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 § 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) 1, 43-48, 52-59 and 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20170215827) in view of Cha (US 20190344770).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches an imaging system comprising:
a scanner 10;
a plurality of powered wheels 62 mounted to the base of the scanner (figures 1and 11),
a handling for providing omnidirectional drive to the plurality of powered wheels;
wherein the handling comprises a left side (13 15 on left) and a right side (13 15 on right), and further wherein the drive bar is configured such that: when the right side of the handling and the left side of the drive bar are both pressed forwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner forwardly; when the right side of the drive bar and the left side of the handling are both pulled rearwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner rearwardly; when the right side of the handling is pressed forwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pulled rearwardly, the plurality of powered wheels rotate the scanner to the left;(iv) when the right side of the handling is pulled rearwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pushed forwardly, the plurality of powered wheels rotate the scanner to the right (para 60+).
However Johnson fails to teach the handle is a drive bar and when the right side of the handling is lifted upwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the left; and when the right side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pulled upwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the right.
Cha teaches the driver bar 20 and when the right side of the handling is lifted upwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the left; and when the right side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pulled upwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the right (para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the handling of Bailey with the drive bar as taught by Cha, since it would better device maneuver.
Regarding claim 43, Johnson teaches each of the plurality of powered wheels comprises a plurality of rollers (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 44, Johnson teaches the plurality of rollers are oriented 45 degrees to the axis of rotation of the plurality of powered wheels (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 45, Johnson teaches each of the plurality of powered wheels is independently rotatable (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 46, Johnson teaches at least one of the plurality of powered wheels rotates at a different speed than another one of the plurality of powered wheels (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 47, Johnson teaches at least one sensor for sensing movement of the drive bar (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 48, Johnson teaches the at least one sensor is configured to detect the following motions of the drive bar: left side forward, left side back, left side up, left side down, right side forward, right side back, right side up and right side down (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 52, Johnson teaches the scanner comprises a CT machine (figure 1).
Regarding claim 53, Johnson teaches a method for scanning an object, the method comprising: providing an imaging system, the imaging system comprising: a scanner; a plurality of powered wheels mounted to the base of the scanner; and a handling for providing omnidirectional drive to the plurality of powered wheels;
wherein the handling comprises a left side (13 15 on left) and a right side (13 15 on right), and further wherein the drive bar is configured such that: when the right side of the handling and the left side of the drive bar are both pressed forwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner forwardly; when the right side of the drive bar and the left side of the handling are both pulled rearwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner rearwardly; when the right side of the handling is pressed forwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pulled rearwardly, the plurality of powered wheels rotate the scanner to the left;(iv) when the right side of the handling is pulled rearwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pushed forwardly, the plurality of powered wheels rotate the scanner to the right (para 60+).
However Johnson fails to teach the handle is a drive bar and when the right side of the handling is lifted upwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the left; and when the right side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pulled upwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the right.
Cha teaches the driver bar 20 and when the right side of the handling is lifted upwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the left; and when the right side of the drive bar is pushed downwardly and the left side of the drive bar is pulled upwardly, the plurality of powered wheels move the scanner laterally to the right (para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the handling of Bailey with the drive bar as taught by Cha, since it would better device maneuver.
Regarding claim 54, Johnson teaches each of the plurality of powered wheels comprises a plurality of rollers (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 55, Johnson teaches the plurality of rollers are oriented 45 degrees to the axis of rotation of the plurality of powered wheels (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 56, Johnson teaches each of the plurality of powered wheels is independently rotatable (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 57, Johnson teaches at least one of the plurality of powered wheels rotates at a different speed than another one of the plurality of powered wheels (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 58, Johnson teaches at least one sensor for sensing movement of the drive bar (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 59, Johnson teaches the at least one sensor is configured to detect the following motions of the drive bar: left side forward, left side back, left side up, left side down, right side forward, right side back, right side up and right side down (para 70-73).
Regarding claim 63, Johnson teaches the scanner comprises a CT machine (figure 1).
Claim(s) 49-51 and 60-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Gemmel et al. (US 20160296185).
Regarding claims 49 and 60, Johnson fails to teach a collision sensor system for detecting the presence of an obstacle in the drive path of the scanner or alongside the scanner.
Gemmel teaches a collision sensor system S for detecting the presence of an obstacle in the drive path of the scanner or alongside the scanner (para 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the scanner of Johnson with the collision sensor system as taught by Gemmel, since it would provide better safety.
Regarding claims 50 and 61, Gemmel teaches the collision sensor system comprises an ultrasound sensor (para 61).
Regarding claims 51 and 62, Gemmel teaches the collision sensor system detects the presence of an obstacle in the drive path of the scanner or alongside the scanner, the collision sensor system responds by causing at least one of the following actions: sounding an alarm and automatically decreasing the speed of the plurality of powered wheels (par 69).
Regarding claim 60, Gemmel teaches a collision sensor system for detecting the presence of an obstacle in the drive path of the scanner or alongside the scanner (figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 43-63 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached on M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884