Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/085,867

MEDICAL IMAGING SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Examiner
BRUTUS, JOEL F
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
GE Precision Healthcare LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
922 granted / 1276 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1324
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1276 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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)(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. Claim(s) 1-7, 10-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berent et al (Pub. No.: US 2022/0413171) Regarding claims 1, 11, 20, Berent et al disclose a method for controlling a medical imaging system, the medical imaging system comprising a scanning device (scanner XI) [see 0034, 0046], configured to scan an object to be tested, to obtain imaging data containing information about the object to be tested [see 0049-0051]; wherein the scanning device has a front-end portion (circuitry of the detector or faulty channels or bad pixels) for transmitting a signal to and receiving a signal from the object to be tested [see 0019-0020, 0023, 0037, 0057, 0059, 0064]; the method comprising detecting, according to data obtained by the scanning device by scanning a predetermined object to be tested, a type failure modes) of a fault that has occurred in the front-end portion of the scanning device [see 0010, 0020, 0023, 0037] by disclosing the fault may be in the circuitry of the detector, in particular in a channel of the said target detector [see 0010]. Regarding claims 2, 12, Berent et al disclose wherein the front-end portion comprises: a voltage generator, the voltage generator generating a pulse voltage [see 0056, 0066]; a probe, the probe having a plurality of elements (channels), and the elements transmitting signals or receiving signals under the driving of the pulse voltage [see 0057, 0059, 0064]; a receiver, the receiver processing electrical signals corresponding to the signals received by the elements [see 0057, 0059, 0064]. Regarding claims 3, 13, Berent et al disclose wherein the type of the fault that has occurred in the front-end portion comprises at least one of: a fault that has occurred in at least one element (imaging channels, capacitors, etc) of the probe [see 0010, 0020, 0037] by disclosing the fault checker enables detecting faults (failure modes) such as discontinuities situated between the transducer stage (eg, photodiodes) and the digitizing circuit in the detector [see 0020]; a fault that has occurred in the voltage generator; a fault that has occurred in the receiver [see 0010, 0020] by disclosing the fault checker enables detecting faults (failure modes) such as discontinuities situated between the transducer stage (eg, photodiodes) and the digitizing circuit in the detector [see 0020]; interference to the front-end portion caused by an external signal. Regarding claims 4, 14, Berent et al disclose wherein the method further comprises: controlling a display apparatus of the medical imaging system to display at least one of the following pieces of information: information about an imaging channel corresponding to the element in which a fault has occurred in the probe [see 0023, 0075] by disclosing the output of the fault checker may include a data structure such as a table that associates a pixel address with a flag to indicate whether the pixel is bad or not [see 0023] and for each pixel signal processed the respective indication whether the respective pixel is bad or not. This indication per pixel is output at output port OUT [see 0075]; information about an imaging channel corresponding to the voltage generator in which a fault has occurred; information about an imaging channel corresponding to the receiver (detector) in which a fault has occurred [see 0020, 0023] by disclosing the output of the fault checker may include a data structure such as a table that associates a pixel address with a flag to indicate whether the pixel is bad or not [see 0023]; information about an imaging channel being interfered with by an external signal. Regarding claims 5, 15, Berent et al disclose wherein the quantity of probes is one or more; the control method further comprises: controlling a display apparatus of the medical imaging system to display information about the probe having an element in which a fault has occurred [see 0023, 0078] by disclosing the output of the fault checker may include a data structure such as a table that associates a pixel address with a flag to indicate whether the pixel is bad or not [see 0023]; Regarding claims 6, 16, Berent et al disclose wherein the front-end portion comprises a plurality of imaging channels [see 0023, 0059, 0064]; the control method further comprises: performing compensation processing on the fault to generate a medical image according to the imaging data [see 0023, 0079] by disclosing a compensator to compensate for faulty channels during imaging, based on the output by the fault checker that flags up bad pixels. The output of the fault checker may include a data structure such as a table that associates a pixel address with a flag to indicate whether the pixel is bad or not [see 0023]. Regarding claims 7, 17, Berent et al disclose wherein the compensation processing comprises at least one of the following: adjusting a weight value of the imaging data in an imaging channel corresponding to the fault; discarding the imaging data in the imaging channel corresponding to the fault [see 0079]; adjusting a filter coefficient of the imaging channel corresponding to the fault [see 0076, 0079]. Regarding claim 10, Berent et al disclose wherein the detecting, according to data obtained by the scanning device by scanning a predetermined object to be tested, a type of a fault that has occurred in the front-end portion of the scanning device comprises: performing at least one of frequency spectrum analysis and energy pulse analysis on the data obtained by the scanning device by scanning the predetermined object to be tested [see 0127]; determining, according to a result of the analysis, the type (fault-specific noise footprints) of the fault that has occurred in the front-end portion of the scanning device [see 0127]. 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. Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berent et al (Pub. No.: US 2022/0413171) in view of Xu et al (Pub. No.: US 2022/0114801). Regarding claims 8, 18, Berent et al don’t disclose indicating a region corresponding to the fault on the medical image. Nonetheless, Xu et al disclose indicating a region corresponding to the fault on the medical image [see 0127] by disclosing a plurality of fault layers (e.g., 751, 752, 753, 761, 762, 763, 771, 772, 773, 781, 782, 783) of the scanning object may be obtained by scanning the scanning object from top to bottom using a scanning device (e.g., the scanning device 110) [see 0127]. Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Berent et al and Xu et al by indicating a region corresponding to the fault on the medical image; to increase visualization. Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berent et al (Pub. No.: US 2022/0413171) in view of Zhang (Pub. No.: US 2019/0019317) Regarding claims 9, 19, Berent et al don’t disclose wherein the predetermined object to be tested is air. Nonetheless, Zhang discloses wherein the predetermined object to be tested is air [see abstract, 0014] by disclosing a first set of data associated with air in a scanning area may be obtained [see abstract]. Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Berent et al and Zhang by testing air; for filtering denoising of the image. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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. /JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 25, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599299
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTIMODAL SOFT TISSUE DIAGNOSTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594131
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NAVIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594124
MEDICAL SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586191
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, MEDICAL IMAGE DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND BLOOD PRESSURE MONITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579496
INTRAOPERATIVE VIDEO REVIEW
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+18.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1276 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month