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 .
Notice to the Applicant
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/22/2024 has been considered.
Examiner attempted to reach the office of the attorney of record and left voice messages on office 06/04/2026 and 06/08/2026 to resolve the claim objection and 35 USC 112(b) issues, however no reply was received.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 09/27/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202311261690.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, appears to contain a typographical error: “postureaccording”. Add a space between “posture” and “according”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: processing module in claim 11.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1, Lines 14-15 recites "the target lateral posture". Is this referring to the "registered target lateral posture" of Claim 1, line 13? For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be read as “the registered target lateral posture”.
Claim 2 line 7 recites "the registered target lateral posture". It is unclear if it is referring to the element in claim 1 line 13 or claim 2 line 3. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is understood to refer to claim 1 line 13.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the current initial lateral posture" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the current object posture" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is meant my “with” in line 10. It is recommended to rewrite claim 11 to be in independent form by removing the recited limitation "with the method of any of claims 1-8" (Claim 11, line 10).
Regarding Claim 11 recites “transforming the coordinates … from the three-dimensional coordinate system of the X-ray machine to a front…”, which is not taught in the disclosure. It appears to be a typographical error and it is recommended amending line 18 to "…of the X-ray machine according to a front…", per Specification (¶[0031]), shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
439
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
Claim 1-11 are allowed with resolution of the claim objection and rejections under 35 USC §112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Search and consideration has failed to provide references lending towards any obvious combination teaching/suggesting the claimed invention as a whole. Specifically, references of record fail to teach/suggest at least:
performing registration optimization for the initial lateral posture of the X-ray machine according to the target object posture and the lateral two-dimensional image to generate a registered target lateral posture of the X-ray machine; and
integrating the target object posture of the object to be registered, the target lateral posture of the X-ray machine, and the initial front posture of the X-ray machine into a registration optimization result.
References considered, provided by applicant and searched, teach the general present state of the art without lending towards any obvious combination of references teaching/suggesting the claimed invention as a whole. Specifically, Lin et al., WO 2023089566 A1, teaches two dimensional images, anterior/posterior (AP) (i.e., front) and lateral (LA), utilized in registration, however, link relies on a calibrator to identify the location of the imaging device (¶[0051]). Chang (2015) teaches inclusion of the x-ray focal length coefficient and other orientation and attenuation coefficient parameters in registering the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR), however, registration is not based on the lateral two dimensional image. Woo et al., US 20240144489 A1, utilizes either AP or LA when determining a second rotation angle, see Fig 16 and (¶[0093]). However, the registration optimization result does not explicitly rely on the initial front posture of the X-ray.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDHANA PEDAPATI whose telephone number is 571-272-5325. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-6pm (ET).
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/CHANDHANA PEDAPATI/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights