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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (JP7374874 B2) in view of D2 (US 4638197 A) and D3 (US 20170018393 A1).
With regards to claim 1, D1 discloses an X-ray assembly comprising:
an x-ray tube 1 including an electric motor, the electric motor including a rotatable anode assembly 5 [0020];
an anode rotation sensor 49 operable to generate a signal corresponding to a rate of rotation of the rotatable anode assembly [0027];
an anode driver operable to drive the electric motor [0027];
a power monitoring sensor 55 operable to determine a power property provided to the electric motor from the anode driver [0027]; and
a processor 48 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 48 having encoded electronic instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine, via the power monitoring sensor, the power property provided to the electric motor from the anode driver [0027];
determine, via the anode rotation sensor, the rate of rotation of the rotatable anode assembly [0027]; and
determine an operating characteristic (stress value) of the rotatable anode assembly based on the power property and the rate of rotation [0027].
D1 does not expressly teach a shield at least partially surrounding the anode rotation sensor and operable to reduce noise from the electric motor from being detected by the anode rotation sensor. D2 teaches a system comprising a shield 22 at least partially surrounding a switch 20 and operable to reduce magnetic flux generated by the stator core and windings (column 3, lines 9-59). D3 further teaches wherein magnetic fields emanating from an anode drive of a rotating anode X-ray emitter can be shielded to reduce interference caused by such magnetic fields [0070]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed shielding as taught by D2 and D3 to prevent interference, thereby improving the accuracy of rotational sensing.
With regards to claim 2, D1 does not explicitly teach wherein the anode rotation sensor includes a magnetic sensor as claimed. However, those skilled in the art recognize that contactless sensors, such as magnetic sensors, were generally known and therefore considered an obvious design choice. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed magnetic sensor in order to avoid wear and contamination.
With regards to claim 3, D1 discloses wherein the operating characteristic includes a discrepancy between an expected rate of rotation of the rotatable anode assembly and the rate of rotation of the rotatable anode assembly [0027] (comparing stored data with actual data to determine the amount of pressure to be applied inherently evaluates a discrepancy as claimed).
With regards to claims 4-6, D1 discloses a bearing 19 and a temperature sensor 57 for measuring a temperature within the x-ray tube [0033] and further determining a stress value on the bearing [0027]. Although D1 is silent with respect to estimating a life span characteristic of the bearing determined at least partially based on the temperature or acceleration, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed operating characteristic since bearing life prediction from stress and based on operating temperatures and acceleration is well known mechanical engineering practice in view of performing predictive maintenance.
With regards to claim 7, D1 discloses wherein the electronic instructions are further configured to cause the processor to adjust a property based on the operating characteristic of the rotatable anode assembly [0027]. D1 does not explicitly teach adjusting a property of power provided to the electric motor. However, such a modification was already known and considered obvious in order to prevent damage and/or extend component life. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed processor in view of the recited benefits.
With regards to claim 8, D1 discloses wherein the electronic instructions are further configured to cause the processor to monitor the stress occurring on a bearing based on the operating characteristic of the rotatable anode assembly in order to prevent damage [0027], but does not specify wherein the electronic instructions are further configured to cause the processor to allow or prevent exposure of an electron beam of the x-ray tube to the rotatable anode assembly based on the operating characteristic of the rotatable anode assembly. However, such a modification wherein allowing or inhibiting electron beam exposure based on detected rotational conditions to prevent overheating and/or avoid anode damage would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed processor in order to prevent overheating and/or avoid anode damage.
With regards to claim 9, D1 discloses monitoring operating characteristics of the rotatable anode assembly [0027], but does not specify a power chain controller configured to receive a feedback signal from the processor indicating the operating characteristic of the rotatable anode assembly and to provide a control signal to the anode driver based on the feedback signal. However, such a modification would have been known and considered obvious since the modification merely routes the already determined operating characteristic to the motor power control path rather than a separate mechanical system, thereby preserving the protective function of the system while improving control integration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claims 10 and 16, applicant's arguments overcome the rejections to the claims in view of the amendments to more clearly define the invention, namely with respect to the newly added limitations which are not taught by prior art.
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 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
Prosecution Insights