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 preliminary amendment filed on 3 November 2023 has been accepted and entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, it is unclear what is meant by “tens of degrees, or up to or close to 360 degrees”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "a similar or similarly functioning structure" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "a similar or similarly functioning structure"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “at least seven roller cylinders”, and the claim also recites “such as ten roller cylinders” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 3, 7, 9, and 13 would be allowable for reasons of dependency if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, Tsukamoto (JP 2002034960A, translation enclosed) discloses an x-ray imaging system (par. [0010]) comprising a first elongated frame part (3), a first support construction extending from the first elongated frame part (C-arm, 4), an x-ray source (5) and an image detector (6) which together form an x-ray imaging means mounted to the first support construction (par. [0010]), a cabling running into an inside the first support construction and further to at least either of the x-ray imaging means (shown in Fig. 2-5), the cabling conveying at least either of electric power and data (par. [0010]), and a control system (2). Tsukamoto does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed first support structure having the claimed configuration including an inner cabling support structure and outer cabling support structure, first and second cable fixing structures, and driving mechanism, configurated and functioning as claimed.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 are allowable for reasons of dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 17 February 2026
Prosecution Insights