DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-10 and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 10, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-5, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 9060736 B2).
Regarding Claim 1: Nakamura discloses a medical imaging system, comprising:
at least one device for phase contrast and/or dark field imaging having a periodic structure with a spatial period (Fig. 1); and
a phase stepping mechanism (actuator 7 and adjusting unit 8) configured to facilitate a relative phase stepping motion between the at least one device and a focal spot of an X-ray source of the imaging system, the relative phase stepping motion comprising one or more steps having a step width greater than the spatial period during imaging acquisition of phase contrast and/or dark field image data of an object (Col. 13, lines 34-37: “…imaging is performed while the absorption grating 4 is moved in the periodic direction of the absorption grating 4 twice by 44 .mu.m, which is eleven times the pitch of the absorption grating 4, at a time…”).
Regarding Claim 2: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the distance is not a multiple of the period, the distance is at least twice a pixel size of a detector of the imaging system, or the distance is based on a size of a defective region in the periodic structure (Col. 13, lines 34-37: “…imaging is performed while the absorption grating 4 is moved in the periodic direction of the absorption grating 4 twice by 44 .mu.m, which is eleven times the pitch of the absorption grating 4, at a time…”).
Regarding Claim 3: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the phase stepping mechanism is configured to impart the phase stepping motion in one or more steps having at least one width, wherein at least one width is greater than the period (Col. 13, lines 34-37: “…imaging is performed while the absorption grating 4 is moved in the periodic direction of the absorption grating 4 twice by 44 .mu.m, which is eleven times the pitch of the absorption grating 4, at a time…”).
Regarding Claim 4: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the step width is based on a size of a defective region in the periodic structure (Col. 6, line 64 – Col. 7, line 15: “The influence of any irregularly arranged regions can be made dispersed if a portion of the periodic structure that is free of any irregularly arranged regions when the absorption grating 4 and the sample object 20 are at the second relative positions is present at each of any positions where the periodic structure has irregularly arranged regions when the absorption grating 4 and the sample object 20 are at the first relative positions. Such a situation occurs when the distance of relative movement between the sample object 20 and the absorption grating 4 in the periodic direction of the absorption grating 4 is larger than the length of an irregularly arranged region of the absorption grating 4 in the periodic direction of the absorption grating 4 and is smaller than the length of a regularly arranged region of the absorption grating 4 in the periodic direction of the absorption grating 4. If there are a plurality of irregularly arranged regions, the distance of relative movement between the sample object 20 and the absorption grating 4 can be made larger than the length of the largest one of the plurality of irregularly arranged regions.”).
Regarding Claim 5: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 4, but Nakamura fails to teach wherein the at least one device is assembled from sub-modules providing one or more gaps in the at least one device, and wherein the defective region includes the one or more gaps.
Regarding Claim 10: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one device is an interferometric grating (Fig. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 20: Nakamura discloses a computer implemented image processing method for phase contrast and/or dark field imaging in a medical imaging system (Col. 15, lines 7-10: “…the program is provided to the computer for example via a network or from a recording medium of various types serving as the memory device (e.g., computer-readable medium)”), comprising:
providing at least one device for the phase contrast and/or dark field imaging having a periodic structure with a spatial period (Fig. 1); and
using a phase stepping mechanism (7 and 8) to facilitate a relative phase stepping motion between the at least one device and a focal spot of an X-ray source of the imaging system, the relative phase stepping motion comprising one or more steps having a step width greater than the spatial period during imaging acquisition of phase contrast and/or dark field image data of an object (Col. 13, lines 34-37: “…imaging is performed while the absorption grating 4 is moved in the periodic direction of the absorption grating 4 twice by 44 .mu.m, which is eleven times the pitch of the absorption grating 4, at a time…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Koehler (US 10945690 B2).
Regarding Claim 6: Nakamura discloses the system of claim 1 but is silent with respect to how the components are connected, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Koehler teaches a medical imaging system wherein the phase stepping mechanism includes a frame in which the at least one device is suspended, and an actuator configured to cause the phase stepping motion (Col. 7, lines 13-17: “the interferometer IF is essentially a “grating pack” with the two gratings G1 and G2 are fixedly mounted with respect to each other in a suitable frame or cage and this frame is fixedly arranged in a scan arm GT or other moveable gantry structure”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Koehler. One would be motivated to make such a modification to provide a load-bearing structure and consistent alignment of the components.
Regarding Claim 7: Nakamura in view of Koehler discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the spatial period is along a first direction, wherein the phase stepping motion has a displacement component along a second direction at an angle to the first direction and a displacement component along the first direction (Nakamura: Col. 7, lines 46-51: “…the relative positions of the sample object 20 and the absorption grating 4 may be changed both with a translational movement of the absorption grating 4 in the x direction or a movement of the absorption grating 4 in the x-y plane and with a rotational movement of the absorption grating 4 in the x-y plane.”).
Regarding Claim 8: Nakamura in view of Koehler discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the phase stepping motion is along a curve (Nakamura: Col. 6, lines 49-54: “When the relative positions of the absorption grating 4 and the sample object 20 are changed from the first relative positions to the second relative positions, the absorption grating 4 may be moved either translationally in the x direction or along an x-y plane.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Koehler and Ookoda (JPS59102227A), in further view of Liedtke (US11163131 B2).
Regarding Claim 9: Nakamura in view of Koehler discloses the system of claim 7, but Nakamura and Koehler both fail to explicitly teach how the device is suspended in the frame, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Ookoda teaches a configuration to suspend a grating wherein the at least one device is suspended in the frame by two or more suspension points (Ookoda: Fig. 3A, 16a-d).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nakamura and Koehler to incorporate the teachings of Ookoda and suspend the at least one device by two or more suspension points. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of distributing mechanical stress.
Nakamura, Koehler, and Ookoda fail to teach the details of using flexure bearings for suspension and wherein at least one of the flexure bearings has a flexure element angled at about a range of 40-50° relative to the first direction.
However, Liedtke teaches using a flexure bearing in conjunction with an actuator (Fig. 3, 12; [0031], [0092-0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nakamura, Koehler, and Ookoda to incorporate the teachings of Liedtke and include a flexure bearing in the suspension of the at least one device. One would be motivated to make such a modification because flexure bearings provide controlled flexibility, minimal movement, and can absorb flexural movements. Thus, flexure bearings would allow for greater precision, stability, and vibration isolation.
Liedtke fails to teach the details of wherein at least one of the flexure bearings has a flexure element angled at about 40-50° relative to the first direction.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the angle of the flexure element in order to optimize the load distribution and align the flexure with the system’s motion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884