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 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.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (US 20040202283 A1).
With regards to claims 1 and 16, D1 discloses an imaging system comprising:
a base (implicit);
a gantry 100 connected with the base, the gantry including:
an x-ray source 101 to produce an x-ray beam,
an x-ray detector 103 to receive the x-ray beam from the x-ray source,
an adjustable collimator 108 including a limiter 11-14 disposed between the x-ray source and the x-ray detector and arranged for movement between:
a first position to at least partially limit transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to a first transmission parameter (Fig. 5A) [0033], and
a second position to at least partially limit transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to a second transmission parameter different from the first transmission parameter (Fig. 5B) [0043]; and
a control system 107, 110 with a controller configured to move the limiter of the adjustable collimator between the first position and the second position according to a scan mode to adjust transmission of the x-ray beam from the x-ray source towards the x-ray detector [0029, 0043].
With regards to claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the limiter defines a first aperture arranged to limit transition of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to the first transmission parameter during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the first position (Fig. 5A).
With regards to claim 3, D1 discloses wherein the limiter includes a blocker arranged to substantially inhibit transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to the second transmission parameter during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the second position (Fig. 5B) [0029].
With regards to claim 4, D1 discloses wherein the limiter defines a second aperture arranged to limit transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to the second transmission parameter during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the second position (Fig. 5B).
With regards to claim 5, D1 discloses wherein the second aperture is at least partially smaller than the first aperture such that transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the second position is limited more than during operation of adjustable collimator with the limiter in the first position (Figs. 5A and 5B).
With regards to claim 6, D1 discloses wherein the control system 107, 110 is disposed in communication with the x-ray source, the x-ray detector, and the controller connected with the adjustable collimator (Fig. 1); and wherein the control system selectively operable between a first imaging mode and a second imaging mode different from the second imaging mode [0033, 0043].
With regards to claims 7 and 17-19, D1 discloses wherein the first imaging mode is further defined as a helical scan mode and the second imaging mode is further defined as a scout scan mode [0032].
With regards to claim 8, D1 discloses wherein the limiter of the adjustable collimator is arranged in the first position during operation in the helical scan mode, and in the second position during operation in the scout scan mode (Fig. 2; S3, S4, S8).
With regards to claim 11, D1 discloses wherein the adjustable collimator further includes a limiter mount supporting the limiter for movement, and a limiter actuator disposed in communication with the controller and operatively attached to the limiter and the limiter mount to move the limiter relative to the limiter mount between the first position and the second position (implicitly taught).
With regards to claim 20, D1 discloses wherein transmitting the x-ray beam from the x-ray source through the limiter and towards the x-ray detector includes transmitting the x-ray beam from the x-ray source through the limiter and towards the x-ray detector with the limiter of the adjustable collimator in a second position to at least partially limit transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to a second transmission parameter different from the first transmission parameter such that transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the second position is limited more than during operation of adjustable collimator with the limiter in the first position (Figs. 2, 5A and 5B).
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.
Claims 9, 10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claims 9, 10, and 12, D1 discloses wherein the limiter of the adjustable collimator is further arranged for movement to a first and a second position (Figs. 5A and 5B), but does not teach a third position. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been known and considered obvious. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify d! with a the claimed third position in order to image a different internal organ having a different size/volume.
With regards to claim 13, D1 discloses wherein the limiter defines a first aperture arranged to limit transition of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to the first transmission parameter during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the first position; wherein the limiter includes a blocker arranged to substantially inhibit transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to the second transmission parameter during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the second position (Fig. 5B) [0029]; and wherein the limiter defines a second aperture arranged to limit transmission of the x-ray beam towards the x-ray detector according to the second transmission parameter during operation of the adjustable collimator with the limiter in the second position (Fig. 5B).
With regards to claim 14, D1 does not teach the claimed material. However, those skilled in the art recognize that tungsten was a commonly used limiter material for attenuating X-rays. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with a tungsten limiter, since 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.
With regards to claim 15, D1 does not specify the non-adjustable collimator as claimed. Nevertheless, providing an additional non-adjustable collimator was already known in the art and conventionally used to provide further beam shaping. Therefore, in view of the recited benefits, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed collimator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160349191 A1 teaches an X-ray imaging apparatus which includes a collimator configured to adjust an irradiation range of an X-ray, and the collimator includes a collimator configured to adjust an irradiation range of the X-ray irradiated from the X-ray source. The collimator comprises a first field size range adjustor comprising a first plurality of blades and a driving power transfer unit configured to transfer driving power to the first plurality of blades, a second field size range adjustor facing the first field size range adjustor and comprising a first plurality of blades, and a connector configured to respectively connect the first plurality of blades of the first field size range adjustor to the first plurality of blades of the second field size range adjustor so as to make the first plurality of blades of the second field size range adjustor move as the plurality of first plurality of blades of the first field size range adjustor move.
US 6320936 B1 teaches a beam limiting apparatus comprising means for moving the beam limiting aperture of the beam adjusting mechanism between at least first and second positions relative to the x-ray entrance aperture and focal spot for adjusting the size of the image forming beam.
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