Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/472,533

ROTATING FRAME FOR THE GANTRY OF A COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY UNIT, GANTRY, AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY UNIT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Examiner
TOOHEY, RICHARD ORLANDO
Art Unit
2884
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Siemens Healthineers AG
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
44 granted / 54 resolved
+13.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
78
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 54 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehn et al. US 2022/0249034 in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0212260. Regarding claim 1, Kuehn teaches a rotating frame for a gantry of a computed tomography unit (fig. 4), the rotating frame comprising: receiving areas (fig. 4a #4a), to which rotating components (#4, 7a, 7) of the computed tomography unit can be attached (para. 0122, 0127), wherein the rotating frame further comprises undercuts (fig. 5 #34, 41, 44, 27; the components 14, 44, and 27 form an undercut) the undercuts being in an axial direction (fig. 5 the horizontal direction is an axial direction) such that at least on portions of the rotating frame thicken in the axial direction (fig. 5 #41 is thicker than #44 which is thicker than #27 which are ordered in an axial direction) or the rotating frame curve in the axial direction. Kuehn fails to teach wherein the rotating frame and the undercuts are produced at least in part using additive manufacturing. Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame and the undercuts are produced at least in part using additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes and simplifying the attachment process of various components by attaching them as inserts. Regarding claim 2, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: struts (fig. 6 #27). Kuehn fails to teach the struts being formed via additive manufacturing. Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the struts being formed via additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Regarding claim 4, Kuehn does not specifically disclose wherein the rotating frame includes an average wall thickness of up to 20 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (less than or equal to 20mm) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.05.I. in re Aller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame includes an average wall thickness of up to 20 mm in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Wang for the purpose of minimizing system weight. Regarding claim 5, Kuehn does not specifically disclose the rotating frame weighs less than 200kg. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (less than 200kg) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.05.I. in re Aller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have the rotating frame weighs less than 200 kg in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Wang for the purpose of reducing shipping costs. Regarding claim 6, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: a frame not produced using additive manufacturing (fig. 4 #3a; para. 0034-0038). Kuehn fails to teach at least one other element produced using additive manufacturing. Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one other element produced using additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Regarding claim 7, Kuehn teaches wherein the frame is produced from a rolled metal element (para. 0035; metal sheets are known to be rolled metal elements). Regarding claim 8, Kuehn fails to teach wherein the rotating frame is entirely produced using additive manufacturing. Wang teaches an imaging system which is manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame is entirely produced using additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Regarding claim 9, Kuehn teaches further comprising: bracing elements (fig. 6 # 27), the bracing elements enclosing at least one receiving area on at least one side (fig. 6; the bracing element 27 encloses the receiving areas 6, 7, and 7a of fig. 4 by bracing one side of the elements 6, 7, and 7a which are inserted in the receiving areas). Regarding claim 10, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a); and struts (fig. 6 #27) positioned on the at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a). Kuehn fails to teach wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process. Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Regarding claim 11, Kuehn does not specifically disclose wherein the rotating frame has a rigidity, such that during a rotation in operation of the computed tomography unit it is maximally deformable by up to 0.3 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (having a deformity of .3mm or less) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.05.I. in re Aller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame has a rigidity, such that during a rotation in operation of the computed tomography unit it is maximally deformable by up to 0.3 mm in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Wang for the purpose of ensuring accuracy of imaging target region. Regarding claim 12, Kuehn teaches a gantry (fig. 4) for a computed tomography unit (fig. 1) with the rotating frame of claim 1 (see Rejection of claim 1). Regarding claim 13, Kuehn teaches a computed tomography unit (fig. 1), comprising: the rotating frame of claim 1 (see Rejection of claim 1). Regarding claim 19, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a); and struts (fig. 6 #27) positioned on the at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a). Kuehn fails to teach wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process. Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Tabolla for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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. /RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 20, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601637
VACUUM HEALTH DETECTION FOR IMAGING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596200
HYBRID NEUROMORPHIC X-RAY IMAGING SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588882
ENERGY SUBTRACTION PROCESSING APPARATUS, ENERGY SUBTRACTION PROCESSING METHOD, RADIATION IMAGING SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588879
RADIATION DETECTION APPARATUS, SENSOR MODULE, AND CT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580064
METHOD FOR DETERMINING A TREATMENT PLAN INCLUDING A DOSE DISTRIBUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 54 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month