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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Papaioannou teaches an x-ray imaging system, comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062):
PNG
media_image1.png
492
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an emitter (200) comprising: an x-ray source (210) housed in an x-ray source housing (205) configured to be translated along a first trajectory (615a) (see Figs. 2 and 6); a detector (300) comprising: an x-ray detector (310) housed in an x-ray detector housing (305) configured to be translated along a second trajectory (615b) that is different from the first trajectory (615a) (see Figs. 2 and 6; paragraphs 0036-0040 and 0059-0062), wherein the x-ray detector housing (305) is physically uncoupled from the x-ray source housing (205); and a controller (190) in communication with the x-ray source (210) and the x-ray detector (310), wherein the controller (190) is configured to: align the x-ray source (210) with the x-ray detector (310); and synchronously move the x-ray source(210) along the first trajectory (615a) and the x-ray detector (310) along the second trajectory (615b) (Figs. 1a; 2 and 6; paragraphs 0038, 0059 and 0062).
With respect to claim 2, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062), wherein the first trajectory (615a) and the second trajectory (615b) are both linear scanning trajectories (see Fig. 6; paragraphs 0036-0062).
With respect to claim 3, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 2 (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062), wherein the first trajectory (615a) is parallel to the second trajectory (615b) (see Fig. 6; paragraphs 0036-0062).
With respect to claim 4, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062), wherein the controller (190 is configured to align the x-ray source (210) with the x-ray detector (310) using an artificial intelligence algorithm implemented by the controller (190) (Figs. 1a; 2 and 6; paragraphs 0038, 0059, 0062, 0084 and 0105).
With respect to claim 19, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062), wherein the controller (190) is configured to: receive x-ray projection data acquired by the x-ray detector (310); reconstruct an image from the x-ray projection data; and analyze the image to determine a quantitative parameter measuring alignment and relative angle of a spine of a subject as depicted in the image (Figs. 1a; 2 and 6; paragraphs 0038, 0059, 0062, 0084 and 0105).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruff et al. (WO 2020/028704 A1) and Putha et al. (US PAP 2022/0245795 A1).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 4 but fails to explicitly mention that the artificial intelligence algorithm comprises a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm implements a computer vision algorithm.
Ruff et al. discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging (see Fig. 28A; paragraphs 0033 and 0035) which explicitly teaches improved approach for automatic x-ray exposure process, wherein the artificial intelligence algorithm comprises a machine learning algorithm (see Fig. 28A; paragraphs 0033 and 0035) wherein "By utilizing a radiological imaging-device with a comprehensive sensor array and an enterprise wide application of machine learning techniques, the system (20) can calculate and refine the techniques before any radiation is emitted. This allows an operator to precisely align the device and understand if the machine is capable of imaging the anatomy", see paragraph 0235) providing user with the capabilities to enable the control unit to identify patterns, make decisions, and improve the action of the computer system through data (see Fig. 28A; paragraphs 0033 and 0035).
Putha et al. discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0023-0035) which explicitly teaches that an artificial intelligence algorithm comprises a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm implements a computer vision algorithm in order to provide user with the capabilities to for automatically detecting acquisition errors in a medical image using machine learning (see abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0023-0035) while developing of deep learning algorithms that perform machine recognition of specific features and conditions in imaging and other medical data (see abstract).
Papaioannou, Ruff et al. and Putha et al. disclose related methods/apparatuses for X-ray imaging.
It 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 to provide teachings of that the artificial intelligence algorithm comprises a machine learning algorithm as suggested by Ruff et al., wherein the machine learning algorithm implements a computer vision algorithm as further suggested by Putha et al. in the apparatus of Papaioannou, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to enable the control unit to identify patterns, make decisions, and improve the action of the computer system through data while developing of deep learning algorithms that perform machine recognition of specific features and conditions in imaging and other medical data.
It would have been obvious to treat Papaioannou, Ruff et al. and Putha et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 5 and 6 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-2008-0073833A).
With respect to claims 7-10, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (Figs. 1a; 2 and 6; paragraphs 0038, 0059, 0062, 0084 and 0105) but fails to explicitly mention the arrangement: wherein an x-ray source is movably coupled to a first rail that defines the first trajectory, such that as the x-ray source is translated along the first rail the x-ray source is translated along the first trajectory; wherein the x-ray detector is movably coupled to a second rail that defines the second trajectory, such that as the x-ray source is translated along the second rail the x-ray source is translated along the second trajectory; wherein the first rail is a floor-mounted rail and wherein the second rail is a floor-mounted rail.
Kim et al. discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging (see abstract; Figs. 2a-7)
which explicitly teaches the arrangement: wherein an x-ray source (29) is movably coupled to a first rail (10) that defines the first trajectory, such that as the x-ray source (29) is translated along the first rail (10) the x-ray source is translated along the first trajectory;
PNG
media_image3.png
249
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which explicitly teaches the arrangement: wherein an x-ray source is movably coupled to a first
PNG
media_image4.png
387
429
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein an x-ray detector (39) is movably coupled to a second rail (10) that defines the second trajectory, such that as the x-ray source is translated along the second rail (10) the x-ray source is translated along the second trajectory; wherein the first rail (10) is a floor-mounted rail and wherein the second rail (10) is a floor-mounted rail (see Fig. 2c) providing user with the capabilities to controllably slide and align imaging system elements as needed for intended use.
Papaioannou and Kim et al. disclose related methods/apparatuses for X-ray imaging.
It 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 to provide teachings of the x-ray source is movably coupled to the first rail that defines the first trajectory, such that as the x-ray source is translated along the first rail the x-ray source is translated along the first trajectory and wherein the x-ray detector is movably coupled to the second rail that defines the second trajectory as suggested by Kim et al. in the apparatus of Papaioannou and Kim, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to controllably slide and align imaging system elements with high accuracy and precision as needed for intended use.
It would have been obvious to treat Papaioannou and Kim et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 7-10 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 107693035A).
With respect to claims 11-13, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (Figs. 1a; 2 and 6; paragraphs 0038, 0059, 0062, 0084 and 0105) but fails to explicitly mention the arrangement: wherein the x-ray source is coupled to a moveable base module that is configured to translate along a surface; wherein the x-ray detector is coupled to a moveable base module that is configured to translate along a surface and wherein the base module comprises a wheeled base module that is configured to roll along the surface.
Xu et al. discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging which explicitly teaches (see abstract; Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
211
905
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
541
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the arrangement: wherein the x-ray source is coupled to a moveable base module that is configured to translate along a surface; wherein the x-ray detector is coupled to a moveable base module that is configured to translate along a surface and wherein the base module comprises a wheeled base module that is configured to roll along the surface in order to provide user with the capabilities to make the X-ray imaging system more compact and mobile with diversity of scanning modes that can meet various scanning tracks with large movable range that can simulate all the existing CT scanning mode and can satisfy the different scanning requirements in practical application.
It 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 to provide teachings of the moveable base module that is configured to translate along the surface and wherein the base module comprises the wheeled base module as suggested by Xu et al. in the apparatus of Papaioannou, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to make the X-ray imaging system more compact and mobile with diversity of scanning modes that can meet various scanning tracks with large movable range that can simulate all the existing CT scanning mode and can satisfy the different scanning requirements in practical application.
It would have been obvious to treat Papaioannou and Xu et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 11-13 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 107693035A).
Papaioannou teaches an x-ray imaging system, comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062):
PNG
media_image1.png
492
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an emitter (200) comprising: an x-ray source (210) housed in an x-ray source housing (205) configured to be translated along a first trajectory (615a) (see Figs. 2 and 6); a detector (300) comprising: an x-ray detector (310) housed in an x-ray detector housing (305) configured to be translated along a second trajectory (615b) that is different from the first trajectory (615a) (see Figs. 2 and 6; paragraphs 0036-0040 and 0059-0062), wherein the x-ray detector housing (305) is physically uncoupled from the x-ray source housing (205); and a controller (190) in communication with the x-ray source (210) and the x-ray detector (310), wherein the controller (190) is configured to: align the x-ray source (210) with the x-ray detector (310); and synchronously move the x-ray source (210) along the first trajectory (615a) and the x-ray detector (310) along the second trajectory (615b) (Figs. 1a; 2 and 6; paragraphs 0038, 0059 and 0062) but fails to explicitly mention a first wheeled base coupled to the first housing; a second wheeled base coupled to the second.
Xu et al. discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging which explicitly teaches (see abstract; Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
211
905
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
541
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the arrangement: wherein the x-ray source is coupled to a moveable base module that is configured to translate along a surface; wherein the x-ray detector is coupled to a moveable base module that is configured to translate along a surface and wherein the base module comprises a wheeled base module that is configured to roll along the surface in order to provide user with the capabilities to make the X-ray imaging system more compact and mobile with diversity of scanning modes that can meet various scanning tracks with large movable range that can simulate all the existing CT scanning mode and can satisfy the different scanning requirements in practical application.
It 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 to provide teachings of the moveable base module that is configured to translate along the surface and wherein the base module comprises the wheeled base module as suggested by Xu et al. in the apparatus of Papaioannou, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to make the X-ray imaging system more compact and mobile with diversity of scanning modes that can meet various scanning tracks with large movable range that can simulate all the existing CT scanning mode and can satisfy the different scanning requirements in practical application.
It would have been obvious to treat Papaioannou and Xu et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 20 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen (US 10,136,948 B2).
With respect to claims 14-16, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062) but fails to explicitly mention an arrangement wherein at least one of the x-ray source or the x-ray detector includes at least one positioning sensor that is configured to generate positioning data, wherein the controller is configured to receive the positioning data from the at least one positioning sensor and to align the x-ray source with the x-ray detector based on the positioning data; wherein each of the x-ray source and the x-ray detector includes at least one positioning sensor and wherein the at least one positioning sensor comprises at least one of an optical positioning sensor, a radio frequency (RF)-based positioning sensor, or an inertial positioning sensor.
Jensen discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging (see abstract; Figs. 1A-14; column 6, lines 29-62) which explicitly teaches an arrangement wherein at least one of an x-ray source (24) or an x-ray detector (26) (see Fig. 4) includes at least one positioning sensor that is configured to generate positioning data, wherein the controller is configured to receive the positioning data from the at least one positioning sensor (108) and to align the x-ray source (24) with the x-ray detector (26) based on the positioning data; wherein each of the x-ray source (24) and the x-ray detector (26) includes at least one positioning sensor and wherein the at least one positioning sensor (108) comprises at least one of an optical positioning sensor, a radio frequency (RF)-based positioning sensor, or an inertial positioning sensor
PNG
media_image7.png
610
441
media_image7.png
Greyscale
providing user with the capabilities to properly and controllably align the x-ray source and the detector for ensuring improved overall image quality.
Papaioannou and Jensen disclose similar methods/apparatuses for X-ray imaging.
It 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 to provide the teachings of at least one positioning sensor that is configured to generate positioning data as suggested by Jensen in the apparatus of Papaioannou since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to properly and controllably align the x-ray source and the detector for ensuring improved overall image quality.
It would have been obvious to treat Papaioannou and Jensen as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claims 14-16 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schleeht et al. (US Patent 10,247,682 B2).
With respect to claim 17, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062) but fail to explicitly teach that the x-ray detector comprises a linear detector array.
Schleeht et al. discloses a system/method for X-ray imaging which explicitly teaches that the flat-panel detectors as well as a linear detector array often used to reduce contrast reduction from scattered radiation currently the most commonly used detectors in industrial CT systems in a volumetric CT setup (see column 5, lines 35-52).
Papaioannou and Schleeht et al. disclose similar methods/apparatuses for X-ray imaging.
It 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 to provide the teaching of using the linear detector array as suggested by Schleeht et al. in the apparatus of Papaioannou, since such a modification would provide user with the capabilities to duce contrast reduction from scattered radiation for ensuring improved overall image quality.
It would have been obvious to treat Papaioannou and Schleeht et al. as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 17 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papaioannou (US PAP 2016/0278724 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner (US Patent 7,496,178 B2).
With respect to claim 18, Papaioannou teaches the x-ray imaging system of claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-25; paragraphs 0036-0062) but fail to explicitly mention that the controller is housed within one of the x-ray source housing or the x-ray detector housing.
Turner discloses a system for X-ray imaging (10) which explicitly teaches that
PNG
media_image8.png
562
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
526
372
media_image9.png
Greyscale
a controller (70) is housed within an x-ray source housing (20) (see abstract; Figs. 1-7; column 3, lines 18 – column 5, line 8) in order to provide user with more compact and portable X-ray imaging system.
Papaioannou and Turner disclose similar methods/apparatuses for X-ray imaging.
It 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 to provide teachings of the controller that is housed within the x-ray source housing as suggested by Turner in the apparatus of Papaioannou, since such a modification would provide user with more compact and portable X-ray imaging system.
It would have been obvious to treat Papaioannou and Turner as related art whereby an improvement on one of the systems/methods would readily be apparent as an improvement on either of the systems.
The Examiner’s conclusion that claim 18 would have been obvious is based on the fact that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, that one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and that the combination teaches nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson ’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lim (US PAP 2014/0233698 A1) teaches an x-ray imaging system, comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; paragraphs 0043-0081): an x-ray source housed in an x-ray source housing (20) configured to be translated along a first trajectory (see Fig. 2); an x-ray detector housed in an x-ray detector housing (11) configured to be translated along a second trajectory that is different from the first trajectory (see Fig. 2), wherein the x-ray detector housing is physically uncoupled from the x-ray source housing (see Fig. 2);
PNG
media_image10.png
205
302
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
579
456
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and a controller (50) in communication with the x-ray source (20) and the x-ray detector (11), wherein the controller (50) is configured to: align the x-ray source (20) with the x-ray detector (11) (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; paragraphs 0043-0081).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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 J. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ March 4, 2026