Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/670,685

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NOISE AND PATIENT DOSE OPTIMIZATION VIA DYNAMIC X-RAY MODULATION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 21, 2024
Examiner
ARTMAN, THOMAS R
Art Unit
2884
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Medtronic Navigation Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
735 granted / 874 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
903
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 874 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toth (US 2005/0089138 A1). Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Toth discloses a system (Figs.5, 6 and 9-12), including: a) an imaging source 104; b) an imaging detector 108; c) a processor 126; and d) a memory 128 coupled to the processor 126 and storing data thereon that, when executed by the processor, enable the processor to: e) initiate a multi-dimensional scan of patient anatomy 112 that includes the imaging source 104 emitting a radiation beam 106 that is received by the imaging detector 108 (step 208); f) receive radiation beam information associated with the radiation beam received by the imaging detector 108 (steps 210 and 220); g) compare the radiation beam information to a beam threshold value (steps 212 and 222); and h) instruct, based on the comparing, the imaging source 104 to adjust at least one beam parameter of the radiation beam 106 such that the radiation beam 106 is compliant with the beam threshold value (steps 216 and 226). With respect to claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18 and 19, Toth further discloses: i) capturing an anterior-posterior (AP) view image and a lateral (LP) view image at fixed beam parameter settings (step 300); and j) determining a modulation range of the radiation beam 106 based on signals from the imaging detector 108 and information about an amount of radiation output at the fixed beam parameter settings (steps 322, 324 and 326). With respect to claims 4, 12 and 20, Toth further discloses: i) predicting, during the multi-dimensional scan and at a first time, an orientation of the imaging source and the imaging detector at a second time later than the first time; and j) adjust, based on the predicted orientation, the at least one beam parameter (modulation beam parameters are determined as a function of x, y, and z position of the imaging system relative to the patient, steps 204 and 206, pars.0052, 0054 and 0057; also see steps 322, 324 and 326). With respect to claims 5 and 13, given the ubiquitous presence of thermionic emitters in CT systems, given the rise of cold emitter technology at the time of publication, and given the fact that tube current “mA” is one of the modulated parameters, then it is certain that Toth is either using a thermionic or cold emitter, and as such, anticipates the claims. With respect to claims 6 and 14, Toth further discloses that the at least one beam parameter includes an amplitude and an amount of current “mA” (steps 322 and 324). With respect to claims 8 and 16, Toth further discloses that the beam threshold value is based on a configuration of the imaging detector 108 (since the detector is collecting the data during the scout scans, then the beam threshold is based, at least indirectly, on the operational parameters of the detector and/or the geometric orientation of the detector relative to the remaining structure and to the patient (Fig.10); beam modulation avoids photon pileup, which is a limitation of the detector capabilities, pars.0057 and 0061). With respect to claims 21-23, Toth further discloses that the at least one beam parameter is adjusted by changing a beam filtration parameter of a collimator connected to the imaging source (Figs.6-8, 10 and 11, step 326). 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, 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 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, respectively. With respect to claims 7 and 15, Toth further discloses that the multi-dimensional scan includes the imaging source 104 and imaging detector 108 revolving around a first axis that passes through the patient anatomy 112 (3rd generation CT). Toth does not specifically disclose moving the source and detector along a direction of the first axis. Toth instead teaches the translation of the patient on the table along the first axis in order to effect relative positioning in the direction of the first axis. However, the skilled artisan recognizes that the relative motion is what is relevant for CT scanning, and either patient translation or gantry translation along the patient axis are both known and routine in the prior art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Toth to move the source and detector along the first axis as a functionally equivalent means of achieving the relative motion with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining cited prior art (see attached PTO-892) are US patent family members of cited art and/or further establish the state of the art in adaptive CT. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm. 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 on 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. THOMAS R. ARTMAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2884 /THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601590
Method to Control Gap for Sheet Manufacturing Measurement Processes
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596083
AUTOMATED ANALYZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596062
METHOD FOR CLASSIFYING UNKNOWN PARTICLES ON A SURFACE OF A SEMI-CONDUCTOR WAFER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590907
X-RAY INSPECTION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588878
X-RAY DETECTOR AND RADIOGRAPHIC X-RAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 874 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month