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 Interpretation
The specification (e.g., see “… adhesive fixing element 4 may comprise Velcro or other elements with adhesion to the fixing belt 3 …” in paragraph 39) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “adhesive fixing element”.
The specification (e.g., see “… when there is a U-shaped hook or a J-shaped hook at one end of the fixing belt, the U-shaped hook or the J-shaped hook can be directly buckled to the opposite frame without fixing through knotting or the adhesive fixing element 4 …” in paragraph 42) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “buckle”.
The specification (e.g., see “… first fixing structure F1 is, for example, a seat belt connector. The fixing belt 3 includes an elastic belt 30 and a hook member (such as a U-shaped hook or a J-shaped hook) 32, in which the elastic belt 30 is connected between the first fixing structure Fl and the hook member 32 …” in paragraph 51) serves as a glossary (MPEP § 2111.01) for the claim term “seat belt connector”.
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 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 of this title, 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, 5, 8, 12, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedom Full Enclosure (NDT Brochure [online]. Reina Imaging, September 2021 [retrieved on 2025-08]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: www.reinaimaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NDT_brochure.pdf>) in view of Rice (US 2008/0025472).
In regard to claim 1, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure discloses an auxiliary frame, used for accommodating a flat panel sensor (e.g., “… Foam lined internal cavity for extra DR panel protection …” on pg. 1), wherein a first side of the auxiliary frame comprises two first fixing structures, the two first fixing structures are adjacent to a first edge of the flat panel sensor and are respectively located on two sides of a first center axis of the flat panel sensor, wherein the first edge of the flat panel sensor has a first length, a distance between the two first fixing structures is greater than or equal to half of the first length and less than the first length (e.g., see “… Cutouts for tether in multiple panel orientations and configurations …” in the photograph on pg. 1). The frame of Reina Imaging lacks an explicit description of details of the “… tether …” such as a buckle. However, “… tether …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… As used herein "cassette attachment straps" are a length of cord, rope, strapping material, thread, wire or the like that can be used in pairs to attach the base to the x-ray cassette … appropriate length to reach and stabilize the cassette … "detachable cassette attachment means" can be clips as shown in the drawings or other fasteners such as hook and loop fastener (e.g. Velcro), snaps, buttons or the like. The important characteristic of this attachment means is that the strap be attachable for use and removable from the cassette after the x-ray is taken … not only are cassette attachment clips 15 attached to top edge 31 as in the top embodiment, but the second cassette attachment means 25 are shown attached to the bottom edge 32 of cassette 30. The straps 3 in one embodiment are adjustable in length …” in paragraphs 24 and 32 of Rice). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as “cassette attachment clips” on “straps”, in order to “stabilize the cassette”) for the unspecified tether of Reina et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as the first fixing structure is a buckle) as the unspecified tether of Reina Imaging.
In regard to claim 5, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure discloses an auxiliary frame, used for accommodating a flat panel sensor (e.g., “… Foam lined internal cavity for extra DR panel protection …” on pg. 1), wherein a first side of the auxiliary frame comprises two first fixing structures, the two first fixing structures are adjacent to a first edge of the flat panel sensor and are respectively located on two sides of a first center axis of the flat panel sensor, wherein the first edge of the flat panel sensor has a first length, a distance between the two first fixing structures is greater than or equal to half of the first length and less than the first length (e.g., see “… Cutouts for tether in multiple panel orientations and configurations …” in the photograph on pg. 1). The frame of Reina Imaging lacks an explicit description of details of the “… tether …” such as a seat belt connector. However, “… tether …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… As used herein "cassette attachment straps" are a length of cord, rope, strapping material, thread, wire or the like that can be used in pairs to attach the base to the x-ray cassette … appropriate length to reach and stabilize the cassette … "detachable cassette attachment means" can be clips as shown in the drawings or other fasteners such as hook and loop fastener (e.g. Velcro), snaps, buttons or the like. The important characteristic of this attachment means is that the strap be attachable for use and removable from the cassette after the x-ray is taken … not only are cassette attachment clips 15 attached to top edge 31 as in the top embodiment, but the second cassette attachment means 25 are shown attached to the bottom edge 32 of cassette 30. The straps 3 in one embodiment are adjustable in length …” in paragraphs 24 and 32 of Rice). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as “cassette attachment clips” on “straps”, in order to “stabilize the cassette”) for the unspecified tether of Reina et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as the first fixing structure is a seat belt connector) as the unspecified tether of Reina Imaging.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure also discloses that a second side of the auxiliary frame comprises two second fixing structures, the second side and the first side are opposite sides of the auxiliary frame, the two second fixing structures are adjacent to a second edge of the flat panel sensor and are respectively located on two sides of the first center axis of the flat panel sensor, wherein the second edge has the first length, and a distance between the two second fixing structures is greater than or equal to half of the first length and less than the first length (e.g., see “… Cutouts for tether in multiple panel orientations and configurations …” in the photograph on pg. 1).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 8, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure also discloses that a third side of the auxiliary frame comprises two third fixing structures, the third side is connected between the second side and the first side, the two third fixing structures are adjacent to a third edge of the flat panel sensor and are respectively located on two sides of a second center axis of the flat panel sensor, wherein the third edge has a third length, and a distance between the two third fixing structures is greater than or equal to half of the third length and less than the third length (e.g., see “… Cutouts for tether in multiple panel orientations and configurations …” in the photograph on pg. 1).
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 12, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure also discloses that a fourth side of the auxiliary frame comprises two fourth fixing structures, the fourth side and the third side are opposite sides of the auxiliary frame, the two fourth fixing structures are adjacent to a fourth edge of the flat panel sensor and are respectively located on two sides of the second center axis of the flat panel sensor, wherein the fourth edge has the third length, and a distance between the two fourth fixing structures is greater than or equal to half of the third length and less than the third length (e.g., see “… Cutouts for tether in multiple panel orientations and configurations …” in the photograph on pg. 1).
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 1, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure also discloses that the auxiliary frame comprises X-ray penetrable material (e.g., “… NDT 14x17 Freedom© 4 Handle Full Enclosure will help create a safe, efficient and consistent radiograph …” on pg. 1).
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 1, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure also discloses that an inner edge of the auxiliary frame overlaps the flat panel sensor (e.g., “… Foam lined internal cavity for extra DR panel protection …” on pg. 1).
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 1, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure also discloses that a first side wall surface of the auxiliary frame is adjacent to the first edge of the flat panel sensor (e.g., see the photograph on pg. 1). The frame of Reina Imaging lacks an explicit description of details of the “… tether …” such as an adhesive fixing element is disposed on the first side wall surface. However, “… tether …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… As used herein "cassette attachment straps" are a length of cord, rope, strapping material, thread, wire or the like that can be used in pairs to attach the base to the x-ray cassette … appropriate length to reach and stabilize the cassette … "detachable cassette attachment means" can be clips as shown in the drawings or other fasteners such as hook and loop fastener (e.g. Velcro), snaps, buttons or the like. The important characteristic of this attachment means is that the strap be attachable for use and removable from the cassette after the x-ray is taken … not only are cassette attachment clips 15 attached to top edge 31 as in the top embodiment, but the second cassette attachment means 25 are shown attached to the bottom edge 32 of cassette 30. The straps 3 in one embodiment are adjustable in length …” in paragraphs 24 and 32 of Rice). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as “hook and loop fastener (e.g. Velcro)”, in order to “stabilize the cassette”) for the unspecified tether of Reina et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as an adhesive fixing element is disposed on the first side wall surface) as the unspecified tether of Reina Imaging.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freedom Full Enclosure in view of Rice as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Bostley et al. (US 2016/0374759).
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 1, Reina Imaging’s NDT Brochure also discloses that a first side wall surface of the auxiliary frame is adjacent to the first edge of the flat panel sensor (e.g., see the photograph on pg. 1). The frame of Reina Imaging lacks an explicit description of details of the “… case …” such as the first side wall surface is an arc surface. However, “… case …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… bumper includes a cross-sectional profile having a semi-circular shape. FIGS. 8 and 9 depict the manner in which such profile can aid in deflecting impacts imparted to the protector 2 or its contents. FIG. 8 is a front view of one embodiment of the present protector, depicting the protector just before impact on a floor 64. FIG. 9 is a front view of one embodiment of the present protector, depicting the protector at impact on a floor 64. When configured in this shape, the edge 36 coming in contact with the floor 64 causes rotation of the frame in one of directions depicted so as to lessen the shock experienced in the frame and hence the contents carried within the frame …” in paragraph 81 of Bostley et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional case (e.g., comprising details such as “a cross-sectional profile having a semi-circular shape”, in order “to lessen the shock experienced in the frame”) for the case of Reina et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional case (e.g., comprising details such as the first side wall surface is an arc surface) as the case of Reina Imaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art would not have the motivation to achieve an auxiliary frame having two buckles because the two clips 15 directly clip the x-ray cassette 30 and no frame is needed by Rice. Initially in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further 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, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves (e.g., see “… Cutouts for tether in multiple panel orientations and configurations …” by Freedom Full Enclosure). Further, “… tether …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… As used herein "cassette attachment straps" are a length of cord, rope, strapping material, thread, wire or the like that can be used in pairs to attach the base to the x-ray cassette … appropriate length to reach and stabilize the cassette … "detachable cassette attachment means" can be clips as shown in the drawings or other fasteners such as hook and loop fastener (e.g. Velcro), snaps, buttons or the like. The important characteristic of this attachment means is that the strap be attachable for use and removable from the cassette after the x-ray is taken … not only are cassette attachment clips 15 attached to top edge 31 as in the top embodiment, but the second cassette attachment means 25 are shown attached to the bottom edge 32 of cassette 30. The straps 3 in one embodiment are adjustable in length …” in paragraphs 24 and 32 of Rice). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as the first fixing structure is a buckle) as the unspecified tether of Reina Imaging. Therefore the combination teaches or suggests all limitation as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art would not have the motivation to achieve an auxiliary frame having two seat belt connectors because the two clips 15 directly clip the x-ray cassette 30 and no frame is needed by Rice. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further 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, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves (e.g., see “… Cutouts for tether in multiple panel orientations and configurations …” by Freedom Full Enclosure). Further, “… tether …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… As used herein "cassette attachment straps" are a length of cord, rope, strapping material, thread, wire or the like that can be used in pairs to attach the base to the x-ray cassette … appropriate length to reach and stabilize the cassette … "detachable cassette attachment means" can be clips as shown in the drawings or other fasteners such as hook and loop fastener (e.g. Velcro), snaps, buttons or the like. The important characteristic of this attachment means is that the strap be attachable for use and removable from the cassette after the x-ray is taken … not only are cassette attachment clips 15 attached to top edge 31 as in the top embodiment, but the second cassette attachment means 25 are shown attached to the bottom edge 32 of cassette 30. The straps 3 in one embodiment are adjustable in length …” in paragraphs 24 and 32 of Rice). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional tether (e.g., comprising details such as the first fixing structure is a seat belt connector) as the unspecified tether of Reina Imaging. Therefore the combination teaches or suggests all limitation as arranged in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884