DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, and 7-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the x-ray detector and the x-ray source are rotated about the imaging axis and the patient support” should be changed to “further comprising: rotating the x-ray detector and the x-ray source about the imaging axis and the patient support” in order to recite a method step.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the gantry is moved relative to the base while patient support is moved relative to the table column” should be changed to “moving the gantry relative to the base while patient support is moved relative to the table column” in order to recite a method step.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the gantry is connected to the base with a support column, the support column linearly moveable along the base” should be changed to “further comprising connecting the gantry to the base with a support column; and moving the support column linearly along the base” in order to recite a method step. Claims 14-15 are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein a drive mechanism is operatively connected to the support column and the base to move the support column and the gantry relative to the base” should be changed to “further comprising connecting a drive mechanism to the support column and the base to move the support column and the gantry relative to the base” in order to recite a method step. Claims 8, and 10 are objected by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the x-ray imaging system includes a drive system controller for controlling the movement of the gantry relative to the base” should be changed to “wherein the x-ray imaging system includes a drive system controller, the method comprising: moving the gantry relative to the base” in order to recite a method step. Claim 11 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein a control system is configured to coordinate movement of the gantry with movement of the patient support to provide the imaging scan along an axis” should be changed to “further comprising: coordinating the movement of the gantry with movement of the patient support to provide the imaging scan along an axis using a control system” in order to recite a method step.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the patient support is moveable between a horizontal position and a vertical position” should be changed to “further comprising: moving the patient support between a horizontal position and a vertical position” in order to recite a method step.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the gantry is moveable along the at least one vertical rail of the support column and pivotable relative to the support column between: a first configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a vertical orientation, and a second configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a horizontal orientation” should be changed to “the method further comprising: moving the gantry along the at least one vertical rail of the support column; and pivoting the gantry between: a first configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a vertical orientation, and a second configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a horizontal orientation” in order to recite a method step.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(c) he has abandoned the invention.
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Okada (U.S. 4,961,208).
Regarding claim 1:
Okada discloses a method of scanning a patient with an x-ray imaging system, the x-ray imaging system comprising a base, a gantry defining a central imaging bore, an imaging axis extending through the central imaging bore, a rotor arranged for rotation about the central imaging bore and supporting an x-ray source component and an x-ray detector component for obtaining x-ray images of an object located within the central imaging bore, and a patient support including a patient support moveably coupled to a table column, the method comprising:
moving the gantry relative to the base (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, gantry 1 is rotated relative to base 11 and 16);
moving the patient support relative to the table column (Fig. 1, and Fig. 4, patient support 3 is moved using movement sub-units 18 and 19);
wherein the patient support is aligned with a portion of the central imaging bore (Col. 3, lines 9-50, patient is aligned with the gantry tunnel).
Regarding claim 3:
Okada discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the gantry is moved relative to the base while patient support is moved relative to the table column (Fig. 1, and Fig. 4, patient support 3 is moved while gantry 1 is moved).
Regarding claim 5:
Okada discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the patient support is a table (Fig. 7, table 3).
Regarding claim 6:
Okada discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the patient support is a chair (Fig. 1, 3 chair).
Regarding claim 12:
Okada discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a control system (fig. 5, 22) is configured to coordinate movement of the gantry with movement of the patient support to provide the imaging scan along an axis (col. 2, lines 56-68 and Col. 3, lines 9-50, gantry and support movement).
Regarding claim 13:
Okada discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the patient support is moveable between a horizontal position and a vertical position (Fig. 1, and 4, patient support moves horizontally and vertically; Col. 3, lines 9-50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okada (U.S. 4,961,208) in view of Vija (U.S. 2007/0238950).
Regarding claim 2:
Okada discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Okada fails to disclose wherein the x-ray detector and the x-ray source are rotated about the imaging axis and the patient support.
Vija teaches wherein the x-ray detector and the x-ray source are rotated about the imaging axis and the patient support ([0030], source and detector are rotated).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the method of Okada with the rotation taught by Vija. One would have been motivated to make such combination to increase image quality by obtaining multiple images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Okada with the rotation taught by Vija to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4:
Okada discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Okada fails to disclose wherein the patient support is cantilevered to the table column.
Vija teaches wherein the patient support is cantilevered to the table column (Fig. 1, 124 attached to 120).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the method of Okada with the table support taught by Vija. One would have been motivated to make such combination to avoid patient injury by improving patient support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Okada with the table support taught by Vija to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7:
Okada discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the gantry is connected to the base with a support column (Fig. 1, and 4, gantry 1 is attached vertical frame 11).
However, Okada fails to disclose the support column linearly moveable along the base.
Vija teaches the support column linearly moveable along the base (Fig. 2, 110 slides along 112).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the method of Okada with the movement taught by Vija. One would have been motivated to make such combination to avoid patient injury by improving patient support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Okada with the movement taught by Vija to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okada (U.S. 4,961,208) in view of Vija (U.S. 2007/0238950) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Amano (U.S. 2012/0324648).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Okada and Vija discloses the method of claim 7.
However, the combination of Okada and Vija fails to disclose wherein the support column is a pair of support columns to support the gantry.
Amano teaches wherein the support column is a pair of support columns to support the gantry (Fig 2, columns 11 attached to gantry 3).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the method of Okada with the columns by Amano. One would have been motivated to make such combination to avoid patient injury by improving safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Okada with the columns by Amano to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Okada, Vija and Amano discloses the method of claim 14, wherein each support column of the pair of support columns have a vertical rail extending vertically along the support column (Amano; [0091], guide rails), wherein the gantry is moveable along the vertical rail of the support column and pivotable relative to the support column (Amano; [0091], gantry moves along guide rails).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the method of Okada with the columns by Amano. One would have been motivated to make such combination to avoid patient injury by improving safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Okada with the columns by Amano to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Okada and Vija discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the support column is located on a side of the gantry and supporting the gantry (Okada; Fig. 1, 11 supports gantry 1), gantry pivotable relative to the support column between: a first configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a vertical orientation (Okada; Fig. 1, and 4, gantry 1), and a second configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a horizontal orientation (Okada; Fig. 7, gantry 1).
However, the combination of Okada and Vija fails to disclose the support column having at least one vertical rail extending vertically along the support column, wherein the gantry is moveable along the at least one vertical rail of the support column and pivotable relative to the support column between: a first configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a vertical orientation, and a second configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a horizontal orientation.
Amano teaches the support column having at least one vertical rail extending vertically along the support column (Amano; [0091], gantry moves along guide rails), wherein the gantry is moveable along the at least one vertical rail of the support column (Amano; [0091], gantry moves along guide rails) and pivotable relative to the support column between: a first configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a vertical orientation (Amano; Fig. 7 and 8, gantry 3 creates an axis in a vertical direction), and a second configuration in which the imaging axis of the gantry is in a horizontal orientation (Amano; Fig. 15, gantry 3 creates an axis in a horizontal direction).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the method of Okada with the columns by Amano. One would have been motivated to make such combination to avoid patient injury by improving safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Okada with the columns by Amano to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights