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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued, “Please note that Noras relates to a dedicated rectal coil for MRT (see FIG. 10). Accordingly, Noras only lifts the buttocks. See FIG. 10. Note that the coil construction 63 and wedge pillows at locations 64 and 65 end at about the waist. Para. 39-41. In other words, there is zero torso support and especially zero upper body support which would include the chest or abdomen of a patient. Noras is only tilting the hips and, at best, raising the waist which is distinct from raising the chest and abdomen. Neither Jones nor Bonutti would provide motivation or reason to do otherwise. For this reason alone, the rejection should be withdrawn.
Furthermore, since Noras is exclusively interested in positioning the patient for a specialized rectal coil, there would also be no reason to adjust the patient's chest or abdomen orientation without undermining the intended function of Noras. Accordingly, for this additional reason the combination of references would not render the claimed invention obvious. In addition, Applicant notes that the coil construction 63 is a flexible coil (see para. 40- 41) and would not, by itself, support the patient. Therefore, Noras is basically a static support but does suggest that the wedge and/or trough pillows could be an "adjustment means" (para 41).”
This is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that a new reference, Everhart, which teaches raising the hips starting from the upper body, as shown in Figure 7. However, as for the reason for modifying Noras to elevate the upper body of the patient rather than just the buttocks, when Noras is focused on a rectal coil, Examiner disagrees that there would be no reason to do so and that doing so would undermine the intended function of Noras. Firstly, elevating the upper body as shown in Everhart allows for a sharper angle of the lower body, thus allowing even better access to the rectal area which is the focus of Noras. This is indicated by Noras himself, as Applicant mentioned, because Noras discusses placing additional elevation under the buttocks in the form of a wedge pillow (Paragraph 41). Furthermore, elevating starting at the shoulders, rather than somewhere at the back, would allow for more comfort for the user as there would thus be more cushioning and also the back may be kept in alignment which is more comfortable. The secondary reference Everhart’s purpose in in fact to increase comfort in a position with the buttocks elevated (see Column 1; lines 8-15). Thus, adding elevation to the upper body in the shape of Noras’s hip elevating portion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, Examiner notes that to allow the wedge portion of Noras to lift the upper back as well is simply a change in size or change in shape of Noras to extend the wedge portion longer, and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant also argued, “However, incorporating such adjustment means into Noras (e.g. from Jones, Bonutti or others) would still not remedy the above defect in part (a) above, i.e. no torso or upper body support which is moveable away from a support base. Note that the patient in Noras is supported from the waist up to the head via the continuous base plate 61 which is not moveable. There would be no motivation to move either the torso or upper body since Noras is entirely focused on rectal coils. Specifically, Jones relates to an inflatable and adjustable patient bed targeted at assisting bedridden patients to avoid bed sores and other complications arising from long term lack of movement. Other than a general teaching of the efficacy of using inflatable bellows to rotate or shift a patient, this reference seems to not provide any other relevant teachings.”
This is not found persuasive. Paragraph 41 of Noras specifically discusses adjustability of the placement of the hips of the patient through a wedge cushion or an adjustment means. Thus, Noras himself envisions changing the angle of elevation to move the body away from the support base. Jones teaches providing a wedge shaped support to the hips of a patient which is inflatable, and thus where the support surface is moveable away from the surface upon which the device is placed on through inflatation. Modifying Noras to include an inflatable wedge shaped portion would provide several advantages, including that the device is able to be collapsed into a smaller state for storage, that the device is able to be moved to the increased area with little to no manual strain (as opposed to Noras’s physical wedge shaped pillow), since a pump can be used to simply inflate the system to the desired angle to lift the patients hips, an advantage that is pointed out by Jones in Column 1; lines 46-57 and in Column 2; lines 39-52.
Applicant also argued, “Reinhard also does not provide a rationale for an inflatable truncated cone shaped assembly. Rather, the inflatable cone shaped cushion 40 in Reinhard is specifically designed to couple with the ring cushion 41. Nothing about Reinhard or the other references which suggest that a cone shape would be desirable, much less a truncated cone shape when used in the context of rigid support member and a rigid base. Notably, during use, the claimed truncated cone shape has a functional benefit that is seen when the inflatable cone is deflated. Specifically, as the cone deflates, the cone collapses in a nested fashion which minimizes folding and allows the deflated truncated cone to lay nearly flat with a very thin profile. Nothing in any of the cited references would suggest that providing such a unique shape would be useful to minimize the profile. As such, there would not seem to be any rationale to utilize such an unusual shape in light of Noras, Jones or Reinhard.”
This is not found persuasive. Reinhard teaches a lifting inflatable bladder with a truncated conical shape, and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). However, in the interest of expediting prosecution, Examiner has used an alternative reference, Hendry, as set forth below, which also features a truncated cone shape for lifting a load, and discusses the specific advantages of such a shape (see Column 4; lines 6-21).
Examiner notes that the arguments related to the Bonutti reference are no longer relevant as the Bonutti reference has been switched out for the Biber reference as set forth below to teach a head coil of the type referred to in the application. Examiner notes that “head coil” under broadest reasonable interpretation does not necessarily require a head coil of the kind shown in Biber, but for clarity and expedition of prosecution, a reference teaching that type of head coil is now being used instead.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 26, the “means for lifting the body support” is determined via the specification to mean “lift mechanism 150 can be pneumatic, hydraulic, mechanical, or other mechanism which allows for the body support 130 to be raised and lowered with respect to the support base 110 and the MRI bed.” (Specification Page 9)
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) 1-5, 9, 13, 19, 22, 24-25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noras (US Patent Application Publication 20150323621) in view of Jones (US Patent 4977629) further in view of Everhart (US Patent 6360387) in view of Biber (Us Patent Application Publication 20120323113).
Regarding claim 1, Noras teaches a kyphotic lift, comprising: a support base (Figure 10; the bottom surface of wedge pillow (see where 64 points) and 61), wherein the support base is a planar substrate that is adapted to be positioned onto an existing MRI bed (Paragraph 1 describes using the system for MRI, and thus necessarily the system would need to be placed on an MRI bed to go into an MRI machine); a body support having a first end secured to the support base (Figure 10; 63, right end) and a second end (Figure 10; 63, left end) opposite the first end and including a torso support segment and a hip support segment (Figure 10; 63 supports both the hips and lower torso as shown), and being operable to support at least an upper body of the patient during use (Figure 10; 63 supports at least a lower portion of upper body during use as shown); and a lift mechanism operable to raise a second end of the body support away from the support base to a position where the hip support segment is above the torso support segment such that hips and thighs of the patient are above the torso (Figure 10; as shown) and to position and align a head of the patient with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Figure 10; when applied into an MRI machine, the head, and any applied head coil would be aligned with the MRI). Noras does not teach the body support being movable away from the support base, and a lift mechanism operable to raise and lower a second end of the body support away from and back towards the support base, the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient, and using a head coil. Jones teaches the body support being movable away from the support base, and a lift mechanism operable to raise and lower a second end of the body support away from and back towards the support base (Figure 6 teaches an inflatable wedge pillow adapted to move from a deflated position to an inflated position to move the user into the position with the hips above the torso). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17). Noras and Jones do not teach the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient, and using a head coil. Everhart teaches the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient (Figure 7; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Everhart (directed to a patient positioner which lifts the chest, abdomen, and hips of a patient)) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips, chest, and abdomen of a patient. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide a support pillow for comfortably elevating the hips” (Everhart Column 1; lines 30-31). Noras, Jones, and Everhart do not teach using a head coil. Biber teaches using a head coil (Figure 1; as shown, and Claim 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Everhart (directed to a patient positioner which lifts the chest, abdomen, and hips of a patient)) and Biber (directed to a head coil for an MRI machine) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips, chest, and abdomen of a patient and a head coil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to improve the signal-to-noise ratio even in the case of high resolution images.” (Biber Paragraph 4)
Regarding claim 2, Noras teaches a shoulder support operable to support shoulders of a patient during use and wherein the shoulder support is formed integrally with the support base (Figure 10; 61).
Regarding claim 3, Noras teaches the support base comprises an upper surface that shares a common surface area with a lower surface of the body support (Figure 10; the bottom of wedge pillow under 63 shares a common surface area with a lower surface of 63). Noras does not teach when the lift mechanism lowers the body support towards the support base, the body support is lowered to be adjacent to the support base, the support base being a solid planar support base. Jones teaches the lift mechanism lowers the body support towards the support base, the body support is lowered to be adjacent to the support base, the support base being a solid planar support base (Figure 6; when deflated, and applied to the combination with Noras, the body support of Noras would be lowered to be adjacent to the bottom surface of the wedge and plate 61 in Noras, at least portion 61 being a solid planar support base). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make sucha combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 4, Noras teaches the support base and the body support are flexibly connected to one another (Figure 10; 63 and the bottom surface of the wedge pillow are flexibly connected to one another through 63’s attachment to the wedge pillow and through the wedge pillow structure itself).
Regarding claim 5, Noras does not teach the support base is connected to the body support via a low profile hinge or a living hinge. Jones teaches the support base is connected to the body support via a low profile hinge or a living hinge (Figure 6; the hinge of 10 near where 62 is marked). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 9, Noras does not teach the lift mechanism is an inflatable assembly having an inlet and outlet; the inflatable assembly having a deflated state in which the second end of the body support is adjacent to the support base, and an inflated state in which the second end of the body support is raised away from the support base, wherein the inlet and outlet are either a common opening or two separate openings. Jones teaches the lift mechanism is an inflatable assembly having an inlet and outlet (Figure 6; 62); the inflatable assembly having a deflated state in which the second end of the body support is adjacent to the support base (column 5; lines 55-61), and an inflated state (Figure 6; as shown) in which the second end of the body support is raised away from the support base, wherein the inlet and outlet are either a common opening or two separate openings. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 13, Noras does not teach the inflatable assembly comprises a collapsible housing. Jones teaches the inflatable assembly comprises a collapsible housing (column 5; lines 55-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 19, Noras teaches patient belt straps oriented to secure a patient to the body support (Figure 10; straps on the sides of 67, as shown).
Regarding claim 22, Noras teaches at least one hole adjacent the edge of body support or support base (Figure 10; holes as shown in 63) for gripping the kyphotic lift for positioning on the MRI machine or for transport of the kyphotic lift (Examiner notes this is intended use language, and a recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 177 USPQ 705 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 168 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1971); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BdPatApp & Inter 1987).).
Regarding claim 24, Noras teaches a method of supporting a patient with kyphosis during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the method comprising: placing a patient on a body support (Figure 10; 63) of a kyphotic lift having a lift mechanism (Figure 10; wedge pillow is the lift mechanism); lifting the body away from an MRI bed with the lift mechanism to raise hips of the patient to a position where the hips and thighs of the patient are above the torso (Figure 10; as shown). Noras does not teach lifting the body support away from an MRI bed with the lift mechanism, positioning a head of the patient to align with an MRI head coil; performing MRI imaging using the MRI head coil to produce a patient image; and lowering the body support toward the MRI bed with the kyphotic lift to lower the hips of the patient toward the MRI bed, and the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient. Jones teaches lifting the body support away from an MRI bed with the lift mechanism, and lowering the body support toward the MRI bed with the kyphotic lift to lower the hips of the patient toward the MRI bed (Figure 6; 10 and column 5; lines 55-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17). Noras and Jones do not teach the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient and positioning a head of the patient to align with an MRI head coil; performing MRI imaging using the MRI head coil to produce a patient image. Everhart teaches the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient (Figure 7; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Everhart (directed to a patient positioner which lifts the chest, abdomen, and hips of a patient)) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips, chest, and abdomen of a patient. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide a support pillow for comfortably elevating the hips” (Everhart Column 1; lines 30-31). Noras, Jones, and Everhart do not teach positioning a head of the patient to align with an MRI head coil; performing MRI imaging using the MRI head coil to produce a patient image. Biber teaches positioning a head of the patient to align with an MRI head coil; performing MRI imaging using the MRI head coil to produce a patient image (Figure 1; as shown, and Claim 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Everhart (directed to a patient positioner which lifts the chest, abdomen, and hips of a patient)) and Biber (directed to a head coil for an MRI machine) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips, chest, and abdomen of a patient and a head coil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to improve the signal-to-noise ratio even in the case of high resolution images.” (Biber Paragraph 4)
Regarding claim 25, Noras does not teach air is pumped into an inflatable assembly as part of the lift mechanism lifting the body support away from an MRI bed and air is released from the inflatable assembly for lowering the body support toward the MRI bed. Jones teaches air is pumped into an inflatable assembly as part of the lift mechanism lifting the body support away from an MRI bed and air is released from the inflatable assembly for lowering the body support toward the MRI bed (Figure 6; 10 and column 5; lines 55-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 27, Noras teaches the second end is not directly attached to the support base (Figure 10; the left end of 63 is not in contact with the bottom of the wedge or 61).
Regarding claim 28, Noras teaches a shoulder support adapted to contact shoulders and neck of the patient (Figure 10; 61, the portion on which the shoulders and neck may be supported as shown in Figure 10).
Regarding claim 29, Noras teaches the torso support segment and the hip support segment are a single, non-hinged piece (Figure 10; 63, as shown).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noras (US Patent Application Publication 20150323621) in view of Jones (US Patent 4977629) further in view of Everhart (US Patent 6360387).
Regarding claim 26, Noras teaches a kyphotic lift, comprising: a support base (Figure 10; the bottom surface of wedge pillow (see where 64 points) and 61), wherein the support base is a planar substrate that is adapted to be positioned onto an existing MRI bed (Paragraph 1 describes using the system for MRI, and thus necessarily the system would need to be placed on an MRI bed to go into an MRI machine); a body support having a first end secured to the support base (Figure 10; 63, right end) and including a torso support segment and a hip support segment (Figure 10; 63 supports both the hips and lower torso as shown), the body support being operable to raise the lower portion of the body of the patient during use (Figure 10; as shown); and means for lifting the body with respect to the support base to a position where the hip support segment is above the torso support segment such that hips and thighs of the patient are above the torso (Figure 10; as shown) wherein the head of the patient is properly positioned for imaging in an MRI ((Figure 10; when applied into an MRI machine, the head, and any applied head coil would be aligned with the MRI). Noras does not teach the body support having a first end rotation secured to the support base, the body support being movable away from the support base, and means for lifting the body support with respect to the support base, and the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient. Jones teaches the body support having a first end rotation secured to the support base, the body support being movable away from the support base, and means for lifting the body support with respect to the support base (Figure 6; 10 and column 5; lines 55-61). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for lifting a patient's midsection for accommodating” medical equipment concerning the patient’s groin” with relative ease” as taught in Jones (Column 1; lines 15-17). Noras and Jones do not teach the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient. Everhart teaches the upper body supported by the body support during use including at least a chest and an abdomen of the patient (Figure 7; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Everhart (directed to a patient positioner which lifts the chest, abdomen, and hips of a patient)) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips, chest, and abdomen of a patient. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide a support pillow for comfortably elevating the hips” (Everhart Column 1; lines 30-31).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noras (US Patent Application Publication 20150323621) in view of Jones (US Patent 4977629) further in view of Everhart (US Patent 6360387) in view of Biber (Us Patent Application Publication 20120323113) further in view of Hendry (US Patent 6267447).
Regarding claim 15, Noras does not teach the inflatable assembly is a truncated cone. Hendry teaches the inflatable assembly is a truncated cone (Figure 1, 50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Everhart (directed to a patient positioner which lifts the chest, abdomen, and hips of a patient)) and Biber (directed to a head coil for an MRI machine) and Hendry (directed to a truncated cone shaped inflatable assembly) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with a truncated cone inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips, chest, and abdomen of a patient and a head coil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that “the bag can be reduced to a relatively small volume in the collapsed state by folding in an accordion-like manner, such that the bag collapses primarily within the footprint of its base.” (Hendry Column 4; lines 6-10). Also, because doing so would simply be a change in shape and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, Noras does not teach the inflatable assembly is an oblique truncated cone, wherein a top of the oblique truncated cone and a bottom of the oblique truncated cone are substantially concentric in the deflated state. Hendry teaches the inflatable assembly is an oblique truncated cone, wherein a top of the oblique truncated cone and a bottom of the oblique truncated cone are substantially concentric in the deflated state (Figure 1; 50, as shown, see also Column 4; lines 6-10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Noras (directed to an MRI patient positioner with a wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Jones (directed to a patient positioner with an inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips) and Everhart (directed to a patient positioner which lifts the chest, abdomen, and hips of a patient)) and Biber (directed to a head coil for an MRI machine) and Hendry (directed to a truncated cone shaped inflatable assembly) and arrived at an MRI patient positioner with a truncated cone inflatable wedge shaped pillow to lift the hips, chest, and abdomen of a patient and a head coil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination so that “the bag can be reduced to a relatively small volume in the collapsed state by folding in an accordion-like manner, such that the bag collapses primarily within the footprint of its base.” (Hendry Column 4; lines 6-10). Also, because doing so would simply be a change in shape and a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673