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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments regarding claims 1, 2, 6, and 20 pertaining to the newly added subject matter are moot and the limitations are now rejected in view of Cogan. Arguments regarding claim 3 pertaining to the newly added subject matter are moot and the limitations are now rejected in view of Watts, JR. Claim 18 is now rejected in view of Kucek. Arguments regarding claim 19 pertaining to the newly added subject matter are moot and the limitations are now rejected in view of Zimmerman. Remarks pertaining to Boskamp and Pronk references are moot in view of the updated rejection of claim 6. Please kindly see the rejection.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Cogan (US 9294631 B1; March 22, 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable media embodying instructions executable by machine to perform operations for troubleshooting a medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1), the operations comprising:
triggering one or more diagnostic tasks to be performed by one or more components of the medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1);
acquiring, by one or more sensors, state data of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1);
generating one or more representations of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment based on the processed data, the state data, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 115, 90, Figure 1, 4, Claim 1).
Sullivan does not disclose identifying a root cause of error by performing pattern analysis using one or more predefined state data patterns based on the state data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of state data values.
Cogan teaches identifying a root cause of error by performing pattern analysis using one or more predefined state data patterns based on the state data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of state data values (Claim 1).
Therefore, from the teaching, of Cogan it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since pattern analysis is a known method for identifying a root cause.
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan in view of Cogan teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1. Cogan further discloses wherein the operations further comprise generating user interface that enables creating, editing or management of the one or more pre-defined state data patterns (Column 4 Lines 1-42)
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more representations comprise a graphical panel that includes one or more graphical representations of the one or more components that are dynamically updated based on the state data (Paragraph 106-107, Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more diagnostic tasks comprise moving to a predetermined position, testing, calibrating, displaying, or a combination thereof (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan discloses a troubleshooting system, comprising:
one or more sensors that acquire state data of one or more components of a medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1); and
a computer system in communication with the one or more sensors, wherein the computer system includes
a non-transitory memory device for storing computer readable program code (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1), and
a processor in communication with the non-transitory memory device, the processor being operative with the computer readable program code to perform operations including
generating one or more representations of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment based on the processed data, the log event data, the state data, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 115, 90, Figure 1, 4, Claim 1).
Sullivan does not disclose identifying a root cause of error by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre-defined state data patterns based on the state data and log event data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of state data values.
Cogan teaches identifying a root cause of error by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre-defined state data patterns based on the state data and log event data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of state data values. (Claim 1).
Therefore, from the teaching, of Cogan it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since pattern analysis is a known method for identifying a root cause.
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the trouble shooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a position sensor, a voltage sensor, a temperature sensor, a camera, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a time-of-flight sensor, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 80).
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more components comprise a gantry, a slip ring, a cooling system, a generator, a computing device, a scanner head, a front patient handling system (PHS), a rear PHS, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 41-48).
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the state data comprises positional sensor values, voltage values, temperature values, configuration data, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 41-48)
Regarding claim 11, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more sensors continuously acquire the state data at predetermined regular intervals (Paragraph 41-48)
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Cogan further discloses wherein the processor is operative with the computer readable program code to generate a user interface that enables creating, editing or management of the one or more pre-defined state data patterns (Column 4 Lines 1-42)
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the one or more representations comprise a user interface with an information panel and a graphical panel that includes one or more graphical representations of the one or more components, wherein the information panel and the graphical panel are dynamically updated by the state data (Paragraph 41-48, 65-71 198).
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 13. Sullivan further discloses wherein the user interface further comprises a navigation panel that is dynamically updated by the state data (Paragraph 41-51, 65-71 198).
Regarding claim 15, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 13. Sullivan further discloses wherein the user interface further comprises a log events table that highlights log events of interest (Paragraph 106-108).
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 13. Sullivan further discloses wherein the user interface further comprises an interactive timeline that highlights log events of interest (Paragraph 106-108).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the processor is further operative with the computer readable program code to trigger one or more diagnostic tasks to be performed by the medical imaging equipment (Paragraph 109-119).
Regarding claim 20, Sullivan discloses a method for troubleshooting a medical imaging equipment, comprising:
receiving log event data, state data of one or more components of the medical imaging equipment (Paragraphs 50-57, 106-108, 184-187, Figure 1, Claim 1);
generating one or more representations of the one or more components of the medical imaging equipment based on the processed data, the log event data, the state data, or a combination thereof (Paragraphs 115, 90, Figure 1, 4, Claim 1).
Sullivan does not teach identifying a root cause of error by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre- defined state data patterns based on the log event data and the state data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of state data values.
Cogan teaches identifying a root cause of error by performing pattern analysis using one or more pre- defined state data patterns based on the log event data and the state data to generate processed data, wherein performing the pattern analysis includes analyzing a logical sequence of state data values. (Claim 1).
Therefore, from the teaching, of Cogan it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation since pattern analysis is a known method for identifying a root cause.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Cogan (US 9294631 B1; March 22, 2016) in view of Watts, JR (US 2015/0264138 A1; September 17, 2015).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan in view of Cogan teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the user interface include at least one interactive user interface element that enables syntax checking of the one or more pre-defined state data patterns.
Watts, JR teaches wherein the user interface include at least one interactive user interface element that enables syntax checking of the one or more pre-defined state data patterns (Paragraph 116).
Therefore, from the teaching of Watt, JR., it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitation in order to ensure increased accuracy of the state data by providing a method to check the syntax of the pattern.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Cogan (US 9294631 B1; March 22, 2016) in view of Boskamp ( US 2016/0187434 A1; June 30, 2016).
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan in view of Cogan does not disclose wherein the medical imaging equipment comprises a modality that acquires medical image data using high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, computed tomography (CT), helical CT, X-ray, angiography, positron emission tomography (PET), fluoroscopy, ultrasound, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), photoacoustics, microwaves, optical coherence tomography, or a combination thereof.
Boskamp discloses wherein the medical imaging equipment comprises a modality that acquires medical image data using high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, computed tomography (CT), helical CT, X-ray, angiography, positron emission tomography (PET), fluoroscopy, ultrasound, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), photoacoustics, microwaves, optical coherence tomography, or a combination thereof. (Paragraph 41-48, Abstract)
Therefore, from the teaching of Boskamp, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify that the medical imaging equipment was an MRI machine as it is a known machine which would need troubleshooting.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Cogan (US 9294631 B1; March 22, 2016) in view of Kucek (US6832199B1; December 14, 2004).
Regarding claim 18, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 17. Sullivan in view of Cogan fail to discloses wherein the one or more diagnostic tasks comprise moving the medical imaging equipment to home, exercise or cycle positions.
Kucek teaches the present invention relates to medical diagnostic equipment which provides the equipment user with a facility for creating an electronic list of tasks (hereinafter "task list") to be performed by a field engineer which do not require an emergency service call. In accordance with the preferred embodiment of the invention, this electronic task list resides in the medical diagnostic equipment (e.g., a scanner) and is created by the end-user interacting with a graphical user interface.
Therefore from the teaching of Kucek, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the tasks such as home, exercise, or cycle positions as these are just a design choice as needed by the current program.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US 20230260642 A1; Priority February 17, 2022) in view of Cogan (US 9294631 B1; March 22, 2016) in view of Zimmerman (US 2021/0092116 A1; March 25, 2021).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan in view of Cogan discloses the troubleshooting system of claim 6. Sullivan further discloses wherein the state data is communicated between the one or more sensors and the computer system (Paragraph 74).
Sullivan in view of Cogan fail to disclose wherein the state data is communicated between the one or more sensors and the computer system using WebSocket via a full-duplex communication channel.
Zimmerman teaches wherein the data is communicated using WebSocket via a full-duplex communication channel. (Paragraph 39)
Therefore, from the teaching of Zimmerman, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the abovementioned limitations since this is a known data transfer connection method that ensures efficiency in the cost of the external link (Paragraph 39)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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://patentc\enter.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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884