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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase " the boost converter circuitry may bypass" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969)
Regarding claim 1, Mekonnen et al disclose an imaging system comprising:
an X-ray source (14/305) generating X-rays [see 0020-0024, figs 1-2];
an X-ray detector (18) positioned opposite of the X-ray source for receiving X-rays [see 0020, figs 1-2] by disclosing detector assembly 18 is formed by a plurality of detectors 20 data acquisition systems (DAS) 22. The plurality of detectors 20 sense the projected x-rays that pass through a medical patient 24, and DAS 22 converts the data to digital signals for subsequent processing [see 0020];
a gantry (12/306) rotatably positioned within a gantry enclosure (as shown in fig 1) [see 0020 and fig 1];
a gantry motor (gantry motor 307/gantry motor controller 32) coupled to the gantry (12) to rotate the gantry (12) [see 0021, 0025] by disclosing rotation of gantry 12 and the operation of x-ray source 14 are governed by a control mechanism 26 of CT system 10. Control mechanism 26 includes an x-ray controller 28 and generator 30 that provides power and timing signals to x-ray source 14 and a gantry motor controller 32 that controls the rotational speed and position of gantry 12 [see 0021];
a power distribution unit (PDU) (power distribution unit (HFPDU) 303) coupled to the gantry to provide power to the gantry [see 0025, 0030];
a boost converter circuitry (buck-boost converter 310) coupled to the PDU to maintain a voltage output of the PDU during generation of X-rays by the X-ray source [see 0025-0028, 0031, 0046 and fig 3].
Regarding claim 2, Mekonnen et al disclose wherein the X-ray source and the X-ray detector are coupled to the gantry (12) [see figs 1-2].
Regarding claim 4, Mekonnen et al disclose wherein the PDU provides power to the X-ray source (X-ray tube 305) [see fig 3].
Regarding claim 5, Mekonnen et al disclose wherein the boost converter circuitry provides voltage regulation to the gantry motor drive while the gantry is rotating and the X-ray source is powered [see 0025-0026].
Regarding claim 11, Mekonnen et al disclose a method of using an imaging system comprising:
providing power, via a power distribution unit (PDU), to a gantry motor to rotate a gantry [see 0025-0026, 0030, fig 3];
providing power, via the PDU, to an X-ray source (X-ray tube 305) [see 0025-0026, 0030, fig 3];
activating (via a voice activated controller connected to computer 36 [see 0022] through PDU 303, see fig 3) a boost converter circuitry to provide a voltage regulation to the gantry motor rotating the gantry via a gantry motor drive [see 0025-0028, 0031, 0046 and fig 3].
Regarding claim 14, Mekonnen et al disclose wherein the boost converter circuitry provides voltage control to the gantry motor, via the gantry motor drive, to maintain a rotational speed of the gantry [see 0025-0028, 0031, 0046 and fig 3].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969) in view of Kato et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0251594).
Regarding claim 3, Mekonnen et al don’t disclose wherein the boost converter circuitry is positioned within the gantry enclosure.
Nonetheless, Kato et al disclose the boost converter circuitry (X-ray high voltage device 11 is a device by boosts volage by modulating it, emphasis added. See 0022) is positioned within the gantry enclosure (10) [see 0017, 0022, 0026-0027 and fig 1] by disclosing gantry 10 includes an X-ray high voltage device 11 [see 0017] and The X-ray high voltage device 11 can modulate intensity of the X-rays emitted from the X-ray tube 12a. For example, the X-ray high voltage device 11 increases the intensity of the X-rays emitted from the X-ray tube 12a [see 0022]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Kato et al by having the boost converter circuitry positioned within the gantry enclosure; to have a compact apparatus.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969) in view of Nasiri et al (Pub. No.: US 2017/0085122).
Regarding claim 6, Mekonnen et al don’t disclose wherein the boost converter circuitry maintains a constant voltage output during a full duration of a CT scan.
Nonetheless, Nasiri et al disclose uninterruptible power supply (UPS) may provide power to an X-ray scanner to enable the X-ray scanner to continue operation during a power outage [see 0018, 0023]
the rectifier operates in a voltage mode to maintain the DC bus 20 voltage constant while providing power to the auxiliary load [see 0034]
the DC-DC bidirectional converter 32 to act as a buck-boost converter that boosts voltages [see 0040] and he system 10 may include an auxiliary load having a constant power demand of 10 kW, referred to as a constant voltage load (CVL) [see 0042, 0052]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Nasiri et al by maintaining a constant voltage output during a full duration of a CT scan; for safety purposes.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969) in view of Zhou et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0344283)
Regarding claim 7, Mekonnen et al don’t disclose voltage output is 680 VDC.
Nonetheless, Zhou et al disclose wherein the voltage output is 680 VDC [see 0197].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Zhou et al by using 680 VDC; to have a fixed and constant power.
Claims 8, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969) in view of Dafni (Pub. No.: US 2011/0268246)
Regarding claims 8, 15, Mekonnen et al don’t disclose wherein the rotational speed of the gantry is kept constant during operation.
Nonetheless, Dafni discloses the gantry is made to rotate at a substantially constant rotation speed and the X-ray intensity is substantially constant during the scan [see 0046].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Dafni by having the rotational speed of the gantry kept constant during operation; so that a desired speed can be maintained.
Claim(s) 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969) in view of Dafni (Pub. No.: US 2011/0268246) as applied to claims 8 and 15 above and further in view of Besson (Pub. No.: US 2016/0310086)
Regarding claims 9, 16, Mekonnen et al and Dafni don’t disclose wherein the rotational speed of the gantry is 256 rpm.
Nonetheless, Besson discloses wherein the rotational speed of the gantry is 256 rpm [see 0149] by disclosing providing an emitter ring rotation of 200 to 400 RPMs in one direction [see 0149]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Besson by having a rotational speed of the gantry is 256 rpm; so that a desired speed can be achieved.
Claims 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969) in view of Cho et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0159794)
Regarding claim 10, Mekonnen et al don’t disclose the boost converter circuitry may bypass the input voltage to the output stably if the utility power is in a high line condition.
Nonetheless, Cho et al disclose the boost converter circuitry may bypass the input voltage to the output stably if the utility power is in a high line condition [see 0015, 0038, 0073-0079, fig 5] by disclosing if the input voltage is greater than the high reference voltage 604 [see 0073].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Cho et al by bypassing the input voltage to the output stably if the utility power is in a high line condition; to provide safe operational voltage and to efficiently convert an input voltage into a constant output voltage even when the input voltage is variable [see 0038, Cho et al].
Regarding claim 13, Mekonnen et al don’t disclose deactivating the boost converter circuitry.
Nonetheless, Cho et al disclose deactivating the boost converter circuitry [see 0054, 0057 and figs 3-5].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Cho et al by deactivating the boost converter circuitry; to regulate the voltage as desired levels are attained.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mekonnen et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0085969) in view of Nakamura et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0382440)
Regarding claim 12, Mekonnen et al don’t disclose deactivating the X-ray source.
Nonetheless, Nakamura et al disclose deactivating the X-ray source [see 0029].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Mekonnen et al and Nakamura et al by deactivating the X-ray source; so that the X-ray source can be controlled as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798