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 .
Continuation
The present application is a continuation of application 18/203,463, now patent 12,067,653, which was a continuation of 17/464,410, now patent 11,763,499.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,653. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims anticipate or render obvious the instant claims as follows:
Instant claims
Reference claims
1-20
1-20
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,499. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims render obvious the instant claims as follows:
Instant claims
Reference claims
1-20
13-20
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,573,115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims render obvious the instant claims as follows:
Instant claims
Reference claims
1-20
1, 3-9, and 12
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under double patenting rejections as described above, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, with reference to representative claim 21, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest a system for generating a corrected image comprising: an imaging device comprising a source configured to emit a wave and a detector configured to receive a signal indicative of the wave; at least one processor; and a memory storing data for processing by the at least one processor, the data, when processed, causing the at least one processor to: receive a plurality of image datasets from the detector, each image dataset in the plurality of image datasets having a source detector distance, the plurality of image datasets comprising an initial image having a scatter effect; input the plurality of image datasets to a scatter correction model, the scatter correction model outputting a scatter correction configured to correct the scatter effect; and applying the scatter correction to the initial image to correct the scatter effect present in the initial image, particularly the underlined sections.
Wendler (US 2010/0266171 A1) discloses a system for scatter correction (par. [0194]) and the use of a robot arm for reasons other than scatter correction (par. [0040], [0065]).
Yu (US 2020/0175733 A1) discloses mounting sources and detectors on robotic arms (par. [0035]).
While scatter correction and robotic arms were individually known in the prior art, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration of using robotic arms for scatter correction.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 16 would be allowable.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, the claims would be allowable due to their dependence.
Conclusion
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 on 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