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 1-3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (US 20150021840 A1).
With regards to claim 1, D1 discloses a bearing device (vibration absorbing apparatus), comprising a mount 1, a support unit 2, and a vibration absorption unit 3, wherein the mount is connected to the support unit; the support unit is connected to the vibration absorption unit; and the vibration absorption unit includes at least one elastic member 5 [0024-0029] (Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the vibration absorption unit includes a first elastic member 5 and a second elastic member 4, the first elastic member and the second elastic member being disposed in different directions [0027-0035, 0039-0042, 0044-0047] (Figs. 1-6).
With regards to claim 3, D1 discloses wherein a direction where the fist elastic member is disposed is perpendicular to a direction where the second elastic member is disposed [0046-0047] (Fig. 6).
With regards to claim 6, D1 discloses a connecting member 6, wherein the support unit 2 is connected to the connecting member through the vibration absorption unit 3 [0024-0027] (Figs. 1, 5, 7, and 9).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claims 4 and 5, D1 discloses wherein the first and second elastic members are disposed in various directions (Fig. 6), but does not teach the claimed configuration. 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 D1 with the claimed configuration to facilitate installation while maintaining multi-directional vibration isolation.
Claims 19, 21, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 (US 20140044241 A1).
With regards to claim 19, D1 discloses the bearing device of claim 1, but does not teach the mobile digital radiography device. D2 teaches a mobile digital radiography device comprising a C-arm, an X ray source mounted to a supporting structure, and a beam limiting arrangement associated with the X-ray source [0022-0027] (Fig. 1). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 in order to improve image quality during x-ray imaging by reducing vibration induced image degradation. Although D2 does not expressly teach the claimed hole, providing such an opening would have been considered obvious, if not already inherent, since emitted x-ray beams must pass from the source to the beam limiter and subsequently toward the imaging subject.
With regards to claim 21, D1 discloses bearing device comprising a bottom plate 1, a support unit 2, a vibration absorption unit 3 disposed between the bottom plate and support unit [0024-0041] (Figs. 1-5) , first and second elastic members 4, 5 disposed in different directions and configured to attenuate vibration in the axial direction and radial direction [0039-0042] (Fig. 4), wherein the first and second elastic members extend along respective directions relative to the mounting surfaces of the bottom plate and support unit, thus forming an inclination angle as claimed. D1 does not teach wherein the bearing unit supports an x-ray tube. D2 teaches an x-ray tube mounted through a vibration isolating support structure to reduce transmissions of vibration and improve imaging quality [0022-0027] (Fig. 1-3). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 in order to improve image quality during x-ray imaging by reducing vibration induced image degradation.
With regards to claim 24, D1 discloses wherein the support unit includes a first support component 3 and a second support component 3 (Fig. 7);the first support component and the second support component are located on a same side of the bottom plate and are fixedly disposed at two opposite ends of the bottom plate, respectively (Fig. 7). D1 does not teach wherein the bearing unit supports an x-ray tube. D2 teaches an x-ray tube mounted through a vibration isolating support structure to reduce transmissions of vibration and improve imaging quality [0022-0027] (Fig. 1-3). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of D1 and D2 in order to improve image quality during x-ray imaging by reducing vibration induced image degradation.
With regards to claim 25, D1 discloses wherein each of the first support component and the second support component is provided with at least one first elastic member 4 and at least one second elastic member 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12, 14, 17, 18, and 22 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:
Prior art does not teach the specific configuration of the first and second connecting members, the first and second vibration absorption components, and the first and second support components as claimed in claim 7; the first elastic member and the first and second elastic element as claimed in claim 14; the connecting member as claimed in claim 17; and/or the first or second elastic member as claimed in claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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