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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to: an original application filed on 26 November 2025 with acknowledgement 30 March 2019 and a provisional application filed 29 August 2018.
2. In view of the appeal brief filed on 26 November 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
3. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 13, and 19, are independent claims. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 13-16, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0027532 (hereinafter ‘532) in view of Hankhofer et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0278217 (hereinafter ‘217).
As to independent claim 13, “A method, comprising: detecting, by a device, removal of the device from a component external to the device;” is taught in ‘532 Abstract Figure 10, paragraphs 4-6, 49 and 65, note ‘532 teaches a hybrid x-ray device for mounted and portable use that includes a housing, an x-ray source, a support connector, a shield connector, and an interlock. The device detects when the support connector and/or the shield connector are mechanically (i.e. physically) uncoupled (i.e. removed) and disables operation of the x-ray device;
the following is not explicitly taught in ‘532:
“and disabling at least one function of circuitry of the device in response to detecting the removal of the device from the component until the device is reset” however ‘217 teaches an anti-tamper circuit may disable normal-mode circuit and enter into a lock mode that may only be changed by the manufacturer of the system such as by the use of required secret code (i.e. until reset) in paragraph 39;
“wherein the at least one functionality of the circuity of the device includes functions that control the component external to the device” however ‘217 teaches the anti-tamper circuit is connected to external contacts and is connected to the I/O to external electrodes that control the external component in paragraph 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a hybrid x-ray system with detachable radiation shield taught in ‘532 to include a means to reset the device to control the external device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to protect circuit boards against tampering and abuse see ‘217 paragraphs 1-2.
As to dependent claim 14, “The method of claim 13, wherein: the detecting, by the device, removal of the device from the component comprises detecting physical separation of a structure of the device and a structure of the component external to the device” is taught in ‘532 Abstract Figure 10, paragraphs 4-6, 49 and 65, note a hybrid x-ray system that has housing that detects physical separation of the structure.
As to dependent claim 15, “The method of claim 14, wherein: the disabling of at least one function of the circuitry of the device comprises: powering a disable circuit from an internal power supply; and disabling the at least one function of the circuitry of the device using the disable circuit” is disclosed in ‘532 paragraphs 5, 25, and 27.
As to dependent claim 16, “The method of claim 13, wherein: the detecting, by the device, removal of the device from the component comprises detecting physical separation of a structure of the device and a structure of the component external to the device” is taught in ‘532 Abstract Figure 10, paragraphs 4-6, 49 and 65.
As to independent claim 19, this claim is directed to a device executing the method of claim 13; therefore, it is rejected along similar rationale.
As to independent claim 1, “A device, comprising: a mounting structure configured to mount the device to an external component; first circuity; and anti-tamper circuitry electrically connected to the first circuitry,” taught in ‘532 Abstract Figure 10, paragraphs 4-6, 49 and 65, note ‘532 teaches a hybrid x-ray device for mounted and portable use that includes a housing, an x-ray source, a support connector, a shield connector, and an interlock. The device detects when the support connector and/or the shield connector are mechanically (i.e. physically) uncoupled (i.e. removed) and disables operation of the x-ray device;the following is not explicitly taught in ‘532:
“wherein the anti-tamper is configured to disable at least one function of the first circuitry in response to the device being removed from the external component until the device is reset” however ‘217 teaches an anti-tamper circuit may disable normal-mode circuit and enter into a lock mode that may only be changed by the manufacturer of the system such as by the use of required secret code (i.e. until reset) in paragraph 39;
“wherein the first circuity is configured to control the external component” however ‘217 teaches the anti-tamper circuit is connected to external contacts and is connected to the I/O to external electrodes in paragraph 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a hybrid x-ray system with detachable radiation shield taught in ‘532 to include a means to reset the device to control the external device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to protect circuit boards against tampering and abuse see ‘217 paragraphs 1-2.
As to dependent claim 3, “The device of claim 2, wherein the at least one function of the first circuitry comprises functions of the first circuitry that control the external component” is shown in ‘532 paragraph 5.
6. Claims 8-9, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0027532 (hereinafter ‘532) in view of Hankhofer et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0278217 (hereinafter ‘217) in further view of Lounsberry et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,107,189 (hereinafter ‘189).
As to dependent claim 20, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘532 and ‘217: “The device of claim 19, further comprising: means for detecting physical separation of the device from the component; and means for erasing at least part of memory of the circuitry in response to the means for detecting physical separation of the device from the component” however ‘189 teaches updating the configuration information when a new tube is utilized the portion of memory that contained the previously used tube is erased in the Abstract, col. 1, lines 9-35, col. 2, lines 39-47, col. 3, line 49 through col. 4, line 46, and col. 5, lines 18-46.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a hybrid x-ray system with detachable radiation shield taught in ‘532 and ‘217 to include a means to detect physical separation of the device and erasing at least part of memory. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because the conventional method does not provide any positive identification that the x-ray tube being operated is the one the system has been configured, nor is there a way to change the configuration for a different tube. Thus, there is a need for field replaceable units see ‘189 col. 1, line 36 through col. 2, line 35.
As to dependent claim 8, “The device of claim 1, wherein: the first circuitry includes a processor; and the anti-tamper circuitry is configured to erase at least a portion of memory used by the processor when the device is removed from the external component” is taught in ‘189 the Abstract, col. 1, lines 9-35, col. 2, lines 39-47, col. 3, line 49 through col. 4, line 46, and col. 5, lines 18-46, note a diagnostic system (i.e. anti-tamper circuitry) that automatically updates/configures memory when a field replaceable unit (such as an x-ray tube) is utilized in by updating the configuration information when a new tube is utilized the portion of memory that contained the previously used tube is erased.
As to dependent claim 9, “The device of claim 8, wherein the at least a portion of memory used by the processor comprises memory integrated with the processor” is taught in ‘189 col. 3, line 36 through col. 4, line 46, note the electronic device (i.e. processor) is integrated (i.e. attached) to the memory.
7. Claims 4-7, 11, and 17-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0027532 (hereinafter ‘532) in view of Hankhofer et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0278217 (hereinafter ‘217) in further view of Edwards et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0327174 (hereinafter ‘174).
As to dependent claim 4, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘532 and ‘217: “The device of claim 1, further comprising: a housing coupled to the mounting structure wherein the housing is configured to restrict access to disarm the anti-tamper circuitry when the device is mounted to the external component” however ‘174 teaches a safety interlock that may communicate an alignment failure and prevent the x-ray tube may be prevented from operating in paragraphs 30-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a hybrid x-ray system with detachable radiation shield taught in ‘532 and ‘217 to include a means to implement housing that is configured to restrict access when the device is mounted to an external component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to because rapid assembly and operation of an X-ray imaging system are desired to improve upon existing X-ray imaging systems see ‘174 paragraphs 2-7.
As to dependent claim 5, “The device of claim 1, wherein the anti-tamper circuitry comprises: a switch coupled to the mounting structure and configured to switch when the device is removed from the external component” is taught in ‘174 paragraph 32.
As to dependent claim 6, “The device of claim 5, wherein: the switch is configured to be switched by a structure of the external component when mounted on the external component” is shown in ‘174 paragraph 32.
As to dependent claim 7, “The device of claim 5, wherein the anti-tamper circuitry comprises: a power supply disposed within the device and configured to supply power after detecting removal of the device from the external component; and a disable circuit configured to disable the at least one function of the first circuitry; wherein the switch is configured to electrically connect the power supply to the disable circuit when the device is removed from the external component” is disclosed in ‘174 paragraphs 21-22, 30-32, and 34, note the safety lock prevents operation of the x-ray system when the x-ray tube is removed but allows the high voltage power cable to remain connected to the system.
As to dependent claim 11, “The device of claim 1, wherein: the device is part of electronics associated with an x-ray system; and the external component is an x-ray tube of the x-ray system” is taught in ‘174 paragraphs 22-23 and 30.
As to dependent claim 17, “The method of claim 13, further comprising: installing the device on the component; and arming anti-tamper circuitry configured to disable to at least one function of the circuitry of the device after installing the device on the component” is shown in ‘174 paragraphs 30-32.
As to dependent claim 18, “The method of claim 13, further comprising: resetting anti-tamper circuitry configured to disable to at least one function of the circuitry of the device; wherein, after detecting the removal of the device from the component, the at least one function of circuity of the device remains disabled after installing the device on the component until the anti-tamper circuity is reset” is disclosed in ‘174 paragraphs 30-32.
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0027532 (hereinafter ‘532) in view of Hankhofer et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0278217 (hereinafter ‘217) in further view of Lounsberry et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,107,189 (hereinafter ‘189) in further view of Park et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0357829 (hereinafter ‘829).
As to dependent claim 10, the following is not specifically taught in ‘532, ‘217, and ‘189: “The device of claim 8, wherein the at least a portion of memory used by the processor stores cryptographic information” however ‘829 teaches an attack detection circuit may be implemented with a security chip that performs key management, encryption/decryption and that the device may be various medical devices, … a computed tomography (CT) device in paragraphs 125 and 133.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a hybrid x-ray system with detachable radiation shield taught in ‘532, ‘217, and ‘174 to include a memory that stores cryptographic information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to prevent hacking of detection circuits see ‘829 paragraphs 3-5.
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0027532 (hereinafter ‘532) in view of Hankhofer et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0278217 (hereinafter ‘217) in further view of Pellegrino et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0076847 (hereinafter ‘847).
As to dependent claim 12, the following is not explicitly taught in ‘532 and ‘217: “The device of claim 1, wherein the device is part of a component authentication system associated with an x-ray system” however ‘847 teaches a radiation check detector (i.e. authentication system) that detects when x-ray tube component must be serviced in paragraphs 24-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of a hybrid x-ray system with detachable radiation shield taught in ‘532 and ‘217 to include a means to authentication (i.e. check) a component associated with an x-ray system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification because the radiation dose provided by the X-ray tube can vary and malfunction see ‘847 paragraphs 8-10.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
/ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 24 January 2026