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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears that “operable” should perhaps be “operably”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, it appears that “the” should be inserted after “connected to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, it appears that “instruction” should be “instructions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, it appears that “instruction” should be “instructions”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, it appears that “a user interface” should be “the user interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 – claims 1-10 in the reply filed on July 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 3, 2026.
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 (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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saracen (US 2007/0140413 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2023/0038498 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Saracen discloses a system for registration, comprising: a robotic arm (112) operably connected to a histotripsy system; a phantom (102) operably connected to the robotic arm; and a computing device (2000) operably connected to the histotripsy system, the computing device including a processor (2010) and a memory (2020), the memory storing therein instructions that when executed by the processor cause the computing device to perform steps of: driving the robotic arm to an imaging location; imports cone-beam computed tomography (CT) images of the phantom; 0019 & 0023 & 0036 & 0057). Saracen does not specifically disclose determines a number and orientation of markers within at least one of the imported cone-beam CT images. However, Saracen discloses tracking fiducials implanted into respiration phantom 102 (paragraph 0036). Xu et al. disclose determines a number and orientation of markers within at least one of the imported cone-beam CT images (paragraphs 0135 & 0141). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that Saracen determines a number and orientation of markers within at least one of the imported cone-beam CT images, because this is how fiducials are tracked for positioning purposes, as taught by Xu et al.
With respect to claim 2, Saracen/Xu et al. discloses wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via a user-interface to drive the phantom to an iso-center of the cone-beam CT imaging device (Xu et al. - paragraphs 0039 & 0135).
With respect to claim 3, Saracen discloses wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via the user interface to align a light alignment feature of the cone-beam CT imaging device with an iso-center alignment feature on the phantom (paragraph 0004).
With respect to claim 4, Saracen/Xu et al. discloses wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via a user interface to adjust a position of the phantom to a center of the cone-beam CT imaging device field of view, prior to capturing images of the phantom (Xu et al. - paragraphs 0039 & 0135+ & 0141+).
With respect to claim 5, Saracen discloses wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via the user interface to align a light alignment feature of the cone-beam CT imaging device with an iso-center alignment feature on the phantom (paragraph 0004). Saracen does not specifically disclose one or more crosshairs on the phantom. However, use of crosshairs on a phantom is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Saracen to align a light alignment feature of the cone-beam CT imaging device with one or more crosshairs on the phantom, as a matter of design choice, to ensure accurate positioning.
With respect to claim 6, Saracen/Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via a user interface to attach the phantom to the robotic arm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Saracen/Xu et al. to do this, since proper attachment and alignment is the desired outcome.
With respect to claim 7, Saracen/Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via a user interface to arrange the cone-beam CT imaging device and the histotripsy system perpendicular to a patient bed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Saracen/Xu et al. to do this, since proper alignment of the cone-beam CT imaging device and the histotripsy system is the desired outcome.
With respect to claim 8, Saracen/Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via the user interface to lock wheels of the cone-beam CT imaging device and the histotripsy system. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Saracen/Xu et al. to do this, for safety reasons.
With respect to claim 9, Saracen/Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via a user interface to confirm clearance of the cone-beam CT imaging device and the robotic arm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Saracen/Xu et al. to do this, for safety reasons.
With respect to claim 10, Saracen/Xu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions when executed by the processor cause the computing device to display instructions via a user interface to confirm a quality of the cone-beam CT images prior to importing the cone-beam CT images. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Saracen/Xu et al. to do this, to save time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights