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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the remarks filed on 10/01/2025.
The amendment filed 10/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application and claims 16-20 have been newly added.
The objection to claim 14 has been withdrawn in light of claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “The computer program element according to claim 1,”, rather, this should recite --The computer program element according to claim [[1]] 15,--, as claim 1 recites a medical imaging system. For examination purposes, this claim will be interpreted as “The computer program element according to claim 15”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations: “determine control information for the movable bed, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information and … utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed and /or … utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or … is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain sensor information and scanner information and move the bed based off of the given information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of:
“acquire at least one medical image of the patient”, “acquire sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed, and … acquire the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed prior to movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre and/or during movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre, “provide the sensor information to the processor unit”, “provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit”.
Acquiring a medical image, sensor information, and scanner status information is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites a movable bed, a medical imaging scanner, a sensor, a processor unit, however, the above listed components are well-known generic components that are used medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claims 2-3,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed”, and “wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data; skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing”.
Obtaining vital sign data is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claims 2-3 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner, however, these scanners are well-known generic components that are used for medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 4 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”.
Obtaining sensor information a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites ” wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”, a however, MRI image units and wireless MRI coils are well-known generic components that are used for MRI imaging.
Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 6-7,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils”, and “wherein the control information for the movable bed comprises coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient”.
Obtaining coil configuration information and status information of the coils a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 6-7 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations “determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could determine how the medical image is configured using sensor information and scanner status information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 8 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use and/or an indication when the scanner will be available for use”
An indication/notification of the scanner status a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds”, and “acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients”.
Acquiring scanner status and sensor information, and acquiring medical images a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites movable beds and a medical imaging scanner however, movable beds and medical imaging scanners are well-known generic components that are used to capture medical images.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claims 11-13,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the control information comprises instructions to control one or more brakes for one of more wheels of the movable bed”, “wherein the control information comprises instructions to control the provision of movement information to an operator, wherein the movement information comprises information displayed on at least one visual display unit; and/or wherein the movement information comprises information output on at least acoustic output unit”, and “wherein the at least one visual display unit comprises a visual display unit mounted to the movable bed; and/or wherein the at least one visual display unit comprises a visual display unit separated from the movable bed; and/or wherein the at least one acoustic output unit comprises an acoustic output unit mounted to the movable bed; and/or wherein the at least one acoustic output unit comprises an acoustic output unit separated from the movable bed”.
Obtaining control information a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Displaying movement information a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites visual display units and acoustic output unit, however, visual display units and acoustic output units are well-known generic components that are used for viewing directions or instructions.
Accordingly, claims 11-13 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging method with a medical imaging system is disclosed, therefore a method is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations:
“determining … for the movable bed, the determining comprising utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed and /or utilizing by … the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by … the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain sensor information and scanner information and move the bed based off of the given information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of: “moving a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient”, “b) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient acquiring by at least one sensor sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed”, “c) providing the sensor information to a processor unit”, “d) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient providing scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit”.
Acquiring a medical image, sensor information, and scanner status information is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites a movable bed, a medical imaging scanner, a sensor, a processor unit, however, the above listed components are well-known generic components that are used medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations “prior to the moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient, determine control information for the movable bed, wherein the determination comprises utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed and /or utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain sensor information and scanner information and move the bed based off of the given information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “move a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located, and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient”, “prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, acquire by at least one sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed” , “provide the sensor information to a processor unit, “prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit”.
Acquiring a medical image, sensor information, and scanner status information is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim as noted above.
Furthermore, it is noted that Claim 15 is directed to a “computer program element”, which under its broadest reasonable interpreted, impermissibly attempts to claim software per se. Suggested amendments would include changing “A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium” to --A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable instructions--
Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 16-17,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed”, and “wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data; skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing”.
Obtaining vital sign data is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claims 16-17 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 18,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner, however, these scanners are well-known generic components that are used for medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 19,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”.
Obtaining sensor information a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites ” wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”, a however, MRI image units and wireless MRI coils are well-known generic components that are used for MRI imaging.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 20,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils”,
Obtaining coil configuration information and status information of the coils a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 20 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rapoport (US 20160089054 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Rapoport teaches a medical imaging system (MRS system (900) [0271]), comprising:
a movable bed (MRI-safe cart (800) [0272]);
a medical imaging scanner (MRD (950) [0271]; a magnetic resonance device);
at least one sensor (sensors connected to the patient [0216]); and
a processor unit (CPU [0291]);
wherein the movable bed is configured to move a patient on the movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where the medical imaging scanner is located (para. [0019] and [0206]-[0208] disclose that the cart/movable bed can be moved/displaced between multiple different positions, such as up and down, tilt, linear movement, etc.);
wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient (produce a three dimensional image [0210]);
wherein the at least one sensor is configured to acquire sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation [0216]), and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to acquire the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed prior to movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre and/or during movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre (the cart/movable bed is maneuverable at any point during the procedure as disclosed in [0428], [0019] and [0206]-[0208], the sensors are attached to the cart as disclosed in [0216] and acquires sensor information during operation of the Magnetic Resonance device, i.e. can inherently collect data if the patient is moved to a second area)
wherein the at least one sensor is configured to provide the sensor information to the processor unit ([0216] and [0246] discloses that that sensor information is provided to CPU/processing unit)
wherein the medical imaging scanner is configured to provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit (A computer is also utilized to implement the data received into a viewable picture. Additionally or alternatively, the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc [0216]); and
wherein the processor unit is configured to determine control information for the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both [0216]; the cart incubator is connected to the cart by a maneuverable connection enabling movement selected from a group consisting of: rotational, linear horizontal, linear vertical, tilting, oscillating movement, and any combination thereof [0362]), the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]) and wherein the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. … the user interface harbors a display, indicators (sensible, auditable, visual), and operating buttons or means of communication with the CPU such as touch screen, mouse, keyboard, voice command and etc. [0216]) and /or the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
Regarding claim 2, Rapoport teaches according to claim 1, wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed (sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]).
Regarding claim 3, Rapoport teaches system according to claim 2, wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]); skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing.
Regarding claim 4, Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 1,wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit (MRI [0050]), an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner.
Regarding claim 11, Rapoport teaches the system according to any of claim 1, wherein the control information comprises instructions to control one or more brakes for one of more wheels of the movable bed ([0289], [0328],[0393] disclose control of the cart automatically, which contains platform which has wheels as described in [0289] and shown in fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 12, Rapoport teaches the system according to any of claim 1, wherein the control information comprises instructions to control the provision of movement information to an operator ([0291] discloses a user interface that shows different control features and sensors of the bed/cart and MR device), wherein the movement information comprises information displayed on at least one visual display unit (visual display disclosed in [0291]); and/or wherein the movement information comprises information output on at least acoustic output unit.
Regarding claim 13, Rapoport teaches the system according to any of claim 12, wherein the at least one visual display unit comprises a visual display unit mounted to the movable bed (the cart can hold a user interface including a selected from a group consisting of a screen (400) [0291]; cart is the movable bed as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Rapoport teaches medical imaging method, with a medical imaging system (MRS system (900) [0271]), the method comprising:
a) moving a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located (para. [0019] and [0206]-[0208] disclose that the cart/movable bed can be moved/displaced between multiple different positions, such as up and down, tilt, linear movement, etc.), and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient (produce a three dimensional image [0210]);
b) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient acquiring by at least one sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation [0216]);
c) providing the sensor information to a processor unit ([0216] and [0246] discloses that that sensor information is provided to CPU/processing unit);
d) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient providing scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit (A computer is also utilized to implement the data received into a viewable picture. Additionally or alternatively, the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc [0216]); and
e) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient determining by the processor unit control information for the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both [0216]; the cart incubator is connected to the cart by a maneuverable connection enabling movement selected from a group consisting of: rotational, linear horizontal, linear vertical, tilting, oscillating movement, and any combination thereof [0362]), the determining comprising utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]) and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. … the user interface harbors a display, indicators (sensible, auditable, visual), and operating buttons or means of communication with the CPU such as touch screen, mouse, keyboard, voice command and etc. [0216]) and /or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
Regarding claim 15, Rappoport teaches a computer program element comprising executable instructions (The term “CPU”, central processing unit, interchangeably refers hereinafter to the hardware within a computer that carries out the instructions of a computer program by performing the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations of the system [0255]), stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit (these systems comprise a user interface connected to a control mechanism such as a CPU, to control these systems operation [0276]) to:
move a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located (para. [0019] and [0206]-[0208] disclose that the cart/movable bed can be moved/displaced between multiple different positions, such as up and down, tilt, linear movement, etc.), and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient (produce a three dimensional image [0210]);
prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, acquire by at least one sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation [0216]);
provide the sensor information to a processor unit ([0216] and [0246] discloses that that sensor information is provided to CPU/processing unit);
prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit (A computer is also utilized to implement the data received into a viewable picture. Additionally or alternatively, the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc [0216]); and
prior to the moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient, determine control information for the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both [0216]; the cart incubator is connected to the cart by a maneuverable connection enabling movement selected from a group consisting of: rotational, linear horizontal, linear vertical, tilting, oscillating movement, and any combination thereof [0362]), wherein the determination comprises utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]) and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. … the user interface harbors a display, indicators (sensible, auditable, visual), and operating buttons or means of communication with the CPU such as touch screen, mouse, keyboard, voice command and etc. [0216]) and /or utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
Regarding claim 16, Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 15, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed (sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]).
Regarding claim 17, Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 15, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]; skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing).
Regarding claim 18, Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 15, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit (MRI [0050]), an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160089054 A1, of record) in view of Choi et al. (US 20130119981 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 5, Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 4, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit (MRI [0050]). Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil.
Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [0008]) and
wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 5, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils.
Choi, however, teaches wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 5, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the control information for the movable bed comprises coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient.
Choi, however, teaches coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient (a computer system configured to form a magnetic resonance image based on a radio frequency signal which is received by the wireless radio frequency coil; and an output unit configured to output the magnetic resonance image formed by the computer system and information about an operation of the MRI apparatus [0035]; [0050], [0076] discloses obtaining configuration information of the wireless MRI coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to modify the control information for the movable bed taught in Rapoport to include the coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 8, Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the processor unit is configured to determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information.
Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches:
wherein the processor unit (computer system [0035]) is configured to determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner (a computer system 770 which generates an MRI, a control unit 780 which enters commands or information, and an output unit 790 which outputs an MRI [0111]; [0050] and [0075] discloses obtaining configuration information for the scanner), the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the processor unit is configured to determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 9, Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use and/or an indication when the scanner will be available for use.
Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches: wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use ([0071] discloses that the status can indicate if the coil is on/off).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 19, Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 18, as discussed above.
Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil. Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [0008]) and
wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 19, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils.
Choi, however, teaches wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160089054 A1, of record) in view of Damadian (US 5606970 A).
Regarding claim 10, Rapoport teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the system comprises one or more further movable beds, and wherein the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds, and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients.
Damadian is considered analogous to the instant application as “Multiple patient scanning on a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus” is disclosed (title). Damadian teaches:
wherein the system comprises one or more further movable beds and wherein the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds (two patients (8a, 8b), laying on their respective movable bed structure 7 of the patient handling systems 5, is translated through the aperture and positioned in the imaging volume, Col. 4 lines 36-40; In the case of multipatient mode scanning of more than one patient, where magnetic resonance imaging data from more than one patient would be contained in individual images, it is necessary to provide means for separation of image data such that data collected for each patient may be diagnosed and archived separately, Col. 6 lines 1-7; scan information from multiple movable beds are acquired together) and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients (The result of these operations is two separated images, 23 and 24 in FIG. 4a, and FIG. 4b, each from a different patient and represented in a standardized orientation for subsequent diagnosis, Col. 6 lines 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the system comprises one or more further movable beds, and wherein the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds, and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients, as taught by Damadian. Doing so would enhance patient throughput on medical magnetic resonance scanners, as suggested by Damadian (Col. 1 lines 53-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 15, applicant argues on page 8 that “Applicants respectfully submit that given the shear volume of patient imaging procedures that occur daily, if not hourly, in modern medical centers, Applicant respectfully submit that unlike the medical imaging system of claim 1, the human mind cannot practically perform all of the calculations required … To this end, a significant aspect of claim 1 is directed to streamlining the use of medical imaging equipment so that the patient is delivered to the scanner at exactly the correct time for the scan-with this correct time meaning the time that the medical imaging equipment and the patient are both ready for the scan procedure to occur”. In response, the examiner asserts that the claims do not recite any “calculation” steps regarding the scanning time. The examiner further notes on page 10 that “provides a clear improvement to the technical area of healthcare efficiency and medical center efficiency”, however, the claim does not recite any limitations for a practical application. The claims merely recite steps which include acquiring scanner status, sensor information, and a medical image (i.e. data gathering) which is used to “determine control information for the movable bed”, as noted in the rejection above. Pages 10-14 of remarks cites sections of the specification, including “Furthermore, by monitoring the patient, if the patient is not ready for a scan, for example sensor data shows that they have become agitated or stressed, they can be held back from being scanned, enabling another patient to "jump the queue" ahead of the agitated stressed patient, ensuring that the scanner's time is utilized to its maximum. Also, when the patient is determined to now be ready for the scan, they can re-join the queue and even jump to the front of the queue to minimize the amount of time they will have to wait for the scan”, however these elements are not recited in the claim. Applicant argues on page 14 that “Moreover, based on these determinations, the CT system is adapted to carry out the CT scan with a safe table speed and/or dose of contrast agent”, however, the claims do not recite dose of a contrast agent. Applicant further argues that the claims are directed towards “treatment” or “prophylaxis", however, the claims do not recite a step towards treatment of the patient. The claims are directed to movement of the patient. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "all of the calculation steps" as argued on page 9, “enabling the patient to be delivered to the scanner at exactly the correct time for the scan” on page 12” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 14, and 15, applicant argues that Rapoport does not teach the limitation “ ... the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed and /or the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed." Applicant further argues that the cited portion of Rapoport “directed to the imager computer, which controls the imager, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed”. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0428] and [0362] of Rapoport cited above, discloses that the cart can be moved manually, and that there is a user interface on the cart itself. Paragraph [0291] further discloses that “the cart can hold a user interface including a selected from a group consisting of a screen (400), a CPU, indicators, connecting sensors, an alarm system, keyboard, touch screen, mouse, data communication port, voice activation, a viewing system for viewing the neonate, and any combination thereof….the sensors are connected to a CPU, indicators (visual, sensible, auditable), and/or an alarm system”, i.e. the processing system and the sensor are all connected. The user interface is provides communication to the user to adjust to the MRD system, which includes movement of the movable bed/MRD system (i.e. “to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed” as claimed). Paragraphs [0206]-[0208], cited above, further state that the patient remains on the movable bed during the procedure. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on page 17 and 18 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims that are dependent on claims 1, 14, and 15 are premised upon the assertion that the claims are allowable for the same reasons as stated for claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NESHAT BASET whose telephone number is (571)272-5478. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-17:30 CST.
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 M. 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.
/N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights