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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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 1, the claim recites the limitation "the radiation image" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, both “a plurality of radiation images” and “one radiation image” is recited. However, the claim fails to state whether “the radiation image” is the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image. The claim fails to define how the information of the grid is found using the one radiation image or the plurality of radiation images. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “wherein the processor is configured to: obtain information related to a grid based on an image obtained by imaging the grid; and select the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode based on the information related to the grid used in capturing the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image”. Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "the radiation image" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, both “a plurality of radiation images” and “one radiation image” is recited. However, the claim fails to state whether “the radiation image” is either the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image. The claim fails to define how the information of the grid is found using the one radiation image or the plurality of radiation images. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “causing the processor to obtain information related to a grid based on an image obtained from imaging the grid; and causing the processor to execute processing of selecting the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode based on the information related to the grid used in capturing the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image”.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "the radiation image" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, both “a plurality of radiation images” and “one radiation image” is recited. However, the claim fails to state whether “the radiation image” is either the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image. The claim fails to define how the information of the grid is found using the one radiation image or the plurality of radiation images. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “obtaining information related to a grid based on an image obtain from imaging the grid; and selecting the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode based on the information related to a grid used in capturing the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image.”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 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 Tsujii (U.S. 2004/0228439) and Obara (U.S. 2018/0333128).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood:
Tsujii discloses a radiography system capable of executing fluoroscopy in which a plurality of radiation images are continuously captured at a predetermined frame rate and general imaging in which one radiation image is recorded in a switchable manner, the radiography system comprising at least one processor,
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain information related to a grid based on an image obtained by imaging the grid ([0057], grid information obtained).
Obara teaches select the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode ([0083], imaging mode selected based on target dose).
However, Tsujii and Obara fail to disclose select the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode based on the information related to the grid used in capturing the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image.
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. Claims 2-5 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood:
Tsujii 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 and general imaging in which one radiation image is recorded in a switchable manner, the radiography method comprising:
causing the processor to obtain information related to a grid based on an image obtained from imaging the grid ([0057], grid information obtained)
Obara teaches causing the processor to execute processing of selecting the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode ([0083], imaging mode selected based on target dose).
However, Tsujii and Obara fail to disclose causing the processor to execute processing of selecting the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode based on the information related to the grid used in capturing the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image.
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.
Regarding claim 7:
Tsujii 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 and general imaging in which one radiation image is recorded in a switchable manner, the radiography program causing the processor to execute processing of:
obtaining information related to a grid based on an image obtain from imaging the grid ([0057], grid information obtained).
Obara teaches selecting the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode ([0083], imaging mode selected based on target dose).
selecting the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode based on the information related to a grid used in capturing the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image.
However, Tsujii and Obara fail to disclose selecting the fluoroscopy or the general imaging as an imaging mode based on the information related to a grid used in capturing the plurality of radiation images or the one radiation image.
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