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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "200" and "210" have both been used to designate the receiving step shown in Fig. 2 as reference character 210. It is mislabeled on page 18, line 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “immerse” in “immerse audio-visual system”, should be changed to “ immersive ” . This correction should be done on: page 6 line 19, page 17 line 14 and line 22, and page 19 line 33. On page 17 line 34, “display” in “the current constraints to be display may include” should be changed to “displayed”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim s 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1 , “a” should be in between “comprises” and “wake-up time” in “wherein the at least one timing comprises wake-up time”. Regarding claim 12 , “immerse” in “immerse audio-visual system” should be changed to “immersive” , “the” should be in between “wherein” and “trigger” in “wherein trigger signal comprises”, and “mediation” should be corrected to “medication”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 12 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 12 , it recites the limitations: "the mobile patient support", “the retractable bore wall”, “the retractable fence”, and “the immerse audio-visual system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 1-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, claims 1-8 and 10-15 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 1 Claims 1 -8 and 10-15 recites a series of steps or acts for assessing a wake-up procedure of a patient sedated with a sedative medication in a medical image acquisition process. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1 Each of Claims 1-8 and 10-15 recites at least one step or instruction for assessing a procedure , which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG . The claimed steps of assessing a wake-up procedure and sedation levels in a patient can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-8 and 10-15 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 1 recites an apparatus for assessing a wake-up procedure of a patient sedated with a sedative medication in a medical image acquisition process, comprising: An input unit A processing unit An output unit Wherein the input unit is configured to receive patient profile data and sedation data comprising information about a sedation state of the sedated patient; Wherein the processing unit is configured to apply a data-driven model to the patient profile data and sedation data of the sedated patient to estimate at least one timing in the wake-up procedure of the sedated patient, wherein the at least one timing comprises a wake-up time, and wherein the data-driven model has been trained on a training dataset obtained from historical data of one or more patients; Wherein the processing unit is configured to determine one or more of the following parameters based on the at least one estimated timing: A sequence of workflow steps in the medical image acquisition process; and An imaging protocol ; and Wherein the output unit is configured to provide the at least one estimated timing and at least one determined parameter (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG); Further, dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 2 The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15 ) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14 ), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: an input unit ; a processing unit ; an output unit ; wherein the processing unit is configured to apply a data-driven model to the patient profile data and sedation data of the sedated patient to estimate at least one timing in the wake-up procedure of the sedated patient, wherein the at least one timing comprises a wake-up time, and wherein the data-driven model has been trained on a training dataset obtained from historical data of one or more patients ; wherein the processing unit is configured to determine one or more of the following parameters based on the at least one estimated timing: a sequence of workflow steps in the medical image acquisition process; and an imaging protocol are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., input, output, processing unit , and data-driven model as claimed) . In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG. Step 2B Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: an input unit; a processing unit; an output unit; wherein the processing unit is configured to apply a data-driven model to the patient profile data and sedation data of the sedated patient to estimate at least one timing in the wake-up procedure of the sedated patient, wherein the at least one timing comprises a wake-up time, and wherein the data-driven model has been trained on a training dataset obtained from historical data of one or more patients; wherein the processing unit is configured to determine one or more of the following parameters based on the at least one estimated timing: a sequence of workflow steps in the medical image acquisition process; and an imaging protocol . The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, the input unit is described on page 9 lines 25-35, the processing unit and data-driven model is described on page 12 lines 14-35, and the output unit is described on page 14 lines 31-35 and page 15 lines 1-2. However, these limitations are generically described without structure or detailed drawings. Such computer components are well understood, routine and conventional. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term s : input unit, processing unit, output unit, and data-driven model are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic , LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the input unit, processing unit , output unit , and data-driven model . This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit [ ies ]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claim 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO , Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. , 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish , LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of Claim 1 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-8 and 10-15 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-8 and 10-15 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish ), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). Therefore, none of the Claims 1-8 and 10-15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. 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 1-7, and 11 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghese et al. (US 20190378595 A1) in view of Assmann et al. (US 20140088405 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Verghese et al. teaches an apparatus for assessing a wake-up procedure of a patient sedated with a sedative medication ( “ systems…for quantitatively identifying a patient’s sedation level”, abstract; Fig. 6 ), comprising: An input unit (input 610, Fig. 6) ; A processing unit (central processing unit 606, Fig. 6) ; and An output unit (output 610, Fig. 6) ; Wherein the input unit is configured to receive patient profile data (“demographic or clinical parameters obtained from procedural documentation may include age, weight, gender, procedure type, and medication data”, paragraph [0101]) and sedation data comprising information about a sedation state of the sedated patient (“patient may begin in an exemplary baseline state…may be given sedatives…changes the sedation state of the patient”, paragraph [0072]; shown in Fig. 2) ; Wherein the processing unit is configured to apply a data-driven model to the patient profile data and sedation data of the sedated patient (“the clinical monitoring system may perform real-time signal processing and analysis to implement both monitoring and predictive functionalities in procedural sedation”, paragraph [0103]) to estimate at least one timing in the wake-up procedure of the sedated patient, wherein the at least one timing comprises a wake-up time (“system detects a change in sedation level…may alert physician with sound alar m …alert may display “Patient Awakening””, paragraph [0103]) , and wherein the data-driven model has been trained on a training dataset obtained from historical data of one or more patients (“process 1000 may use an inference system…and/or machine learning techniques, and/or statistical inference to determine and predict sedation states”, paragraph [0104]; process 1000, Fig. 10) ; Wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the following param e ter based on the at least one estimated timing: A sequence of workflow steps in the medical acquisition process (“the alert may also be accompanied by a recommendation for an action, and/or may be accompanied by an indication of the next step for the system”, paragraph [0103]); and Wherein the output unit is configured to provide the at least one estimated timing and at least one determined parameter (“outputs a predicted sedation level or depth of hypnosis”, paragraph [0060]) . Verghese et al. does not teach the apparatus for assessing a wake-up procedure in a medical imaging process. However, Assmann et al. teaches an apparatus for assessing a patient sedated with a sedative medication in a medical image acquisition process (“recording an emotional state of a patient during a medical imaging examination”, paragraph [0008], “sedation step is executed depending on a value of the calculated emotional state of the patient”, paragraph [0012]) , wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the following parameter based on the at least one estimated timing: A sequence of workflow steps in the medical image acquisition process; and An imaging protocol (“adjustment of measurement parameters of the medical imaging examination in the second sedation step means a change and/or an adjustment of measurement parameters within a sequence of a measurement protocols and/or scan protocol of the medical imaging examination”, paragraph [0047]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Verghese et al. with the apparatus in a medical image acquisition process of Assmann et al., and assess the patient profile data and sedation data relative to a medical imaging setting, in order to ensure the patient will receive the correct dosage of sedation medication, as well as estimating the correct wake-up time during a medical imaging procedure (“ alert may display “Patient Awakening” ”, paragraph [0103], “processor is further configured to alert a user when the first predicted sedation level exceeds at first sedation threshold or is below a second sedation threshold”, claim 21 ). Regarding claim 2 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the following parameter based on the at least one estimated timing: delivery of staff support (“steps of method may be performed in real time…giving the health care provider sufficient time to respond to a medical situation”, paragraph [0105]) . Regarding claim 3 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches wherein the sedation data further comprises at least one of the sedative medication or sedation dose used for the sedated patient (“method may incorporate other information such as patient data, medication type and dosage”, paragraph [0101], “first dose of procedural sedation agent may be labeled as the baseline state or “sedation state 0””, paragraph [0122]). Regarding claim 4 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches wherein the training dataset is obtained from at least one of historical data of the sedated patient or from historical data of a plurality of other patients (“ the technique implemented on the system may also learn and evolve by acquiring information from multiple patients over multiple procedures”, paragraph [0104]). Regarding claim 5 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches the at least one timing in the wake-up procedure further comprising a time to administer medication (“at least one processor is configured to identify sedation agent information including at least one of a time, a type, and an amount”, paragraph [0022]). Regarding claim 6 , a modified apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches the input unit being further configured to receive real-time measurement data indicative of a sedation state of the sedated patient (“real-time indicators relating to…sedation level”, “clinical monitoring system may perform real-time signal processing and analysis to implement both monitoring and predictive functionalities in procedural sedation” [0103]) ; Furthermore, Assmann et al. teaches the processing unit being configured to continuously adjust the at least one estimated timing and the at least one determined parameter according to the sedation level of the sedated patient (“in the sedation step an adjustment and/or a change of measurement parameters can take place depending on the value of the calculated emotional state of the patient”, paragraph [0013]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. and adjust accordingly to the sedation levels of the patient, or how they are reacting to the sedation medication, in order to gauge the correct estimated wake-up times, or other parameters like administration times or dosage. Regarding claim 7 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches a wake-up management system, comprising the apparatus according to claim 1, and a controller configured to generate a trigger signal for the sedated patient (“ system may alert the physician with a sound alarm, along with a visual indicator”, paragraph [0103] ) and/or one or more devices to perform an action based on the at least one estimated timing and the at least one determined parameter in the wake-up procedure (“the clinical monitoring system may also make recommendations for clinical interventions, including…amount and timing and frequency of drug administrations”, paragraph [0103]) . Regarding claim 11 , a modified apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches the controller being configured to generate the trigger signal based on information about a status of an imaging system (“display real-time indicators”, paragraph [0103]). Regarding claim 12 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches the trigger signal comprising a trigger signal for the patient to receive an injection of a sedative medication or a wake-up medication (“for example, the system may display a message “60% of patients with congestive heart failure experience apnea after the second drug administration. Do you want to continue?””, paragraph [0104]). Regarding claim 13 , a modified apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Assmann et al. teaches a display configured to display current constraints for wake-up and/or predictive data for the wake-up procedure (“system control device calculates the emotional state…in particular a current stress value, which is represented graphically…via display unit”, paragraph [0038]). Current constraints include information about sensors and the status of the scanner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. and display information on a display unit for healthcare workers to view. Regarding claim 14 , Verghese et al. teaches a method of assessing a wake-up procedure of a patient sedated with a sedative mediation (“methods…for quantitatively identifying a patient’s sedation level”, abstract, Fig. 21 and 22) , comprising: Receiving patient profile data of the sedated patient (“demographic or clinical parameters obtained from procedural documentation may include age, weight, gender, procedure type, and medication data”, paragraph [0101]) and sedation data comprising a sedation state of the sedated patient (“patient may begin in an exemplary baseline state…may be given sedatives…changes the sedation state of the patient”, paragraph [0072]; shown in Fig. 2) ; Applying a data-driven model to the patient profile data and sedation data of the sedated patient to estimate at least one timing in the wake-up procedure of the sedated patient (“ perform real-time signal processing and analysis to implement both monitoring and predictive functionalities in procedural sedation”, paragraph [0103] ) , wherein the at least one timing comprises a wake-up time (“system detects a change in sedation level…may alert physician with sound alarm…alert may display “Patient Awakening””, paragraph [0103]) , and wherein the data-driven model has been trained on a training dataset obtained from historical data of one or more patients (“process 1000 may use an inference system…and/or machine learning techniques, and/or statistical inference to determine and predict sedation states”, paragraph [0104]; process 1000, Fig. 10) ; Wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the following parameter based on the at least one estimated timing: a sequence of workflow steps (“the alert may also be accompanied by a recommendation for an action, and/or may be accompanied by an indication of the next step for the system”, paragraph [0103]) ; and Providing the at least one estimated timing and at least one determined parameter (“outputs a predicted sedation level or depth of hypnosis”, paragraph [0060]). Verghese et al. does not teach the method of assessing a wake-up procedure in a medical image acquisition process. However, Assmann et al. teaches a method of assessing a wake-up procedure of a patient sedated with a sedative medication (“recording an emotional state of a patient during a medical imaging examination”, paragraph [0008], “sedation step is executed depending on a value of the calculated emotional state of the patient”, paragraph [0012]) , wherein the processing unit is configured to determine one or more of the following parameters based on the at least one estimated timing: a sequence of workflow steps in the medical image acquisition process and an imaging protocol (“adjustment of measurement parameters of the medical imaging examination in the second sedation step means a change and/or an adjustment of measurement parameters within a sequence of a measurement protocols and/or scan protocol of the medical imaging examination”, paragraph [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Verghese et al. with the method of assessing a wake-up procedure in a medical image acquisition process of Assmann et al., and assess the patient profile data and sedation data relative to a medical imaging setting, in order to ensure the patient will receive the correct dosage of sedation medication, as well as estimating the correct wake-up time during a medical imaging procedure. Regarding claim 15 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches a computer program element comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a processor, cause the processor to carry out the steps of the method in claim 14 (“an operating system for the computing device…computer program code or a computer program product adapted to direct the CPU in accordance with the systems and methods described here”, paragraph [0081] and [0082]) . Claim s 8 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. and further in view of Pittenger et al. ( US 20110210925 A1 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. teaches al l limitations of claim 7 . Furthermore, Assmann et al. teaches a patient support (patient bed of the magnetic resonance device 16, Fig. 2) but does not teach the patient support being mobile and having a safety device. However, Pittenger et al. teaches the one or more devices comprising a mobile patient support for transferring a patient ( person-support surface 54, Fig. 1 ) and wherein the mobile patient support comprises a safety device for preventing the sedated patient from falling down from the mobile patient support during transport ( barrier elements 42-52, Fig. 1 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. with the mobile patient support and safety device of Pittenger et al. in order to be able to transfer a patient to and from a medical imaging system, making it easier for healthcare workers. Regarding claim 9 , a modified apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assman et al. and further in view of Pittenger et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Furthermore, Pittenger et al. teaches the safety device comprising a retractable fence attachable to the mobile patient support, wherein the retractable fence is arranged around the mobile patient support ( “barrier elements are in an “up” position, but the patient’s egress is allowed when one or more of the barrier elements are in a “down” position”, paragraph [0026] ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. and further in view of Pittenger et al. and allow for the fence of the mobile patient support to be retractable, in order to enclose the patient during transport to and from the imaging system and retract once it is determined that the sedation level of a patient is below a critical value. Regarding claim 10 , a modified apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. and further in view of Pittenger et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Furthermore, Pittenger et al. teaches the mobile patient support comprising an immersive audio-visual system (speaker amplifier 140, Fig. 1, touchscreen display 62, Fig. 2) for providing an interactive audio-visual environment to the sedated patient ( “display for visually outputting text and graphics to a user”, paragraph [0035] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the apparatus of Verghese et al. in view of Assmann et al. and further in view of Pittenger et al. and integrate an audio-visual system into the mobile patient support so that a patient can receive audio information and/or video guidance either being in or out of the imaging system or during transportation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am-5:00pm M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexander Valvis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712724233 . 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. /L.L.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791