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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for monitoring an X-ray tube” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes the physical structure of the optical monitoring system invention and the language recited in the preamble (i.e., for monitoring an X-ray tube”) does not provide any distinct definition (i.e., a physical structural limitation) of any of the claimed invention’s limitations for the physical structure of the optical monitoring system itself. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction for the physical structure of the optical monitoring system itself. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
These preamble recitations (i.e., “for monitoring an X-ray tube”) do not physically limit the structure of the claimed optical monitoring system itself. The claimed system physically is not an X-ray tube. The recitations to the X-ray tube instead involve how the physically claimed optical monitoring system is intended to be used. A recitation (i.e., “for monitoring an X-ray tube”) of the intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., “[a]n optical monitoring system”) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention (i.e., the “optical monitoring system”) and the prior art (e.g., the iPhone disclosed in Boiman) in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention (i.e., the optical monitoring system”) from the prior art (i.e., the iPhone). If the prior art structure (i.e., the iPhone) is capable of performing the intended use (i.e., “for monitoring an X-ray tube”), then it (i.e., the iPhone) meets the claim (i.e., claim 1 of the instant application).
The iPhone with its camera reads on the claimed optical monitoring system, since the camera inherently possesses functions that can detect first signals of a first optical parameter and second signals of a second optical parameter, wherein the first optical parameters and the second optical parameter are different from each other, thereby generating measurement data output via its camera, which is an optical detector that can function as an optical monitoring system. Recitations (i.e., “wherein the first optical parameter and the second optical parameter are by-products and/or side-effects of an electron beam and/or emitted X-ray radiation generated by the X-ray tube”) of the intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., the optical monitoring system) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention (i.e., the optical monitoring system itself) and the prior art (i.e., the iPhone with the camera) in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure (i.e., the iPhone) is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant has not argued why the iPhone is not capable of performing the recitations involving intended use. The iPhone with the camera and its image/video processing capabilities (Boiman: pars. 2, 40, and 265) can be and is at least one optical sensor configured to detect first and second optical parameters. Since Applicant has not described any structural difference between the claimed invention (i.e., the “optical monitoring system”) and the prior art (e.g., the iPhone disclosed in Boiman) in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the prior art (i.e., Boiman with its iPhone) still reads on claim 1 as recited, and the claim remains rejected.
As a further illustration of how claim recitations may patentably distinguish with structural differences from the prior art, the Examiner notes that claim 17 of the instant application, which has been indicated as having allowable subject matter, includes the processor 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. These recitations in claim 17 structurally distinguish the claimed processor from the prior art iPhone, in a physical sense, since an iPhone would not have the processor configured (in a physical sense) 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. Therefore, claim 17 illustrates claim language that would physically and patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art iPhone, while language of claim 1 does not as explained above. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights