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 statement (IDS) submitted on 6/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 10-12 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 10 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 11 and 12 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 11 and 12 are further indefinite at least because each claim further limits only 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, 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, 6-8, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US 2014/0247918 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a radiographic imaging device (Figs.5-11), including:
A head 110 configured to generate x-rays;
A movable detector 120 configured to receive the x-rays for imaging;
At least one base station 131 having a first base station 131 configured to transmit signals to a tag 123 and receive signals returned from the tag (RF arrangement, where tags 123 are passive reflectors and base station 131 measures the phase of the echo: par.0087);
A controller 132 configured to calculate a relative position between the first base station 131 and the tag 123 according to the signals transmitted and received by the first base station 131, where the relative position includes a relative distance and a relative angle, the first base station 131 and the tag 123 are such arranged that the relative position between the first base station 131 and the tag 123 at least represents a spatial position of the movable detector 120 (Figs.5-10); and
A first posture sensor 125 arranged at the movable detector 120 and configured to measure a posture of the movable detector 120 (Fig.10).
With respect to claim 6, Kang further discloses that the detector 120 is arranged with two tags 123 or at least three tags 123 (pars.0081-0082).
With respect to claim 7, Kang further discloses that the detector 120 is arranged with three tags 123 arranged at three sites of the detector 120, where the three sites are not on one straight line (three corners of the detector, pars.0081-0082).
With respect to claim 8, Kang further discloses that the detector 120 is arranged with three first base stations 131, and the three first base stations 131 are arranged at three sites of the detector 120 and the three sites are not on one straight line (corners of the detector, Fig.6, par.0083).
With respect to claim 13, Kang further discloses that the controller 132 is further configured to calibrate the posture of the detector 120 according to the relative position (all systems are calibrated as required by law, regulation or best practices; as broadly as claimed, Kang anticipates).
With respect to claim 14, Kang further discloses that the controller 132 is further configured to:
Calculate the posture of the detector 120 according to relative positions between the first base station 131 and three tags 123-2 (Fig.7); and
Calibrate the posture measure by the first posture sensor 125 according to the posture calculated by the relative positions (as broadly as claimed, Kang is at least capable of doing so, absent any further limitations of the calibration process).
With respect to claim 15, Kang further discloses that the head 110 is arranged with a second posture sensor configured to measure a posture of the head (tilt angle sensor at joint 103e: pars.0104-0105).
With respect to claim 16, Kang further discloses:
the at least one base station further includes a second base station 131, the second base station 131 configured to transmit signals to the tag 123 and receive signals returned from the tag 123, where the controller 132 is configured to calculate a relative position between the second base station 131 and the tag 123 according to the signals transmitted and received by the second base station, where the relative position includes a relative distance and a relative angle (Fig.6, par.0083, or Fig.8, par.0085, when the tags 123 are passive, par.0087); and
the controller 132 is configured to calibrate at least one of a spatial position of the detector, a posture of the detector, a spatial position of the head and a posture of the head according to the relative position between the second base station 131 and the tag 123 (since there are no steps to the calibration claimed, then Kang anticipates the claim by simply calculating the position and/or posture of the detector relative to the source (Fig.6) or to the mobile unit (Fig.8) based on the relative positions and angles between each of the base stations 131 and the tag 123, as required by the claim).
With respect to claim 17, Kang further discloses that the second base station 131-1 is arranged at the head 110 (Fig.8).
Regarding claim 20, Kang discloses a positioning method for a radiographic device (Figs.5-11), including:
calculating a relative position between at least one first base station 131 and at least one tag 123 according to signals transmitted and received by the at least one first base station 131, where the relative position includes a relative distance and a relative angle (RF arrangement, where tags 123 are passive reflectors and base station 131 measures the phase of the echo: par.0087), and the relative position between the at least one first base station 131 and the at least one tag 123 at least represents a spatial position of a movable detector 120;
obtaining a posture of the movable detector 120 through a first posture sensor 125 (Fig.10); and
controlling a head 110 to move according to the relative position and controlling the head to rotate according to the at least one posture of the detector 120 (via drive unit 150) to make the head 110 and the detector 120 to meet a preset position relationship (Fig.11).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mehendale (US 2016/0183909 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Kang does not specifically disclose the details of the base stations.
Mehendale teaches the practice of determining relative distance and angle of a movable detector D by having a base station TXRX transmitting to, and receiving signals from, a tag RFL, by:
d) 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
e) 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).
In this manner, the relative position and the relative angle may be accurately determined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kang to have the base station include at least two antennas such that the controller calculates the relative position between the first base station and the tag according to the first relative distance and the first signal phase difference, as taught by Mehendale, as a means of accurately determining the relative position between the first base station and the tag.
With respect to claim 3, Mehendale further teaches:
he 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).
In this manner, the relative position and the relative angle may be precisely determined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kang to have the base station include at least three antennas such that the controller calculates the relative position between the first base station and the tag according to the second relative distance and the second signal phase difference, as taught by Mehendale, as a means of precisely determining the relative position between the first base station and the tag.
With respect to claim 4, Mehendale further teaches 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).
Claims 5, 9-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kito (US 2009/0026391 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Kang further discloses a plurality of tags 123 (Figs.5 and 7) or a plurality of first base stations 131 (Figs.6 and 8), but not the combination of both a plurality of tags and a plurality of base stations.
Kito teaches the practice of providing a plurality of tags 91 and 51 and a plurality of first base stations 29a-c (Figs.1-4), where at least one of the first base stations 29a,b,c is arranged at a location in space (fixed to the ceiling) and at least one of the tags 51 is arranged at the detector 24. In this manner, the relative position of the moving detector 24 relative to the head 22 is precisely determined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kang to have a plurality of first base stations and a plurality of tags, with at least one first base station arranged at a location in space and at least one of the tags arranged at the detector, as taught by Kito, in order to precisely determine the relative position of the detector to the head.
With respect to claim 9, the controller of Kang, having the benefit of Kito as applied to claim 5, is further configured to calculate a spatial position of the movable detector 120 according to the relative position between one of the first base stations and at least one of the tags.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kang to have a plurality of first base stations and a plurality of tags, with at least one first base station arranged at a location in space and at least one of the tags arranged at the detector, as taught by Kito, in order to precisely determine the relative position of the detector to the head.
With respect to claim 10, Kang further discloses (Figs.5-11):
f) a support assembly having a first support element 103, the first support element 103 being connected to the head 110 to support the head 110; and
g) a driving assembly 150 that drives the head 110 to move through the first support element 103; where
h) the controller 132 is configured to control the driving assembly 150 to drive the head 110 to move according to the relative position and the posture of the movable detector 120 to make the head 110 and the movable detector 120 to meet a preset position relationship.
With respect to claim 11, Kang further discloses:
i) the preset position relationship between the head 110 and the detector 120 includes a distance between the head 110 and the imaging surface of the detector 120 satisfying a first distance requirement 160; where
j) the controller 132 is configured to acquire a spatial position of the head 110 and, according to the spatial position of the head 110 and the spatial position of the detector 120, control the driving assembly 150 to drive the head 110 to move to make the head 110 and the detector 120 meet the first distance requirement (par.0101-0103).
With respect to claim 12, Kang further discloses:
i) the preset position relationship between the head 110 and the detector 120 includes an angle between an irradiation surface of the head 110 and an imaging surface of the detector 120 satisfying an angle requirement; and
j) the controller 132 is configured to control the driving assembly 150 to drive the head 110 to rotate according to at least the posture of the detector 120; where
k) the controller 132 is configured to acquire a posture of the head 110 and, according to the posture of the head 110 and the posture of the detector 120, control the driving assembly to drive the head 110 to rotate to make the head 110 and the detector 120 to meet the angle requirement (pars.0104-0105).
With respect to claim 18, Kang 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 Kang 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2014/0247918 A1) in view of Stagnitto (US 2012/0230473 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Kang discloses a radiographic imaging device (Figs.5-11), including:
A head 110 configured to generate x-rays;
A movable detector 120 configured to receive the x-rays for imaging;
At least one base station 131 having a first base station 131 configured to transmit signals to a tag 123 and receive signals returned from the tag (RF arrangement, where tags 123 are passive reflectors and base station 131 measures the phase of the echo: par.0087);
A controller 132 configured to calculate a relative position between the first base station 131 and the tag 123 according to the signals transmitted and received by the first base station 131, where the relative position includes a relative distance and a relative angle, the first base station 131 and the tag 123 are such arranged that the relative position between the first base station 131 and the tag 123 at least represents a spatial position of the movable detector 120 (Figs.5-10); and
A first posture sensor 125 arranged at the movable detector 120 and configured to measure a posture of the movable detector 120 (Fig.10).
Further regarding claim 19, Kang does not specifically disclose an assistant device for placing the movable detector and arranging the sensors. In Kang, the components are built-in.
Stagnitto teaches the practice of providing an assistant device 46 for placing the detector 10 and arranging all of the tags 42 and posture sensor 28 (Fig.3B) as an alternative to having the position components built-in (par.0066).
In this manner, the skilled artisan recognizes that the sensor and tags may be readily replaced or retrofitted through the use of the assistant device 46 while providing additional mechanical support to the detector 10 and ensuring that the sensor and tags do not interfere with the image capturing capabilities of the detector 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Kang to place the detector with an assistant device, where the posture sensor is mounted to the assistant device, as taught by Stagnitto, in order to improve mechanical stability, component replacement or retrofitting, and eliminate obscuration of the imaging surface of the detector, as shown by Stagnitto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining prior art (see attached PTO-892) are US patent family members of prior art currently or previously made of record.
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