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 Request for Continued Examination filed on March 4, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Muller fails to disclose “determining a center of a region of interest in a referential of the C-arm”. Applicant states that Muller shows in Fig. 4 that the referential (X,Y) is a referential of the table and not the C-arm. Applicant argues that Muller shows that the referential does not move along the trajectory of the C-arm in Fig. 5. However, Muller does not define the point (X,Y) as being the referential of the table. The point (X,Y) is defined as the isocenter of the ROI in [0044]. Muller shows the imaging geometry of the imaging in Fig. 4 and as disclosed in [0043]. As currently written, neither the claims nor the specification define what is meant by the referential. The Examiner has interpreted “referential” as the coordinate system.
Applicant further argues that Muller fails to disclose the referential of the C-arm because Muller discloses the position of the source and detector are adjusted according to the ROI in [0032]. However, Muller discloses adjusting the positions/trajectory in [0032] as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 which is similar to Applicant’s Fig. 1 and Fig. 7.
Applicant argues that the Office action failed to respond to their argument with regards to Muller fails to disclose computing the translation of the C-arm. However, The Examiner stated that Muller discloses using the ROI to determine the position of the source and detector in [0032] and to determine the trajectory in [0043]. Applicant further argues that Muller fails to disclose computing the translation of the C-arm because Muller discloses that the SID, SOD, and OID remain fixed throughout the imaging procedure. However, Muller discloses that the detector position is changed to reduce the distances in [0044] and discloses that the SID, SOD, and OID changed be adjusted by controlling the trajectory of one or both of the source and detector in [0048].
Applicant further argues that the Office action did not answer the substance of the Applicant’s arguments relating to Tang not disclosing the claimed translation. As noted in the previous Office action, the Examiner relied cited Muller in regards to the limitation directed to the translation computation and not Tang. In response to applicant's argument that Tang fails to teach the translation computation, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6, filed March 4, 2026, with respect to abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the abstract has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the Abstract.
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 Tang (U.S. 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 of the C-arm ([0032] and [0043], trajectory of the detector and source are determined) 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 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.
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).
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).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Muller 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 (Muller; [0047-0048], moving the detector toward or away from the object to avoid collisions).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Muller 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 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 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 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) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lienard (U.S. 2001/0054695).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Muller and Tang discloses the method according to claim 6.
However, the combination of Muller 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) and Tang (U.S. 2018/0353151).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Muller 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 and Tang fails to discloses 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 discloses 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
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