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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement between Groups I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on December 31, 2025, has been reconsidered and withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boiman et al. (US 2011/0218997; hereinafter Boiman).
Regarding claim 1, Boiman discloses an optical monitoring system, comprising: at least one optical sensor configured to detect signals of a optical parameter thereby generating measurement data (par. 2: camera-phones (e.g., iPhone)), and a processor configured to analyze the generated measurement data (par. 70: automatic image analysis) and to transmit the generated measurement data to a remote system (par. 265: for further professional production).
Note that recitations (i.e., for monitoring an X-ray tube, wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameters are by-products and/or side-effects of an electron beam and/or emitted X-ray radiation generated by the X-ray tube, wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameters are different from each other; and to a remote system external of optical monitoring system and the X-ray tube) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, recitations (i.e., wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameter are selected from the group consisting of plasma glow, discharges, micro-discharges, arcs, x-ray fluorescence, and line emissions) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Furthermore, inclusion of an element (i.e., “wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameter are selected from the group consisting of plasma glow, discharges, micro-discharges, arcs, x-ray fluorescence, and line emissions”) worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Therefore, these recitations have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, Boiman necessarily includes wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameter exclude X-ray radiation, and the first signals and the second signals exclude X-ray radiation signals (par. 2: since it’s an optical camera).
Also note that recitations (i.e., wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameter exclude X-ray radiation, and the first signals and the second signals exclude X-ray radiation signals) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Furthermore, inclusion of an element (i.e., “wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameter exclude X-ray radiation”) worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Therefore, these recitations have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, Boiman discloses wherein the optical sensor is necessarily configured to detect line emissions from at least one of the chemical elements B, Si, Na, K, Ca, Sr, Mg, O, N, H, W, Re, Rh, Ga, In, Sn, Mo, Ni, Co, Be, Al, and Fe, as first signal (par. 2: since it’s an optical camera).
Regarding claim 8, Boiman necessarily includes a power supply (par. 2: to power the iPhone).
Regarding claim 14, Boiman discloses a method comprising: detecting first signals of a first optical parameter and second signals of a second optical parameter by at least one optical sensor of an optical monitoring system (par. 2: camera-phones (e.g., iPhone)); generating measurement data based on the detected first signals and the second signals, wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameter are different from each other (par. 2: with the camera), analyzing the generated measurement data (par. 70: automatic image analysis); and transmitting the generated measurement data and/or a result of an analysis of measurement data to a remote system external of the X-ray tube and of the optical monitoring system (par. 265: for further professional production).
Note that preamble recitations (i.e., a computer-implemented method for monitoring an X-ray tube”) have not been given patentable weight because a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cato (US 2009/0133499).
Boiman discloses claim 1.
However, Boiman fails to disclose at least one non-optical sensor configured to detect signals of at least one non-optical parameter.
Cato teaches at least one non-optical sensor configured to detect signals of at least one non-optical parameter (par. 6: accelerometers).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Boiman with the teaching of Cato, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more functions (Cato: par. 6).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0249554; hereinafter Chen).
Boiman discloses claim 1.
However, Boiman fails to disclose wherein the optical monitoring system is configured to use cell-phone-based communication or another wireless communication to transmit the collected signals and/or the analysis results to the remote system.
Chen teaches wherein the optical monitoring system is configured to use cell-phone-based communication or another wireless communication to transmit the collected signals and/or the analysis results to the remote system (par. 20).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Boiman with the teaching of Chen, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier communication.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiman as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mullins et al. (US 2014/0125822; hereinafter Mullins).
Boiman discloses claim 1.
However, Boiman fails to disclose wherein collecting the first signals of the first optical parameter and the second signals of the second optical parameter includes time-stamping the signals and saving the signals.
Mullins teaches wherein collecting the first signals of the first optical parameter and the second signals of the second optical parameter includes time-stamping the signals and saving the signals (par. 64).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Boiman with the teaching of Mullins, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier management (Mullins: par. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 17 and its dependent claim, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest an optical monitoring system for monitoring an X-ray tube, including wherein the processor is configured to: store an X-ray tube lifetime model comprising at least one predefined pattern for tube status and/or tube aging; and to analyze the detected first signals of the first optical parameter and the detected second signals of the second optical parameter based on the stored X-ray tube lifetime model, in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, David Makiya can be reached on (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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884