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
Claims 10-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 25 February 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 25 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “search and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden”. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has only provided a conclusory statement and has not specifically explained why the different fields of search identified in the restriction requirement would not require undue burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 7, the curved line which should connect the label “520a” to the corresponding element in the figure is not positioned correctly, as it is too far down and to the left; it should be positioned similarly to that connecting label “520b” to its corresponding element. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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), 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) 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) 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. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (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).
Claims 1 and 6
Claims 1 and 6 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “X-ray source device” uses the generic placeholder “device” 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. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to an X-ray source, and a platform carrying the X-ray source; and wherein the platform is configured to position the X-ray source to irradiate the object based upon the sensing array (Applicant’s claim 9 as originally filed) and equivalents thereof. Regarding the interpretations of claims using generic placeholders, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
The limitation “image extraction device” uses the generic placeholder “device” 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. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a processor (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 35) and equivalents thereof.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “clamp device” uses the generic placeholder “device” 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. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to an adhesive strip layer, a spring-loaded clamp, or a hook and loop fastener (Applicant’s specification, ¶¶ 39, 43, 48) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marar (US 2008/0170665 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Marar discloses an x-ray radiation imaging system for imaging an object (20), the X-ray radiation imaging system comprising:
an X-ray source device (108, 106) configured to irradiate the object with X-ray radiation;
an X-ray detector (16) to be positioned adjacent the object (20) and comprising at least one carrier layer (1014), and
a plurality of X-ray sensing segments (within 1008) carried by the at least one carrier layer (1014) and defining a sensing array, the plurality of X-ray sensing segments to receive the X-ray radiation through the object (20); and
an image extraction device (36) configured to generate an image of the object (20) based upon the X-ray detector (16),
wherein the X-ray source device (108, 106) comprises an X-ray source (106), and a platform (108) carrying the X-ray source (106); and wherein the platform (108) is configured to position the X-ray source (106) to irradiate the object (20) based upon the sensing array (within 16),
wherein the image extraction device (36) is a processor (¶¶ 20-40, 57-58, Figs. 1-2, 13).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mattson (US 6,553,092 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Marar discloses the X-ray radiation imaging system of claim 1, wherein the sensing array comprises an array.
Marar does not expressly disclose the array is rectangle-shaped.
Mattson discloses an array is rectangle-shaped (col. 3, ll. 39-50; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Marar in view of the teachings of Mattson so that the array is rectangle-shaped.
One would have been motivated to do so to use a conventional array shape, which would be more cost effective than using unconventional array shapes.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MacLaughlin (US 2017/0031037 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Marar discloses the X-ray radiation imaging system of claim 1, including using photodiodes in conjunction with a scintillator (¶ 57), but does not expressly disclose each X-ray sensing segment comprises an X-ray phosphor plate.
MacLaughlin discloses using a phosphor plate as an alternative to scintillator-based detection (¶¶ 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Marar in view of the teachings of MacLaughlin to use X-ray phosphor plates. It is obvious to perform simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
One would have been motivated to use phosphor plates for increased maneuverability due to reduced size as compared to scintillator-based detectors.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2003/0048938 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Marar discloses the X-ray radiation imaging system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose each X-ray sensing segment in the sensing array comprises an identifier opaque to the X-ray radiation through the object; and wherein the image extraction device is configured to generate the image of the object based upon a known position of respective identifiers in the sensing array.
Wang discloses each X-ray sensing segment in a sensing array (of storage phosphor screens) comprises an identifier (reference maker) opaque (imposes shadows) to X-ray radiation through an object; and wherein an image extraction device is configured to generate an image of the object based upon a known position of respective identifiers in the sensing array (i.e., reconstructing a full image from sub-images using the reference markers; ¶¶ 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Marar in view of the teachings of Wang so that each X-ray sensing segment in the sensing array comprises an identifier opaque to the X-ray radiation through the object; and wherein the image extraction device is configured to generate the image of the object based upon a known position of respective identifiers in the sensing array.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Wang of combining multiple sub-images into one full image (Wang, ¶ 3).
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stein (US 6,282,258 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Marar discloses the X-ray radiation imaging system of claim 1, wherein the X-ray detector comprises an arm (104) coupled to the at least one carrier layer (within detector 16), the arm extending transverse to the at least one carrier layer (¶ 38, Fig. 2).
Marar does not expressly disclose the arm is further configured to engage the object.
Stein discloses an arm (20, 42) coupled to a detector (24), the arm extending transvers to the detector (24) and engaging (via straps 46) an object (34; col. 5, l. 9 - col. 6, l. 3; col. 7, ll. 5-23; col. 10, ll. 3-20; Figs. 1-3)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Marar in view of the teachings of Stein so that the arm is further configured to engage the object.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Stein of improving stability of the object during imaging (Stein, col. 10, ll. 3-20).
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marar in view of Stein as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Eaton (US 4,674,110 A).
Regarding claim 6, Marar modified teaches the X-ray radiation imaging system of claim 5 wherein the arm comprises a clamp device (straps 46; Stein, col. 10, ll. 3-20; Figs. 2-3).
Marar modified does not expressly disclose the clamp device is an adhesive strip layer, a spring-loaded clamp, or a hook and loop fastener. However, straps commonly comprised hook and loop fasteners. For example, Eaton discloses a support board for X-ray imaging (col. 2, l. 61 - col. 3, l. 6) comprising straps (6) for positioning an object (arm) to be imaged comprise a hook and loop fastener (Velcro; col. 3, ll. 23-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Marar in view of the teachings of Eaton to specifically use a hook and loop fastener.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Eaton of facilitating “quick and easy fastening and unfastening” (Eaton, col. 3, ll. 23-31; i.e., the well-known advantage of hook and loop fasteners).
Claims 7-8
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keeve (US 2013/0230137 A1).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Marar discloses the X-ray radiation imaging system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the at least one carrier layer comprises a plurality of carrier layers, and a plurality of fasteners coupling the plurality of carrier layers together.
Keeve discloses an x-ray imaging system comprises a plurality of carrier layers (1’, 1’’, 1’’’), and a plurality of fasteners (hinges 19) coupling the plurality of carrier layers (1’, 1’’, 1’’’) together (¶ 43; Fig. 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Marar in view of the teachings of Keeve so that the at least one carrier layer comprises a plurality of carrier layers, and a plurality of fasteners coupling the plurality of carrier layers together.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Keeve of generating 3D image data (Keeve, Abstract).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Marar modified teaches the X-ray radiation imaging system of claim 7 wherein the plurality of carrier layers (1’,1’’,1’’’) is arranged in a three-dimensional shape (Keeve, ¶ 43; Fig. 4a; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Polichar (US 5,909,478 A) discloses a portable X-ray imaging system comprising an X-ray source, an X-ray sensor, and a controller configured to generate X-ray images (Abstract).
Freytag (US 2004/0066891 A1) discloses an X-ray imaging system comprising an X-ray source, an X-ray detector, and means to generate a 3D image (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights