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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 § 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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray (US 5097495 A) in view of Kuwata (US 20200077971 A1) and Mix (US 20140039351 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Gray discloses an X-ray imaging system comprising:
a table T including a table top on which a subject P is placed (Fig. 1);
an imaging unit 10 including an X-ray tube 16 which emits X-rays to the subject and an X-ray detector 14 which detects the X-rays;
a pressure sensor placed in a position where a contact may occur between the subject and at least one of the imaging unit and the table (column 1, lines 26-29; column 3, lines 7-8; Fig. 2); and
processing circuitry configured to:
detect the contact (column 4, line 47-column 5, line 21).
Gray further discloses wherein the pressure sensor produces two control signals when the pressure within the bladder exceeds first and second threshold levels (Abstract; thus disclosing threshold-based contact detection), but does not teach the processing circuitry as claimed.
However, Kuwata teaches an X-ray device and method comprising:
executing control to display output value information indicating a pressure value of the contact in a different display manner in accordance with the pressure value, the pressure value being detected by the pressure sensor [0442, 0446]; and
executing control to display contact position information relating to indicating a position in contact with the subject based on a detection result (Figs. 31A and 31B).
In addition, Mix teaches a control system coupled to a sensor array in order to correlate pressure data to specific parts of a patient’s body (Abstract).
Therefore, in view of ensuring proper subject and imaging unit positioning, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Gray with the claimed configuration as taught by Kuwata and Mix.
With regards to claim 3, Kuwata teaches displaying the contact position information in accordance with the pressure sensor values [0442, 0446].
With regards to claim 4, Kuwata does not teach displaying output value information in a different color in accordance with a magnitude of the pressure value. However, Kuwata does teach wherein when a change in pressure value is detected, the user is notified via sound, light, display and the like [0446]. Modifying Kuwata with displaying a colored display would have been considered an obvious matter of design choice and/or obvious substitution in view of the different notifications taught by Kuwata.
With regards to claim 5, Kuwata teaches setting pressure values to detect changes in pressure [0446].
With regards to claim 6, Gray discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute a retraction operation for retracting an instrument relating to the contact, in a case where the pressure value is equal to or greater than a threshold. (column 1, lines 33-39).
With regards to claim 7, Kuwata teaches wherein the user is notified only when the pressure value is greater than a threshold [0446], which suggests not notifying when the value is smaller than the threshold.
With regards to claim 8, although not specifically taught, controlling the display to display position information or not to display position information based on a threshold would have been known and considered an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Gray and Kuwata with the claimed processing circuitry in order to provide a custom indicator of a collision.
With regards to claim 10, Gray discloses wherein the pressure sensor is placed on an outer periphery of a first surface of the X-ray detector that faces the subject (Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 11, Gray does not teach the claimed processing circuitry. However, Gray does teach it was known to assign different threshold levels based on desired conditions (column 4, line 59 – column 5, line 47). Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Gray with the claimed processing circuitry in order to protect more sensitive regions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884