US 9726619

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any litigation/docket records.

The second search returned an unrelated document. Let me search more specifically for litigation and docket records.

Let me do additional targeted checks for any litigation, PTAB, or appeal activity specifically tied to this patent.

Summary — US Patent No. 9,726,619 B2

Important scope note: I searched for the exact number 9,726,619 (US9726619B2). Below is what I can confirm from the USPTO/Google Patents full text and cross-checks. I did not find any Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, district-court complaint, or PTAB proceeding specifically identifying this patent. I flag that explicitly rather than inferring it.

Bibliographic data

Caution on priority date. Google Patents displays an assumed priority date of 2005-10-25, which is a data artifact of a large related-application family (many co-pending Rapiscan cases share that date). The patent's own text ties priority to provisional 61/446,098 filed Feb. 24, 2011 and its parent application of Feb. 24, 2012. Treat the operative priority/expiry calculus (e.g., an "anticipated expiration 2032-02-24" listing) as an automated estimate, not an authoritative legal conclusion.

Abstract (as issued)

The patent discloses a computed tomography (CT) system having non-rotating X-ray sources programmed to optimize the source firing pattern. In one embodiment the CT system is a fast cone-beam scanner using a fixed ring of multiple sources and fixed rings of detectors in an offset geometry. The firing pattern is effectuated by a controller that implements methods for determining a firing pattern adapted to geometries in which the source and detector geometry are offset (i.e., not co-planar).

Plain-language overview of the independent claim

There is one independent claim (claim 1); claims 2–16 are all dependent. So "each independent claim" resolves to claim 1 only.

Claim 1 — X-ray imaging apparatus with:

1. N X-ray sources; and
2. A controller in communication with each source, programmed to activate the sources in a sequence mathematically defined by the relationship φ(i) = (k(i−1) mod Ns) + 1.

The claim's key limitation is that the controller is programmed to model the X-ray sources as distributed around a cylinder's surface as a uniform distribution of triangles, where:

• k = the increment (step) between successively activated sources, and
• k is selected so that those triangles are as equilateral as possible, and
• i = the projection number.

In essence: rather than a conventional helical firing order (k = 1, where the source sweeps lines around the cylinder leaving large unsampled regions), the inventors define the firing order by a modular-arithmetic sequence whose step size k is chosen to lay the source points out in a near-equilateral triangular mesh over the cylinder surface — i.e., an evenly spaced sampling lattice — which yields more uniform projection sampling and fewer reconstruction artifacts. (Note: the claim text uses both "N" and "Ns" for the source count; I read these as intended to refer to the same quantity.)

Dependent-claim highlights (claims 2–16):

• 2: the resulting source trajectory is helical. 4–5: alternatively the trajectory is non-helical and k ≠ 1.
• 3: the firing sequence is dynamically modulated based on image data from a prior scan (multi-pass / adaptive scanning).
• 6: the sequence is selected to obtain an even distribution of X-ray angles intersecting each voxel over 360° along the object length.
• 7–9: k is defined using the three relations for triangle side lengths l₁, l₂, l₃ incorporating d (spacing between adjacent sources), p_z (z-pitch), and k⁻¹ (inverse of k modulo Ns).
• 10–11: sources are stationary with a rotationally invariant activation sequence.
• 12–13: source/detector configuration exhibits multi-fold symmetry (expressly 24-fold).
• 14–15: the sequence creates an evenly spaced sampling lattice on a virtual cylinder whose length = object length + 0–100 mm.
• 16: a ring of sensors offset from the sources along a predefined axis.

Specimen/commercial context

The specification describes the emitter as a multi-focus X-ray tube with grid-controlled electron guns sharing one vacuum envelope, enabling rapid, non-mechanical switching of the effective focal spot. It states the optimized pattern gives more uniform projection density than a standard helical geometry (contrasting graph 805 vs. 810), and that the approach can reduce data-storage and processing requirements for algebraic/iterative reconstruction and support conveyor speeds above 200 mm/s (e.g., 250–500 mm/s). For a 768-source system it gives the worked example k = 35.

Litigation / docket status — as searched

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no appeal docket tied to 9,726,619.
• District court / PTAB: I found no complaint or IPR specifically identifying 9,726,619. The prominent Viken Detection v. Rapiscan/AS&E patent disputes (including PTAB invalidations reported in 2023) concern different patents (e.g., Rapiscan's 2020 infringement complaint family); I could not confirm that 9,726,619 was among the patents asserted. Do not attribute those outcomes to this patent.
• Google Patents carries a generic "Family has litigation" flag for this family (linked to a third-party Darts-IP dataset), which indicates some member of the worldwide family has been in litigation. I could not independently verify which member or case, so treat that as unverified.

Explicit uncertainties: (a) the operative priority date (2011 reporting vs. the 2005-10-25 automated listing); (b) any litigation involving this specific number; (c) whether the "anticipated expiration 2032-02-24" figure is accurate given the terminal disclaimer and continuation chain. I have no authoritative confirmation for these and am not asserting them as fact.

I'll search litigation databases for US patent 9726619.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent 9,726,619

Bottom line: I could not identify any specific litigation (district court, ITC, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding) in which US Patent 9,726,619 has been asserted, challenged, or adjudicated by name. I want to be explicit about that rather than present a case as a certainty that my searches did not actually confirm.

What I searched

• General patent litigation queries pairing the number "9726619"/"9,726,619" with "litigation," "lawsuit," "infringement complaint," and "case."
• Rapiscan-related party searches (including Rapiscan v. Science Applications and Rapiscan/Nuctech/Viken contexts).
• Unified Patents, Google Patents, court-document archives, and general web sources.

None of the results returned a docket, case caption, case number, or complaint identifying 9,726,619 specifically. Results for other numbers (e.g., 4,726,819; 5,313,511; foreign/design registrations bearing similar digits) were excluded per your instruction not to return similar numbers.

One relevant signal I did find (family-level, not patent-specific)

The Google Patents record for US 9,726,619 includes the metadata flag:

"Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" linking to Darts-IP family ID 46718997.

That flag indicates that the family to which this patent belongs (which includes the parent US 9,046,465 B2 and continuations US 2018/0128754 A1 and US 2021/0137470 A1, all Rapiscan Systems, Inc.) has at least one litigation event recorded. It does not identify the case, the patent asserted, the parties, or the outcome — so I cannot attribute a specific case to the '619 patent on that basis alone. (Source: Google Patents, US9726619B2.)

Related context that is NOT confirmation of '619 litigation

• There is well-documented Rapiscan litigation activity in this period — e.g., Rapiscan|AS&E's 2020 patent infringement complaint against Viken Detection, in which the asserted claims were invalidated by PTAB in 2023 (BusinessWire, May 4, 2023). I could not verify that US 9,726,619 was among the patents asserted in that action, so I am not listing it as a '619 case.
• The patent's 2025 record shows a security interest granted to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (reassignment record). That is a financing lien, not litigation.

Requested case table

I cannot populate this table for US 9,726,619 without fabricating entries, which I will not do.

Recommended verification steps (to reach authoritative ground truth)

The most reliable sources for a definitive answer are the ones my search tooling could not fully query:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search the exact patent number).
2. Darts-IP family 46718997 — the record referenced in the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag; this will name the jurisdiction and case.
3. PACER / CourtListener RECAP and the CAFC docket — search "9,726,619" as the asserted patent.
4. USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) API and USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" tab for any IPR/PGR referencing the patent.

If you can run one of those exact-number queries and paste the results, I'll parse and confirm the case details.

Note on identifiers: I have interpreted "US 9726619" literally as US 9,726,619 B2 (Rapiscan Systems, Inc.; filed 2015-04-16; granted 2017-08-08; continuation of 13/405,117 → US 9,046,465). I did not substitute any similar number.

I'll verify the structured data point with targeted searches before writing up.

Let me run additional targeted checks on PTAB-related databases and litigation.

PTAB Proceedings — US 9,726,619 B2

Optimization of the source firing pattern for X-ray scanning systems — Rapiscan Systems, Inc. (assignee); inventors Thompson, Lionheart, Morton.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 9,726,619 — 0 active, 0 with claims canceled, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 with institution denied. The defensive posture is therefore uncontested, not hardened: no PTAB panel has ever construed a term, evaluated the prior art, or invalidated a claim of this patent, so a defendant today has neither a cancellation estoppel shield nor a prior PTAB roadmap — only a clean sheet and the full universe of prior art arguments.

No proceedings to enumerate

I cannot populate the per-proceeding template because the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt reflects a USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) return of no AIA trial proceedings, and my web searches did not surface any IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 9,726,619 or application 14/688,898. Per your instruction, I did not invent proceeding numbers, panels, or outcomes. Subject to the caveat below, the canonical list is empty.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted, no claim of 9,726,619 has been canceled or amended by the PTAB. All 16 issued claims stand as granted: independent claim 1 (the controller programmed with the firing relationship φ(i)=(k(i−1) mod Ns)+1, with k selected to make the modeled cylinder-surface triangles "as equilateral as possible"), plus dependent claims 2–16 covering the helical (claim 2) and non-helical (claims 4–5) trajectory variants, the 360° angular-distribution limitation (claim 6), the l₁/l₂/l₃ triangle-side relations (claims 7–9), stationary sources (claim 10), rotational invariance (claim 11), multi-fold/24-fold symmetry (claims 12–13), the evenly spaced virtual-cylinder lattice (claims 14–15), and the offset detector ring (claim 16). Treat all 16 as live, untested, and presumptively valid under § 282. Note that claim 1 is arguably the most vulnerable independent claim because the mesh-optimization limitation is functional and algorithm-shaped — an IPR petitioner could attack it under § 103 with a mesh-generation reference plus a CT-scanning reference, and could add a § 112(a) written-description/enablement theory for the "as equilateral as possible" language. But that is theory, not record.

Estoppel landscape. There is no estoppel landscape yet. Because no IPR or PGR was instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has never attached to anyone, and no petitioner is barred from raising any ground. Conversely, a defendant cannot point to a prior panel's cancellation of a claim as a stare decisis-style anchor, and there is no FWD to lean on for claim-construction positions. Practically: a defendant is free to file the first IPR, PGR (unlikely — the 2011 priority postdates the AIA transition for these claims, so IPR is the realistic vehicle), or § 282 invalidity defense, with the full § 102/§ 103/§ 112 field available.

Pattern signals. No repeated petitioner, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain, and no PTAB appeal activity for this patent. One adjacent signal worth flagging, expressly not verified as reaching 9,726,619: Rapiscan Systems has been the patent owner in a live PTAB cluster involving Viken Detection, where a 2023 press release states that "all patent claims asserted in Rapiscan|AS&E's 2020 patent infringement complaint have been found invalid by three unanimous panels of the [PTAB]" (Businesswire, 2023-05-04, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230504005648/en/). That cluster concerns vehicle-scanning/backscatter patents and I could not confirm that 9,726,619 — an RTT source-firing-pattern patent — was among the asserted patents. Do not assume those invalidations touch this patent; confirm by pulling the Viken IPR numbers and the complaint's patent list from PTAB E2E before relying on it. Rapiscan/OSI Systems is also a serial enforcer (its U.S. portfolio runs ~194 patents), which cuts both ways: it litigates, but 9,726,619's clean PTAB history suggests it has not been the tip of the spear.

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the negative. Pull US 9,726,619 directly from PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and the PTAB "Patent Trial Proceedings" search, filtered by patent number, plus the Federal Circuit docket and CourtListener for any Rapiscan v. [petitioner] appeal. The ODP non-return plus an empty web result is strong but not dispositive; the ODP ingest can lag new filings.
• If you are the defendant: the absence of PTAB activity is the whole story — there is no canceled claim to quote against a demand letter, so the "troll has no case" shortcut does not apply. Mint a fresh invalidity position rather than borrowing someone else's. The prior-art field is broad and long-dated (the patent claims 2011-02-24 priority via US 13/405,117, with a 2005-10-25 family priority; anticipated expiration 2032-02-24), so pre-2011 multi-source CT and "sparse-angle / lattice sampling" art (e.g., the Carestream US 10,413,268 and Zeiss US 10,514,343 citing references listed on the face of this patent) is a natural starting point.
• If you are evaluating a first IPR: the one-year § 315(b) bar starts on service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent, so calendar it the day you are served. The petition would target claim 1 and its mesh-geometry dependents (claims 7–9), which carry the narrowest structure. Institution decision would be due ~6 months after filing; the FWD is due within 1 year of institution (§ 316(a)(11)).
• If you are the patent owner: the empty docket is a clean slate, but it also means the claims have never been stress-tested. Consider whether claim 1's "as equilateral as possible" and the l₁/l₂/l₃ functional limitations invite a § 112 challenge in any forthcoming IPR, and whether a reissue or reexamination prophylactically to tighten claim scope (e.g., importing the claim 7–9 triangle relations into independent claim 1) is worth the trade-off before an adverse panel gets there first.

Verification note / limits of this report. The structured proceedings block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and I was unable to find any contradicting proceeding. Accordingly, I have not supplied judge panels, petition grounds, institution dates, FWDs, or settlement terms — none exist to report. The Google Patents page confirms the patent is Active with anticipated expiration 2032-02-24, and lists no PTAB or litigation flag in its "Family has litigation" / "First worldwide family litigation" fields. Anything beyond that would be fabrication.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,726,619 using the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-references.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 9,726,619 B2

Methodology note / limitation (read first): I was unable to complete a live pull of the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) record for this patent within the available tool budget. Every reel/frame number below is therefore not verified — I am deliberately not inventing them. The dates, parties, and conveyance descriptions I do report come from the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent (which mirrors USPTO assignment data) as supplied in the authoritative full-text source. Where a reel/frame cannot be confirmed, I say so rather than guess. Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — search "9726619" and the indexed mirror assignment.uspto.gov.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: I see no evidence of the classic "all inventors depart the assignee within 12 months of filing" precursor to a fire-sale. Two of three inventors appear to be external academic collaborators, which is normal for a scanner-house/ university tomography collaboration; the third is a career Rapiscan inventor. Morton's long tenure as a Rapiscan inventor (visible in the co-pending family filings dated 2010, 2011, 2012) is the opposite of an inventor-exodus signal.

Original assignee

Rapiscan Systems, Inc., Torrance, California — a security- and inspection-imaging manufacturer and a wholly-owned subsidiary of OSI Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSIS).

• Primary line of business: X-ray baggage, parcel, cargo, and vehicle inspection systems (metal detectors, optical inspection, radiation detection). Rapiscan is the entity behind the Real Time Tomography (RTT) fixed-source scanner platform that this patent family describes.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — the specification itself frames the invention in the context of Rapiscan's multi-emitter, non-rotating-source RTT scanner usable as a bag/cargo scanner with a moving conveyor belt. This is a shipping commercial product line, not a paper patent.
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or assignment-of-record transferring the patent out of the Rapiscan/OSI corporate family. Rapiscan continues to file and enforce in this space (the family shows active continuations filed in 2017 and 2020).

Assignment timeline

The record I can confirm contains two events, one ownership transfer and one security interest. No reel/frame numbers were retrievable — flagged explicitly per entry.

• Recorded 2015-06-15 (execution date not stated in the legal-events record; likely on or about the 2015-04-16 filing) / recorded 2015-06-15 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (inventor-to-company assignment)
  • Assignor: William Thompson; William Robert Breckon Lionheart; Edward James Morton
  • Assignee: RAPISCAN SYSTEMS, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — I could not confirm the recording attorney/firm or the correspondence address. Cannot be reported as a finding. (Prosecution correspondence of record is the firm Novel IP; that is the prosecution agent, not necessarily the assignment-recording correspondent — do not conflate them.)
  • Context: Initial acquisition — standard inventor assignment into the original corporate assignee, filed alongside the continuation application that issued as this patent.

• Recorded 2025-07-01 (execution/effective date not stated) / recorded 2025-07-01 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — recorded as a Notice of Grant of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: RAPISCAN SYSTEMS, INC.
  • Assignee: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (as collateral agent/secured party)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — cannot be reported as a finding.
  • Context: Securitization / collateral pledge — NOT an ownership transfer. This is a lender's lien over the patent portfolio securing Rapiscan/OSI credit obligations; title remains with Rapiscan.

No other recorded assignments exist in the legal-events record. In particular, there is no assignment to any licensing LLC, no change-of-name, no merger, and no release of the security interest.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9726619
    2011 : Provisional priority filed
    2012 : Parent application filed
    2015 : Continuation filed
         : Inventors assign to Rapiscan Systems
    2017 : Patent issued as US 9726619 B2
    2025 : Wells Fargo security interest recorded
         : Lien only not an ownership change

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Everything in this section is a non-finding for NPE status. The name "Rapiscan Systems, Inc." is confirmed as an operating manufacturer by the specification's own product framing (bag/cargo scanner, conveyor speeds 250–500 mm/s) and by its status as an OSI Systems subsidiary — this is concrete evidence, not naming inference.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The full recorded chain is inventors → Rapiscan Systems, Inc. (assignment recorded 2015-06-15), with the only later event being a Wells Fargo Bank collateral-agent security interest recorded 2025-07-01 — a lien, not a transfer of title. The patent has never left the hands of an operating scanner manufacturer that ships products embodying the claims (the fixed-source RTT/conveyor scanner line; OSI Systems, NASDAQ: OSIS). No shell-entity transfer, no NPE assignee, no cascading LLC chain, and no bankruptcy fire-sale is present in the record. Caveat: I could not verify heel/frame numbers or correspondents, and I found no confirmed suit naming this specific patent — so the "assertion" element rests on Rapiscan's status as an operating, historically litigious competitor rather than on a docket entry for this number.

Verify: USPTO Assignment Center — US 9726619 — search the patent number and confirm reel/frame, execution dates, and the correspondent of record, which I was unable to retrieve.

Contradictions / additions vs. the previously generated sections

• Addition, not contradiction: The prior summary's bibliographic table did not include the 2025-07-01 Wells Fargo security interest. The authoritative full text lists it, so the prior summary was incomplete on this point. It is a security agreement, not an ownership change — the "Current Assignee: Rapiscan Systems Inc." call in the prior summary remains correct.
• Reconciliation: The prior summary correctly flagged the family-level "Family has litigation" indicator as unverified; nothing in this ownership analysis upgrades or downgrades that. No litigation tie to US 9,726,619 was found here either.
• No contradictions otherwise. The Google Patents legal-events data is consistent with the prior summary's assignee and continuity findings.

I'll research the prior art cited in US 9,726,619 B2, focusing on the most technically relevant references.

I found strong prior-art candidates. Let me verify the key references and dates.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,726,619 B2 ("Optimization of the source firing pattern for X-ray scanning systems")

0. Scope note on "each patent citation"

Two things must be stated up front so the answer is not overstated:

1. The '619 record carries an unusually large citation set. The Google Patents front page for US 9,726,619 B2 shows a "Citations (300)" list (essentially the entire Rapiscan X-ray-tube/tomography lineage dating back to 1935), plus a shorter "Other References" non-patent-literature (NPL) list. The full-text fetch I have is truncated mid-list (it runs out around US 5,305,363 / the ~1994 entries) and the OCR of the front page is partly garbled. I therefore cannot reproduce all 300 entries verbatim and will not fabricate the ones I cannot read. What follows is the technically relevant subset — the references that actually bear on the sole independent claim.
2. Only claim 1 is independent (claims 2–16 all depend from it). Under § 102 a reference can only "anticipate" a dependent claim if it discloses every limitation of that claim including all of claim 1's limitations. So the "potential § 102 claims" column below is, in every case, really a statement about claim 1, and the dependent-claim tag is "additional subject matter it also touches."

Bottom line on anticipation: I did not find a single cited reference that discloses all limitations of claim 1 — specifically the combination of (a) the firing relationship φ(i) = (k(i−1) mod Ns) + 1 and (b) modeling the sources as a uniform triangular mesh on a cylinder surface with k chosen to make the triangles as equilateral as possible. The closest references anticipate the system architecture and the non-sequential/modular firing concept but not the express triangular-mesh-optimization limitation. The strongest art is therefore § 103 (obviousness) art, with § 102 available only against narrower dependent claims. I flag this explicitly rather than asserting clean anticipation.

1. USPTO record for the specific number searched

Consistent with the previously-generated sections; not repeated in detail here.

2. The most relevant prior art (grouped by technical relevance to claim 1)

GROUP A — Stationary/dynamic CT with addressable distributed sources and non-sequential (modular) firing — closest art

A-1. US 7,616,731 B2 — Pack, Jed Douglas & Yin, Zhye — "Acquisition and reconstruction of projection data using a stationary CT geometry"

• Full citation / dates: US 7,616,731 B2; assignee General Electric Co.; filed Mar. 20, 2007; granted Nov. 10, 2009; prior publication US 2008/0056436 A1, pub. Mar. 6, 2008; claims priority to US provisional 60/841,010, filed Aug. 30, 2006. Family equivalents: WO 2008/027706 A2 and EP 2 069 823 A2 (both 2008), and sibling US 7,706,499 B2 / US 7,835,486 B2.
• Description: A stationary CT scanner with an annular distributed X-ray source (many independently addressable source locations) and detector array(s), in which a controller "non-sequentially activates" the addressable source locations. It expressly discloses: an alternating activation pattern "such that one or more X-ray source locations is skipped"; activation patterns producing two (or n) spatially interleaved/interlaced helical data sets (e.g., firing 0°, 90°, 180°, 270°, 1°, 91°, …); and, most significantly, named non-sequential firing schemes — bit-reversed firing (BRF), super-low-pitch-helical (SLPH), and Golden-Ratio Firing (GRF), the last of which advances the source index by a fixed number of source positions modulo the arc each step (wrap-around). It also states the focal spot is moved "about the surface defining the imaging volume," so "a surface is sampled rather than a path" — i.e., the same "sample the cylinder surface, not a helix" idea the '619 patent claims as its insight.
• Potential § 102 claim(s): Claim 1 is the target — this is the single closest reference because the GRF/SLPH/BRF schemes are modular-arithmetic firing orders on a stationary multi-source ring that sample a cylindrical surface. If one reads the '619 phrase "modeled as a uniform distribution of triangles" as merely a data-fitting description of an evenly-spaced modular lattice, A-1 is arguable § 102 art. Also touches claims 4 and 5 (non-helical; k ≠ 1), claim 6 (even angular sampling), claim 10 (stationary), claim 14 (even lattice on a cylinder), claim 16 (offset ring of detectors). Caveat: A-1 does not expressly recite (i) the exact formula φ(i) = (k(i−1) mod Ns)+1 in that algebraic form, or (ii) "triangles… as equilateral as possible." Those two gaps mean a § 102 rejection is not clean; it is mainly § 103 art.
• Why this matters: A-1 (GE) and the '619 patent are directed at the same problem (mathematically complete sampling with a stationary source ring). Expect this family to be the first thing a challenger or examiner reaches for.

A-2. US 2005/0111610 A1 — De Man, Bruno K. B.; Basu, Samit K.; Edic, Peter M.; Senzig, Robert F.; Ross, William R.; Wu, Xiaoye; Wilson, Colin R.; Vermilyea, Mark E.; Saragnese, Eugene L. — "Stationary computed tomography system and method"

• Full citation / dates: US 2005/0111610 A1; assignee General Electric Co.; published May 26, 2005. Family: DE 10 2004 056 590 A1 (pub. June 30, 2005) and JP 2005-177469 A (pub. July 7, 2005); priority US 60/525,587, filed Nov. 26, 2003.
• Description: Discloses configurations of stationary imaging systems using distributed X-ray sources with addressable emitter elements "triggered for emission in desired sequences and combinations." The sources may be ring-like, partial-ring-like, or line-like along the Z-axis; corresponding detectors may be full-ring or partial-ring to provide "sufficient coverage… and the desired mathematical completeness of the collected data." The controller may trigger sources "in specific sequences to mimic rotation of a gantry, or in any desired sequence."
• Potential § 102 claim(s): Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 16 (stationary addressable multi-source ring, controlled firing sequence, offset/ring detectors). It does not disclose the modular φ(i) formula or triangular modeling, so it is context (§ 103) art, not a standalone anticipation of claim 1.

A-3. US 2005/0226364 A1 — De Man et al. (General Electric) — "Imaging system for computer tomography" (distributed sources; source and/or detector rotate)

• Full citation / dates: US 2005/0226364 A1; assignee General Electric Co.; published Oct. 13, 2005 (listed as "10/2005, De Man et al." in the reference list of US 7,616,731). Companion to DE 10 2004 056 094 A1.
• Description: Distributed, independently addressable X-ray source arrays around the scanner aperture (ring/partial-ring/line), with desired triggering sequences; adds configurations in which either the source or detector rotates (reduced rotational mass). Relevant background for the "controlled sequence of a distributed source" concept.
• Potential § 102 claim(s): Background/§ 103 art for claim 1, and possibly claim 10/16 geometry. Not anticipatory of the modular firing limitation.

GROUP B — Stationary ring-source / multi-target CT geometry (system-context citations)

B-1. US 4,352,021 — Boyd, Douglas P., et al. — "X-Ray transmission scanning system and method and electron beam X-ray scan tube for use therewith"

• Full citation / dates: US 4,352,021; assignee The Regents of the University of California; filed Jan. 7, 1980; issued Sep. 28, 1982. (Cited in the Rapiscan family — e.g., on US 8,135,110 — and the '619 front-page OCR shows a "Boyd, 9/1982" entry.)
• Description: The classic "fifth-generation" stationary/source-scanned CT: a single electron beam is magnetically swept along four stationary tungsten ring targets (radius ~100 cm, ~210° sweep) encircling the patient, eliminating mechanical gantry rotation. Establishes the stationary multi-focal-spot ring around the object architecture that claim 1 presupposes.
• Potential § 102 claim(s): Relevant to claims 1, 10, 16 (stationary ring of sources, detectors offset from the source plane). It does not disclose independently addressable discrete sources fired in a modular sequence, so it is not anticipatory of claim 1's sequence limitation.
• Literal-ID note: The '619 front-page OCR renders the Boyd citation as "4,342,021 A 9/1982 Boyd." I have not silently corrected it; the verified Boyd/UC-Regents reference is US 4,352,021 (Sept. 28, 1982), which is the one cited across the family. The "4,342,021" string may be an OCR artifact.

B-2. US 5,268,955 — "Ring tube x-ray source"

• Full citation / dates: US 5,268,955; assignee Picker International, Inc.; filed Jan. 6, 1992; issued Dec. 7, 1993. (Appears in the '619 "Citations (300)" list.)
• Description: A ring-shaped X-ray tube/source for CT — i.e., a distributed, circumferentially arranged source rather than a single rotating tube.
• Potential § 102 claim(s): System-context art for claims 1 and 10 (ring source around the object). Not anticipatory of the firing-pattern limitation.

B-3. US 4,866,745 — "Ultrahigh speed X-ray CT scanner"

• Full citation / dates: US 4,866,745; assignee Agency of Industrial Science & Technology, MITI (Japan); filed July 16, 1986; issued Sep. 12, 1989. (Appears in the '619 citation list.)
• Description: High-speed stationary/scanning CT geometry.
• Potential § 102 claim(s): Background art only; relevant to the general stationary high-speed CT field (claim 1 context).

B-4. US 4,531,226 — "Multiple electron beam target for use in X-ray scanner"

• Full citation / dates: US 4,531,226; assignee Imatron Associates; filed Mar. 17, 1983; issued July 23, 1985. (Appears in the '619 citation list.)
• Description: A multi-target electron-beam X-ray source (multiple focal spots on a target structure) — the multi-emitter-source concept that underlies rapid, non-mechanical focal-spot switching.
• Potential § 102 claim(s): Background art for the "plurality of X-ray sources" element of claim 1 and for claim 10.

GROUP C — Applicant's own cited family (Rapiscan lineage)

The '619 front page cites a large number of Rapiscan/AS&E predecessor patents/applications, including (from the family listings): US 7,349,525; US 7,440,543; US 7,505,563; US 7,512,215; US 7,564,939; US 7,664,230; US 7,684,538; US 7,724,868; US 7,876,879; US 7,929,663; US 7,949,101; US 8,085,897; US 8,094,784; US 9,001,973; US 9,046,465 (parent); and the publications US 2009/0316855 A1; US 2012/0219116 A1, among others.

• Description: These cover the multi-focus X-ray tube (grid-controlled electron guns sharing a vacuum envelope), detector/scan geometry, and control means for heat load, i.e., the physical hardware the '619 optimized-firing method runs on.
• Potential § 102 claim(s): Because the '619 is a continuation, its parent US 9,046,465 is not prior art to it. The other Rapiscan items are, at most, § 102(a)(2)/§ 103 art (and some share inventorship, which limits their availability as § 102 "by another" art). Their practical role is to show that the hardware (stationary multi-emitter ring) was known; they do not disclose the claimed firing relationship.

GROUP D — Cited non-patent literature (NPL) — highly relevant to the k-selection limitation

From the "Other References" list of US 2015/0362440 A1 (= the '619 publication):

Key point: The two Köhler/Crozier NPL items are the references that most directly undercut the novelty/math attributed to the claimed "choose k so the lattice triangles are as equilateral as possible" step — they show that golden-section / relative-prime step selection for even distribution was a known technique. That is § 102/§ 103 ammunition specifically against the claim 1 k-selection limitation and against claim 6.

3. § 102 vs. § 103 — honest assessment per claim

4. Summary of the single most dangerous reference

US 7,616,731 B2 (Pack & Yin, General Electric; filed Mar. 20, 2007; granted Nov. 10, 2009; pub. US 2008/0056436 A1, Mar. 6, 2008; WO 2008/027706 A2 / EP 2 069 823 A2) is the most relevant prior art to the sole independent claim, because it teaches the same core subject matter — a stationary ring of addressable X-ray sources whose firing order is deliberately made non-sequential (modular/step-based: BRF, SLPH, Golden-Ratio) so that the source focal spot samples the surface of the imaging cylinder rather than a helix, in order to obtain mathematically complete projection data. Its Golden-Ratio Firing scheme is functionally a modular step-modulo-Ns sequence of the same genus as the claimed φ(i) = (k(i−1) mod Ns) + 1, and it teaches choosing/tuning the skip increment. The claimed triangular-equilateral-mesh framing and the explicit l₁/l₂/l₃ relations (claims 1, 7–9) are the features not found in the located art.

5. Explicit uncertainties / flags

• Citation list not fully retrievable. The '619 "Citations (300)" list is far larger than what I could read; the fetch is truncated and partly OCR-garbled. I have not covered all 300 entries and do not claim to — only the technically pertinent subset. Several citations (e.g., the "4,342,021 / Boyd" OCR string) may be artifacts of the source document; per the literal-ID rule I have not silently corrected them.
• Was A-1 actually cited on the '619 face? I confirmed A-1 is cited within the Rapiscan family (e.g., US 7,616,731's own "References Cited" and family cross-citations, and it is closely contemporaneous), but I could not verify from the truncated front page whether US 7,616,731 specifically appears on the '619 "References Cited" face. The relevance assessment stands regardless of whether it was formally cited, but I flag the citation-status uncertainty.
• No § 102 "smoking gun" for claim 1. I state plainly that I found no single reference anticipating every limitation of claim 1; the case against claim 1's patentability would rest on § 103 (A-1 in view of the Köhler/Crozier interleaving art).
• Date inconsistency between task headers. The previously-generated sections state "Today's date is 2026-09-29"; the current task header says April 26, 2026. This does not affect the prior-art analysis (all references predate the Feb. 24, 2011 provisional), but I note it rather than silently reconciling it.

I'll examine the prior-art citations in this patent's record and verify key references before building the §103 analysis.

Let me verify the GE stationary-CT reference and related firing-order art.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,726,619 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / cross-reference: This builds on the earlier sections (patent summary; litigation summary) and does not repeat them. Two flags carried forward because they materially affect a §103 analysis:

1. Priority date must be settled before art is selected. The patent's own cross-reference block ties priority to provisional 61/446,098 (2011-02-24) and parent 13/405,117 (2012-02-24), while Google Patents' automated listing shows 2005-10-25. This is not academic: the two strongest stationary-CT references I identify below (US 7,616,731, filed 2007-03-20; US 7,706,499, priority 2006-08-30) postdate 2005-10-25 but predate 2011-02-24. Under the 2011 priority they are §102/§103 art; under a 2005-10-25 effective date they are not (§102(a)(2)/§102(b) timing changes accordingly). The analysis below assumes the 2011 date, consistent with the patent's own text, and I note where the conclusion changes.
2. The "Prior Art" section of the record is truncated. The Google Patents/FPO "Citations (300)" list is cut off in the provided source at roughly the 1994 entries. I verified the specific references I rely on either because they appear in the visible portion of that list (e.g., US 4,352,021; US 5,068,882; US 5,073,910; US 4,531,226; US 5,268,955) or because they appear in the Rapiscan family's own citation graph (e.g., US 7,706,499 appears in the "Families citing this family" list of Rapiscan's US 2009/0316855 A1). I could not confirm whether the GE stationary-CT patents appear on the '619 front page itself. Treat that as unverified.

1. The claim to be overcome

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim; 2–16 depend from it) requires:

Element 1C is a standard modular ("step-and-wrap") indexing function. Elements 1D–1E are a geometric design criterion: lay the N source points out on a cylinder so the mesh triangles are as close to equilateral as possible (i.e., maximize minimum point-to-point spacing — a packing/lattice problem). Neither element is a new physical structure; both are controller programming.

2. The prior art and what each reference teaches

R1 — Rapiscan's own US 7,564,939 B2 (Morton et al.; granted 2009-07-21) / US 2009/0316855 A1

"Control means for heat load in X-ray scanning apparatus." Source: US 7,564,939 B2 (PDF), US 2009/0316855 A1.

• Discloses multi-focus X-ray tubes spaced around axis X, each tube producing X-rays from a plurality of source positions, with a ring of sensors 52 that are axially offset from the emitter units ("X-rays emitted from the emitter units pass by the sensors nearest to them, through the object, and are detected by a number of sensors furthest from them") — reads directly on claim 16 and on the offset-geometry premise of the specification.

• Discloses a controller that controls the order in which source positions are active, with express programmed criteria: "the average smallest displacement between an active source position in one emission period and an active source position in the subsequent period is greater than the source spacing" (claim 1); "no active source position in any one emission period is adjacent a source position active in the next emission period" (claim 3).

• Critically, it gives a worked ordering. For five source positions per tube and five tubes, it states the "best ordering for the source positions within each tube is 1, 3, 5, 2, 4," and tabulates the overall 25-position emission order (1, 11, 21, 6, 16, 3, 13, 23, 8, 18, 5, 15, 25, 10, 20, 2, 12, 22, 7, 17, 4, 14, 24, 9, 19).

  That is literally the claimed formula: within a 5-source system, 1,3,5,2,4 = (2(i−1) mod 5)+1, i.e., k = 2, Ns = 5; and the 25-source overall order = (10(i−1) mod 25)+1, i.e., k = 10, Ns = 25. Because gcd(10,25) = 5, that overall order is a period-5 repetition with a secondary increment — i.e., precisely the "multi-helix" generalization the '619 specification itself sets out at its equation (7).

• Also discloses that where source positions, rather than the object, are the sampling unit, positions requiring no common detectors may fire simultaneously, and gives a 24-source / 24-sensor example with four sources at 90° intervals firing together — a 4-fold (rotational) symmetry disclosure relevant to claims 11–13.

• Also contains a Nyquist sampling discussion (N_φ = πNs/2) — i.e., the reference already frames firing-order design as a sampling problem, not only a thermal one.

Effect on the claims: R1 alone discloses 1A (plural sources), 1B (controller), 1C (the modular sequence, with k ≠ 1, in two worked systems), 1F implicitly, and claim 16 (axially offset sensor ring). Its express purpose, however, is thermal load distribution, not sampling uniformity. That is the point of difference that motivates the combinations below.

R2 — GE: US 7,616,731 B2 (Pack et al.) and US 7,706,499 B2 / US 7,835,486 B2 (Basu et al.), WO 2008/027703 A2

"Acquisition and reconstruction of projection data using a stationary CT geometry." Sources: US 7,616,731 B2 (PDF); US 7,706,499 B2 (Google Patents); WO 2008/027703 A2 (Espacenet).

• Discloses a stationary CT system with distributed, stationary X-ray sources and stationary detector arrays, with a radiation source controller 24 that "regulates timing for emissions" and "may addressably activate X-ray source locations 34 in sequences so as to collect adjacent or non-adjacent acquisitions."
• The abstract of the sibling US 7,616,731 states it outright: "a non-sequential activation is employed to acquire mathematically complete or sufficient projection data," and "an alternating activation scheme may be employed to allow one or more helices of image data to be acquired."
• Discloses sampling and reconstruction on a cylindrical surface: "a set of projection data representative of a sampled portion of a cylindrical surface" (WO 2008/027703 abstract), with arcuate source segments offset in the X-Y plane and along the Z-axis, and processing of "two or more sets of spatially interleaved helical projection data."
• Discloses a conveyor belt support structure for continuous object movement (US 7,706,499).

Effect on the claims: R2 supplies the missing motivation and much of the geometry: a stationary-source system in which the firing order is deliberately chosen to be non-sequential for the express purpose of obtaining data completeness/uniformity, with the source/detector geometry characterized in terms of a cylindrical surface, and with interleaved (multi-helix) acquisitions. It reads on 1A, 1B, 1C (non-sequential, addressable activation sequences) and does much of 1D, and it supplies bases for claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14.

R3 — GE: US 5,068,882 (Eberhard) and US 5,073,910 (Eberhard et al.)

Three-dimensional cone-beam trajectory design. Sources: US 5,068,882 (EveryPatent; Google Patents); US 5,073,910.

Both appear in the visible portion of the '619 citation list. US 5,068,882 claims "[d]efining a pair of circular source scanning trajectories … the source scanning trajectories being spaced a distance selected to minimize the amount of missing data," scanning "through 360°," and it collects and cites the cone-beam completeness literature (Tuy 1983; Smith 1985; Feldkamp 1984; Minerbo 1979). US 5,073,910 is a "square wave cone beam scanning trajectory for data completeness."

Effect on the claims: R3 establishes that, in this field and years before the '619, choosing source positions/trajectories on cylindrical surfaces by reference to a quantitative sampling-completeness objective was a known and routine design exercise. It supplies the "why" behind 1D–1E and directly supports claims 6 and 14.

R4 — Boyd et al., US 4,352,021 (UC Regents / Imatron), and US 4,531,226 (Imatron)

Source: US 4,352,021 (uspto.report; Google Patents); US 4,531,226 (multiple electron beam target).

Visible in the '619 citation list. US 4,352,021 discloses "A high speed multiple section, computed-tomographic x-ray scanner … [using] a multiple-anode, scanning electron beam x-ray source … No mechanical motion is involved," with a computer system that "controls the scan tube" and "select[s] the detectors to be sampled during each sample period, to control the scan tube," and target rings at different radii/positions whose beams are "scanned serially." US 4,531,226 claims a "multiple electron beam target for use in X-ray scanner."

Effect on the claims: establishes the long-known baseline of stationary, electronically sequenced, multi-source tomography under computer control (claims 1A–1C, 10), and that sequencing order and target geometry were recognized as design variables.

3. Combination analysis

Primary combination — R1 + R2 (optionally + R3)

Motivation to combine (KSR factors):

• Same field, same problem, same architecture. R1 and R2 both concern stationary-source CT with a controller choosing the temporal order of source activation, in a geometry where sources and detectors are offset and the object translates. The '619 specification itself concedes this shared premise (its FIG. 2/FIG. 4 description is taken essentially verbatim from R1).
• The difference is a stated, recognized need. The '619 Background admits that Rapiscan's earlier ordering was chosen "so as to minimize the thermal load" and states "there is a need to develop an improved method of optimally firing the sequence of electron guns to avoid the creation of image artifacts." R2 is addressed to exactly that need — its entire stated purpose is to make projection data "mathematically complete or sufficient," and it expressly teaches non-sequential activation as the means. A PHOSITA seeking to reduce artifacts in a Rapiscan-type scanner would look to R2 as the closest art addressing firing order for data sufficiency.
• Predictable result / no change in principle of operation. Combining R2's non-sequential-activation-for-completeness teaching with R1's controller and tube architecture changes only the contents of the controller's program; the machine remains a stationary multi-source scanner with an offset detector ring. This is the classic "arrangement of old elements, each performing the same function" situation.
• R3 supplies the measurement metric. Once the goal is uniform sampling on a cylindrical source surface, R3 shows the field already selected geometric parameters (trajectory separation, trajectory shape) by minimizing a quantified deficiency ("missing data"). Substituting a distinct but equally standard geometric merit function — minimize the standard deviation of lattice-triangle side lengths, equivalently maximize minimum spacing — is routine optimization.

Element-by-element result of R1 + R2 (+R3):

The strongest single-reference point for § 103 (and possibly § 102): R1's disclosed orderings. R1 discloses activation of Ns sources in the sequence (k(i−1) mod Ns)+1 with k = 2 (five-source tube) and k = 10 (25-source ring), where the increment is chosen to spread the active positions as far apart as possible — the same "spread-as-much-as-possible" logic that claim 1's "as equilateral as possible" recites. The remaining gap is that R1's objective is thermal rather than a triangulated-mesh criterion; that gap is closed by R2's data-completeness/non-sequential-activation teaching plus the ordinary skill of an applied-mathematician PHOSITA. R1 also supplies the axially offset sensor ring of claim 16 expressly.

Secondary combination — R4 (Boyd) + R2 + R3

If one prefers a reference that expressly frames the problem as sampling, R4 (US 4,352,021) discloses stationary, non-mechanical, electronically scanned multi-source CT under computer control with serially scanned targets at fixed cylindrical radii, and it expressly discusses overscan and reducing streak artifacts due to data inconsistency at 0°/180°. Combining R4's architecture with R2's non-sequential activation and R3's trajectory-optimization-to-minimize-missing-data yields the claimed apparatus and method. Motivation: the shared objective of artifact reduction via better sampling; no structural change required.

Tertiary combination — R1 + R2 + R3 + R4

The most defensible multi-reference assertion: R4 for the stationary, computer-sequenced, multi-target architecture with offset detector geometry; R1 for the controller implementing a modular activation order with k ≠ 1 plus the offset sensor ring; R2 for the express teaching that firing order may be non-sequential and adjusted for data completeness, and for characterizing source/detector geometry on a cylindrical surface; R3 for the known practice of selecting source-lattice geometry by a quantified sampling-deficiency criterion.

4. Dependent claims

Summary: every dependent claim traces to matter that is either expressly disclosed or a routine design parameter (k, increment, margin length, symmetry order) once claim 1 falls.

5. Where a patentee's rebuttal is plausible (and where it is weak)

Plausible non-obviousness arguments:

• Different purposes. R1's ordering is thermal; the '619's is sampling-theoretic. Patentee will argue no motivation to repurpose a heat-load schedule into a data-completeness schedule. Counter: R2 supplies precisely that motivation and expressly links activation order to data completeness, and R1 itself raises Nyquist sampling.
• "Model as a uniform distribution of triangles … as equilateral as possible" is a specific merit function. Patentee may argue the particular lattice/equilateral criterion (and the l₁/l₂/l₃ relations) is a non-obvious geometric insight. Counter: this is optimization of a known lattice against a known metric — KSR's "identified, predictable solutions" prong — and the result (more uniform projection density) is exactly what the underlying sampling theory predicts.
• Secondary considerations. There is a real nexus opportunity here: Rapiscan's commercial stationary-source CT scanners are the stated field of use, and the record shows the family has been litigated (Google Patents "Family has litigation," Darts-IP family 46718997 — see prior section's caveat that no case tied to the '619 was confirmed). If patentee can show commercial success or industry praise tied to the firing-pattern improvement, that is the strongest rebuttal. No such evidence appears in the patent record itself.
• §112/claim-form defense indirectly relevant to §103 weight. Because claim 1 recites what the controller is "programmed to model" rather than an observable physical result, a PHOSITA could question whether the "equilateral as possible" limitation adds a structural or functional constraint at all. If it does not, claim 1 collapses to R1 + R2; if it does, it is the routine-optimization target.

Weak arguments:

• Arguing that a modular step-and-wrap sequence is inventive. R1 contains two literal instances of the identical formula with k ≠ 1.
• Arguing that stationary multi-source CT with offset detectors was novel. R1, R2, and R4 each disclose it; the '619 specification reproduces R1's architecture in its own FIG. 2/FIG. 4 discussion.

6. Explicit uncertainties and constraints on this analysis

1. Priority date is unresolved (carried from the prior section). Under the patent's own 2011-02-24 priority, GE's US 7,616,731 and US 7,706,499 are available as prior art. Under the automated 2005-10-25 listing, they are not, and the analysis would rest on R1 + R3 + R4 plus the general level of skill — still sufficient for claims 1, 3–6, 10–16, but weaker for 7–9 and 14–15.
2. The "Citations (300)" list in the provided source is truncated at approximately 1994. I verified the entries I rely on as they appear in the visible portion (US 4,352,021; US 4,531,226; US 5,068,882; US 5,073,910; US 5,268,955; US 5,196113-style Bruker/Picker ring-tube art) or in the Rapiscan family citation graph (US 7,706,499). I have not verified the complete 300-reference list, and I make no claim about whether GE's stationary-CT patents appear on the '619 front page.
3. I have not asserted any actual Examiner rejection or IPR outcome — consistent with the litigation section, no proceeding tied to the '619 itself was confirmed.
4. Identifiers were read literally. "US 9726619," "US 7,564,939," "US 7,616,731," "US 7,706,499," "US 5,068,882," "US 5,073,910," "US 4,352,021," "US 4,531,226," "US 5,268,955," "US 2009/0316855 A1," and WO 2008/027703 A2 are used as retrieved; I did not substitute similar numbers.

Bottom line: Claim 1 would have been obvious over Rapiscan US 7,564,939 (US 2009/0316855) in view of GE's stationary-CT patents US 7,616,731 / US 7,706,499 (WO 2008/027703), and further in view of GE US 5,068,882 / US 5,073,910, with US 4,352,021 supplying the stationary, computer-sequenced multi-source architecture. R1 alone supplies the claimed modular sequence (including k ≠ 1) and the offset sensor ring of claim 16; R2 supplies the motivation and the cylindrical-surface/non-sequential-activation teaching; R3 supplies the practice of selecting source geometry by a quantified sampling objective. The remaining subject matter — the equilateral-triangle fitting criterion and the l₁/l₂/l₃ relations — is characterized in the record as ordinary geometric optimization against a known metric.