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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/28/2026 has been entered.
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, 3, 5-11 and 16-17 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.
The term “optimal” in claims 1 and 16-17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a method for evaluating a mobile X-ray acquisition of a patient without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the step of receiving an X-ray image of the patient; detecting a marker in the X-ray image using a deep learning model, wherein the marker comprises a plate of known geometry and a rod; determining a position of the rod of the marker; analyzing a projection of the rod in the X-ray image; and determining a position of an X-ray source above a bed of the patient based on the analyzed projection of the rod. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering/evaluating data and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of deep learning model is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 5-11 are dependent upon claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 3 and 5-11 recites the same abstract idea of gathering/evaluating data and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps recite mathematical operations that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry at a high level of generality amounting no more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a non-transitory computer readable medium for evaluating a mobile X-ray acquisition of a patient without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the step of receiving an X-ray image of the patient; detecting a marker in the X-ray image using a deep learning model, wherein the marker comprises a plate of known geometry and a rod; determining a position of the rod of the marker; analyzing a projection of the rod in the X-ray image; and determining a position of an X-ray source above a bed of the patient based on the analyzed projection of the rod. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering/evaluating data and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of deep learning model is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than the abstract idea. The addition of general purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, receiving data and performing mathematical operations) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of an apparatus for evaluating a mobile X-ray acquisition of a patient without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the step of receiving an X-ray image of the patient; detecting a marker in the X-ray image using a deep learning model, wherein the marker comprises a plate of known geometry and a rod; determining a position of the rod of the marker; analyzing a projection of the rod in the X-ray image; and determining a position of an X-ray source above a bed of the patient based on the analyzed projection of the rod. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering/evaluating data and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of deep learning model is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than the abstract idea. The addition of general purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, receiving data and performing mathematical operations) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-11 and 16-17 would be allowable if claim rejections under 35 USC 101 were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed combination of subject matter particularly measuring and determining the radius and height of the rod.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the steps cannot be performed in the human m ind. However, the Examiner’s position is that the claims merely recite steps at a high level of generality and fail to set forth specific algorithms or calculations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner notes that performing repetitive calculations are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Applicant argues the claims recite integration into a practical application. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The claims merely recite steps for determining a position of the X-ray source yet fails to apply the determined position in a practical application. Applicant argues the combination of X-ray marker and deep-learning as significantly more than the judicial exception. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The claimed method merely recites steps for post-processing and mathematical analysis which is interpreted as gathering and evaluating data. The X-ray source and marker are merely components recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of an X-ray source and marker that would be needed to practice or apply the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
