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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ruff et al (US 2021/0169438 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ruff et al discloses a medical imaging system comprising: a C-arm X-ray machine (230) (paragraph [0120]) for generating X-ray radiation, the C-arm X-ray machine capable of being moved into various positions to enable different views of a patient during an imaging procedure (paragraph [0162]); a table or patient support surface (105) (paragraph [0165]) configured to position the patient during the imaging procedure; at least one distance sensor (216)(216) (paragraphs [0117]) configured to measure a distance between the patient or the table and the C-arm X-ray device or an X-ray generator or C-arm housing of the C-arm X-ray device (paragraph [0221]); and one or more processors configured by computer-executable instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory (233) (paragraph [0122]) to: control (control panel) (paragraph [0177]) a radiation dose of the X-ray machine based on distances measured by the at least one distance sensor; and interrupt or reduce the radiation dose in critical situations while maintaining sufficient image quality by adjusting the radiation intensity in real time to limit radiation exposure of the patient's skin (sensor (216) continuously sense its distance from patient and will block the activation and discharge of radiation if the x-ray tube is too close, i.e. 19 cm directly from patient).
Regarding claim 2, Ruff et al discloses further comprising a display device (204) configured to display visual information about distance, dose control, and skin protection during the imaging procedure (paragraphs [0068], [0117], [0122]).
Regarding claim 9, Ruff et al discloses further comprising one or more of a color-coding unit, an optical coding unit, a haptic coding unit, or an acoustic coding unit, configured to code the information shown on the display, wherein certain codes are assigned to certain dose ranges or collision scenarios (paragraphs [0036], [0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Ruff et al discloses further comprising one or more external or internal cameras (214) configured to monitor a C-arm position of the C-arm X-ray machine (paragraphs [0117], [0021]).
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff et al (US 2021/0169438 A1) in view of Hertault et al (“Impact of Hybrid Rooms with Image Fusion on Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Aortic Repair”).
Regarding claim 3, Ruff et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Ruff et al is silent with regards to a capacitor sensor as claimed. Hertault et al discloses a capacitive sensor automatically minimizes distance from detector to patient allowing a reduction of scattered radiation (page 388) and display (monitor) output measured distance value in a form that can be read by medical personnel (pages 388-389). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruff et al of a medical imaging system comprising: a C-arm X-ray machine for generating X-ray radiation, the C-arm X-ray machine capable of being moved into various positions to enable different views of a patient during an imaging procedure with Hertault et al of capacitive sensor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to track distance and movement adjusting x-ray dose in real time.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruff et al (US 2021/0169438 A1) in view of Spahn et al (US 8,767,920 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Ruff et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Ruff et al is silent with regards to detecting collision hazards as claimed. Spahn et la discloses a medical imaging system and anti-collision method with a controllable arm comprising: one or more processors are further configured to analyze the measured distance information and to detect collision hazards between the C-arm X-ray machine and the patient or the table (col. 3, lines 4-19 and col. 4, lines 4-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruff et al of a medical imaging system comprising: a C-arm X-ray machine for generating X-ray radiation, the C-arm X-ray machine capable of being moved into various positions to enable different views of a patient during an imaging procedure with Spahn et al of anti-collision method. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to avoid collision while preserving sufficient image quality an ergonomics.
Regarding claim 5, Ruff et al discloses one or more processors (216) are further configured to: continuously analyze the measured distances and identify patterns or trends in the data; compare the identified patterns or trends in the data with predefined collision criteria (paragraph [0117], [0182]). Spahn et al teaches initiating collision-avoidance measures if collision criteria are met, based on result of comparison of patterns/trends of distance data (col. 4, lines 4-29). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruff et al of a medical imaging system comprising: a C-arm X-ray machine for generating X-ray radiation, the C-arm X-ray machine capable of being moved into various positions to enable different views of a patient during an imaging procedure with Spahn et al of anti-collision method. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to avoid collision while preserving sufficient image quality and ergonomics.
Regarding claim 6, Ruff et al in view of Spahn et al discloses wherein the collision avoidance measures comprise one or more of: a deceleration or stop of movement of the medical imaging system (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Ruff et al disclose implementing skin protection in direction of radiation (paragraphs [0002], [0258], [0260], [0275]). Spahn et al teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to implement anti-collision protection in all directions (col. 4, lines 4-14). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruff et al of a medical imaging system comprising: a C-arm X-ray machine for generating X-ray radiation, the C-arm X-ray machine capable of being moved into various positions to enable different views of a patient during an imaging procedure with Spahn et al of anti-collision method. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to avoid collision while preserving sufficient image quality and ergonomics.
Regarding claim 8, Ruff et al in view of Spahn et al discloses a display device (204) for displaying sensor dose adjustment and collision protection (paragraph [0117]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roeckseisen et al (US 2003/0185349 A1) discloses a device for non-contact measurement of a distance to a human body at radiotherapy, comprising a moveable radiation head which directs a treatment beam to the tissue area to be treated, a Support provided at the radiation head in a defined distance to the beam, the Support is provided for distance measuring means directed to a piercing point, in a measuring position the distance measuring means direct a laser beam to a piercing point of the treatment beam on the skin and measures the distance to the piercing point, and evaluation means computing from the measured distance value the distance of the focus of the treatment beam to the piercing point.
Camus et al (US 2008/0304626 A1) discloses A collision protection device for a patient examination table of a medical X-ray device is provided for the purpose of assuring simple and reliable avoidance of collisions between very fast moving device parts of a medical X-ray device and a patient, which collision protection device has a protective element made of an X-ray transparent material, wherein the collision protection device can be arranged relative to the patient examination table and brought into a position Such that in said position the protective element mechanically shields at least a part of the lying surface of the patient examination table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights