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 September 28, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant argues that it would be premature to file a terminal disclaimer since no claims have been indicated as allowable. This argument is similar to the arguments made in responses filed on October 10, 2024, on July 14, 2025, and on January 22, 2026. However, as noted in the previous Office action, the rejection will not be held in abeyance. A reply showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer is required. See MPEP 804.1(B).
Applicant further argues that the Office action is inconsistent as to whether or not Chandwadkar discloses supplemental sensors because the Office action states that the sensors are disclosed in [0069] and states that Chandwadkar fails to disclose a plurality of supplemental sensors associated with the add-on system. However, as noted in the previous Office action, Chandwadkar discloses a plurality of supplemental sensors in [0069] but fails to disclose the supplemental sensors being associated with the add-on system. The claim fails to define what the add-on system is and how the supplemental sensors are part of the add-on system. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Belson teaches protecting the operator from being exposed to X-rays for improved safety in [0008].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11744529 (notated as Yifat ‘529). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claims of the previous application anticipate the broader claims of the current application.
Regarding claim 1:
Yifat ‘529 discloses a supplementary collision detection and prevention system for use in combination with medical imaging equipment which includes a native anti-collision mechanism having native sensors and an add-on system, the supplementary collision detection and prevention system comprising:
a plurality of supplemental sensors associated with the add-on system, wherein the plurality of supplemental sensors is any one of a proximity sensor and/or contact sensor, and/or an inertial motion sensor, and/or an operator detection sensor, and/or an electrical current sensor configured to facilitate prevention or protection from collision with an entity (Claim 1); and
an interface configured to receive communication from at least one of the plurality of supplemental sensors and to transmit a signal to the native anti-collision mechanism to actuate an anti-collision operation of the medical imaging equipment to avoid or mitigate a collision (Claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandwadkar (2018/0289342) in view of Belson (U.S. 2009/0232282).
Regarding claim 1:
Chandwadkar discloses a supplementary collision detection and prevention system for use in combination with medical imaging equipment which comprises a native anti-collision mechanism having native sensors and an add-on system, the supplementary collision detection and prevention system comprising:
a plurality of supplemental sensors ([0069], proximity sensors), wherein the plurality of supplemental sensors is any one of a proximity sensor ([0069], proximity sensors) and/or contact sensor, and/or an inertial motion sensor, and/or an operator detection sensor, and/or an electrical current sensor configured to facilitate prevention or protection from collision with an entity; and
an interface ([0068], anti-collision unit) configured to receive communication from at least one of the plurality of supplemental sensors ([0068], sensor communicates with anti-collision unit) and to transmit a signal that actuates an anti-collision operation of the medical imaging equipment ([0068], signal cause holding or slowing of moving part), and/or actuates said add-on system thereof, to avoid or mitigate a collision ([0068], signal cause holding or slowing of moving part to avoid collision).
However, Chandwadkar fails to disclose a plurality of supplemental sensors associated with the add-on system.
Belson teaches a plurality of supplemental sensors associated with the add-on system ([0050], shield has sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the sensors of Chandwakar with the shield taught by Belson in order to protect the operator from being exposed to X-rays (Belson; [0008]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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
