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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1-11, 13 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites “a method according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim 1 while claim 13 is a method claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN111544212A; pub. Aug. 18, 2020) in view of Wang et al. (CN112957062A; pub. Jun. 16, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al. disclose: A medical vehicle (fig.3), comprising; a medical scanning system (fig.3 item 8) that is configured to perform medical scans while the medical vehicle is in motion, wherein the medical vehicle has a vertical axis (fig.3), a longitudinal axis that extends in a direction of a straight motion of the vehicle and a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the vertical axis and to the longitudinal axis (fig.3), the medical scanning system comprising:
a rotating component (fig.3 item 8, para. [0054]-[0055]) that is configured to rotate around a rotation axis and
a processor and at least one sensor configured to limit gyroscopic forces caused by the rotating component when the rotation axis changes its direction (para. [0050]), wherein
the processor is configured to receive sensor readings generated by the at least one sensor and to determine and/or predict the gyroscopic forces based on the sensor readings,
the at least one sensor comprises at least one out of a group consisting of: a camera, a motion sensor, a motor sensor, a compass, a speedometer, a navigation system, a wind sensor, a wave sensor, an altitude sensor, a weather forecast, an acceleration sensor, an inertial measurement unit, a force sensor and a vibration sensor (para. [0061]).
Wu et al. are silent about: the processor is configured to issue a speed limit, in particular a non-zero speed limit7 for the medical vehicle based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces.
In a similar field of endeavor Wang et al. disclose: the processor is configured to issue a speed limit, in particular a non-zero speed limit for the medical vehicle based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces (para. [0031], [0038], [0102], [0167]) motivated by the benefits for saving lives to the greatest extent possible (Wang et al. para. [0052]).
In light of the benefits for saving lives to the greatest extent possible as taught by Wang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wu et al. with the teachings of Wang et al.
Regarding claim 2, Wu et al. and Wang et al. disclose: the medical scanning system is a Computed Tomography, CT, system and the rotating component is a CT gantry, and/or the medical scanning system is an X-ray system and the rotating component is an X-ray anode (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Wu et al. and Wang et al. disclose: the medical vehicle is one of a truck, a train, a plane, a helicopter, an autonomous flight object, and/ a ship (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang et al. disclose: an orientation of the rotation axis along the vertical axis (para. [0102] teaches a three-axis digital gyroscope) motivated by the benefits for saving lives to the greatest extent possible (Wang et al. para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu et al. disclose: the processor is further configured to limit the rotation speed of the rotating component and/or to schedule a medical scan based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces (para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Wu et al. and Wang et al. disclose: a method for operating a medical scanning system in a moving medical vehicle, comprising: providing a rotating component that is configured to rotate around a rotation axis;
limiting gyroscopic forces caused by the rotating component when the rotation axis changes its direction;
generating, sensor readings;
receiving, by a processor, the generated sensor readings;
determining and/or predicting, by the processor, the gyroscopic forces based on the sensor readings;
and transmitting, by the processor, control commands to limit the gyroscopic forces based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces, wherein the control commands issue a non-zero speed limit, for the medical vehicle (the claim contains the substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 13, Wu et al. disclose: limiting the rotation speed of the rotating component and/or scheduling a medical scan. (para. [0059]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN111544212A; pub. Aug. 18, 2020) in view of Wang et al. (CN112957062A; pub. Jun. 16, 2021) and further in view of Wu (CN112667009A; pub. Apr. 16, 2021).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: passive means to lessen the gyroscopic forces and the passive means comprise at least one out of a group consisting of: a bearing allowing motion of the rotating component around an axis perpendicular to an axis around which the medical scanning system rotates, springs, elastic components, and damping components.
In a similar field of endeavor Wu discloses: passive means to lessen the gyroscopic forces and the passive means comprise at least one out of a group consisting of: a bearing allowing motion of the rotating component around an axis perpendicular to an axis around which the medical scanning system rotates, springs, elastic components, and damping components (para. [0068]-[0069]) motivated by the benefits for a mobile CT scanner that can be deployed in any location (Wu para. [0002]).
In light of the benefits for a mobile CT scanner that can be deployed in any location as taught by Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wu et al. and Wang et al. with the teachings of Wu.
Regarding claim 8, the combined references are silent about: active means to obviate the gyroscopic forces and the processor is further configured to control the active means based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces, wherein the active means comprise at least one out of a group consisting of: rotational electric motors, linear electric actuators, gearing components and damping components.
In a similar field of endeavor Wu discloses: active means to obviate the gyroscopic forces and the processor is further configured to control the active means based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces, wherein the active means comprise at least one out of a group consisting of: rotational electric motors, linear electric actuators, gearing components and damping components (para. [0068]-[0069]) motivated by the benefits for a mobile CT scanner that can be deployed in any location (Wu para. [0002]).
In light of the benefits for a mobile CT scanner that can be deployed in any location as taught by Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wu et al. and Wang et al. with the teachings of Wu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: an adjustable orientation of the rotation axis, and the processor is further configured to control the orientation of the rotation axis based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: a modular construction of the rotating component comprising at least two modules and selection circuitry to select which of the modules are rotated during operation of the medical scanning system, and, the processor is further configured to control the selection circuitry based on the determined and/or predicted gyroscopic forces.
Regarding claim 11, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: a modular construction of the rotating component comprising at least two modules and selecting which of the modules are rotated during operation of the medical scanning system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884