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
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benson (US 2019/0239834 A1; cited in the IDS filed on 2/12/25))
With respect to independent claim 1, Benson teaches in Fig. 1 a portable X-ray device comprising:
an X-ray unit having an X-ray source 104 provided therein to irradiate a subject with X-rays;
a handle unit 112 protruding obliquely from the X-ray unit;
at least one camera unit 106 provided in the X-ray unit to capture the subject;
a display unit 118 configured to display information captured by the camera unit and X-ray irradiation information from the X-ray unit; and
a power supply unit 120; see paragraph [0027] configured to supply power to the X-ray unit, the camera unit, and the display unit,
wherein the handle unit extends obliquely downwards as shown in Figs. 1, 3, and 5 in a direction away from the X-ray unit.
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.
Claim(s) 4 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, and further in view of Shimizukawa (US 2016/0098092 A1).
The teaching of Benson has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Benson is silent with wherein the power supply unit comprises: a main battery integrally provided in the handle unit; and an auxiliary battery detachably provided on one side of the X-ray unit, and wherein the auxiliary battery has a larger capacity than the main battery.
However, the location of a main battery integrally provided in the handle unit would be obvious choice as an engineering design choice. Shimizukawa, a pertinent art, teaches two batteries 19,20 in Fig. 3. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Benson in order to provide a temporary power source when replacing the other battery (see paragraph [0056] of Shimizukawa). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Shimizukawa teaches wherein the power supply unit comprises a charge/discharge board 72 provided within the X-ray unit and electrically connected to the main or auxiliary battery to control charging or discharging of the main or auxiliary battery, and a charging pin electrically connected to the charge/discharge board and provided on one side of the X-ray unit for connection to an external charging source, so as to charge the main battery or the auxiliary battery.
Claim(s) 6 – 9, 11, 13 - 1 11, 13 – 14, 18 – 21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, and further in view of Kim (KR 20160124535 A; cited in the IDS).
The teaching of Benson has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Benson teaches in Fig. 2 wherein the X-ray unit comprises: a body 108 provided therein with the X-ray source 104 and a control circuit 208 configured to control X-ray irradiation; a guide tube 220 protruding forwards from the body to guide the irradiation of the subject with X-rays; and a barrier 224 provided between the body and the guide tube to prevent backscattering of X-rays.
In addition, Kim, a pertinent art, teaches a barrier 20 to prevent backscattering of X-rays. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Benson in order to protect operators (see paragraph [0015] of Kim). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 7, when modified Kim, Benson modified by Kim would have a reasonable expectation to arrive the limitation of “wherein: the barrier is integrally provided on the front of the body facing the subject; and the guide tube is made translucently.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Benson is silent with wherein: the body and the barrier are made of a metal material that does not contain lead (Pb); and the barrier has a thickness corresponding to a lead equivalent of 0.22 t to 0.28 t and a larger width than the body.
However, Kim teaches in paragraph [0018] Bismuth, barium or tungsten as a shielding material. The thickness of these material would be within the ordinary skilled art through an optimization process to shield X-rays. In view of these, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Benson in order to fabricate X-rays shields with a known material. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the limitation of “wherein the body is provided therein with a charge/discharge board to control charging and discharging of the power supply unit, and the body is provided on one side thereof with a charging pin connected to the charge/discharge board and electrically connected to an external charging source, so as to charge the power supply unit” is determined within the ordinary skilled art as an engineering design choice. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Benson teaches in paragraph [0045] wherein the control circuit exchanges signals with the camera unit and the display unit, thereby automatically aligning a position of the subject based on the image captured by the camera unit to display the same on the display unit.
With respect to dependent claim 13, In view of Benson (see 112 in Fig.1), the limitation of “wherein the handle unit extends obliquely downwards from a lower portion of the rear of the body in a direction away from the body” would be obvious. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to independent claim 14, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1, Benson teaches a portable X-ray device comprising: an X-ray unit having an X-ray source provided therein to irradiate a subject with X-rays and; a handle unit protruding obliquely from the X-ray unit; at least one camera unit provided in the X-ray unit to capture the subject; a display unit configured to display at least one of information captured by the camera unit and X-ray irradiation information from the X-ray unit; and a power supply unit configured to supply power to the X-ray unit, the camera unit, and the display unit, wherein the handle unit extends obliquely downwards in a direction away from the X-ray unit such that a user puts his/her hand from above the X-ray unit and grips the handle unit (see Fig. 1 of Benson), but is silent with “made of a metal material that does not contain lead (Pb)”.
As discussed above Kim teaches Kim teaches in paragraph [0018] Bismuth, barium or tungsten as a shielding material. In view of these, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Benson in order to fabricate X-rays shields with a known material. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 18, as discussed above Benson modified by Kim teaches wherein the X-ray unit comprises: a body provided therein with the X-ray source and a control circuit configured to control X-ray irradiation; a guide tube protruding forwards from the body to guide the irradiation of the subject with X-rays; and a barrier provided between the body and the guide tube to prevent backscattering of X-rays.
With respect to dependent claim 19, as discussed above Benson modified by Kim teaches wherein: the barrier is integrally provided on the front of the body facing the subject; and the guide tube is made translucently.
With respect to dependent claim 20, as discussed above the limitation of “wherein the barrier has a thickness corresponding to a lead equivalent of 0.22 t to 0.28 t and a larger width than the body” is within the ordinary skilled art through an optimization process in order to stop or absorb X-rays.
With respect to dependent claim 21, as discussed above Ben teaches wherein the body is provided therein with a charge/discharge board to control charging and discharging of the power supply unit, and the body is provided on one side thereof with a charging pin connected to the charge/discharge board, so as to charge the power supply unit.
With respect to dependent claim 23, as discussed above Benson teaches wherein the control circuit exchanges signals with the camera unit and the display unit, thereby automatically aligning a position of the subject based on the image captured by the camera unit to display the same on the display unit and automatically adjusting an intensity of X-rays depending on the position of the subject to display the same through the display unit.
With respect to dependent claim 24, as discussed above Benson teaches wherein the handle unit extends obliquely downwards from a lower portion of the rear of the body in a direction away from the body.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson modified by Kim, and further in view of Kim2 (KR 20190111200 A; cited in the IDS).
The teaching of Benson has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Benson is silent with wherein the control circuit exchanges signals with the camera unit and the display unit, thereby automatically adjusting an intensity of X-rays depending on the position of the subject to display the same through the display unit.
In paragraph [0017] and in claim 10 of Kim2, Kim2, a pertinent art, teaches the limitation of claim 12. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Benson in order to control X-ray intensity based on the position and size of a subject. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson modified by Kim, and further in view of Shimizukawa.
The teaching of Benson modified by Kim has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 16, as discussed above in view of Shimizukawa, the limitation of “wherein the power supply unit comprises: a main battery provided integrally in the handle unit; and an auxiliary battery detachably provided on one side of the X-ray unit, and wherein the auxiliary battery has a larger capacity than the main battery” would be within ordinary skilled art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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:
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 22, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the camera unit comprises a plurality of cameras installed on the respective guide tube and barrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
