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
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 2, recites: “may be performed by,” which renders the claim ambiguous, since it is unclear whether the limitations subsequent the phrase are intended to constitute required limitations of the claim.
The claims have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required
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) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storch et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230410308) in view of Ivanov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170215823).
[Examiner note: Claims 1, 16 and 17 are treated concurrently because they recite substantially corresponding limitations directed to obtaining captured images, using image recognition to determine whether a subject of a user is present in the X-ray beam path, responsively controlling the X-ray imaging apparatus to reduce radiation and subsequently controlling the apparatus to increase radiation in response to a predefined condition. The claims differ in statutory form as a data processing system, computer implemented method and computer-readable medium, respectively. Accordingly, teachings with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 16 and 17].
As per claims 1, 16 and 17, Storch et al. disclose a data processing system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain a series of captured images of an object, the series of captured images comprising:
a series of fluoroscopy images of the object captured using an X-ray imaging apparatus (¶¶ [0028-0031]; Figs. 1, 3);
provide each of at least some of the captured images to at least one image recognition model configured to determine whether a subject of a user is present in a path of an X-ray beam of the X-ray imaging apparatus (¶¶ [0010-0011]; [0056-0065]; [0078-0079]);
in response to detecting the subject in the path of the X-ray beam, reduce radiation provided to the subject by controlling the X-ray imaging apparatus to adjust imaging conditions including one or more:
collimation of the X-ray beam provided by the X-ray imaging apparatus, the collimation limiting an area irradiated by the X-ray beam; and
imaging parameters of the X-ray imaging apparatus (¶¶ [0018-0021]);
Storch et al. do not explicitly disclose:
subsequently, in response to a predefined condition being met, controlling the X- ray imaging apparatus to further adjust the imaging conditions to increase the radiation supplied by the X-ray source to a detector of the X-ray imaging apparatus.
Ivanov teaches maintaining radiation reduction instruction while a detected body part is within a field of view and subsequently reversing or disabling the instruction once the body part is detected outside the field of view, thereby restoring the radiation dose ( ¶¶ [0099];[0111]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Storch et al. according to Ivanov et al. to restore radiation dose when a detected subject is no longer present in the X-ray beam. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purpose(s) of maintaining the radiation reduction condition while protection of the subject is required and restoring the imaging condition when the condition ceases, as suggested by Ivanov ( ¶¶ [0099];[0111]).
As per claim 2, Storch et al. as modified above, disclose adjusting imaging conditions by reducing a tube current of the X-ray source (Storch et al. ¶ [0020]).
As per claims 3-4, Storch et al. as modified above, disclose the image recognition model comprises a machine learning model trained to identify the subject, wherein the machine learning model is a convolutional neural network (Storch et al. ¶¶ [0064-0066]).
As per claim 5, Storch et al. as modified above, disclose outputting an indication of a location of the detected subject and adjusting the collimation to prevent at least part of the location of the detected subject from being irradiated by the X-ray beam (Ivanov et al. ¶¶ [0068]; [0070]).
As per claim 6, Storch et al. as modified above, disclose determining a region of the object and adjusting collimation based on a condition that the determined region of the object continues to be irradiated by the X-ray beam (Ivanov et al. ¶¶ [0068], [0070], [0072]).
As per claim 7, Storch et al. as modified above, disclose providing X-ray images to further image-recognition model configured to identify the region of the object (Storch et al. ¶¶ [0018-0020], [0064-0066]).
As per claim 8, Storch et al. as modified above, disclose identify the region of the object by identifying an instrument within the at least one of the series of X-ray images (Storch et al. ¶¶ [0018-0019]).
Claims 9-11 further recite obtaining further fluoroscopy images following adjustment of imaging conditions; post-processing the further fluoroscopy images using denoising filter or noise-reduction machine learning model, determining an image quality parameter for a region of interest and performing the post-processing when the image quality is below a threshold and adjusting collimation such that the region of interest continues to be irradiated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the system of Storch et al. such that it incorporated the aforementioned limitations. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purpose(s) of: ensuring artifact free images and reducing radiation outside an imaging region.
Claims 12-14 further recite: distinguishing between an ungloved hand and a gloved hand and providing different imaging control in response thereto, including preventing an automatic exposure control system from increasing X-ray intensity and using respective image-recognition models to determine whether the ungloved and gloved hands are present.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the system of Storch et al. such that it incorporated the aforementioned limitations. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purpose(s) of: distinguishing recognizable conditions of a users hand, since using respective recognition models amounts to applying known recognition functionality to each condition being distinguished.
As per claim 15, Storch et al. as modified above, disclose a failure to detect the subject of the user in the path of X-ray beam based on ones of the captured images that were captured following the detection of the subject in the path of the X-ray beam (Ivanov ¶¶ [0099];[0111]).
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