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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, claims 11-20, in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2026, 09/29/2025 and 02/07/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US PAP 2018/0184995 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Liu et al. teaches an X-ray machine comprising: (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035) a medical imaging assembly (see abstract; Fig.1) comprising a C-arm (30), an X-ray tube (40) mounted to the arm (30), and an X-ray detector (50) mounted to the arm (30) opposing the X-ray tube (40); a mobile floor support assembly (120) supporting the arm and resting on a floor (20), the mobile floor support assembly (120) comprising a base (130) configured to swivel about a swivel axis, and a vertical member coupled to the base, the vertical member holding the medical imaging assembly above the base; a central axis dividing the arm vertically in substantially equal halves, the arm configured to rotate about the central axis (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035); a three dimensional opening surrounding the central axis, the three dimensional opening extending from a first point aligning with the X-ray tube to a second point aligning with the X-ray detector, the three dimensional opening providing a large open space (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035);
PNG
media_image1.png
368
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
499
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
507
489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a floor height extending from the floor to a bottom of the arm relative to the central axis; a clearance height extending from a top of the base to the bottom of the arm relative to the central axis; and an iso-center height extending from the central axis to the floor (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035)
PNG
media_image4.png
635
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
445
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Liu et al discloses the positioning of the C-shaped bracket to be able to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient bed to avoid collision between the rotating C-shaped bracket and the patient bed (see paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0021, 0022, 0034 and 0035) but fails to explicitly mention that the three-dimensional opening as first a ratio of the iso-center height comprises a threshold ratio range of 5.5:7 to 6:7.
It 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 to provide the arrangement wherein the three-dimensional opening as first a ratio of the iso-center height comprises a threshold ratio range of 5.5:7 to 6:7 in the X-ray machine of Liu et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, Liu et al. teaches the X-ray machine of claim 11 (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035) but fails to explicitly mention the floor height as a second ratio of the three-dimensional opening comprises a second threshold ratio range of 1:5.5 to 1:6.
It 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 to provide the arrangement wherein the floor height as a second ratio of the three-dimensional opening comprises a second threshold ratio range of 1:5.5 to 1:6 in the X-ray machine of Liu et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 13, Liu et al. teaches the X-ray machine of claim 11 (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035) but fails to explicitly mention the clearance height as a third ratio of the floor height comprises a third threshold ratio range of 1:2 to 1:3.
It 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 to provide the arrangement wherein the clearance height as a third ratio of the floor height comprises a third threshold ratio range of 1:2 to 1:3. in the X-ray machine of Liu et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 14, Liu et al. teaches the X-ray machine of claim 11, wherein the arm is mounted to the mobile floor support assembly centered on a vertical plane that divides the X-ray machine laterally into substantially equal halves (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035).
With respect to claim 15, Liu et al. teaches the X-ray machine of claim 11, further comprising a flat bearing positioned in the base, the flat bearing supporting the swivel axis, and a motorized friction wheel positioned at a junction of the vertical member and the base, the motorized friction wheel controlling the swivel on the swivel axis (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035).
With respect to claim 16, Liu et al. teaches the X-ray machine of claim 15, further comprising a free wheel positioned in the junction, wherein the motorized friction wheel enables free rotation of the free wheel (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035).
With respect to claim 17, Liu et al. teaches the X-ray machine of claim 11, further comprising a rotatable joint assembly, the rotatable joint assembly rotatably mounting the arm to the mobile floor support assembly (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US PAP 2018/0184995 A1) in view of Karaus et al. (US PAP 2004/0234039 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Liu et al. teaches a method for an X-ray machine, the X-ray machine comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035): a mobile floor support assembly (120) configured to swivel on a swivel axis by operation of a motorized friction wheel (130), and a medical imaging assembly rotatably mounted to the mobile floor support assembly (120), the method comprising: determining and adjust a position of the mobile floor support assembly, wherein the mobile floor support assembly comprises a clearance height and a floor height in order to be able to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient bed to avoid collision between the rotating C-shaped bracket and the patient bed (see paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0021, 0022, 0034 and 0035)
PNG
media_image1.png
368
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but fails to explicitly mention, wherein the clearance height as a first ratio of the floor height comprises a first threshold ratio range of 1:2 to 1:3; determining a first desired position; determining a first path to the first desired position; and generating a first control signal to the motorized friction wheel based on the first path.
Karaus et al. discloses a system/method for an X-ray machine comprising a rotating C-shaped bracket (see abstract; Figs. 1-8; paragraphs 0016, 0027-0045 and 0045) which explicitly teaches
PNG
media_image6.png
372
736
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
442
634
media_image7.png
Greyscale
determining a first current position of the mobile floor support assembly, wherein the mobile floor support assembly comprises a clearance height and a floor height, determining a first desired position; determining a first path to the first desired position; and generating a first control signal to the motorized friction wheel based on the first path (see abstract; Figs. 1-8; paragraphs 0016, 0027-0045 and 0045)
PNG
media_image8.png
478
413
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in order to provide user with the capabilities to detect, determine position error possibility and maintain a sufficient distance from a patient bed to avoid collision between the rotating C-shaped bracket and the patient bed (see abstract; Figs. 1-8; paragraphs 0016 and 0045).
Liu et al. and Karaus et al. disclose related methods and apparatuses for X-ray machine comprising C-shaped bracket to be able to maintain a sufficient distance from the patient bed to avoid collision between the rotating C-shaped bracket and the patient bed.
It 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 to provide teachings of determining a first desired position; determining a first path to the first desired position; and generating a first control signal to the motorized friction wheel based on the first path as suggested by Karaus et al. in the method/apparatus of Liu et al., since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to detect, determine position error possibility and maintain a sufficient distance from a patient bed to avoid collision between the rotating C-shaped bracket and the patient bed.
It would have been obvious to treat Liu et al. and Karaus et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
With respect to limitations “wherein the clearance height as a first ratio of the floor height comprises a first threshold ratio range of 1:2 to 1:3”, it 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 to provide the arrangement wherein the clearance height as a first ratio of the floor height comprises a first threshold ratio range of 1:2 to 1:3 in the X-ray machine of Liu et al. as modified by Karaus et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 18 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With respect to claim 19, Liu et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035) as modified by Karaus et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-8; paragraphs 0016, 0027-0045 and 0045) teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the first desired position comprises a desired angle relative to a head-toe position of a patient (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035).
With respect to claim 20, Liu et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; paragraphs 0015-0035) as modified by Karaus et al. (see abstract; Figs. 1-8; paragraphs 0016, 0027-0045 and 0045) teaches the method of claim 18, wherein Karaus teaches determining a second current position of the medical imaging assembly, wherein the medical imaging assembly comprises a three dimensional opening and an iso-center height, wherein the three dimensional opening as a second ratio of the iso-center height; determining a second desired determining a second path to the second desired position; and generating a second control signal to rotate the medical imaging assembly based on the second path, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to detect, determine position error possibility and maintain a sufficient distance from a patient bed to avoid collision between the rotating C-shaped bracket and the patient bed
(see abstract; Figs. 1-8; paragraphs 0016, 0027-0045 and 0045) but fil to explicitly mention a second ratio of the iso-center height comprises a second threshold ratio range of 5.5:7 to 6:7.
It 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 to provide the arrangement wherein the second ratio of the iso-center height comprises a second threshold ratio range of 5.5:7 to 6:7 in the method for the X-ray machine of Liu et al. as modified by Karaus et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 J. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ February 27, 2026