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 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 15, the term “scatted” should be changed to “scattered” in order to correct a minor typo. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed at a computer program per se. Computer programs are abstract instructions. Therefore, a computer program is not a product nor a process as they are not "acts" being performed. As such, these claims are not directed at one of the statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.01. The claims are directed to a non-statutory functional descriptive material. It is noted that computer programs embodied on computer readable medium or other structure would be directed to a product SO long as the computer readable medium is not disclosed as non-statutory subject matter per se (signals or carrier waves).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fӓlt (U.S. 2015/0100290).
Regarding claim 1:
Fӓlt discloses A radiographic imaging apparatus of a mobile type, comprising:
an inputter (Fig. 1, 101) that receives an input of an external factor ([0039], user inputs information regarding equipment, location, patients or medical);
a controller (Fig. 1, 102) that estimates a scattered radiation dose of the radiographic imaging apparatus (Fig. 10B, isocurves) based on the external factor ([0047], radiation metrics based on models); and
an outputter (Fig. 1, 103) that outputs a scattered radiation dose map based on the scattered radiation dose (Fig. 12, 1208-1210, isocurves displayed).
Regarding claim 2:
Fӓlt discloses the radiographic imaging apparatus of the mobile type according to claim 1, wherein:
the radiographic imaging apparatus is an apparatus capable of dynamic imaging of a subject ([0040], fluoroscopy), and
the controller estimates the scattered radiation dose in the dynamic imaging by the radiographic imaging apparatus ([0047], radiation metrics based on models).
Regarding claim 6:
Fӓlt discloses the radiographic imaging apparatus of the mobile type according to claim 1, wherein the scattered radiation dose map is colored ([0156], colored scatter field).
Regarding claim 7:
Fӓlt discloses the radiographic imaging apparatus of the mobile type according to claim 1, wherein the scattered radiation dose map is a scattered radiation dose map in which the scattered radiation dose is overlapped on a base map corresponding to the external factor (Fig. 12, isocurves 1208, 1209, and 1210 are overlayed over room map).
Regarding claim 9:
Fӓlt discloses a program that causes a computer to execute:
inputting an external factor ([0039], user inputs information regarding equipment, location, patients or medical);
estimating a scattered radiation dose of a radiographic imaging apparatus based on the external factor ([0047], radiation metrics based on models); and
outputting a scattered radiation dose map based on the scattered radiation dose (Fig. 12, 1208-1210, isocurves displayed).
Regarding claim 10:
Fӓlt discloses the program according to claim 9, wherein:
the radiographic imaging apparatus is an apparatus capable of dynamic imaging of a subject ([0040], fluoroscopy), and
in the estimating, the scattered radiation dose in the dynamic imaging by the radiographic imaging apparatus is estimated ([0047], radiation metrics based on models).
Regarding claim 14:
Fӓlt discloses the program according to claim 9, wherein the scattered radiation dose map is colored ([0156], colored scatter field).
Regarding claim 15:
Fӓlt discloses the program according to claim 9, wherein the scattered radiation dose map is a scattered radiation dose map in which the scattered radiation dose is overlapped on a base map corresponding to the external factor (Fig. 12, isocurves 1208, 1209, and 1210 are overlayed over room map).
Regarding claim 17:
Fӓlt discloses a moving image capturing method, comprising:
inputting an external factor ([0039], user inputs information regarding equipment, location, patients or medical);
estimating a scattered radiation dose of a radiographic imaging apparatus based on the external factor ([0047], radiation metrics based on models); and
outputting a scattered radiation dose map based on the scattered radiation dose (Fig. 12, 1208-1210, isocurves displayed); and
capturing a moving image ([0051], live X-ray image).
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.
Claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fӓlt (U.S. 2015/0100290) in view of Pigott (U.S. 2021/0137483).
Regarding claim 3:
Fӓlt discloses the radiographic imaging apparatus of the mobile type according to claim 1.
However, Fӓlt fails to disclose wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose equal to or less than a predetermined radiation dose.
Pigott teaches wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose equal to or less than a predetermined radiation dose ([0077], threshold limit).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Fӓlt with the regions taught by Pigott in order to reduce radiation exposure for patient and personnel safety (Pigott; [0012]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4:
Fӓlt discloses the radiographic imaging apparatus of the mobile type according to claim 1.
However, Fӓlt fails to disclose wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose exceeding a predetermined radiation dose.
Pigott teaches wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose exceeding a predetermined radiation dose ([0077], threshold limit).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Fӓlt with the regions taught by Pigott in order to reduce radiation exposure for patient and personnel safety (Pigott; [0012]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Fӓlt and Pigott discloses the radiographic imaging apparatus of the mobile type according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined radiation dose is changeable (Fӓlt; radiation metrics are adjustable).
Regarding claim 8:
Fӓlt discloses the radiographic imaging apparatus of the mobile type according to claim 1.
However, Fӓlt fails to disclose wherein a plurality of the external factors includes a layout of an imaging location, an arrangement of a patient bed, a position of a shielding plate, or a material of the shielding plate.
Pigott teaches wherein a plurality of the external factors includes a layout of an imaging location ([0051] and [0065], particular equipment information, equipment position information, and information about the room), an arrangement of a patient bed, a position of a shielding plate, or a material of the shielding plate.
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the apparatus of Fӓlt with the factors taught by Pigott in order to reduce radiation exposure for patient and personnel safety (Pigott; [0012]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11:
Fӓlt discloses the program according to claim 9.
However, Fӓlt fails to disclose wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose equal to or less than a predetermined radiation dose.
Pigott teaches wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose equal to or less than a predetermined radiation dose ([0077], threshold limit).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the program of Fӓlt with the regions taught by Pigott in order to reduce radiation exposure for patient and personnel safety (Pigott; [0012]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 12:
Fӓlt discloses the program according to claim 9.
However, Fӓlt fails to disclose wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose exceeding a predetermined radiation dose.
Pigott teaches wherein the scattered radiation dose map displays a region with a radiation dose exceeding a predetermined radiation dose ([0077], threshold limit).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the program of Fӓlt with the regions taught by Pigott in order to reduce radiation exposure for patient and personnel safety (Pigott; [0012]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Fӓlt and Pigott discloses the program according to claim 11, wherein the predetermined radiation dose is changeable (Fӓlt; radiation metrics are adjustable).
Regarding claim 16:
Fӓlt discloses the program according to claim 9.
However, Fӓlt fails to disclose wherein a plurality of the external factors includes a layout of an imaging location, an arrangement of a patient bed, a position of a shielding plate, or a material of the shielding plate.
Pigott teaches wherein a plurality of the external factors includes a layout of an imaging location ([0051] and [0065], particular equipment information, equipment position information, and information about the room), an arrangement of a patient bed, a position of a shielding plate, or a material of the shielding plate.
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the program of Fӓlt with the factors taught by Pigott in order to reduce radiation exposure for patient and personnel safety (Pigott; [0012]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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