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 .
Response to Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on October 29, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Rijkin fails to teach “wherein the motion control module is responsive to a plurality of sensors for controlling the multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system” because Rijkin teaches the movement of the X-ray system may follow a requested or desired trajectory without the support of the PID controller. However, Rijken teaches that the PID controller can be optionally not used since the controller may support the movement. Rijken teaches the controller responding to sensors in [0108]-[0111], and [0115]. As currently written, the claim fails to define what the multiple-axis movement is. The claim defines 360 degree rotation but fails to define a multiple-axis movement.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claims 5 and 11, Applicant states that the indefinite claim language has been corrected. However, the claims recite “the plurality of motorized wheels” which lacks antecedence.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant states that the indefinite claim language has been corrected. However, the claim recites indefinite claim language that needs correcting.
Regarding the objection of claim 7, Applicant has stated that the objections have been corrected. However, the claim has minor informalities that need to be corrected.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5, filed October 29, 2025, with respect to Claims 1 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, limitation “coordinated direction wherein” should be changed to “coordinated direction, wherein” in order to correct a minor informality. Claims 8-11 are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed to “a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system”. The multiple-axis movement is not defined by the claim. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system”. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the plurality of motorized wheels" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim recites “a plurality of omni-directional wheels” but fails to define “a plurality of motorized wheels”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the plurality of omni-directional wheels”.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "the multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to introduce a limitation directed to “a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system”. The multiple-axis movement is not defined by the claim. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system”. Claims 8-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation "the plurality of motorized wheels" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As currently written, the claim recites “a plurality of omni-directional wheels” but fails to define “a plurality of motorized wheels”. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the plurality of omni-directional wheels”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grady (U.S. 2007/0121790) in view of Yang (U.S. 2003/0202637), Watanabe (U.S. 6, 113,264) and Rijken (U.S. 2012/0155616).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood:
Grady discloses a portable medical imaging system comprising:
a movable station (Fig. 2, 126);
a gantry mount (Fig. 2, 136) attached to the movable station (Fig. 2, 126);
a gantry (Fig. 2, 108 and 104) rotatably attached to the gantry mount (Fig. 2, 136) and including:
a first C-arm (Fig. 2, 108) slidably mounted to and operable to slide relative to the gantry mount (Fig. 2, 136); and
a second C-arm (Fig. 2, 104) slidably coupled to the first C-arm (Fig. 2, 108);
an imaging signal transmitter (Fig. 2, 102) attached to the second C-arm (Fig. 2, 104);
an imaging sensor (Fig. 2, 114) mounted to the second C-arms (Fig. 2, 104).
However, Grady fails to disclose the first and second C-arms together providing a 360 degree rotation of the imaging signal transmitter; a first translation device mounting the imaging signal transmitter and a second translation device mounting the imaging sensor, the first and second translation devices adapted to move the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor laterally relative to a center axis of the medical imaging system; a motion control module adapted to coordinate a movement of the first and second translation devices such that the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor move in the same coordinated direction, wherein the motion control module is responsive to a plurality of sensors for controlling a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system, wherein the imaging signal transmitter and imaging sensor are movable from a center axis of the medical imaging system via the first translation device and the second translation device such that the portable medical imaging system is operable to capture an enlarged field of view.
Watanabe teaches the first and second C-arms together providing a 360 degree rotation of the imaging signal transmitter (Col. 9, lines 25-30, 360 degree rotation).
Yang teaches a first translation device mounting the imaging signal transmitter ([0062], two linear motors) and a second translation device mounting the imaging sensor ([0062], two linear motors), the first and second translation devices ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) adapted to move the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor laterally ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) relative to a center axis of the medical imaging system ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially);
a motion control module ([0059], computer) adapted to coordinate a movement of the first and second translation devices ([0059], computer controls translation) such that the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor move in the same coordinated direction ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially),
wherein the imaging signal transmitter and imaging sensor are movable from a center axis of the medical imaging system via the first translation device and the second translation device such that the portable medical imaging system is operable to capture an enlarged field of view ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially).
Rijken teaches wherein the motion control module (Fig. 5, control element) is responsive to a plurality of sensors for controlling a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system ([0108]-[0115], and [0118]), controller detects movement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the rotation taught by Watanabe in order to obtain higher quality images by providing more imaging angles (Watanabe; Col. 4, lines 10-51). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the controller of Rijken in order to increase positional accuracy and movability of the system for more accurate images (Rijken; [0036]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken and Yang discloses the portable medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the first and second translation devices comprise a first linear actuator (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) and a second linear actuator (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially), respectively, the motion control module controlling the first and second linear actuators to position the imaging signal transmitter in tandem with the imaging sensor for taking a desired image or images (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially during imaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken and Yang discloses the portable medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the first and second translational devices are selected from the group consisting of linear tracks, linear actuators (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially), and ball screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken and Yang discloses the portable medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the first and second translational devices are adapted for movement along a linear axis (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) in an orientation that is perpendicular or parallel to an axis of a Cartesian coordinate system (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood:
Grady discloses a portable medical imaging system comprising:
a movable station (Fig. 2, 126);
a gantry mount (Fig. 2, 136) attached to the movable station (Fig. 2, 126);
a gantry (Fig. 2, 108 and 104) rotatably attached to the gantry mount (Fig. 2, 136) and including:
a first C-arm (Fig. 2, 108) slidably mounted to and operable to slide relative to the gantry mount (Fig. 2, 136); and
a second C-arm (Fig. 2, 104) slidably coupled to the first C-arm (Fig. 2, 108);
an imaging signal transmitter (Fig. 2, 102) attached to the second C-arm (Fig. 2, 104);
an imaging sensor (Fig. 2, 114) mounted to the second C-arms (Fig. 2, 104).
However, Grady fails to disclose omni-directional wheels; the first and second C-arms together providing a 360 degree rotation of the imaging signal transmitter; a first translation device mounting the imaging signal transmitter and a second translation device mounting the imaging sensor, the first and second translation devices adapted to move the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor laterally relative to a center axis of the medical imaging system; a motion control module adapted to coordinate a movement of the first and second translation devices such that the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor move in the same coordinated direction, wherein the motion control module is responsive to a plurality of sensors for controlling a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system, wherein the imaging signal transmitter and imaging sensor are movable from a center axis of the medical imaging system via the first translation device and the second translation device such that the portable medical imaging system is operable to capture an enlarged field of view.
Rijken teaches a plurality of omni-directional wheels ([0080] and [0089]-[0094], omni-directional wheels),
wherein the motion control module (Fig. 5, control element) is responsive to a plurality of sensors for controlling a multiple-axis movement of the portable imaging system ([0108], controller detects movement).
Watanabe teaches the first and second C-arms together providing a 360 degree rotation of the imaging signal transmitter (Col. 9, lines 25-30, 360 degree rotation).
Yang teaches a first translation device mounting the imaging signal transmitter ([0062], two linear motors) and a second translation device mounting the imaging sensor ([0062], two linear motors), the first and second translation devices ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) adapted to move the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor laterally ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) relative to a center axis of the medical imaging system ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially);
a motion control module ([0059], computer) adapted to coordinate a movement of the first and second translation devices ([0059], computer controls translation) such that the imaging signal transmitter and the imaging sensor move in the same coordinated direction ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially),
wherein the imaging signal transmitter and imaging sensor are movable from a center axis of the medical imaging system via the first translation device and the second translation device such that the portable medical imaging system is operable to capture an enlarged field of view ([0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the rotation taught by Watanabe in order to obtain higher quality images by providing more imaging angles (Watanabe; Col. 4, lines 10-51). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the wheels of Rijken in order to increase positional accuracy and movability of the system for more accurate images (Rijken; [0036]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Rijken, Watanabe, and Yang discloses the portable medical imaging system of claim 7, wherein the first and second translation devices comprise a first linear actuator (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) and a second linear actuator (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially), respectively, the motion control module controlling the first and second linear actuators to position the imaging signal transmitter in tandem with the imaging sensor for taking a desired image or images (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially during imaging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Rijken, Watanabe, and Yang discloses the portable medical imaging system of claim 7, wherein the first and second translational devices are selected from the group consisting of linear tracks, linear actuators (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially), and ball screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Rijken, Watanabe, and Yang discloses the portable medical imaging system of claim 7, wherein the first and second translational devices are adapted for movement along a linear axis (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially) in an orientation that is perpendicular or parallel to an axis of a Cartesian coordinate system (Yang; [0062], linear motors allow source and detector to move axially).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady with the translation devices of Yang in order to improve image accuracy by improving scan positioning (Yang; [0019]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grady (U.S. 2007/0121790) in view of Yang (U.S. 2003/0202637), Rijken (U.S. 2012/0155616), and Watanabe (U.S. 6, 113,264) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Pellegrino (U.S. 5,425,069).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken and Yang discloses the medical imaging system of claim 1, a plurality of omni-directional wheels (Rijken; [0080] and [0089]-[0094], omni-directional wheels).
However, the combination of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken and Yang fails to disclose wherein: the movable station includes a strain gauge; and the motion control module is configured to sense the strain gauges and control corresponding movement of the plurality of omni-directional wheels.
Pellegrino teaches the movable station includes a strain gauge (Col. 7, lines 48-Col. 8, line 30, strain gauge); and
the motion control module (Col. 7, lines 48-Col. 8, line 30, control circuit) is configured to sense the strain gauges and control corresponding movement of the plurality of wheels (Col. 7, lines 48-Col. 8, line 30, motor control circuit controls wheels based on force on strain gauge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken and Yang with the strain gauge and motorized wheels of Pellegrino in order to provide increase accuracy of the positioning and the mobility of the system (Pellegrino; Col. 1, lines 55-Col. 2, line 19). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood:
The combination of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken, and Yang discloses the medical imaging system of claim 7, a plurality of omni-directional wheels (Rijken; [0080] and [0089]-[0094], omni-directional wheels).
However, the combination of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken and Yang fails to disclose wherein: the movable station includes a strain gauge; and the motion control module is configured to sense the strain gauges.
Pellegrino teaches the movable station includes a strain gauge (Col. 7, lines 48-Col. 8, line 30, strain gauge); and
the motion control module (Col. 7, lines 48-Col. 8, line 30, control circuit) is configured to sense the strain gauges and control corresponding movement of the plurality of wheels (Col. 7, lines 48-Col. 8, line 30, motor control circuit controls wheels based on force on strain gauge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the imaging system of Grady, Watanabe, Rijken, and Yang with the strain gauge and motorized wheels of Pellegrino in order to provide increase accuracy of the positioning and the mobility of the system (Pellegrino; Col. 1, lines 55-Col. 2, line 19). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884