (par. [0098]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
With respect to claim 2, Chen, as applied above does not directly specify projecting the positioning image onto the bed or the space above the bed before and after the subject is placed on the bed. However, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to ensure proper positioning, such that the patient or operator is aware of where the patient should be located, and subsequently to provide fine alignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-15 are 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:
With respect to claim 3, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed configuration wherein the processor recognizes a color of clothes worn by the subject and processes the positioning image into a color such that the positioning image is able to be recognized in a case where the positioning image is projected onto the clothes.
With respect to claim 6, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed configuration wherein the positioning image is an image obtained by superimposing the reference image on the optical image of the subject or the scanogram image of the subject itself.
With respect to claim 7, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed configuration wherein the processor generates the scanogram image of the subject, and generates a scanogram image of only a reference site corresponding to the reference image.
With respect to claim 8, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed configuration wherein the processor generates the scanogram image of the subject, and skips the generation of the scanogram image in a case where the positioning image is projected onto the bed or the space above the bed.
With respect to claims 9-13, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest that the processor determines a rate of match between the subject placed on the bed and the positioning image, in addition to all of the other claimed elements.
With respect to claims 14-15, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed configuration wherein in a case where the scanogram image of the subject is used as the positioning image, the processor controls an irradiation dose of X-rays to the subject using dose data of the X-rays in a case of generating the scanogram image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 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, 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 24 September 2026
