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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/8/2024, 10/1/2024 and 8/7/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, 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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 6,430,263 B1) in view of Lu’224 (US 6,511,224 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Lu discloses a CT system (Fig.1) having an x-ray tube (Fig.2), including:
a) an envelope 26 that encloses, in a vacuum, a cathode 30 generating an electron beam and an anode 28 emitting an x-ray by collision of the electron beam, and an x-ray window 32 through which the x-ray is transmitted;
b) a stator coil configured to generate a driving force for rotating the anode 28 (Fig.2);
c) a tube container 22 configured to accommodate the x-ray tube and the stator coil together with insulating oil (see at least col.3, lines 5-6, and col.5, line 3);
d) a cooler D configured to cool the insulating oil;
e) a first inflow port 56 connected to a pipe linking the tube container 22 and the cooler D and disposed near the x-ray window 32;
f) a second inflow port 52 connected to the pipe and disposed near the stator coil; and
g) a controller configured to cause the insulating oil to flow into the tube container 22 through the first inflow port 56 in a case where the x-ray is emitted, and to cause the insulating oil to flow into the tube container through the second inflow port.
Further regarding claim 1, Lu does not specifically disclose that the coolant continues to flow in a case where the x-ray is not emitted.
Lu’224 teaches the routine practice of continuing to cool the x-ray tube by circulating coolant oil through the tube container of a CT scanner at intervals when the x-rays are not being emitted (see at least Abstract, as well as col.4, lines 47-54) in order to ensure x-ray tube longevity by removing heat from the tube throughout the operating cycle, not only when x-rays are emitted (col.1, lines 51-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Lu to cause the insulating oil to flow into the tube container through the second inflow port in a case where the x-ray is not emitted as is routine in the art in order to ensure x-ray tube longevity as evidenced by Lu’224.
With respect to claim 6, Lu further discloses that the controller causes the insulating oil to flow into the tube container 22 also from the second inflow port 52 in a case where the x-ray is emitted (coolant continues to flow into the tube container through both ports when x-rays are emitted), and causes the insulating oil to flow into the tube container 22 also from the first inflow port 56 in a case where the x-ray is not emitted (coolant continues to flow into the tube container through both ports when x-rays are not emitted, as recommended, presumed and evidenced by Lu’224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Lu to cause the insulating oil to flow into the tube container through the first inflow port in a case where the x-ray is not emitted as is routine in the art in order to ensure x-ray tube longevity as evidenced by Lu’224.
With respect to claim 8, Lu does not specifically disclose that a stop instruction or whether or not x-ray is emitted is transmitted to the controller.
Lu’224 teaches the practice of having a controller that receives a signal whether x-rays are emitted or not in order to switch between peak cooling (during x-ray emission) and regular cooling (when x-rays are not emitted) (see at least col.1, lines 51-59; col.2, lines 21-33; col.4, line 47, through col.5, line 14; col.5, lines 26-35). In this manner, cooling may be optimally managed based on the heat load from the x-ray tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Lu to transmit a stop instruction or whether or not the x-ray is emitted is transmitted to the controller, as taught by Lu’224, in order to increase the cooling efficiency for improved longevity, as taught by Lu’224.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art teaches most aspects of the claimed invention, particularly Appelt (US 4,768,212) which teaches a coolant inflow port 9 near the stator coils 7 and an inflow port 23 near the x-ray window 8 (Fig.1). The coolant flow is further reversible (based on the switch of Fig.3). However, the flow is reversible based on the 3D orientation of the x-ray tube. There is no teaching or suggestion of a controller that directs the flow of the coolant toward the stator coils or toward the x-ray window based on when the x-rays are emitted from the x-ray tube.
US patent documents to Lu, cited above, as well as Kobayashi (JP S58-216346 A) and Imai (EP 1 840 934 A1), all teach an inflow tube near the stator coils and an inflow tube near the x-ray window; however, none teach that the coolant flows are reversible under any condition.
Therefore, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional limitation that the controller causes the insulation oil to flow out from the tube container through the second inflow port in a case where the x-ray is emitted and causes the insulating oil to flow out from the tube container through the first inflow port in a case where the x-ray is not emitted, as required by the combination as claimed in claim 2.
Claims 3-5 are objected to by virtue of their dependence upon claim 2, thus incorporating the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884