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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 2017/0202529 A1) in view of Nakahara (JP 2006-167300 A, pagination according to provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Baumann discloses a C-shaped arm (Fig.4), including:
a) a C-shaped portion 1;
b) a radiation source 13 carried by the C-shaped portion 1;
c) a radiation detector 14 carried by the C-shaped portion 1; and
d) a pair of guide rails 12 secured to opposed sides of the C-shaped portion 1 (Figs.2 and 3), where each of the pair of guide rails 12 includes:
e) a body 12 formed of a lightweight material and including a pair of rod channels 9 formed therein; and
f) a pair of rods 8 engaged within the pair of rod channels 9.
Further regarding claim 1, Baumann does not specifically disclose that a diameter of each of the pair of rods is greater than a width of the rod channel.
Nakahara teaches a C-arm for supporting an x-ray source and x-ray detector opposed to one another, where the extruded aluminum body contains a pair of rod channels 15 into which steel rods 9 are fitted (Fig.1). The steel rods 9 are fitted after extrusion of the aluminum body and prior to bending the aluminum body into the C shape (p.5, lines 21-31 after the heading “BEST-MODE”, see attached marked-up copy of the translation previously made of record). As a direct physical result of this process, the aluminum body, which shrinks more per degree change in temperature than steel, will shrink around the steel rod 9 forming a compression fit or interference fit once cooled after bending. By definition, the diameter of the steel bar 9 has a larger diameter than the diameter of the channel 15 in the aluminum body in the finished product.
Nakahara teaches that such a compression or interference fit avoids screws and other means of attachment that take more manufacturing time, are more complex to manufacture, and do not last as long as a compression fitting (pp.3 and 4, see marked up version, attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Baumann to have a diameter of each of the pair of rods be greater than a width of the rod channel in order to provide an improved and lower-cost means of attachment, as taught by Nakahara.
With respect to claim 2, Baumann further discloses that the body 12 is formed of a unitary structure (par.0026).
With respect to claim 3, Baumann further discloses that each of the pair of rods 8 is formed as a unitary structure (wires, par.0026).
With respect to claim 4, Baumann further discloses that the body 12 is formed of aluminum, and each of the pair of rods 8 are formed of hardened steel (par.0026).
With respect to claim 5, Baumann further discloses that a diameter of each of the pair of rods 8 is greater than a depth of each of the rod channels 9 (Figs.2 and 3).
With respect to claim 6, Baumann further discloses that each of the pair of rod channels 9 defines three areas of contact between the rod channel 9 and the rod 8 engaged therein (Fig.3 shows rectangular channels, which results in 3 points of contact with the rods).
With respect to claim 7, Baumann further discloses that each of the pair of rod channels 9 includes a compression section along one side of each of the pair of rod channels (inherent insofar as there will be more force on one roller than on the opposed roller on the same side of the C-arm due to C-arm orientation).
Regarding claim 8, Baumann discloses a medical imaging system (Fig.4), including:
a) a C-arm 1;
b) a radiation source 13 and a radiation detector 14 carried by the C-arm 1;
c) a base (not labeled, Fig.4); and
d) a carriage coupled to the C-arm 1 and the base (Fig.4), the carriage including a pair of trolleys, each of the pairs of trolleys rotatably supporting a number of rollers 7 thereon (Figs.2-3), where the C-arm 1 includes:
e) a C-shaped portion 2; and
f) a pair of guide rails 12 secured to opposing sides of the C-shaped portion 2 and engaged with the number of rollers 7 secured to opposed sides of the C-shaped portion 2, where each of the pair of guide rails 12 includes:
g) a body 12 formed of a lightweight material and including a pair of rod channels 9 formed therein; and
h) a pair of rods 8 engaged within the pair of rod channels 9 (Figs.2-3).
Further regarding claim 8, Baumann does not specifically disclose that a diameter of each of the pair of rods is greater than a width of the rod channel.
Nakahara teaches a C-arm for supporting an x-ray source and x-ray detector opposed to one another, where the extruded aluminum body contains a pair of rod channels 15 into which steel rods 9 are fitted (Fig.1). The steel rods 9 are fitted after extrusion of the aluminum body and prior to bending the aluminum body into the C shape (p.5, lines 21-31 after the heading “BEST-MODE”, see attached marked-up copy of the translation previously made of record). As a direct physical result of this process, the aluminum body, which shrinks more per degree change in temperature than steel, will shrink around the steel rod 9 forming a compression fit or interference fit once cooled after bending. By definition, the diameter of the steel bar 9 has a larger diameter than the diameter of the channel 15 in the aluminum body in the finished product.
Nakahara teaches that such a compression or interference fit avoids screws and other means of attachment that take more manufacturing time, are more complex to manufacture, and do not last as long as a compression fitting (pp.3 and 4, see marked up version, attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Baumann to have a diameter of each of the pair of rods be greater than a width of the rod channel in order to provide an improved and lower-cost means of attachment, as taught by Nakahara.
With respect to claim 9, Baumann further discloses that the body 12 is formed of a unitary structure (par.0026).
With respect to claim 10, Baumann further discloses that each of the pair of rods 8 is formed as a unitary structure (wires, par.0026).
With respect to claim 11, Baumann further discloses that the body 12 is formed of aluminum, and each of the pair of rods 8 are formed of hardened steel (par.0026).
With respect to claim 12, Baumann further discloses that a diameter of each of the pair of rods 8 is greater than a depth of each of the rod channels 9 (Figs.2 and 3).
With respect to claim 13, Baumann further discloses that each of the pair of rod channels 9 defines three areas of contact between the rod channel 9 and the rod 8 engaged therein (Fig.3 shows rectangular channels, which results in 3 points of contact with the rods).
Regarding claim 14, Baumann discloses a method of forming a C-arm 1 for a medical imaging system (Figs.2-4), including:
a) providing a C-shaped section 2 adapted to support a radiation source 13 and a radiation detector 14 at opposed ends of the C-shaped section 2;
b) forming a material into a body for a guide rail 12, the body including a pair of rod channels 9 disposed on opposed sides of the body (Figs.2-3);
c) engaging a pair of rods 8 at least partially within the pair of rod channels 9 to form the guide rail 12 (Figs.2-3); and
d) securing the guide rail 12 to a side of the C-shaped section 2 to form the C-arm 1; where
e) the material forming the body is selected from aluminum or steel (par.0026); and where
f) a diameter of each of the pair of rods 8 is greater than a depth of each of the rod channels (best seen in Fig.2).
Further regarding claim 14, Baumann does not specifically disclose that a diameter of each of the pair of rods is greater than a width of the rod channel.
Nakahara teaches a C-arm for supporting an x-ray source and x-ray detector opposed to one another, where the extruded aluminum body contains a pair of rod channels 15 into which steel rods 9 are fitted (Fig.1). The steel rods 9 are fitted after extrusion of the aluminum body and prior to bending the aluminum body into the C shape (p.5, lines 21-31 after the heading “BEST-MODE”, see attached marked-up copy of the translation previously made of record). As a direct physical result of this process, the aluminum body, which shrinks more per degree change in temperature than steel, will shrink around the steel rod 9 forming a compression fit or interference fit once cooled after bending. By definition, the diameter of the steel bar 9 has a larger diameter than the diameter of the channel 15 in the aluminum body in the finished product.
Nakahara teaches that such a compression or interference fit avoids screws and other means of attachment that take more manufacturing time, are more complex to manufacture, and do not last as long as a compression fitting (pp.3 and 4, see marked up version, attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Baumann to have a diameter of each of the pair of rods be greater than a width of the rod channel in order to provide an improved and lower-cost means of attachment, as taught by Nakahara.
With respect to claim 15, Baumann further discloses that the step of forming the body includes extruding the material to form the body as a unitary structure (pars.0005, 0011, 0014 and 0016).
With respect to claim 16, it is inherent in Baumann that, after extrusion (pars.0005, 0011, 0014 and 0016), the body must be bent into the C-shape, as understood in the art.
With respect to claim 17, Baumann does not specifically disclose that the body is bent after engaging the pair of rods 8 within the pair of rod channels 9.
Nakahara teaches the practice of engaging steel components 9 into corresponding grooves 15 of an extruded aluminum C-arm after extrusion and prior to bending to provide faster manufacturing at lower cost by avoiding the use of screws and the corresponding machining (bottom of p.3, also see bottom of p.5 to top of p.6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Baumann to bend the body after engaging the pair of rods within the pair of rod channels in order to streamline manufacturing, as taught by Nakahara.
With respect to claims 18-20, Baumann does not specifically disclose that the step of engaging the pair of rods at least partially within the pair of rod channels includes forming an interference fit between the pair of rods and the pair of rod channels.
Nakahara teaches the practice of providing an interference fit (no need for screws, bottom of p.3 and bottom of p.5), where the opening width of the groove 15 is smaller than the diameter of the rod 9.
Due to the steel rod 9 being harder than, and having a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than, the extruded aluminum alloy of the groove walls 15, the skilled artisan appreciates that press fitting or shrink fitting would be readily applicable as routine and effective interference fits.
Further, the skilled artisan recognizes that the outer portions of the groove 15, being closer together than the width of the steel rod 9, may be crimped over the steel rod 9 to provide a compression fit, since the extruded aluminum is understood as being more ductile than the steel rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Baumann to use the notoriously well-known practices of a press-fit, or shrink-fit, or crimp fit, as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to streamline manufacturing due to the lack of screw fasteners, as taught by Nakahara, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 8 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that neither Baumann nor Nakahara, either alone or in combination, teach the combination of features as claimed, including having the diameter of the rod being greater than the diameter of the rod channel (see Remarks, p.8 of 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As spelled out further in the above reprisal of the prior art combination, Nakahara specifically teaches that the aluminum body 1 is extruded, the steel rod 9 is inserted into the channel 15 after extrusion, and then the combination is bent into the C-shape (see annotations, top of p.4 and bottom of p.5 of the attached translation). As the skilled artisan readily recognizes, the extrusion and bending take place at high temperatures sufficient for ductility of the metal and to avoid excessive crystalline defects (cold working). Therefore, when the steel rod is inserted into the channel, the combination is very hot. As the skilled artisan fully understands, aluminum shrinks more per change in degree of temperature (higher thermal coefficient of thermal expansion) than does steel. Therefore, the only possible outcome of the manufacturing process of Nakahara is that the final product, once cooled, will have the diameter of the steel rod be larger than the diameter of the aluminum channel because the aluminum will have shrunk around the steel rod.
Further evidence for this conclusion comes from the motivation of Nakahara for manufacturing the C-arm in this manner. Page 3 states that the prior art methods of providing screw fasteners and similar means of attachment are more time intensive. The only possible way in which the rod 9 is so suitably secured within the channel 15 without additional fastening means, and no disclosures of adhesives, is through a compression fit from the explicitly-described manufacturing process.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights