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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim objection for claim 1 – 9 has been considered and pound persuasive. Claim objection regarding claim 1-9 has been withdrawn.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that Ermes and Qin is silent on the following limitations below. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided below:
In the Remarks (p.5 and p.6) regarding claim 1, 4-6, 8-10,13-17,19 and 20 applicants assert, “Qin is silent about "a boundary image (i) of a boundary (i) of the radiation beam (i)," "in the partial image (i)" captured by "a radiation detector”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because examiner considers the binocular camera mounted on the robot produces the beam. In the claim line 2, "used for collecting the to-be-spliced image frame", in this regards examiner consider the limitation of partial image because the spiced image is consisted of the combination of partial images. Additionally, In Page – 5 Qin discloses, "The image splicing system processing module is implemented on a processor. In this embodiment, the processor is a quad-core Cortex-A15 processor. The image splicing system processing module comprises: a preprocessing module, a boundary line locating module, a coincidence area image registration module", in this regard it is clear that there is a boundary and image registration which does the alignment corresponds to applicants pinpointing picture elements. Furthermore, the primary prior art also discloses about the radiation beams in [0005].
For the reasons above, the rejections of claims 1 – 20 as established in the last Office Action (Non-Final, 08/25/2025) are proper and are hereby maintained and incorporated in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 13 – 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ermes et al. US Patent Application Publication No. US-20100172472-A1 (hereinafter Ermes) in view of Qin Patent Application Publication No. CN-109064409-A (hereinafter Qin).
Regarding claim 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 13 – 17, 19, 20 the grounds of rejection from the last Office Action with respect to Ermes in view of Qin apply here.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ermes in view of Qin and further in view of Sadi US Patent Application Publication No. US-2016088280-A1 (hereinafter Sadi).
Regarding claim 1, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 13 – 17, 19, 20 the grounds of rejection from the last Office Action with respect to Ermes in view of Qin and further in view of Sadi apply here.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Vu Le can be reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
03/07/2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668