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, filed 27 April, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kuehn et al. US 2022/0249034 in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0212260.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added claims 23 and 27 contain language reciting “wherein the struts are chord-like” or the like. Paragraph 0028, 0042, and 0052 describe the struts of figure 5 as being “in the manner of a tendon” or the like and the specification is silent on any “chord-like” structure. Accordingly, it would be improper to interpret figure 5 as depicting a “chord-like” structure for the struts. As such, a “chord-like” strut has not been shown or described.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “chord-like” in claims 23 and 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “chord-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Chord-like is a relative term which relates the structure of the strut being relatively in the form of a chord. The specification fails to define the degree of being “chord-like” which is encompassed by the claim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine how much a strut must be like a chord when infringement begins. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Examiners Note: Should Applicant amend the claims to read “tendon-like” rather than “chord-like” as supported by the specification in order to overcome the 112(a) rejection, the claims would still be subject to a 112(b) rejection as the specification also fails to define a standard for ascertaining what is “tendon-like.”
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-20, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehn et al. US 2022/0249034 in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0212260.
Regarding claim 1, Kuehn teaches a rotating frame for a gantry of a computed tomography unit (fig. 4), the rotating frame comprising: receiving areas (fig. 4a #4a), to which rotating components (#4, 7a, 7) of the computed tomography unit can be attached (para. 0122, 0127), wherein the rotating frame further comprises undercuts (fig. 5 #4; the drum 4 which is a component of the rotating frame forms an undercut) the undercuts being in an axial direction (fig. 5 the horizontal direction is an axial direction) such that at least on portions of the rotating frame thicken in the axial direction or the rotating frame curve in the axial direction (fig. 5 #4; the bends in 4 cause a curve in the axial direction).
Kuehn fails to teach wherein the rotating frame and the undercuts are produced at least in part using additive manufacturing.
Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame and the undercuts are produced at least in part using additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes and simplifying the attachment process of various components by attaching them as inserts.
Regarding claim 2, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: struts (fig. 6 #27).
Kuehn fails to teach the struts being formed via additive manufacturing.
Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the struts being formed via additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Regarding claim 4, Kuehn does not specifically disclose wherein the rotating frame includes an average wall thickness of up to 20 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (less than or equal to 20mm) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.05.I. in re Aller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame includes an average wall thickness of up to 20 mm in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Wang for the purpose of minimizing system weight.
Regarding claim 5, Kuehn does not specifically disclose the rotating frame weighs less than 200kg. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (less than 200kg) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.05.I. in re Aller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have the rotating frame weighs less than 200 kg in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Wang for the purpose of reducing shipping costs.
Regarding claim 6, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: a frame not produced using additive manufacturing (fig. 4 #3a; para. 0034-0038).
Kuehn fails to teach at least one other element produced using additive manufacturing.
Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one other element produced using additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Regarding claim 7, Kuehn teaches wherein the frame is produced from a rolled metal element (para. 0035; metal sheets are known to be rolled metal elements).
Regarding claim 8, Kuehn fails to teach wherein the rotating frame is entirely produced using additive manufacturing.
Wang teaches an imaging system which is manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame is entirely produced using additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Regarding claim 9, Kuehn teaches further comprising: bracing elements (fig. 6 # 27), the bracing elements enclosing at least one receiving area on at least one side (fig. 6; the bracing element 27 encloses the receiving areas 6, 7, and 7a of fig. 4 by bracing one side of the elements 6, 7, and 7a which are inserted in the receiving areas).
Regarding claim 10, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a); and struts (fig. 6 #27) positioned on the at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a).
Kuehn fails to teach wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process.
Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Regarding claim 11, Kuehn does not specifically disclose wherein the rotating frame has a rigidity, such that during a rotation in operation of the computed tomography unit it is maximally deformable by up to 0.3 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to recited range (having a deformity of .3mm or less) through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical (MPEP 2144.05.I. in re Aller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame has a rigidity, such that during a rotation in operation of the computed tomography unit it is maximally deformable by up to 0.3 mm in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Wang for the purpose of ensuring accuracy of imaging target region.
Regarding claim 12, Kuehn teaches a gantry (fig. 4) for a computed tomography unit (fig. 1) with the rotating frame of claim 1 (see Rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kuehn teaches a computed tomography unit (fig. 1), comprising: the rotating frame of claim 1 (see Rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kuehn teaches the rotating frame further comprising: at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a); and struts (fig. 6 #27) positioned on the at least one continuous ring (fig. 6 #46a).
Kuehn fails to teach wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process.
Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the struts are added via an additive manufacturing process as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn and Tabolla for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Regarding claim 21, Kuehn and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the struts are irregularly shaped, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in shapes has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in shape is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of shape is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 22, Kuehn and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the struts have an irregular thickness, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 24, Kuehn teaches a rotating frame for a gantry of a computed tomography unit (fig. 4), the rotating frame comprising: receiving areas (fig. 4a #4a), to which rotating components (#4, 7a, 7) of the computed tomography unit can be attached (para. 0122, 0127), wherein the rotating frame further comprises struts (fig. 6 #27).
Kuehn fails to teach wherein the rotating frame is produced at least in part using additive manufacturing and wherein the struts are formed via additive manufacturing.
Wang teaches an imaging system which is, at in least part, manufactured via additive manufacturing (abstract; figs. 1-2; para. 0001-0006, 0022; claim 2) for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the rotating frame is produced at least in part using additive manufacturing and wherein the struts are formed via additive manufacturing as taught by Wang in the rotating frame of Kuehn for the purpose of rapid prototyping or simplifying the manufacture of complex shapes and simplifying the attachment process of various components by attaching them as inserts.
Regarding claim 25, Kuehn and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the struts are irregularly shaped, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in shapes has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in shape is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of shape is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 26, Kuehn and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the struts have an irregular thickness, however, it has been judiciarily determined that changing in size has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). A change in size is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the change of size is not of patentable significance.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights