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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butani et al. (US 11162909; hereinafter Butani ‘909) in view of Butani et al. (US 11246551; hereinafter Butani ‘551).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Butani ‘909 discloses a cabinet x-ray image system for obtaining x-ray images and colorized or grey scale density x-ray images of a specimen (abstract, claim 22, col. 29:54-57) with a corresponding method, the system comprising: a cabinet defining an interior chamber wherein the cabinet comprises a walled enclosure surrounding the interior chamber, a door configured to cover the interior chamber and a sampling chamber for holding the specimen; a main monitor (claim 22, col. 29:58-63); an x-ray system including: an x-ray source; a detector; and a specimen platform; and a controller (col. 22, col. 29:64-30:1) configured to: selectively energize the x-ray source to emit x-rays through the specimen to the x-ray detector; control the x-ray detector to collect a projection x-ray image of the specimen when the x-ray source is energized (claim 22, col. 30:2-8); determine the density of different areas of the specimen from data collected from the x-ray detector of the projection x-ray image of the specimen when the x-ray source is energized; create a density x-ray image of the specimen wherein the different areas of the specimen are indicated as a density or range of densities based on the determined density of different areas of the specimen; and selectively display the density x-ray image of the specimen on the main monitor (claim 22, col. 30:9-18).
However, Butani ‘909 fails to disclose a separate monitor mirroring the main monitor and displaying the x-ray image of the specimen on the separate monitor.
Butani ‘551 teaches a separate monitor mirroring the main monitor and displaying the x-ray image of the specimen on the separate monitor (viewing station 104 comprises a display device 118 and a second LCD monitor 120 for viewing the actual specimen x-ray radiogram 101, Col. 13 Ln. 52-Col. 14 Ln. 15, Fig. 11A).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Butani ‘909 with the teaching of Butani ‘551, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more options (Butani ‘551: col. 13:52-14:41; fig. 11a; with 118 and 120).
Regarding claim 2, Butani ‘909 discloses wherein the specimen platform is configured for excised tissue, organ or bone specimens (claim 17; col. 29:29-31).
Regarding claim 3, Butani ‘909 discloses wherein the specimen platform is configured for any organic or inorganic specimen that fits inside an x-ray cabinet (claim 18; col. 29:32-34).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Butani ‘909 discloses wherein the cabinet x-ray image system further includes: an optical camera configured to capture an optical image of the specimen (claim 25, col. 30:28-31); and the controller is further configured to: control the optical camera system to capture and collect the optical image of the specimen; and selectively display the density x-ray image and the optical image of the specimen on the main monitor (claim 25, col. 30:32-36). Butani ‘551 teaches the separate monitor (col. 13:52-14-41; fig. 11a).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Butani ‘909 discloses wherein the density x-ray image and the optical image of the specimen are displayed overlaid (claim 26; col. 30:42-44).
Regarding claim 6, Butani ‘909 discloses wherein: the x-ray source emits a first amount of x-rays; the x-ray detector includes a plurality of pixels in an array, each pixel configured to detect a second amount of x-rays received by the pixel; and the controller is further configured to: create the density x-ray image from the plurality of pixels by comparing from the first amount of x-rays and the second amount of x-rays for each pixel in the array (claim 1, col. 27:17-44).
Regarding claim 7, Butani ‘909 discloses wherein the different areas of the specimen of the density x-ray image are displayed in different grey scale, different color or different shades of color (claim 5, col. 27:61-64).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butani ‘909 and Butani ‘551 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nam (US 2011/0181683).
Butani ‘909 as modified above suggests claims 1 and 8. Butani ‘909 further discloses wherein selectively displaying the density x-ray image of the specimen on the main monitor (claim 22, col. 30:9-18) comprises transmitting the density x-ray image to the monitor using an interface (for 472). Butani ‘551 further teaches selectively displaying on the separate monitor (120).
However, Butani ‘909 fails to disclose wherein selectively displaying on the separate monitor comprises transmitting to the separate monitor using a wireless interface comprising one or more of Wi-Fi 802.11, Bluetooth 802.15, or cellular 2G-6G.
Nam teaches wherein selectively displaying on the separate monitor (80) comprises transmitting to the separate monitor using a wireless interface comprising one or more of Wi-Fi 802.11, Bluetooth 802.15, or cellular 2G-6G (fig. 74; par. 418).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art with the teaching of Nam, since these communication interfaces were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier and faster communication.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butani ‘909 and Butani ‘551 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Iyer et al. (US 2022/0086690; hereinafter Iyer).
Butani ‘909 as modified above suggests claim 8. Butani ‘909 further discloses wherein selectively displaying the density x-ray image of the specimen on the main monitor (claim 22, col. 30:9-18) comprises transmitting the density x-ray image using a protocol (for 472). Butani ‘551 further teaches selectively displaying on the separate monitor (120).
However, Butani ‘909 fails to disclose wherein selectively displaying on the separate monitor comprises transmitting to the separate monitor using a protocol comprising Real-time Messaging Protocol (RTMP), Real-time Streaming Protocol (RTSP), Web Real time Communication (WebRTC) or User Datagram Protocol (UDP).
Iyer teaches wherein selectively displaying on the separate monitor comprises transmitting to the separate monitor using a protocol comprising Real-time Messaging Protocol (RTMP), Real-time Streaming Protocol (RTSP), Web Real time Communication (WebRTC) or User Datagram Protocol (UDP) (par. 48).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art with the teaching of Iyer, since these communication interfaces were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to substitute. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for higher refresh rate and/or bandwidth (Iyer: par. 48).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights