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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the fluoroscopy is ended” should be changed to “the fluoroscopy has ended” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “notify of the calculated remaining time” should be changed to “notify an imaging operator of the calculated remaining time” in order to clarify who is being notified as disclosed in [0067]. Claim 2 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “until next fluoroscopy is able to be started in a case in which the fluoroscopy in the past is ended” should be changed to “until a next fluoroscopy is able to be started in which a previous fluoroscopy has ended” in order to correct grammatical informalities.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “each operator” should be changed to “each imaging operator” to keep the phrasing similar to the imaging operator disclosed in [0067].
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “notify of a recommended” should be changed to “notify the imaging operator of a recommended” in order to clarify who is being notified as disclosed in [0067].
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “notify of a recommended” should be changed to “notify the imaging operator of a recommended” in order to clarify who is being notified as disclosed in [0067]. Claim 7 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the fluoroscopy is ended” should be changed to “the fluoroscopy has ended” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “notifying of the calculated remaining time” should be changed to “notifying an imaging operator of the calculated remaining time” in order to clarify who is being notified as disclosed in [0067].
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the fluoroscopy is ended” should be changed to “the fluoroscopy has ended” in order to correct a grammatical informality.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “notifying of the calculated remaining time” should be changed to “notifying an imaging operator of the calculated remaining time” in order to clarify who is being notified as disclosed in [0067].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a radiography program for a radiography system including at least one processor” and “the radiography program causing the processor to execute processing of” which renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails define where the preamble starts and finishes. As currently written, the claim recites the transitional phrase “including” with regards to the radiography system having a processor. However, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The claim fails to particularly point out whether the claim is directed to the radiography system or the storage medium. The Examiner has interpreted the claim as “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a radiography program for a radiography system including at least one processor”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts are Watanabe (U.S. 2021/0241882) and Winter (U.S. 5,862,342).
Regarding claim 1:
Watanabe discloses a radiography system that is capable of executing fluoroscopy in which a plurality of radiation images are continuously captured at a predetermined frame rate, the radiography system comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate, in a case in which the fluoroscopy is ended, a time until storage of a video image obtained by the fluoroscopy in a storage device is completed ([0080], saving completion time); and
notify of the time ([0080], notification of save time) .
Winter teaches calculate a remaining time until storage of a video in a storage device is completed (Col. 4, line 57-Col. 5, 22, calculating time of completion of storing), based on a data size of the video image for which the storage in the storage device is completed among video images temporarily stored in a memory (Col. 5, lines 24-52, video information), a data storage speed in the storage device (Col. 5, lines 1-22, DVD, optical disk, and removable hard drive), and a data size of according to a frame rate (Col. 5, lines 24-52, video information).
However, Watanabe and Winter fail to disclose calculate, in a case in which the fluoroscopy is ended, a remaining time until storage of a video image obtained by the fluoroscopy in a storage device is completed, based on a data size of the video image for which the storage in the storage device is completed among video images temporarily stored in a memory by the fluoroscopy, a data storage speed in the storage device, and a data size of the video image obtained by the fluoroscopy according to a frame rate and an imaging time of the fluoroscopy.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the objections above. Claims 2-7 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 8:
Watanabe discloses a radiography method for a radiography system including at least one processor and capable of executing fluoroscopy in which a plurality of radiation images are continuously captured at a predetermined frame rate, the method comprising:
calculating, in a case in which the fluoroscopy is ended, a time until storage of a video image obtained by the fluoroscopy in a storage device is completed ([0080], saving completion time); and
notifying of the time ([0080], notification of save time) .
Winter teaches calculating a remaining time until storage of a video in a storage device is completed (Col. 4, line 57-Col. 5, 22, calculating time of completion of storing), based on a data size of the video image for which the storage in the storage device is completed among video images temporarily stored in a memory (Col. 5, lines 24-52, video information), a data storage speed in the storage device (Col. 5, lines 1-22, DVD, optical disk, and removable hard drive), and a data size of according to a frame rate (Col. 5, lines 24-52, video information).
However, Watanabe and Winter fail to disclose calculating, in a case in which the fluoroscopy is ended, a remaining time until storage of a video image obtained by the fluoroscopy in a storage device is completed, based on a data size of the video image for which the storage in the storage device is completed among video images temporarily stored in a memory by the fluoroscopy, a data storage speed in the storage device, and a data size of the video image obtained by the fluoroscopy according to a frame rate and an imaging time of the fluoroscopy.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the objections above.
Regarding claim 9:
Watanabe discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a radiography program for a radiography system including at least one processor and capable of executing fluoroscopy in which a plurality of radiation images are continuously captured at a predetermined frame rate, the radiography program causing the processor to execute processing of:
calculating, in a case in which the fluoroscopy is ended, a time until storage of a video image obtained by the fluoroscopy in a storage device is completed ([0080], saving completion time); and
notifying of the time ([0080], notification of save time) .
Winter teaches calculating a remaining time until storage of a video in a storage device is completed (Col. 4, line 57-Col. 5, 22, calculating time of completion of storing), based on a data size of the video image for which the storage in the storage device is completed among video images temporarily stored in a memory (Col. 5, lines 24-52, video information), a data storage speed in the storage device (Col. 5, lines 1-22, DVD, optical disk, and removable hard drive), and a data size of according to a frame rate (Col. 5, lines 24-52, video information).
However, Watanabe and Winter fail to disclose calculating, in a case in which the fluoroscopy is ended, a remaining time until storage of a video image obtained by the fluoroscopy in a storage device is completed, based on a data size of the video image for which the storage in the storage device is completed among video images temporarily stored in a memory by the fluoroscopy, a data storage speed in the storage device, and a data size of the video image obtained by the fluoroscopy according to a frame rate and an imaging time of the fluoroscopy.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights