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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/11/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-8, 11-14 and 21-23 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 (Figs.2-4), including:
a) a C-shaped portion 2;
b) an x-ray source 13 coupled to one end of the C-shaped portion 2;
c) an x-ray detector 14 coupled to an opposite end of the C-shaped portion 2; and
d) a pair of curved guide rails 12 secured to opposed sides of the C-shaped portion 2, each curved guide rail 12 extending along a perimeter of the C-shaped portion 1 and having a curvature corresponding to a shape of the C-shaped portion 2 (Figs.2 and 3); where each of the pair of guide rails 12 includes:
e) a unitary body formed of a lightweight material (the C-shaped portion 2 is a unitary aluminum extrusion forming all of the structure, including the pairs of guide rails 12, par.0005) and including a pair of rod channels 9 formed therein in opposed sides of the unitary body; and
f) a pair of rods 8 engaged within the pair of rod channels 9; where
g) each rod 8 protrudes beyond a corresponding side of the unitary body to define a rolling contact surface for engagement by rollers 7 of a carriage supporting movement of the C-shaped portion 2.
Further regarding claim 1, Baumann does not specifically disclose that a diameter of each rod 8 is greater than a width of the corresponding rod channel 7.
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 a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
With respect to claim 4, Baumann further discloses that the unitary body 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 rod is greater than a depth of each rod channel 9 (Figs.2 and 3).
With respect to claim 6, Baumann further discloses that each rod 8 contacts the rod channel 9 at three contact areas (Fig.3 shows rectangular channels, which results in 3 points of contact with the rods).
With respect to claim 22, Baumann further discloses spaces defined between the rod 8 and the rod channel 9 between the three contact areas (Fig.3, corners of the channel 9 are visible as having no contact with the rod 8).
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).
With respect to claim 21, Nakahara describes that the rod is engaged within each rod channel by an interference fit, as described above, teaching 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 a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
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 coupled to the C-arm 1;
c) a base (not labeled, vertical rectangular portion, Fig.4); and
d) a carriage coupled to the C-arm 1 and the base (not labeled, horizontal rectangular portion cantilevered over the base and supporting the C-arm 1, Fig.4), the carriage supporting a plurality of rollers 7 (Figs.2-4), where the C-arm 1 includes:
e) a C-shaped portion 2; and
f) a pair of curved guide rails 12 secured to opposing sides of the C-shaped portion 2 and engaged with the plurality of rollers 7 on the pair of trolleys; where each of the pair of guide rails 12 includes:
g) a unitary body formed of a lightweight material (the C-shaped portion 2 is a unitary aluminum extrusion forming all of the structure, including the pairs of guide rails 12, par.0005) and including a pair of rod channels 9 formed in opposing sides of the unitary body; and
h) a pair of rods 8 engaged within the pair of rod channels 9 (Fig.3); where
i) the pair of rods 8 define opposed rolling contact surfaces engaged by respective rollers 7 of one of the pair of trolleys during orbital movement of the C-arm 1; and where
j) each rod 8 protrudes beyond a corresponding side of the unitary body (Figs.2 and 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 a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
Further regarding claim 8, Baumann does not disclose the details of how the rollers 7 are supported by the carriage on either side of the C-arm.
Nakahara teaches the routine practice of providing a carriage 2 with a pair of trolleys 5 (Figs.2 and 3(a)) for supporting rollers 10 on either side of the C-arm 1 as a routine means of supporting rollers in a configuration analogous to that of Baumann.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Baumann to have the carriage provide a pair of trolleys for supporting the rollers 7 in the disclosed arrangement with respect to the C-arm for engagement with the guide rails, as taught by Nakahara, as a routine means of supporting the rollers, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
With respect to claim 11, Baumann further discloses that the unitary body is formed of aluminum, and each rod 8 is formed of hardened steel (par.0026).
With respect to claim 12, Baumann further discloses that a diameter of each rod 8 is greater than a depth of each rod channel 9 (Figs.2 and 3).
With respect to claim 13, Baumann further discloses that each rod 8 contacts the rod channel 9 at three contact areas (Fig.3 shows rectangular channels, which results in 3 points of contact with the rods).
With respect to claim 23, Baumann further discloses spaces defined between the rod 8 and the rod channel 9 between the three contact areas (Fig.3, corners of the channel 9 are visible as having no contact with the rod 8).
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 an x-ray source 13 and an x-ray detector 14 at opposed ends of the C-shaped section 2;
b) extruding a lightweight material to form a unitary body 2 for a guide rail 12 (pars.0005 and 0026), the unitary body 2 including a pair of rod channels 9 disposed on opposed sides of the unitary body 2 (Figs.2-3);
c) engaging a pair of rods 8 within the pair of rod channels 9, each rod 8 protruding beyond a corresponding side of the unitary body 2 to define a rolling contact surface (Figs.2-3);
d) bending at least one of the unitary body 2 or the guide rail 12 to form a curved guide rail 12 having a curvature corresponding to a side of the C-shaped section 2 (inherent since the unitary body 2 and the rods 8 must be bent at some point after the disclosed extrusion in order to arrive at the disclosed C-shape, either together or separately); and
e) attaching the curved guide rail 12 to the side of the C-shaped section 2 to form the C-arm 1 (performed concurrently with the extrusion of the unitary body).
Further regarding claim 14, Baumann does not specifically disclose an interference fit of the rods into their respective channels.
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 shrink fit or interference fit once cooled after bending.
Nakahara further 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 an interference fit (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 provide an interference fit in order to provide an improved and lower-cost means of attachment, as taught by Nakahara, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
With respect to claim 20, while Nakahara does not specifically disclose a compression fit, the advantages taught by Nakahara for the shrink fit are readily applicable to other known interference fits, such as a press fit or the claimed compression fit. All are routine manufacturing methods for attaching relatively harder materials into grooves of relatively softer materials for the advantages disclosed in Nakahara: simpler manufacturing, fewer parts, and greater longevity of the final assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Baumann to include a compression section adjacent one side of each of the pair of rod channels on the unitary body such that forming the interference fit includes compressing the compression sections against the pair of rods, as an art-recognized functionally equivalent means of attachment to the shrink fit of Nakahara, and for the same advantages disclosed by Nakahara, of faster and lower-cost manufacturing with greater longevity of the final product, as taught by Nakamura.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims being obvious over Baumann in view of Nakahara have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
A) Baumann teaches wire guides, which are not the same as curved guide rails and do not solve the same problems as those being addressed by the claimed invention;
B) Nakamura does not teach the dimensional relationship between the rod and the channel nor the now-claimed interference fit, where there is no evidence of a shrink fit as asserted by the Examiner;
C) Baumann does not teach or disclose the additional features of claims 8, 14 and 21-23, as now amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A) Both Baumann and the claimed invention use long, round, steel components to reinforce the roller surface of the extruded aluminum body. The steel guide rails 8 of Baumann are being used as guide rails upon which the rollers 7 roll and support the entire weight of the extruded aluminum C-arm 1 during C-arm motion. As can be seen by other prior art made of record, this steel guide rail reinforcement of the weight-bearing surfaces of lightweight C-arms is ubiquitous (Nakahara, steel slabs 7; US patent document to Shaefer, steel rail guides 9, 15 or 25: Figs.2-5; US patent documents to Barker, rods 600-606: Figs.5-8; all previously made of record). The steel components can be called wires, rods, cables, rails, guides, whatever. What is relevant is the disclosure as a whole and what that disclosure conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, Baumann unequivocally anticipates the limitations of having steel guides 8 for the rollers 7 to support the body 2 of the C-arm 1, as currently required by claims 1, 8 and 14 (Figs.2-4 and pars.0011-0012).
B) Applicant’s arguments regarding the interference fit, and the dimensions of the rods compared to the rod channels, appear to revolve around the interpretation of the Nakahara reference, and particularly to the Examiner’s assertion that the disclosure of Nakahara necessarily results in an interference fit of the steel reinforcements 9 within the grooves 15 of the extruded aluminum C-arm body 1 (Fig.1). Applicants argue that, without temperatures and dimensions, there is no teaching of the rods being wider than the channels.
First, being a 35 USC 103 rejection, the standard for obviousness is what the prior art, as a whole, reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art. The skilled artisan is perfectly well aware of the fact that extruded aluminum shrinks more than steel. Given the fact that Nakahara inserts the steel rods prior to bending the assembly into a C shape and cooling, the skilled artisan knows without a doubt that the steel is being held by a shrink fit within the channels. This is basic physics, whether the temperature drop is 100 degrees or 1000 degrees. In addition, the explicit disclosure of Nakahara, as noted in the rejections above, states that the disclosed manufacturing process eschews screws and similar routine means of attachment due to greater manufacturing complexity and shorter longevity of the resulting structures. Therefore, Nakahara contemplates a fitting so tight that the rods remain within the channels for longer than other means. This cannot be true if the rods had the same or smaller diameter than the widths of the channels: the rods would just fall out. Combined with the explicit lack of a disclosure of welding or adhesives or analogous means for attaching the rods in the channels, the skilled artisan has no other conclusion left to draw. The basic physics of the disclosure, combined with the explicit teachings in favor of the manufacturing process and simultaneously against other known types of attachments, settles the fact that the finished C-arm of Nakahara has rods that have a larger diameter than the width of the rod channels, and that the advantages of these shrink fits, in the context of reliably holding steel components in channels within extruded aluminum C-arms, are explicitly taught over the alternatives.
Further, Noda (US 2012/0257725 A1, previously made of record) discloses that harder reinforcement components (steel) may be applied to softer C-arm bodies (aluminum) by “bonding, press-fitting, screw fastening, or the like” (par.0040), demonstrating that bonding, interference fits, and fasteners are each so well known that they are listed together as obvious variants with no further description.
Second, since Baumann discloses that the C-arm body is an extruded aluminum form with steel rods placed in the channels, with no disclosed means of attachment, then the skilled artisan readily recognizes that the advantageous manufacturing steps of Nakahara are clearly applicable to the structure of Baumann, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
Therefore, the prior art combination establishes that the C-arm of Baumann may be manufactured as taught by Nakahara such that the rod diameters are larger than the corresponding channel widths in a shrink fit once the product has cooled from the manufacturing process, with the known advantages of having fewer parts, fewer machining steps, and greater longevity of the final product, all as taught by Nakahara.
C) The remaining issues regarding the new limitations of claims 8 and 14, and new dependent claims 21-23, are addressed in the rejections above. For example, trolleys for supporting groups of rollers for C-arms are taught by Nakahara and are ubiquitous in the art (see Conclusion below). For another example, Baumann illustrates the fitting of the round rods in the square channels in Fig.3, which results in 3 contact points with spaces (corners) in between the contact points. For a third example, as illustrated by Baumann in Figs.2 and 3, the rods protrude from the body to define a rolling contact surface to engage the rollers.
In another example, the method steps of claim 14 are not explicitly required to be in a particular order. However, if they were, the manufacturing steps of Nakahara teaches the order of extruding the aluminum body, then placing the rods in the channels, and then bending the combination into a C shape, which would be obvious for Baumann to perform for the disclosed advantages.
Similarly, regarding claim 20, Applicant had previously recited press fitting (claim 19), shrink fitting (claim 19) and compression fitting (claim 20), which are the most common interference fits routinely used throughout the manufacturing arts, each having the same advantages over other forms of attachment of dissimilar materials, including screws/fasteners and bonding/adhesives, as taught by Nakahara.
Examiner’s Note: One aspect of note is that pp.12 of Applicant’s arguments states, “Baumann…does not appear to focus on producing a lightweight curved rail for a carbon-fiber imaging C-arm”. While that is true, none of that is currently required by the claims. Baumann reads on the claims because the entire C-arm body is unitary, including the grooves that hold the guide rails, and none of the claims thus far preclude that arrangement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent documents to Bouvier, to Noda, to Dirauf, to Schaefer, and to Barker (all previously made of record by the Examiner), and the currently-cited US patent documents (see attached PTO-892), all teach roller trolleys for supporting rollers to engage with guide rails on C-arms for structural and rotational support.
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