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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 19 January 2026 wherein: claims 1-5, 11-12, and 14 are amended; claims 6-10 are canceled; claims 1-5 and 11-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 5, fist line, through page 8, last line), filed 19 January 2026, with respect to claims 1-5 and 11-14 have been fully considered.
Examiner acknowledges the prior 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections and the prior 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 rejections of claims 1-5 have been overcome by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 rejections of claims 11-14 are not persuasive.
Independent claim 1 is now allowable, as described in detail below. Independent claim 11 has some similar features to those of claim 1, but lacks the positioning assistants of claim 1. Claims 1 and 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Farrokhnia (US 6,231,231 B1). Examiner acknowledges the carrier jig described in Applicant’s specification (and in Applicant’s claim 1) differs from that of Farrokhnia. However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
See MPEP § 2145(VI). In this case, Farrokhnia discloses all features of the claimed invention, even though Applicant’s specification describes different elements of the claimed invention as having different structures from those found in Farrokhnia. Due to the breadth of the claim language, both jigs 200 and 400 can be considered “carrier jigs” in that both jigs are functioning to position phantoms on jig 200. There is no requirement in the claim that each of the plurality of carrier jigs support its own phantoms via positioning assistants on each carrier jig. Accordingly, the rejections of claim 11 and its dependent claims are maintained.
Claim Numbering
The numbering of the claims is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g) which states in part “all dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable.” See also MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). The numbering of the claims should not be changed now. Examiner will correct the numbering of the claims if still necessary if the application is allowed. Due to the irregular numbering of the claims, the following rejections of the claims may not necessarily be in numerical order.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the last line, “adaptor” is recited where --adapter-- would be expected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Farrokhnia (US 6,231,231 B1).
Regarding claim 11, recitations “where the plurality of carrier jigs are placed on a treatment couch of a medical imaging system”, “while the calibration phantoms are imaged”, and “where the treatment couch is repositioned between imaging of said carrier jigs” are recitations of intended use which do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, and therefore do not carry patentable weight.
Farrokhnia discloses a system comprising a plurality of carrier jigs (200, 400), each carrier jig having one or more jig-to-jig interfaces (120, 470); where the plurality of carrier jigs (200, 400) are interconnected via said jig-to-jig interfaces (120, 470) that couple adjacent jigs (200, 400) to form a carrier jig chain (formed of elements 200 and 400); where the plurality of carrier jigs are operable to support and orient one or more calibration phantoms (jig 200: col. 4, l. 43 - col. 5, l. 30 and col. 6, l. 38 - col. 7, l. 3; jig 400 and insertion of jig 200: col. 8, l. 11 - col. 9, l. 43; the phantom is used for calibration: col. 11, ll. 36-54; Figs. 2 (jig 200), 4 (jig 400), and 5 (jig 200 inserted into jig 400)).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12 and 14
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Farrokhnia as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pierre (US 2023/0106438 A1).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, recitation “where the adapter jig is placed on the treatment couch of the medical imaging system” is a recitation of intended use which does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, and therefore does not carry patentable weight.
Farrokhnia discloses the system according to claim 11, but does not expressly disclose an adapter jig coupled to at least one of the plurality of carrier jigs.
Pierre discloses an adapter jig (2) coupled to a plurality of phantom carrier jigs (3 (30-31); ¶¶ 158-159; Figs. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have modified the invention of Farrokhnia in view of the teachings of Pierre to include an adapter jig coupled to at least one of the plurality of carrier jigs.
One would have been motivated to do so to match a desired shape as suggested by Pierre in paragraph 159.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Farrokhnia discloses the system according to claim 11, further comprising: a carrier jig chain comprises a chain of carrier jigs (two carrier jigs 200, 400) where the first jig (200) in said carrier jig chain is the carrier jig; and where a subsequent connected jig (400) attached to said carrier jig (200) is selected from a group including a plurality of carrier jigs (200, 400); and where said carrier jig chain comprises one or more carrier jigs (200, 400; col. 11, ll. 36-54; Figs. 2 (jig 200), 4 (jig 400), and 5 (jig 200 inserted into jig 400)).
Farrokhnia does not expressly disclose the carrier jig chain further comprises an adapter jig. For this limitation, see the rejection of claim 12 above.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Farrokhnia as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pierre and Gagneur (US 2020/0179723 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Farrokhnia discloses the system according to claim 11. For the further limitations of claim 13. Farrokhnia does not expressly disclose an adapter jig. For this limitation, see the rejection of claim 12 above.
Farrokhnia modified does not expressly disclose an index bar coupler, wherein the adapter jig is removable coupled to the index bar, wherein the index bar is removably coupled to the treatment couch, wherein the adapter jig fixes the positions of the plurality of carrier jigs at reference locations relative to the treatment couch.
Gagneur discloses an index bar coupler (50) which is a laterally-oriented notch on a side of a base of phantom (10); wherein the index bar coupler (50) is operable to fix the location of the phantom (10) on a treatment couch by straddling an index bar (52) that is coupled to the treatment couch (¶¶ 13, 45; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Farrokhnia in view of the teachings of Gagneur to include an index bar coupler, wherein the adapter jig is removable coupled to the index bar, wherein the index bar is removably coupled to the treatment couch, wherein the adapter jig fixes the positions of the plurality of carrier jigs at reference locations relative to the treatment couch.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide a convenient means for placing one or more phantoms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest the claimed invention, particularly wherein each of said one or more positioning assistants operable to position and retain a calibration phantom at fixed reference locations relative to a treatment couch, wherein any of said one or more jig-to-jig interfaces are operable to couple the carrier jig to one or more adjacent carrier jigs, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The cited prior art discloses some elements of the claim. Farrokhnia discloses a carrier jig (400) comprising a base portion (430), one or more jig-to-jig interfaces (470), and one or more positioning assistants (460); where the one or more positioning assistants (460) support and orient a calibration phantom (one or more of 250, 260, 270); where the one or jig-to-jig interfaces (470) are operable to couple the carrier jig (400) to one or more adjacent jigs (200; jig 200: col. 4, l. 43 - col. 5, l. 30 and col. 6, l. 38 - col. 7, l. 3; carrier jig 400 and insertion of jig 200: col. 8, l. 11 - col. 9, l. 43; the phantom is used for calibration: col. 11, ll. 36-54; Figs. 2 (jig 200), 4 (jig 400), and 5 (jig 200 inserted into jig 400)).
Scheib (US 2017/0080254 A1) discloses one or more positioning assistants of a jig (120) comprising a plurality of side walls (of depression 123), a plurality of corner supports (of depression 123), and a central depression (123); where the jig (120) is configured to support a phantom (110) by retaining the phantom (110) within the plurality of side walls, the plurality of corner supports, and the central depression (123) when the phantom (110) is positioned on the top of the jig (123; ¶¶ 41-46; Fig. 4).
While various means for positioning phantoms were generally known in the art, as were chains of jigs and positioning assistants in general, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration. Accordingly, claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-5
Regarding claims 2-5, the claims are allowed due to their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arnold (US 5,335,260 A) discloses calibration phantom representative of human tissue containing variable concentrations of calcium serves as a calibration reference for quantifying calcium, bone mass and bone mineral density in radiography and CT imaging systems (Abstract).
Stringer (US 2023/0036916 A1) discloses a calibration phantom for radiometric characterization and/or radiotherapy dose calculation of a subject is provided, which includes an ellipsoid base having a primary volume defining a plurality of cylindrical voids, each of said cylindrical voids configured to receive a cylindrical insert having a diameter, wherein the ellipsoid base, the primary volume, and each of said inserts are formed from a tissue substitution material independently selected to approximate a radiological property of an anatomical feature of the subject to which the ellipsoid base, the primary volume, and each of said inserts corresponds, wherein the radiological property of the tissue substitution material, the diameter of each of said inserts, and a location of each of said inserts within the ellipsoid base are selected to mimic beam hardening upon exposure of the calibration phantom to a radiation beam (Abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-2995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884