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
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on July 14, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 4-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the gantry and detector being fixed in the referential, and the referential) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains the term “comprises” which is legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determining a translation axis extending between the X-ray source and a center of the X-ray image detector and passing by the center of the region of interest” is not adequately described by the specification. In particular, the specification discloses that the central axis extends between the source and the center of the image detector in [0092]. However, the specification fails to disclose determining an axis. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter that is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (U.S. 2019/0000407) in view of Jensen (U.S. 2003/0099328) and Tang (2018/0353151).
Regarding claim 1:
Muller discloses a method for computing an optimal trajectory of a motorized C-arm for an acquisition of a 3D image of a region of interest of a body lying on an operating table, said C-arm comprising a gantry (Fig. 1, 12), an X-ray source (Fig. 1, 14) and an X-ray image detector (Fig. 1, 20), the X-ray source and the X-ray image detector being fixed to the gantry so as to be moved together by the gantry ([0030], gantry moving C-arm), said optimal trajectory comprising at least two different angular positions of acquisition around a rotation axis of the C-arm, said method comprising:
determining region of interest in a referential of the C-arm ([0042], operator selects a ROI; Fig. 4, X and Y axis); and
for each angular position of the C-arm of said optimal trajectory, computing a translation ([0032] and [0043], trajectory of the detector and source are determined) to reduce a distance between the X-ray image detector ([0043]-[0048], source to imager distance, source to object distance and object to imager distance are adjusted by moving the detector toward or away from the object; the center of the ROI is used to determine the object to imager distance) and the center of the region of interest and increase a distance between the X-ray source and the center of the region of interest ([0048], varying SID and SOD) whilst avoiding collisions between the X-ray source and detector and at least one of the operating table and the body ([0043]-[0048], source to imager distance, source to object distance and object to imager distance are adjusted by moving the detector toward or away from the object to avoid collisions).
However, Muller fails to explicitly disclose determining a center of the region of interest; determining a translation axis extending between the X-ray source and a center of the X-ray image detector and passing by the center of the region of interest and computing a translation displacement of the C-arm along the translation axis to reduce a distance between the X-ray image detector and the center of the region of interest and increase a distance between the X-ray source and the center of the region of interest.
Tang teaches determining a center of the region of interest ([0076], the coordinates for the center of the ROI is determined from the location data).
Jensen teaches determining a translation axis extending between the X-ray source and a center of the X-ray image detector and passing by the center of the region of interest (fig. 4-Fig. 10, center of beam 303 goes thru center detector and ROI) and computing a translation displacement of the C-arm along the translation axis to reduce a distance between the X-ray image detector and the center of the region of interest ([0040], detector is toward patient) and increase a distance between the X-ray source and the center of the region of interest ([0040]-[0041], source is moved away from the patient).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging trajectory method of Muller with the region center determination taught by Tang in order to improve imaging accuracy by improving positioning (Tang; [0003]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging trajectory method of Muller with the C-arm translation taught by Jensen in order to improve image quality by reducing image blur (Jensen; [0010]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a maximum displacement of the C-arm along said translation axis is reached along at least one degree of freedom of said C-arm (Jensen; [0033], maximum radial positions for detector and source).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the trajectory comprises an orbital rotation (Muller; [0030], C-arm rotates about at least two axes) and a rotation relative to a vertical plane transversal to the operating table (Muller; [0030], C-arm rotates about at least two axes).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the operating table presents at least one motorized degree of freedom according to a vertical translation (Muller; [0047-0048], moving the table to avoid collisions) and the method further comprises computing a vertical translation of the operating table to reduce the distance between the X- ray image detector and the center of the region of interest (Muller; [0047-0048], moving the table to avoid collisions).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang discloses a method for acquiring a 3D image of a region of interest of a body lying on an operating table with a motorized C-arm, comprising:
computing an optimal trajectory of the C-arm with the method of claim 1 (as rejected above);
controlling the C-arm to execute said optimal trajectory and acquire a set of 2D X-ray images for each respective angular position of the C-arm along said optimal trajectory (Muller; [0045], images obtained while C-arm is rotated), each 2D x-ray image of the set being recorded in the referential of the C-arm ([0047], the field of view coincides with the ROI); and
reconstructing a 3D image of the region of interest based on said set of 2D X- ray images (Muller; [0045], 3D image reconstructed).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the operating table presents at least one motorized degree of freedom according to a vertical translation (Muller; [0047-0048], moving the table to avoid collisions), the method further comprising controlling a motorized vertical translation of the operating table during execution of the C-arm trajectory to translate the center of the region of interest toward the image detector. (Muller; [0047-0048], moving the table to avoid collisions).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (U.S. 2019/0000407) in view of Tang (U.S. 2018/0353151) and Jensen (U.S. 2003/0099328) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lienard (U.S. 2001/0054695).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang discloses the method according to claim 6.
However, The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang fails to disclose wherein the C-arm comprises an anti-collision system, the method further comprising, before acquiring 2D X-ray images, activating the anti-collision system and moving the C-arm according to the optimal trajectory to detect a risk of collision with the operating table, the patient or another obstacle along said trajectory.
Lienard teaches wherein the C-arm comprises an anti-collision system ([0038], control unit controlling the C-arm to avoid collisions), the method further comprising, before acquiring 2D X-ray images, activating the anti-collision system and moving the C-arm according to the optimal trajectory to detect a risk of collision with the operating table, the patient or another obstacle along said trajectory ([0038], control unit controlling the C-arm to avoid collisions when a collision is detected).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging trajectory method of Muller with the anti-collision taught by Lienard in order to improve safety by avoiding collisions (Leinard; [0038]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowable
Claim 3 is 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:
The closest prior arts are Muller (U.S. 2019/0000407), Jensen (U.S. 2003/0099328) and Tang (U.S. 2018/0353151).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Muller, Jensen, and Tang discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the trajectory is an orbital rotation (Muller; [0030], C-arm rotates about at least two axes).
However, the combination of Muller, Jensen and Tang fails to disclose a center of rotation of said orbital rotation follows a trajectory made of three consecutive linear segments: a downward vertical translation; a horizontal translation; and an upward vertical translation.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claim 12:
Muller discloses a method for computing an optimal trajectory of a motorized C-arm for an acquisition of a 3D image of a region of interest of a body lying on an operating table, said C-arm comprising an X-ray source and an X-ray image detector, said optimal trajectory comprising at least two different angular positions of acquisition around a rotation axis of the C-arm, said method comprising:
determining region of interest ([0042], operator selects a ROI; Fig. 4); and
for each angular position of the C-arm of said optimal trajectory, computing a translation of the C-arm along a central axis extending between the X-ray source and a center of the X-ray image detector ([0043]-[0048], source to imager distance, source to object distance and object to imager distance are adjusted by moving the detector toward or away from the object) and passing by said center of the region of interest to reduce a distance between the X-ray image detector ([0043]-[0048], source to imager distance, source to object distance and object to imager distance are adjusted by moving the detector toward or away from the object; the center of the ROI is used to determine the object to imager distance) and the center of the region of interest whilst avoiding collisions between the X-ray source and detector and at least one of the operating table and the body ([0043]-[0048], source to imager distance, source to object distance and object to imager distance are adjusted by moving the detector toward or away from the object to avoid collisions).,
the trajectory is an orbital rotation ( [0030], C-arm rotates about at least two axes).
Tang teaches determining a center of the region of interest ([0076], the coordinates for the center of the ROI is determined from the location data).
However, the combination of Muller and Tang fails to disclose a center of rotation of said orbital rotation follows a trajectory made of three consecutive linear segments: a downward vertical translation; a horizontal translation; and an upward vertical translation.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record.
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 SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights