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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “connecting line” (claim 11, line 3) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: In paragraph [0077], the specification states that the line encoder is not shown. However, in the previous paragraph and Fig. 6, an encoder is shown corresponding to reference character 308. Thus, the parenthetical “(not shown)” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: the first line should read “…wherein the medical imaging system further comprises…” as claim 1 has already established that “the medical imaging system comprises a drive assembly” (lines 1-2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: “a wire rope” (line 3) should be changed to “a spare wire rope” so that it is consistent with the terminology used in the specification. Additionally, this prevents misinterpretation that wire rope might refer to the main, auxiliary, or connecting wire ropes instead.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: the first line should read “…wherein the driving assembly further comprises…” as claim 1 has already established that “the driving assembly comprises a rotating shaft” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the wire ropes" in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on context of the claims and drawings, the Examiner assumes “the wire ropes” refers to the “main wire rope” and “auxiliary wire rope” recited in claim 8 (on which claim 10 is dependent). To prevent any misinterpretation, the exact wire ropes intended should be included by name (e.g., in lines 4-5, “… at least one opening for receiving the main wire rope and auxiliary wire rope”). Appropriate correction is required.
Generally, when reciting two different ends of an object for the first time, they should be referenced using an indefinite article (i.e. “a” or “an”). Thus, in claims 8 and 11, “the other end” of the rope or line should be changed to read “another end” or “a second end”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites a “line encoder” (line 2). This terminology is not known in the art. However, based on the disclosed use and function of the “line encoder” in the specification, and alternate translations from Espacenet (worldwide.espacenet.com) and Google Patents (patents.google.com) of this element in the foreign priority application (CN 2024/10032657.X), the Examiner believes the line encoder refers to a “linear encoder”, and more specifically a “draw-wire encoder”. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets “a line encoder” to mean “a linear encoder”. For clarity, “a line encoder” should be changed to either “a linear encoder” or “a draw-wire encoder”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“…the second adjusting portion is capable of controlling movement of the rotating shaft…” in claim 2 (lines 1-2).
“…the safety locking mechanism… being capable of engaging with the rachet…” in claim 12 (lines 2-4)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the “second adjusting portion” is being interpreted to follow the structure described in paragraph [0044] and “the safety locking mechanism” is being interpreted to follow the structure described in paragraphs [0080] and [0083].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 5 recites a “balancing apparatus” (line 2) and the specification discloses that the balancing apparatus is “used for balancing the telescoping cylinder and/or tube assembly” (paragraph [0035]). However, the specification and drawings do not teach the structure or components of the balancing apparatus. Without details of the structure of the balancing apparatus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to know the purpose or use of the apparatus in order to attempt to create it. However, the specification and drawings do not clearly define the way in which the balancing apparatus balances the telescoping cylinder. Specifically, in the embodiment detailed in the specification, the main wire connects to the telescopic cylinder, winds around the drum, and then connects to the balancing apparatus (paragraph [0064]). In this configuration, other than securing one end of the main wire, the balancing apparatus does not seem to perform a service for the telescoping cylinder. In this same embodiment, the auxiliary wire connects directly from the telescoping cylinder to the drum and does not connect to the balancing apparatus. Since both the main wire and auxiliary wire perform the same function of winding around the drum to raise and lower the telescoping apparatus, it is not clear what function the balancing apparatus serves or how it accomplishes that function. Without clear details of the structure or the function of the balancing apparatus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have to perform undue experimentation to recreate the claimed invention. Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The scope of claim 1 is unclear. It is unclear if the “medical imaging system” (line 1) is meant to be claimed in combination with the “spare assembly” (lines 1 and 2), or if it is merely meant to be a part of the intended use of the spare assembly, which is given patentable weight in that the device must merely be capable of performing the intended use. The medical imaging system is introduced as a part of the intended use of the spare assembly (i.e. “A spare assembly for a medical imaging system”); however, subsequent limitations, such as the worm wheel portion mounted on the rotating shaft, would appear to require the combination of the medical imaging system, or parts thereof, with the spare assembly. The ambiguity of the scope of the preamble and limitations of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of “a spare assembly for a medical imaging system” as it relates to “the medical imaging system” and “the spare assembly” are unclear. Claims 2-13 are also rendered indefinite as depending upon indefinite claim 1.
For the purposes of examination, based on the Examiner’s best understanding of the specification and drawings, the Examiner assumed that the medical imaging system was meant to be claimed in combination with the spare assembly.
The phrase “provided at a position relating to the center of gravity” in claim 6 (line 3) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “position relating to” is not defined by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification states that” the hanging point is positioned in the vertical direction of the center of gravity of the balancing apparatus” (paragraph [0059]), it states multiple horizontal locations, leaving the intended relationship between the position and center of gravity ambiguous and rendering claim 6 indefinite.
In claim 8, the indentation of the elements as currently written creates ambiguity in the interpretation. In lines 1-2, “the driving assembly comprises a drum rotatable about the rotating shaft”. The element “a drum” is not indented, but “a main wire rope” (line 3) and “an auxiliary wire rope” (line 5) are. This formatting makes it unclear if the drum, main wire rope, and auxiliary wire rope are all elements of the driving assembly, or if the main wire rope and auxiliary wire rope are elements of the spare assembly, drum, or rotating shaft instead. Since it is not clear exactly which element comprises the main wire rope and auxiliary wire rope, the metes and bounds of claim 8 are indefinite. Claims 9-13 are indefinite as being dependent upon indefinite claim 8.
For the purposes of examination, based on the Examiner’s best understanding of the specification, drawings, and claims, the Examiner interprets the drum, main wire rope, and auxiliary wire rope to all be elements of the driving assembly. For clarity, the Examiner recommends indenting “a drum rotatable…” so that it has the same indention level as “a main wire rope” and “an auxiliary wire rope”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the balancing apparatus" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The balancing apparatus is introduced in claim 5, which claim 8 is not dependent on. Thus, the metes and bounds intended by “the balancing apparatus” are indefinite.
Although changing the dependency of claim 8 so that it depends on claim 5 would provide antecedent basis, this interpretation would change the meaning of the other elements in the claim. Claim 8 cannot be directly dependent upon claim 5, because, as written, it is dependent upon claim 7 and cannot be multiply dependent. Claim 7 cannot be dependent upon claim 5, because claim 5 is dependent upon claim 4, which provides a different definition of “a suspension apparatus” (claim 4, line 2) than the limitation recited in claim 7 (the suspension apparatus in claim 4 is an element of the medical imaging system but is recited as a separate element in claim 7). Thus, for the purpose of examination, based on the Examiner’s best understanding of the specification, drawings, and other claims, the Examiner has simply interpreted “the balancing apparatus” as if it read “a balancing apparatus”.
In claim 9, the phrase of “in an alternating manner” (line 2) is indefinite. It is not clear in the specification what direction or order is intended by “an alternating manner”, nor how winding in an alternating manor would facilitate the intended function of the claimed invention. Based on the state of the knowledge in the art, a reasonable interpretation of “in an alternating manner” is a system in which one wire (e.g., the main wire) is wound clockwise, and the other wire (e.g., the auxiliary wire) is wound counterclockwise, as suggested in Fig. 8. In this configuration, as the drum rotated, one of the wires would be wound up and the other would be unwound, leading to the wound wire being taut, and the unwound wire having slack. In this configuration, if the taut wire broke, the telescoping cylinder and attached medical imaging system would fall the length of the slack wire until that second wire was taut. However, Fig. 8 shows both wires are taut. Further, the specification states that when an element of the driving assembly fails, the suspension apparatus will stop moving (paragraph [0039]). It would be counterproductive (and dangerous) to have the medical imagining apparatus drop toward the patient when a part fails and motion stops. Thus, for successful use of the spare apparatus as intended, “in an alternating manner” must have a different meaning. However, it is unclear what method that might be considered “alternating” would allow both wires to remain taught as the drum rotates. Thus, claim 9 is indefinite, as the metes and bounds of “in an alternating manner” are unclear.
Claims 5 and 6 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the connection between the driving assembly and the balancing apparatus (claim 5, lines 1-2) and the connection between the wire rope and the second adjusting portion (claim 5, lines 3-5)).
Claim 5 states that “the driving assembly comprises a balancing apparatus” (lines 1-2). Separately, claim 5 also states that “the second adjusting portion is operable to drive the balancing apparatus to raise or lower” (lines 2-3). Claim 1 (on which claim 5 depends) states that the second adjusting portion drives rotational motion of the rotating shaft (part of the driving assembly) by means of the worm portion (lines 8-10). However, claim 5 does not describe how the second adjusting portion (or the worm portion) is attached to, or otherwise controls, the balancing apparatus. Without this structural relationship, it is unclear how the second adjusting portion could drive vertical motion of the balancing apparatus, rendering claim 5 indefinite. Claim 6 is also indefinite as depending upon indefinite claim 5.
Similarly, claim 6 teaches a wire rope that is fixed to a wire rope fixing portion which is part of the balancing apparatus (lines 3-4). Further, the claim teaches that through this connection, the second adjusting portion can control the raising or lowering of the balancing apparatus (lines 4-5). As defined in claim 1 (on which claim 6 depends), the second adjusting portion is part of the worm portion which is part of the spare assembly that engages with the rotating shaft of the driving assembly. However, claim 6 does not recite that the wire rope or wire rope fixing portion are attached to the second adjusting portion, worm portion, or rotating shaft. Thus, it is not clear how the wire rope could facilitate the second adjusting portion to control the raising and lowering of the balancing apparatus, rendering claim 6 indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakober et al. (US 10,698,193 B2) in view of Fukuda (US 2006/0183584 A1). For clarity, bold text indicates claim language. As described in the 112(b) rejections above, claim 1 is interpreted to require the combination of the spare assembly and the medical imaging system together.
[Claim 1] Jakober et al. teaches: A spare assembly for a medical imaging system (Jakober et al., Fig. 1 and 2, elements 1, 7, and a load attached to the bottom of element 7), the medical imaging system (Jakober et al., col. 11, line 57) comprising a driving assembly (Jakober et al., Fig. 4, element 61 or 81), the driving assembly comprising a rotating shaft (Jakober et al., Fig. 4, element 63 and 83), and the spare assembly (Jakober et al., col. 2, lines 13-21) comprising: a worm wheel portion (Jakober et al., Fig. 4, element 67 or 87) mounted on the rotating shaft (Jakober et al., col. 12, lines 51-52).
However, Jakober et al. teaches that the worm wheel portion is rotated by a drive shaft, not a worm portion. Fukuda teaches a driving assembly for a bicycle electrical component (Fukuda, paragraph [0006]). More specifically, Fukuda teaches: a worm wheel (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 208) and a worm portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 207) mounted at a predetermined distance from the worm wheel (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 206a; paragraph [0022]), the worm portion having a first adjusting portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 209) and a second adjusting portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 206), the first adjusting portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 209) being operable to engage the worm portion with the worm wheel portion (Fukuda, paragraph [0025]) and the second adjusting portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 206) being operable to drive the worm wheel portion by means of the worm portion (Fukuda, paragraph [0022]).
Jakober et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical imaging systems with back-up assemblies. Fukuda is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of worm gear mechanisms used for the purpose of driving rotating shafts. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the drive shaft within the driving assembly of Jakober et al. to include a worm portion having a first adjusting portion and a second adjusting portion, as taught by Fukuda such that the second adjusting portion of Fukuda drives the rotating shaft of Jakober et al. to move. This substitution would be beneficial as it would allow the driving assembly, and thus the height of a medical imaging system, to be controlled in the event of normal system failure, increasing safety and facilitating repair.
[Claim 3] Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda teaches: The spare assembly for a medical imaging system according to claim 1. Fukuda further teaches that the worm portion is mounted at a side edge of the worm wheel portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5 shows that the worm portion 207 is disposed on an edge side, not a face side, of the worm wheel portion 208), and the second adjusting portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 206) is located at a bottom portion of the worm portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5 shows that element 206 is located at one end in the axial direction of the worm portion 207, which is a bottom portion of the worm portion when oriented in the place of the drive shaft in Jakober et al., as described in the claim 1 103 rejection above).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakober et al. (US 10,698,193 B2) in view of Fukuda (US 2006/0183584 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sobolewski (US 4,003,552). For clarity, bold text indicates claim language. Claim 8 is interpreted as if it read “a balancing apparatus”.
[Claim 2] Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda teaches: The spare assembly according to claim 1 wherein there is a backup system that can be enacted if the driving assembly fails (Jakober et al., col. 8, lines 30-36). However, neither Jakober et al. nor Fukuda teaches that the second adjusting portion is capable of controlling movement in a scenario where the driving assembly fails.
Sobolewski teaches safety features for “a device for counterpoising… cable supported loads” such as an x-ray device (Sobolewski, Abstract; col. 3, lines 55-57). This counterpoising device includes a shaft (Sobolewski, Fig. 3 and 5, element 51) on which is mounted a worm wheel portion (Sobolewski, Fig. 5, element 55) and a worm portion (Sobolewski, Fig. 5, element 56) having a second adjusting portion (Sobolewski, Fig. 5, element 59). Specifically, when the driving assembly fails, the second adjusting portion is capable of controlling movement (Sobolewski, col. 5, lines 49-51) of the worm portion.
Sobolewski is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of medical imaging systems with back-up assemblies. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second adjusting portion of Sobolewski into the driving assembly of Jakober et al. with the worm portion (and first adjusting portion) of Fukuda. This configuration would allow for the second adjusting portion to be capable of controlling movement of the worm wheel mounted to the rotating shaft of Jakober et al., thereby driving an assembly connected to the rotating shaft to move. This modification would be beneficial as it would allow for manual adjustment of the height of a medical imaging system, facilitating movement even in the scenario where the main driving mechanism fails.
[Claim 4] Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda teaches: The spare assembly according to claim 1. Further, as described in the claim 1 103 rejection above, the second adjusting portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 206) of the worm portion (Fukuda, Fig. 5, element 207) of Fukuda, when substituted into the driving assembly (Jakober et al., element 11) of Jakober et al. is operable to drive a telescopic cylinder (Jakober et al., element 7) to raise or lower (Jakober et al., col. 5, lines 53-56).
Neither Jakober et al. nor Fukuda teaches a suspension apparatus comprising a set of perpendicularly mounted guide rails or a sliding member. Sobolewski teaches that the medical imaging system (Sobolewski, Fig. 1) comprises a suspension apparatus (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, elements 30, 18, 21), the suspension apparatus comprises a set of perpendicularly mounted guide rails (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, element 21; col. 4, lines 30-31), a sliding member (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, elements 18, 19, and 22), and a telescopic cylinder (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, elements 28-30), the guide rails are mounted on a ceiling (Sobolewski, col. 4, lines 28-29), the sliding member is mounted on the guide rails (Sobolewski, col. 4, line 29-30), and the sliding member is connected to the telescopic cylinder (Sobolewski, Fig. 1 shows element 29 connected to element 18). Further, a driving assembly (Sobolewski, Fig. 2, elements contained within opening 32) is mounted within the sliding member (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, element 22) to drive the telescopic cylinder to move (Sobolewski, Fig. 1 and 3, the telescopic cylinders 28-30 are controlled by cables 15 and 16 that are attached to the driving assembly).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the telescoping column and drive assembly of Jakober et al. onto (and into) the carriage of Sobolewski to create a suspension apparatus comprising guide rails, a sliding member, and a telescopic column. This modification would be beneficial as it would allow a medical imager (such as an x-ray device) to move in three orthogonal directions, increasing the utility and versatility of the medical imaging system.
[Claim 7] Claim 7 is very similar to claim 4; Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda teaches the spare assembly according to claim 1, and Sobolewski further teaches a suspension apparatus (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, elements 30, 18, 21) comprising a set of perpendicularly mounted guide rails (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, element 21; col. 4, lines 30-31), a sliding member (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, elements 18, 19, and 22), and a telescopic cylinder (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, elements 28-30), the guide rails are mounted on a ceiling (Sobolewski, col. 4, lines 28-29), the sliding member is mounted on the guide rails (Sobolewski, col. 4, line 29-30), and the sliding member is connected to the telescopic cylinder (Sobolewski, Fig. 1 shows element 29 connected to element 18). Further, a driving assembly (Sobolewski, Fig. 2, elements contained within opening 32) is mounted within the sliding member (Sobolewski, Fig. 1, element 22) to drive the telescopic cylinder to move (Sobolewski, Fig. 1 and 3, the telescopic cylinders 28-30 are controlled by cables 15 and 16 that are attached to the driving assembly).
[Claim 8] Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda and Sobolewski teaches: The spare assembly according to claim 7, wherein the driving assembly (Jakober et al., Fig. 4, element 61 or 81) comprises: a drum (Jakober et al., Fig. 4, element 33 or 43) rotatable about the rotating shaft (Jakober et al., col. 12, line 58);
a main wire rope (Jakober et al., Fig. 3, element 35), an end of which is fixed onto the telescopic cylinder (Jakober et al., Fig. 3, elements 7, 31, and 37) by means of a drum (Jakober et al., Fig. 3, wire rope 35 wraps around drum 33 before connecting to the telescopic cylinder 7); and
an auxiliary wire rope (Jakober et al., Fig. 3, element 45), one end of which is fixed onto a drum (Jakober et al., col. 12, lines 58-59) and another end of which is fixed onto the telescopic cylinder (Jakober et al., Fig. 3, elements 7, 31, and 47).
Additionally, Sobolewski further teaches that a main wire rope (Sobolewski, Fig. 2 and 3, element 15) has one end of which is fixed (Sobolewski, col. 5, lines 17-20) onto a balancing apparatus (Sobolewski, Fig. 2, elements 35 and 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the balancing apparatus of Sobolewski to the medical imaging system of Jakober et al. and attach the main wire rope to that balancing apparatus, as taught by Sobolewski. This addition would be beneficial as a balancing apparatus would provide a force and mechanism to counterbalance the tension force acting on the main wire rope, allowing heavier items to be supported without the main wire rope failing.
[Claim 12] Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda and Sobolewski teaches: The spare assembly according to claim 8. Sobolewski further teaches that one end of a drum (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, element 84) is provided with a ratchet (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, element 97), and the driving assembly (Sobolewski, Fig. 2, elements within opening 32) further comprises a safety locking mechanism (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, elements 86, 94, and 106), the safety locking mechanism being mounted adjacent to the ratchet (Sobolewski, Fig. 9 shows elements 86, 94, and 106 to the left, close to the rachet wheel 97), and being capable of engaging with the ratchet to lock the rotating shaft (Sobolewski, Fig. 9; col. 8, lines 5-6) when the main wire rope is broken (Sobolewski, Fig. 9; col. 7, line 67 – col 8., line 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the ratchet and safety locking mechanism taught by Sobolewski to an end of the rotating shaft of Jakober et al. to better prevent slipping or falling of the telescopic column and any attached medical imager in the case that one of the wire ropes is broken.
[Claim 13] Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda and Sobolewski teaches: The spare assembly according to claim 12. Sobolewski further teaches that the safety locking mechanism (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, elements 86, 94, and 106) comprises a rotating portion (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, elements 94 and 86 pivot on shaft 90) and an extension portion (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, element 105), the extension portion is connected to the rotating portion (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, element 86 is integral with arm 105), an end portion (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, element 106) of the rotating portion is provided with a gear (Sobolewski, Fig. 9, element 107), and the gear is capable of engaging with the ratchet (Sobolewski, col. 8, lines 5-7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakober et al. (US 10,698,193 B2) in view of Fukuda (US 2006/0183584 A1) and Sobolewski (US 4,003,552), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pachov (US 2012/0240707). For clarity, bold text indicates claim language.
[Claim 9] Jakober et al. in view of Fukuda and Sobolewski teaches: The spare assembly according to claim 8 but does not teach that the main wire rope and auxiliary wire rope are wound around the same drum. Pachov teaches “a safety system, intended to be fitted to a mechanism … over which it is important to maintain control in all circumstances” (Pachov, paragraph [0003]) that includes a driving assembly comprising a rotating drum (Pachov, Fig. 7, element 34), a main wire rope (Pachov, Fig. 7, left cable 36), and an auxiliary wire rope (Pachov, Fig. 7, right cable 36) wherein the main wire rope is wound around one end of the drum (Pachov, Fig. 7, left end of drum 34, near element S) and the auxiliary wire rope is wound around another end of the drum (Pachov, Fig. 7, right end of drum 34, near element 33).
Pachov is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of driving assemblies with built-in safety and redundancy features. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving assembly of Jakober et al. to include one drum (instead of two) onto which the main wire rope and auxiliary wire are wound at opposite ends, as taught by Pachov. This modification would be advantageous as having only one drum would decrease the number of moving parts that might fail, as well as ensure that the wire ropes were always aligned and synced with each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome all 112(a) and 112(b) rejections and in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. For clarity, bold text indicates claim language.
[Claim 5] Although several prior art references teach a balancing apparatus, none of the prior art made of record teaches that the second adjusting portion of the worm portion is operable to drive the balancing apparatus to raise or lower. More specifically, the prior art made of record does not teach any mechanism to raise or lower the balancing apparatus is raised or lowered.
[Claim 6] None of the prior art made of record teaches a balancing apparatus with a fire rope fixing portion and hanging point.
[Claim 10] None of the prior art made of record teaches a wire rope fixing support comprising a cover plate movable relative to a body portion that covers at least a portion of the opening to fix the positions of the wire ropes.
[Claim 11] Although the line encoder of claim 11 is taught in the prior art, claim 11 is allowable as it depends upon allowable claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lv et al. (US 7,854,551 B2) teaches an X-ray detecting stand with a driving assembly, balancing assembly, and safety mechanism.
Heinz et al. (US 4,901,339) teaches a stand for an X-ray apparatus with a telescoping column.
Laliche et al. (US 2010/0200338 A1) teaches a motor with an adjustable worm gear.
Hasegawa (US 2019/0242937 A1) teaches an encoder for an X-ray or CT machine
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Culley whose telephone number is 571-270-0560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/EMC/Examiner, Art Unit 36323
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights