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 (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 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikami (CN 102451012 A, translation enclosed).
With respect to claim 1, Mikami discloses: an X-ray imaging system, comprising: an X-ray radiation source (11); an X-ray detector (12); a gantry structure configured to be mounted to a ceiling or a floor (mounted to floor as shown in Fig. 1-2), wherein the gantry structure comprises: a C-arm having the X-ray radiation source disposed on a first end and the X-ray detector disposed on a second end opposite the first end (illustrated as a U-shaped portion, but may be a C-arm, “the imaging unit 12 may be provided to one end of the C-arm and the X-ray source 11 is provided to the other end of the C-arm, such as using an X-ray diagnostic device so-called C-arm”, page 4); and a C-arm rotation device coupled to the C-arm and configured to rotate the C-arm in an orbital direction relative to the C-arm rotation device (implicitly disclosed in a C-arm arrangement); and a damping system coupled to the gantry structure and disposed between the gantry structure and the ceiling or the floor, wherein the damping system is configured to dampen vibrations caused by motion of the gantry structure for an entirety of the gantry structure (cushioning material, 77; page 4).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami, in view of Barker (US 2021/0145383 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Mikami does not specify the use of a carbon fiber material for the C-arm. However, Barker, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a C-arm made from a carbon fiber material (par. [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a carbon fiber material for use in a C-arm device, due to advantages such as light weight and high strength of carbon fiber. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-12 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:
With respect to claims 2-10 and 14-19, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed damping system which comprises a swivel bearing and a damping mechanism.
With respect to claims 11-12, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest a damping system which is configured to dampen the vibrations for the entirety of gantry structure along multiple directions.
With respect to claim 20, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed gantry structure mounted to a ceiling, including a damping system coupled to the gantry structure and disposed between the gantry structure and the ceiling, wherein the damping system is configured to dampen vibrations caused by motion of the gantry structure for an entirety of the gantry structure along orthogonal directions, and wherein the orthogonal directions comprise a vertical direction extending between a floor and the ceiling and a horizontal direction that is both perpendicular to the vertical direction and parallel with the floor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
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 at 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 26 January 2026