“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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 7, 10, and 21, Examiner apologizes for the lack of clarification regarding the status of these claims. The status of said claims is clarified herein.
The rejection of claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the previous Non-Final Office Action of 6/12/2025 are indeed overcome by the amendments set forth by Applicant. The rejection of claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are therefore withdrawn. However, the status of these claims remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasoning as set forth in the aforementioned previous Non-Final Office Action.
Examiner thanks Applicant for providing clarification on the intended limitation set forth within claim 21, and the objection to claim 21 is withdrawn. However, the status of claim 21 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the aforementioned previous Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant asserts that the cited prior art of the previous rejection, Bernard (EP3320844A1) in view of Zamenhof (US20180333109A1), differs substantially from the teachings of the claimed invention, which instead discloses a method comprising performing a 2D imaging procedure delivering X-rays at a first energy to obtain a first image and at a second energy to obtain a second image (the first energy being lower than the second energy (see page 15, lines 11-17)) and then a tomosynthesis-type 3D imaging at a third energy (the third energy is equal to or about equal to the second energy. Further, Applicant states that the "low energy"/"high energy" effect according to the proposed invention can be obtained by choosing the high (anodic) voltage to be supplied as input.
This argument has been fully considered but is respectfully found unpersuasive. While the differences between the cited prior art and the claimed invention are well outlined by Applicant’s arguments, these arguments hinge on aspects of the claimed invention that exist within the detailed specification but are not clearly illustrated by the language used within the claim limitations. Notably, that the so-called “low energy"/"high energy" effect can be obtained by choosing the high (anodic) voltage to be supplied as input. The other remaining differences as pointed out by Applicant are acknowledged, but no amendments have been made that would alter the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as previously set forth. This lack of distinction within the claims, in combination with the broadest reasonable interpretation provided by Examiner in the aforementioned previous Non-Final Office Action and upheld in the previous Final Office Action of 10/30/2025, renders the claims unpatentable.
With regards to newly amended claim 1, the additional subject matter is derived from now-cancelled claims 3 and 4, with the added limitation that the “third energy” may be lower than the “second energy”. Claims 3 and 4 previously stood rejected under U.S.C. 103, citing Bernard in view of Zamenhof. The subject matter derived from these claims and incorporated into claim 1 remains rejected on the same grounds as previously established in the previous Non-Final and Final Office Actions. The previous rejections of claims 3 and 4 are therefore incorporated into claim 1 as will be addressed in the claim rejections below. The added limitation of the “third energy” being lower than the “second energy” is based on a possible condition where the two energies are different. This case wherein the energies are different is recited within a limitation claiming the energies may be equal OR different, meaning a rejection based on the instance wherein the two energies are equal is sufficient to reject the full limitation outright. However, the rejection of claim 5 also covers a case wherein the “third energy” is lower than the “second energy” by 10-30%. Thus the rejection of claim 5 is also incorporated into the updated rejection of claim 1 in order to meet this possible case.
With regards to newly amended claim 5, Examiner thanks Applicant for providing more clarifying language. However, the additional clarification does not sufficiently limit the scope of the claim so as to place it in allowance. The condition of the “third energy” and “second energy” being different from one another is implied by the main limitation of claim 5 that states the two energies differ by 10-30%. Thus the scope of claim 5 does not overcome the prior art and the previous rejection of claim 5 remains in effect.
Newly added claims 23-24 are similar to claim 1, yet both claims omit certain limitations of the currently amended claim 1. No other language has been added or altered from that of claim 1. In other words, the scope of claim 1 encompasses these new claims. Therefore, the updated rejection of claim 1 is incorporated into the rejection of claims 23-24 herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 5-18, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard in view of Zamenhof.
Regarding claim 1, as stated previously in the Response to Arguments herein, the newly amended subject matter of claim 1 aligns with the subject matter of now-cancelled claims 3 and 4. Therefore, the previous rejection of these claims as set forth in the aforementioned last Non-Final and Final Office Actions are incorporated into the rejection of claim 1. Further, as stated previously in the Response to Arguments herein, the newly added conditional limitation of the “third energy” and “second energy” being equal OR different with the “third energy” being lower than the “second energy” is met by the incorporated rejection of claim 4 due to the conditional structure of the limitation. However, regarding this second condition, as also stated previously, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein to meet the possible case where said “third energy” is indeed lower than said “second energy”.
Regarding claim 5, as stated previously in the Response to Arguments herein, the added clarification does not sufficiently limit the claim enough to modify its scope beyond what is met by the previous rejection of the claim. The difference between energy levels being 10-30% would imply that the two energies are already different from one another.
Regarding newly added claim 23, the claim simply omits language from claim 1, in particular, the case wherein the “second energy” and “third energy” are equal has been omitted. No additional subject matter is presented in claim 23. The aspect of these two energies being different, with the third being lower than the second, has already been met in the updated rejection of newly amended claim 1, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 24, the claim also omits language from claim 1, this time omitting the case wherein the second and third energies are different, only leaving the case in which they are equal. This is met by the updated rejection of newly amended claim 1, the analysis of which is incorporated herein.
Regarding all remaining claims, 2, 6-18, 21-22, the previous grounds for
rejection set forth in the aforementioned previous Non-Final Office Action are incorporated herein.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK whose telephone number is (703)756-5378. The examiner can normally be reached 8a-5p.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES BODNARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights