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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schomberg (US 20060023830).
Regarding claim 1, Schomberg teaches an X-ray installation, comprising:
a base unit 6; a C-arm 1 on the base unit; and an X-ray source 2 and an X-ray detector 3 being on the C-arm, wherein the C-arm forms half of a closed, convex, point-symmetrical curve and at least one of the X-ray source or the X-ray detector is displaceable 15 along the C-arm, such that an angle formed by the X-ray source and the X-ray detector with an isocenter of the closed, convex, point-symmetrical curve is adjustable to a minimum value that is less than 180° (figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Schomberg teaches the X-ray installation is a mobile 6 X-ray installation (figure 1a).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rasche et al. (US 6619840).
Regarding claim 1, Rasche teaches an X-ray installation, comprising:
a base unit 130; a C-arm 210 on the base unit; and an X-ray source 230 and an X-ray detector 240 being on the C-arm, wherein the C-arm forms half of a closed, convex, point-symmetrical curve and at least one of the X-ray source or the X-ray detector is displaceable along the C-arm, such that an angle formed by the X-ray source and the X-ray detector with an isocenter of the closed, convex, point-symmetrical curve is adjustable 220 to a minimum value that is less than 180° (Note: that functional recitations of “minimum value less than 180°” have not been given patentable weight because they are directed to the operation of the apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the apparatus over the prior art. Since the c-arm 220 can be retracted and can provide the claimed minimum value, it anticipates the claimed apparatus).
Regarding claim 2, Rasche teaches the minimum value is 150° or below (Note: that functional recitations of “minimum value less than 150°” have not been given patentable weight because they are directed to the operation of the apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the apparatus over the prior art. Since the c-arm 220 can be retracted and can provide the claimed minimum value, it anticipates the claimed apparatus).
Regarding claim 3, Rasche teaches the X-ray installation is a mobile 130 X-ray installation (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Rasche teaches the minimum value is 120° or below (Note: that functional recitations of “minimum value less than 120°” have not been given patentable weight because they are directed to the operation of the apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the apparatus over the prior art. Since the c-arm 220 can be retracted and can provide the claimed minimum value, it anticipates the claimed apparatus).
Regarding claim 10, Rasche teaches the minimum value is 100° or below (Note: that functional recitations of “minimum value less than 100°” have not been given patentable weight because they are directed to the operation of the apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the apparatus over the prior art. Since the c-arm 220 can be retracted and can provide the claimed minimum value, it anticipates the claimed apparatus).
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) 2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schomberg.
Regarding claims 2 and 9-10, the prior art fails to teach the minimum value is 150° or below, 120° or below or 100° or below.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt the minimum value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Thus one would be motivated to adapt the minimum value to provide better beam positioning and/or reduce size of the detector.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 11-15 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:
Regarding claim 4-8 and 11-15, the prior art fails to teach an X-ray system comprising: two X-ray installations, each of the two X-ray installations being the X-ray installation of claim 1, wherein the two X-ray installations are arranged such that the closed, convex, point-symmetrical curves of the two X-ray installations form an integrated, closed, convex, point-symmetrical curve and the C-arms of the two X-ray installations form complementary halves of the integrated, closed, convex, point-symmetrical curve, control devices of the two X-ray installations are coupled to one another such that the two X-ray installations are operated in coordinated manner, and the X-ray sources of the two X-ray installations irradiate the X-ray detector of a respective other X-ray installation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights