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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2025 and 6/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite at least because the recitation “support assembly comprises a first support element and/or a second support element”, and then recites subsequent limitations that require the presence of both the first and second supports. This is confusing because it is unclear whether both supports, and the corresponding dependent limitations, are required by the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under this section by virtue of their respective dependencies, thus incorporating the indefinite subject matter, and further for failing to remedy any of the noted deficiencies.
Claims 13 and 14 are further indefinite at least because each claim further limits only the option of claim 12 that includes the driving assembly. This is indefinite insofar as it is unclear whether these limitations affect the claimed combination of features where the user is prompted.
Each claim must first begin by stating which option is being further limited. For example, the claims should include a phrase such as, “wherein, when the radiographic imaging system includes the driving assembly,”.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mehendale (US 2016/0183909 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Mehendale discloses a radiographic imaging device and method of operation (Figs.1-8b), including:
A head S configured to generate x-rays;
A movable detector D configured to receive the x-rays for imaging;
At least one base station TXRX having a first base station that is configured to transmit signals to at least one tag RFL and receive signals from the tag RFL (pars.0072-0078); and
A controller TR configured to calculate a relative position between the first base station TXRX and the tag RFL according to the signals transmitted and received by the first base station TXRX; where
The relative position includes a relative distance and a relative angle (par.0070: “required SID and tube-detector alignment”; also see pars.0016, 0038 and 0064); and where
The first base station TXRX and the tag RFL are such arranged that the relative position between the first base station TXRX and the tag RFL at least represents a spatial position of the movable detector D (Figs.1 and 4-8b; see at least pars.0072-0078).
With respect to claim 2, Mehendale further discloses:
The first base station TXRX includes at least two antennas for transmitting and receiving signals, the at least two antennas including a first antenna A and a second antenna B (Figs.4-6); and
The controller TR is configured to calculate a first relative distance between the first antenna A and the tag RFL according to signals transmitted and received by the first antenna A, calculate a first signal phase difference according to the signals transmitted and received by the first antenna A and signals transmitted and received by the second antenna B, and calculate the relative position between the first base station TXRX and the tag RFL according to the first relative distance and the first signal phase difference, where the first signal phase difference is a phase difference between the signals received by the first antenna A and the signals received by the second antenna B (pars.0038, 0079, 0092 and 0096-0099).
With respect to claim 3, Mehendale further discloses:
The first base station TXRX includes three antennas for transmitting and receiving signals, and the three antennas include the first antenna A, the second antenna B, and a third antenna D (Figs.5-6); and
The controller TR is configured to calculate a second signal phase difference according to the signals transmitted and received by the first antenna A and signals transmitted and received by the third antenna D, and calculate the relative position between the first base station TXRX and the tag RFL according to the first relative distance, the first signal phase difference, and the second signal phase difference, where the second signal phase difference is a phase difference between the signals received by the first antenna A and the signals received by the third antenna D (pars.0102-0103).
With respect to claim 4, Mehendale further discloses that the three antennas are arranged at three sites of the first base station TXRX, and the three sites are located at three vertices of a right triangle (A, B and D: Fig.6).
With respect to claim 5, Mehendale further discloses a plurality of first base stations A-H (or ABCD and EFGH) and a plurality of tags RFL1 – RFL5 (Figs.6-8b); where
g) at least one of the first base stations is arranged at a location at the head S or at a location in space, and at least one of the tags RFL is arranged at the movable detector D (par.0021); or
h) at least one of the tags RFL is arranged at a location at the head S or at a location in space, and at least one of the first base stations is arranged at the movable detector D (par.0021).
With respect to claim 15, Mehendale further discloses that, when the head is arranged with one or more tags RFL, the controller TR is configured to calculate a spatial position and/or posture of the head S according to the relative position between at least one of the first base stations and the one or more tags arranged at the head S (pars.0037, 0070 and 0076).
With respect to claim 6, Mehendale further discloses that the movable detector is arranged with at least three tags RFL (Fig.8a-b).
With respect to claim 7, Mehendale further discloses that three of the tags RFL are arranged at three sites of the movable detector D, and the three sites are not on one straight line (rightmost image of Fig.8b).
With respect to claim 8, Mehendale further discloses that the controller TR is further configured to calculate a posture of the movable detector D according to the relative position between the first base station and at least three of the tags RFL arranged at the detector D (pars.0063-0064).
With respect to claim 9, Mehendale further discloses that the moveable detector D is arranged with at least three first base stations A, B and D, three of the first base stations are arranged at three sites of the movable detector D, and the three sites are not on one straight light (reverse of arrangement of Figs.6-8b, as generally taught in at least pars.0021 and 0076).
With respect to claim 10, Mehendale further discloses that the controller TR is configured to calculate a posture of the movable detector D according to the relative position between the tags RFL and at least three of the first base stations arranged at the movable detector D (pars.0078-0079).
With respect to claim 11, Mehendale further discloses that the controller TR is further configured to calculate a spatial position of the movable detector D according to the relative position between the first base station TXRX and the tag RFL (pars.0038 and 0063-0064).
With respect to claim 12, Mehendale further discloses:
g) a support assembly, the support assembly includes a first support element TS and a second support element (not illustrated, par.0020, both tube and detector may be movable; also see pars.0031-0032), the first support element TS is connected to the head S to support the head S, and the second support element is connected to the movable detector D; and
h) a driving assembly ACC configured to drive the head S to move through the first support element TS and to drive the movable detector D to move through the second support element; where
i) the controller TR is configured to control the driving assembly ACC to drive the head S and/or the detector D to move according to the relative position to make the head S and the detector D to meet a preset position relationship (pars.0031-0032 and 0071);
OR
g) a support assembly, the support assembly includes a first support element TS and a second support element B, the first support element TS is connected to the head S to support the head S, and the movable detector D is placed on the second support element B; and
h) the controller TR is configured to prompt PRP a user according to the relative position such that the user controls the head S and/or the movable detector D to move to make the head S and the movable detector D to meet a preset position relationship (par.0080).
With respect to claim 13, Mehendale further discloses, when the controller TR is configured to control the driving assembly ACC:
The preset position relationship between the head S and the movable detector D includes a distance SID between the head S and the imaging surface of the movable detector D satisfying a first distance requirement, and/or a distance between the head S and a first straight line that is vertical to and passes through a center of the imaging surface of the movable detector D (pars.0063, 0068, 0070 and 0115); and
The controller TR is configured to control the driving assembly ACC to drive the head S and/or the movable detector D to move according to the relative position to make the head S and the movable detector D to meet the preset position relationship; where the controller TR is configured to calculate a spatial position of the movable detector D according to the relative position (par.0079), acquire a spatial position of the head S (par.0078), and control the driving assembly ACC to drive the head S and/or the movable detector D to move, according to the spatial position of the movable detector D and the spatial position of the head S, to make the head S and the movable detector D to meet the preset positional relationship (pars.0070-0071).
With respect to claim 14, Mehendale further discloses, when the controller TR is configured to control the driving assembly ACC:
The preset position relationship between the head S and the movable detector D includes an angle between an irradiation surface of the head S and an imaging surface of the movable detector D satisfying an angle requirement (Fig.1; par.0068); and
The controller TR is configured to control the driving assembly ACC to drive the head S and/or the movable detector D to move according to the relative position to make the head S and the movable detector D to meet the preset position relationship; where the controller TR is configured to calculate a posture of the movable detector D according to the relative position (par.0079), acquire a posture of the head S (par.0078), and control the driving assembly ACC to drive the head S and/or the movable detector D to rotate to make the head S and the movable detector D to meet the angle requirement (Figs.0070-0071).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kito (US 2009/0026391 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kito discloses a radiographic imaging device (Figs.7-9), including:
A head 22 configured to generate x-rays;
A movable detector 24 configured to receive the x-rays for imaging;
A movable assistant device 160 (par.0083) configured for placing the movable detector 24 during the detector 24 receiving the x-rays;
At least one base station 29 having at least one first base station 29a, where the at least one first base station 29a is configured to transmit signals to at least one tag 162 and receive signals returned from the at least one tag 162 (pars.0084-0086); and
A controller 28 configured to calculate a relative position between the at least one first base station 29a and the at least one tag 162 according to the signals transmitted and received by one of the at least one first base stations 29a,b,c, where the at least one first base station 29a and the at least one tag 162 are such arranged that the relative position between the at least one first base station 29a and the at least one tag 162 at least represents a spatial position of the movable detector 24 (pars.0040, 0045 and 0086-0087).
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 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 16 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehendale, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kito (US 2009/0026391 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Mehendale teaches the practice of providing at least two first base stations A-H (or ABCD and EFGH, Figs.6-8b), where the arrangement provides for determining an absolute distance (pars.0097 and 0112-0117). The skilled artisan recognizes that the providing of an absolute distance determination is an avenue for calibration. However, there is no disclosure of such.
Kito teaches the practice of providing an RF positioning system having three base stations 29a,b,c in fixed, known locations within the room (Figs.1-3 and 7-9). As recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the relative positions calculated from the signals transmitted and received by each of the base stations to/from one or more of the tags 51, 91 or 162 provides a uniquely determined and calibrated position of the given tag.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Mehendale to provide a second first base station such that the controller calibrates at least one of a spatial position of the detector or spatial position of the head based on the determined relative distance and angle from the second base station transmitting and receiving signals to/from one of the tags, as suggested by Kito, in order to ensure proper position identification for safe imaging, as taught by both Mehendale and Kito.
With respect to claim 17, Mehendale does not specifically disclose the bandwidth over which the positioning system operates.
Kito teaches the routine practice of providing a positioning system having a base station and a tag for determining relative positions between the base station and tag based on the signals emitted and received by the base station, where UWB may be used as the operating band (pars.0076-0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Mehendale to have the base station and tag operate over UWB, as a known and effective means of communicating in such a complex environment as an x-ray imaging room, as taught by Kito.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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 Makiya can be reached on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights