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 Group I, claims 21-28 and 37-40, in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 29-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/14/2026.
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action dated on 11/14/2025 the Amendment has been received on 01/14/2026. Claims 21, 23-28 and 37 have been amended. Claims 29-36 have been canceled. Claims 41-48 have been newly added. Claims 21-28 and 37-48 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 and 9, filed on 01/14/2026, with respect to claims 21-48 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/12/205; 07/16/2024, 10/26/2023 are 10/26/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image module”, “an alignment module” and “a processing module” in claim 21; “an initialization module” in claim 24; “a feedback module” in claim 25; “a threshold module” in claim 26; “a quality module” in claim 27; “an image module”, “a quality determination module”, “an adjustment input “, and “a processing module” in claim 37; and “an alignment module” in claim 39.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 21-28 and 37-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,801,024. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21, the patented claim 1 claims a system comprising: an image module configured to obtain a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x-ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; an alignment module configured to align the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and a processing module configured to process data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
With respect to claim 22, the patented claim 6 claims the system of Claim 21, further comprising: a setting module configured to provide updated settings that are different than the first plurality of settings.
With respect to claim 23, the patented claim 6 claims the system of claim 22, wherein an x-ray dosage associated with the updated settings from the setting module is less than an x-ray dosage associated with the first plurality of settings.
With respect to claim 24, the patented claim 1 claims the system of Claim 21, further comprising: an initialization module configured to obtain parameters for use with the patient, wherein the initialization module is configured to select the first plurality of settings for the x-ray source based on the parameters.
With respect to claim 25, the patented claim 2 claims the system of claim 21, further comprising: a feedback module configured to provide feedback indicating whether one or more the first plurality of settings for the procedure are outside one or more respective ranges of typical settings used for the procedure or one or more respective ranges of recommended settings for the procedure.
With respect to claim 26, the patented claim 3 claims the system of claim 21, further comprising: a threshold module configured to generate a warning signal to indicate that one or more of the first plurality of settings is outside one or more ranges indicating an x-ray dosage resulting from use of the first plurality of settings is greater than a predetermined threshold.
With respect to claim 27, the patented claim 4 claims the system of claim 21, further comprising: a quality module configured to (i) determine quality of the first sample set of one or more images and (ii) instruct the image module to acquire a second set of one or more images based on the quality of the first sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 28, the patented claim 8 claims the system of claim 21, wherein the alignment module is further configured to rotate and adjust zoom levels of the first sample set of one or more images for alignment with the master sample set of one or more images and verify alignment of the first set of one or more images with the master sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 37, the patented claims 1-4 claim a system comprising: an x-ray source; an image module configured to control the x-ray source according to a first plurality of settings to acquire a sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure; a quality determination module to determine a quality value of the sample set of one or more images based at least on a pixel parameters in the sample set of one or more images; an adjustment input to adjust a setting to a second plurality of settings when the quality value is below a threshold; and a processing module to process the sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 38, the patented claim 4 claims the system of Claim 37, wherein the quality value is based on a user input indicating a ranking of a quality level of the sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 39, the patented claim 1 claims the system of Claim 37, further comprising: an alignment module configured to align the sample set of one or more images to a master sample set of one or more images; and wherein the processing module is configured to process data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
With respect to claim 40, the patented claim 7 claims the system of Claim 39, wherein the image module is further configured to control the x-ray source to acquire the master sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 41, the patented claim 11 claims a method comprising: obtaining a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x-ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; aligning the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and processing data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
With respect to claim 42, the patented claim 13 claims the method of Claim 41, further comprising: providing updated settings that are different than the first plurality of settings.
With respect to claim 43, the patented claim 13 claims the method of Claim 42, wherein an x-ray dosage associated with the updated settings is less than an x-ray dosage associated with the first plurality of settings.
With respect to claim 44, the patented claim 13 claims the method of Claim 41, further comprising: obtaining parameters for use with the patient; and selecting the first plurality of settings for the x-ray source based on the parameters.
With respect to claim 45, the patented claims 13 and 14 claim the method of Claim 41, further comprising: providing feedback indicating whether one or more the first plurality of settings for the procedure are outside one or more respective ranges of typical settings used for the procedure or one or more respective ranges of recommended settings for the procedure.
With respect to claim 46, the patented claims 11 and 3 claim the method of Claim 41, further comprising: generating a warning signal to indicate that one or more of the first plurality of settings is outside one or more ranges indicating an x-ray dosage resulting from use of the first plurality of settings is greater than a predetermined threshold.
With respect to claim 47, the patented claim 17 claims the method of Claim 41, further comprising: determining quality of the first sample set of one or more images; and acquiring a second set of one or more images based on the quality of the first sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 48, the patented claims 11 and 8 claim the method of Claim 41, further comprising: rotating and adjusting zoom levels of the first sample set of one or more images for alignment with the master sample set of one or more images; and verifying alignment of the first set of one or more images with the master sample set of one or more images.
Claims 21, 37 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,006,914. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21, the patented claim 1 claims a system comprising: an image module configured to obtain a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x- ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; an alignment module configured to align the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and a processing module configured to process data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
With respect to claim 37, the patented claim 5 claims a system comprising:[[a]]an x-ray source; an image module configured to control the x-ray source according to a first plurality of settings to acquire a sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure; a quality determination module to determine a quality value of the sample set of one or more images based at least on a pixel parameters in the sample set of one or more images; an adjustment input to adjust a setting to a second plurality of settings when the quality value is below a threshold; and a processing module to process the sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 41, the patented claim 11 claims a method comprising: obtaining a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x-ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; aligning the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and processing data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
Claims 21, 37 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,548,550. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21, the patented claim 1 claims a system comprising: an image module configured to obtain a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x- ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; an alignment module configured to align the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and a processing module configured to process data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
With respect to claim 37, the patented claim 4 claims a system comprising: an x-ray source; an image module configured to control the x-ray source according to a first plurality of settings to acquire a sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure; a quality determination module to determine a quality value of the sample set of one or more images based at least on a pixel parameters in the sample set of one or more images; an adjustment input to adjust a setting to a second plurality of settings when the quality value is below a threshold; and a processing module to process the sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 41, the patented claim 11 claims a method comprising: obtaining a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x-ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; aligning the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and processing data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
Claims 21, 37 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,231,686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21, the patented claim 1 claims a system comprising: an image module configured to obtain a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x- ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; an alignment module configured to align the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and a processing module configured to process data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
With respect to claim 37, the patented claim 2 claims a system comprising:[[a]]an x-ray source; an image module configured to control the x-ray source according to a first plurality of settings to acquire a sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure; a quality determination module to determine a quality value of the sample set of one or more images based at least on a pixel parameters in the sample set of one or more images; an adjustment input to adjust a setting to a second plurality of settings when the quality value is below a threshold; and a processing module to process the sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 41, the patented claim 10 claims a method comprising: obtaining a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x-ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; aligning the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and processing data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
Claims 21, 37 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,962,134. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 21, the patented claim 1 claims a system comprising: an image module configured to obtain a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x- ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; an alignment module configured to align the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and a processing module configured to process data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
With respect to claim 37, the patented claim 6 claims a system comprising: an x-ray source; an image module configured to control the x-ray source according to a first plurality of settings to acquire a sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure; a quality determination module to determine a quality value of the sample set of one or more images based at least on a pixel parameters in the sample set of one or more images; an adjustment input to adjust a setting to a second plurality of settings when the quality value is below a threshold; and a processing module to process the sample set of one or more images.
With respect to claim 41, the patented claim 19 claims a method comprising: obtaining a first sample set of one or more images of a region-of-interest of a patient in a procedure, and a master sample set of one or more images, wherein the first sample set of one or more images is acquired as a result of an x-ray source operating according to a first plurality of settings; aligning the first sample set of one or more images to the master sample set of one or more images; and processing data corresponding to a result of the alignment.
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 11, 2026