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 .
Response to Remarks
In light of the amendments to the claims, a new rejection is made below in view of YU et al. (US 20080240362 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YU et al. (US 20080240362 A1).
Regarding claim 1, YU discloses a radiography system (FIG 3-4) comprising:
a decubitus table 31; and
a radiation source unit that is configured to be independently movable from the decubitus table 31 and includes a radiation source 10 (x-ray tube 10 moves independent of table 31 via guide support post 41/first drive motor 21 and rail support 51/linear guide rail 53; [0034, 0039-0040]),
wherein the radiation source unit is capable of being attached to and detached from the decubitus table (FIG 4A shows the x-ray tube 10 is provided on a movable stage 57 with art 55, the combined structure detachably connected to rail and rail support 51/53 via bearings 61; [0044-0045]), and
has an attachment portion 28 that supports at least a part of a weight of the radiation source unit 10 in a state in which the radiation source unit is attached to the decubitus table (off-center arm 55 supports the weight of the source tube 10 is indirectly attached to the movable stage 57 and table 31), and
the decubitus table has a guide mechanism 40 that guides a movement of the radiation source unit attached through the attachment portion 28 (rail support side wall 51 and linear guide rail 53 corresponds to the guide mechanism, and the attachment portion corresponds to the movable stage 57),
wherein the guide mechanism includes a guide rail 42 that extends along the movement direction of the radiation source unit (guide rails 53 extend along the movement direction of the radiation source; FIG 3), and includes a flat plate-shaped stage member that is movable along the guide rail (moveable stage 57 is a flat plate-shaped section attached to guide rail 53), and
the attachment portion is supported from below by the guide mechanism (movable stage 57 is supported from below by the rail 53, bearing 61 and rail support sidewall 51; FIG 4B; [0038-0047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIGs 3/4B of YU show an x-ray table 31, support wall 51, guide rail 53, and stage 57.
Regarding claim 6, YU discloses the attachment portion attached to the flat plate-shaped stage member (arm 55 is attached to stage 57; FIG 2).
Regarding claim 7, YU discloses wherein the attachment portion (arm 55) is attached to the decubitus table 31 in a state in which a lower surface of the attachment portion is placed on an upper surface of the plate-shaped stage member (stage 57)(FIG 2; [0038, 0047]).
Regarding claim 10, YU discloses wherein the radiation source unit has a first site and a second site that is provided on a side of the decubitus table with respect to the first site and is movable in an up-down direction with respect to the first site, and the attachment portion is attachable to and detachable from the decubitus table in a space formed by upward movement of the second site (FIG 3 shows the source 10 moves in the A2 axis direction from a first to a second site position).
Regarding claim 11, YU discloses wherein a placement surface, which is a surface on which the subject is placed in the decubitus table has a rectangular parallelepiped shape in a plan view, and a movement direction of the guide mechanism is along a longitudinal direction of the placement surface (FIG 3).
Regarding claim 12, YU discloses wherein the guide mechanism is provided on a surface different from a placement surface, which is a surface on which the subject is placed in the decubitus table (FIG 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU et al. (US 20080240362 A1).
Regarding claim 2, YU discloses wherein, in a state in which the radiation source unit is attached to the decubitus table, the radiation source is capable of positioning above the decubitus table. YU does not explicitly disclose a position of a centroid of the radiation source unit is positioned on the same side as the radiation source with respect to a side surface of the decubitus table facing the radiation source unit as viewed from a movement direction of the guide mechanism. However, arranging the centroid of a source with respect a table would have been a matter of obvious design based on routine optimization of the balance of a source system, with the expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, YU discloses wherein the radiation source unit is attachment portion is fixed to the flat plate-shaped stage member (source 10 is attached to stage 57; FIG 3).
Regarding claim 5, YU does not explicitly disclose wherein the attachment portion has a first inclined surface that is formed on a distal end side in an attachment direction of the radiation source unit and is inclined upward toward the distal end side. However, specifying the aesthetic design of an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Regarding claim 8, YU does not specify wherein the flat plate-shaped stage member has a second inclined surface that is formed at an end portion on a radiation source unit side and is inclined downward toward the radiation source unit side. However, specifying the aesthetic design of an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Regarding claim 9, YU discloses does not specify the flat plate-shaped stage member includes a roller member on a surface facing the attachment portion. However, YU specifies using bearings to facilitate smooth movement of the sliding members ([0045]). Use of a known technique (providing rolling bearings to support movement of contacting structures along a direction) to improve a similar device (rail system has contacting moving structures) in the same way (reduce friction) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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: Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements, wherein the invention further comprises, in a state in which the radiation source unit is attached to the decubitus table, the radiation source unit is separated from a floor surface on which the decubitus table is installed.
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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 at 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights