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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zagorchev (US 20100198047 A1).
With regards to claim 11, Zagorchev discloses a scanning cabin, comprising: a cabin 14 for placing a scanning object and one or more functional components integrated in the cabin, wherein the one or more functional components include: an electrocardiogram detection device for electrocardiogram detection of the scanning object [0036]; a thermometer for monitoring a body temperature of the scanning object [0037]; and one or more temperature regulators for regulating a temperature of a region where the scanning object is located, wherein each of the one or more temperature regulators includes a heating pipeline [0037].
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.
Claims 1-6, 12, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorchev in view of Gu (CN 110742639).
With regards to claim 1, Zagorchev discloses an imaging method comprising: obtaining coding information of a scanning cabin 14 [0039]. Zagorchev does not explicitly teach determining a specification parameter of the scanning cabin based on the coding information and preset coding information. However, Gu teaches an automatic scanning system and method comprising: acquiring information that identifies a scanning bed type, including via recognition of identifying information associated with the scanning bed; storing configuration files in a console or storage, wherein each configuration file corresponds to a scanning bed type; and reading the configuration file corresponding to the identified scanning bed type to obtain configuration item parameters used to configure the scanning system (see paragraphs [0005-0031] of the Specification). Since both Zagorchev and Gu are directed to imaging systems that include automatic identification, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Zagorchev with the claimed limitations in order to provide safe and accurate imaging.
With regards to claim 2, Gu discloses wherein the determining a specification parameter of the scanning cabin based on the coding information and preset coding information includes: determining, from a plurality of pieces of the preset coding information, whether a piece of preset coding information corresponding to the coding information exists in a database (configuration files corresponding to scanning bed types are stored in the console, and that the system reads the configuration file corresponding to the identified scanning bed type) [000-0031], wherein each piece of the plurality of pieces of preset coding information corresponds to a specification parameter of a single scanning cabin (each scanning bed type corresponds to a configuration file, and that each configuration file includes configuration item parameters for that bed type) [0005-0031]; in response to a determination that the piece of preset coding information corresponding to the coding information exists in the database, obtaining the specification parameter of the scanning cabin corresponding to the piece of preset coding information from the database (reading the configuration filed from the storage to obtain configuration file parameters used to configure the scanning system) [0005-0031].
With regards to claims 3 and 12, Zagorchev discloses wherein: the scanning cabin includes an I/O module (the capsule is connected to an imaging/positioning system and interfaces with system components when docked [00354-0037] (Fig. 3), which necessarily includes electronic interfacing circuitry to communicate with the imaging system, thus inherently comprising an I/O module); the I/O module includes a plurality of I/O interfaces (the presence of multiple interfaces (e.g., electrical signaling, identification reading, mechanical/electrical engagement) is inherent); and the coding information of the scanning cabin includes status values of the plurality of I/O interfaces of the I/O module (Gu discloses that configuration parameters are selected based on the identified state/type of the physical component (see above), which inherently includes the availability and status of interfaces necessary for correct configuration).
With regards to claim 4, Gu discloses wherein the status values of the plurality of I/O interfaces include a status value of each I/O interface in the plurality of I/O interfaces (Gu discloses that configuration parameters are selected based on the identified state/type of the physical component (see above), which inherently includes the availability and status of interfaces necessary for correct configuration), but does not teach a positional sequence of the plurality of I/O interfaces. However, positional or indexed ordering of interfaces (e.g., port order, connector position, interface index) is a well known and predictable design choice to map physical interfaces to logical configuration parameters. Therefore, in view of the recited benefits, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Gu with the claimed positional sequence.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Zagorchev and Gu do not teach wherein the obtaining coding information of the scanning cabin includes: obtaining, based on a wiring manner of the plurality of I/O interfaces, the status values of the plurality of I/O interfaces corresponding to the wiring manner. However, determining interface status values based on a wiring manner is a well known and routine technique in modular systems to identify connected hardware and configure system parameters accordingly. As such, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Zagorchev and Gu with the claimed step in view of the recited benefit and for supporting automatic identification and configuration.
With regards to claim 6, Gu teaches wherein the method further comprises: establishing a correspondence between the plurality of pieces of preset coding information and a plurality of specification parameters of a plurality of scanning cabins; and saving the correspondence between the plurality of pieces of preset coding information and the plurality of specification parameters of the plurality of scanning cabins to the database (configuration files corresponding to different scanning bed types are stored in the console or storage and each configuration file includes configuration parameters for the corresponding scanning bed type [0005-0031]. Gu does not explicitly teach a pre-processing step of building the database, however, saving identifier to parameter mappings is generally considered inherent in any database based configuration system.
Claim 24 is suggested by the claims above and is therefore rejected accordingly.
Claims 13 and 16-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorchev.
With regards to claim 13, Zagorchev discloses ECG probes [0036] but does not specify wherein the ECG probe comprises capacitive couplers, which are considered a well known alternative to direct contact electrodes. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Zagorchev with the claimed couplers because they perform the same function in a predictable manner.
With regards to claim 16, Zagorchev does not teach the claimed camera device. However, those skilled in the art recognize that the use of optical cameras to monitor respiratory motion and limb motion was well known in order to compensate for abdominal movement and/or motion artifacts. Therefore, in order to improve image quality, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Zagorchev with the claimed camera.
With regards to claims 17-19 and 21, Zagorchev does not teach the claimed elements. However, the elements claims in claims 17-19 and 21 are considered incremental, well understood components that are generally standard imaging elements for imaging animals. As such, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Zagorchev with the claimed limitations in order to safely image an animal under anesthesia in a desired position to image and monitor a specific area of interest.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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:
None of the prior art teach: wherein the one or more scanning parameters include a resolution threshold corresponding to the scanning cabin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 on 571-272-3995. 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