DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The term “mechanism” in the phrase “moving mechanism” is used in claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-9, for moving the table top either from the table apparatus to the gantry or from the gantry to the table apparatus invokes 35 USC 112(f)
The term, “mechanism” is a non-structural generic placeholder that does not include any specific structure for performing the accompany functions. See MPEP 2181.I.A: The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Please note that for the purposes of this examination the phrase “moving mechanism” is being interpreted to include generic moving member (102), driving member (103) and overall mechanism capabilities described in paragraphs ¶0038-0040, ¶0061, ¶0065, in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 4, “a moving mechanism”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a moving mechanism” recited in line 12 of claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the moving mechanism. Appropriate correction is required.
The above rejections to claim 4 apply to claim 6 and claim 8 for substantially identical claim
limitations recited in the claim. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 4, “generate second path information indicating a path along which the table-top is moved from the gantry to the table apparatus based on the amount of deflection of the table-top”-lines 3-4. Specifically, the “second path information” is generated based on “the amount of deflection”, but the antecedent basis and context of “the amount of deflection” directed to the first path information is ambiguous. The specification describes two distinct situations involving the table-top deflection. First, the first path information (i.e., movement to the gantry) described in ¶0073, ¶0075, ¶0081-0084, ¶0091-0093, ¶0107, ¶0110-0111 is generated based on an existing load deflection when the subject is on the table and the table-top is moved from the table apparatus to the gantry. The path compensates for the table-top’s downward deflection. Second, the second path information (i.e., movement to table) described in ¶0125-0132 directed to a fourth embodiment is generated based on the condition where the deflection disappears, that is, when the table-top inside the gantry, is released from the subject’s weight cause the table height to increase. While both types of path information rely on the concept of deflection compensation, it is unclear whether the “amount of deflection” in claim 4 refers to the same numerical value of deflection calculated for the first path information (under load) or a different deflection amount corresponding to the return condition. Accordingly, the scope of the term “based on the amount of deflection” with respect to the second path information is indefinite. The path indicated by the first path information and the second path information must be different because each describe movement in opposite direction required compensation for different states of the table. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the second path information is generated based on “another amount of deflection” not the same deflection calculated for the first path information. Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, the first path information is tied to a defined sequence of operations for calculating the deflection (i.e., position, weight, calculate, generate). Claim 4, by contrast, recites generation of second path information “based on the amount of deflection” without identifying the steps for obtaining the amount or even whether the same deflection steps apply in the reverse-movement situation. Because claim 4 lacks a defined step of operation for obtaining the “amount of deflection” on which the second path is based, one of ordinary skill in cannot ascertain with reasonably certainty how the second path information is to be generated and what physical state the claim “deflection” corresponds to. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1: “moving mechanism configured to move”-line 13. Appropriate correction is required.
The above objection to claim 1 applies to claim 4 and claim 9 for substantially identical claim
limitations recited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zapata (2010/0287703 A1).
Claim 1: Zapata discloses, A magnetic resonance imaging apparatus comprising: (¶Abstract, ‘When inserting a patient into a bore of a patient imaging device (e.g., CT, SPECT, PET, MRI, fMRI, etc.), a cantilevered pallet supported by an adjustable table deflects under the patient's weight [...]’)
a table (table 25) apparatus including a table-top (pallet 14) on which a subject is placed; and (¶0022, ‘a movable pallet 14 on which a patient is positioned for moving into the examination region of a gantry.’)
a processor configured to (¶0029, ‘The control system includes a processor 72 that receives sensor information related to one or more of the height or altitude and/or angle of the patient table, [...]’)
acquire subject position information indicating a position of the subject on the table-top,
-Zapata discloses that deflection is caused by patient weight and the extent to which the patient pallet is cantilevered, ¶0028, ‘the amount by which the patient pallet is sagging at the center of the examination region can be determined in various ways. For example, it can be determined by the weight of the patient and the extent to which the patient pallet is cantilevered. Alternately, it can be actively measured with a laser or video camera 58.’ The amount by which the pallet is sagging at the center of the examination region can be measured via camera, ¶0028. The control system including the processor 72 receives sensor information from the camera sensor 58 that monitors the altitude and or angle of deflection of the pallet in the examination region, ¶0029. Deflection analysis 76 can be performed using a camera sensor, SPECT camera head or laser sensor, or the like, ¶0029. The patient is positioned on the pallet when moving into the examination region of the gantry; hence the image captured of the pallet would show the patient’s position. Specifically, camera sensor 58 is used to acquire information related to the subject’s position related to vertical altitude and angle relative to the gantry. The sensor senses deviation in altitude or angle of the patient on the pallet from a desired altitude or angle as the pallet longitudinally translates an examination region, Claim 14, ¶0006-0008. The camera sensor 58 monitors the altitude and/or angle of deflection of the pallet in the examination region, ¶0029. Therefore, while the patient is on the pallet and the camera observes the subject, the function of the imaging sensor in the context of deflection compensation is to indicate the resulting vertical position, altitude, or angle deviation of the subject, ¶0029; thereby indicating a position of the subject on the pallet.
acquire weight information indicating a weight of the subject, (¶0029, ‘the sensor information is received from a load cell or other device that measures weight on the forward end of the table. The processor performs table height analysis 74 to determine a height of the table and/or the height of the pallet in the examination region, and a deflection analysis 76 executed to evaluate the amount of deflection of the pallet. The deflection analysis can be performed using a camera sensor, laser sensor, SPECT camera head, or the like. Additionally or alternatively, deflection can be calculated or estimated using a deflection formula that accounts for modulus of elasticity of the pallet material, area moment of inertia of the pallet material, load on the pallet, length of the pallet extending beyond the table (e.g., span), and other factors, as is known.’)
calculate an amount of deflection occurred in the table-top based on the subject position information and the weight information,
-The amount of deflection is estimated using a deflection formula, ¶0029. The formula accounts for load of the pallet (i.e., weight information), and length of the pallet extending beyond the table (i.e., indicative of subject position information).
generate, based on the amount of deflection of the table-top, first path information indicating a path along which the table-top is moved from the table apparatus to a gantry where imaging of the subject is performed, and
-Once the deviation in pallet height is analyzed, ¶0029, the processor determines corrective table height adjustment to maintain a desired patient height in the examination region, ¶0031. This corrective adjustment dictates the tilting or raising of the table portion, ¶0030, each of which are indicative of path information. This adjustment ensures the patient is maintained at a constant desired altitude and angle as the pallet translates through the examination region, ¶0006-0008. Thus, this calculated sequence of adjustments defines a first path information indicated the path that the table-top needs to follow as the pallet is translated from the table to a gantry where imaging of the subject is performed.
operate a moving mechanism capable of moving the table-top from the table apparatus to the gantry to move the table-top from the table apparatus to the gantry along the path indicated by the first path information.
-Zapata utilizes moving mechanisms, such a rearward elevator and a forward elevator, ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0027, which are coupled to respective servomotors, ¶0030-0031, which raise and/or lower ends of the table to compensate for the sage of the pallet and raise the volume of interest (i.e., the patient) to the desired height within the examination region.
Claim 5: Zapata discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Zapata discloses, wherein the processor is configured to generate the first path information including at least a vertical height of the table-top at each position through which the table-top is moved from the table apparatus to the gantry.
-Once the deviation in pallet height is analyzed, ¶0029, the processor determines corrective table height adjustment to maintain a desired patient height in the examination region, ¶0031. This corrective adjustment dictates the tilting or raising of the table portion, ¶0030, each of which are indicative of path information. This adjustment ensures the patient is maintained at a constant desired altitude and angle as the pallet translates through the examination region, ¶0006-0008. Thus, this calculated sequence of adjustments defines a first path information indicated the path that the table-top needs to follow as the pallet is translated from the table to a gantry where imaging of the subject is performed.
Claim 6: Zapata discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Zapata discloses, wherein the table apparatus includes a moving mechanism configured to move the table-top in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and
-Zapata discloses the pallet is designed for horizontal movement (i.e., longitudinal translation). The patient support table includes pallet in longitudinal translation to cantilever the pallet from the table portion, Claim 1. The system of Zapata includes several mechanism aimed at adjusting the vertical position (altitude) of the patient/pallet, particularly the table portion supporting the pallet to compensate for vertical deflection (i.e., sagging), ¶0008, Claim 15.
the processor is configured to operate the moving mechanism based on the first path information to move the table-top to the gantry along the path indicated by the first path information.
-Once the deviation in pallet height is analyzed, ¶0029, the processor determines corrective table height adjustment to maintain a desired patient height in the examination region, ¶0031. This corrective adjustment dictates the tilting or raising of the table portion, ¶0030, each of which are indicative of path information. This adjustment ensures the patient is maintained at a constant desired altitude and angle as the pallet translates through the examination region, ¶0006-0008. Thus, this calculated sequence of adjustments defines a first path information indicated the path that the table-top needs to follow as the pallet is translated from the table to a gantry where imaging of the subject is performed.
-Zapata utilizes moving mechanisms, such a rearward elevator and a forward elevator, ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0027, which are coupled to respective servomotors, ¶0030-0031, which raise and/or lower ends of the table to compensate for the sage of the pallet and raise the volume of interest (i.e., the patient) to the desired height within the examination region.
Claim 9: Zapata discloses, A table apparatus comprising: (FIG. 1)
a table-top (pallet 14) on which a subject is placed; and (¶0022, ‘a movable pallet 14 on which a patient is positioned for moving into the examination region of a gantry.’)
a processor configured to (¶0029, ‘The control system includes a processor 72 that receives sensor information related to one or more of the height or altitude and/or angle of the patient table, [...]’)
acquire subject position information indicating a position of the subject on the table-top,
-Zapata discloses that deflection is caused by patient weight and the extent to which the patient pallet is cantilevered, ¶0028, ‘the amount by which the patient pallet is sagging at the center of the examination region can be determined in various ways. For example, it can be determined by the weight of the patient and the extent to which the patient pallet is cantilevered. Alternately, it can be actively measured with a laser or video camera 58.’ The amount by which the pallet is sagging at the center of the examination region can be measured via camera, ¶0028. The control system including the processor 72 receives sensor information from the camera sensor 58 that monitors the altitude and or angle of deflection of the pallet in the examination region, ¶0029. Deflection analysis 76 can be performed using a camera sensor, SPECT camera head or laser sensor, or the like, ¶0029. The patient is positioned on the pallet when moving into the examination region of the gantry; hence the image captured of the pallet would show the patient’s position. Specifically, camera sensor 58 is used to acquire information related to the subject’s position related to vertical altitude and angle relative to the gantry. The sensor senses deviation in altitude or angle of the patient on the pallet from a desired altitude or angle as the pallet longitudinally translates an examination region, Claim 14, ¶0006-0008. The camera sensor 58 monitors the altitude and/or angle of deflection of the pallet in the examination region, ¶0029. Therefore, while the patient is on the pallet and the camera observes the subject, the function of the imaging sensor in the context of deflection compensation is to indicate the resulting vertical position, altitude, or angle deviation of the subject, ¶0029; thereby indicating a position of the subject on the pallet.
acquire weight information indicating a weight of the subject, (¶0029, ‘the sensor information is received from a load cell or other device that measures weight on the forward end of the table. The processor performs table height analysis 74 to determine a height of the table and/or the height of the pallet in the examination region, and a deflection analysis 76 executed to evaluate the amount of deflection of the pallet. The deflection analysis can be performed using a camera sensor, laser sensor, SPECT camera head, or the like. Additionally or alternatively, deflection can be calculated or estimated using a deflection formula that accounts for modulus of elasticity of the pallet material, area moment of inertia of the pallet material, load on the pallet, length of the pallet extending beyond the table (e.g., span), and other factors, as is known.’)
calculate an amount of deflection occurred in the table-top based on the subject position information and the weight information, -The amount of deflection is estimated using a deflection formula, ¶0029. The formula accounts for load of the pallet (i.e., weight information), and length of the pallet extending beyond the table (i.e., indicative of subject position information).
generate, based on the amount of deflection of the table-top, first path information indicating a path along which the table-top is moved to the gantry where imaging of the subject is performed, and
-Once the deviation in pallet height is analyzed, ¶0029, the processor determines corrective table height adjustment to maintain a desired patient height in the examination region, ¶0031. This corrective adjustment dictates the tilting or raising of the table portion, ¶0030, each of which are indicative of path information. This adjustment ensures the patient is maintained at a constant desired altitude and angle as the pallet translates through the examination region, ¶0006-0008. Thus, this calculated sequence of adjustments defines a first path information indicated the path that the table-top needs to follow as the pallet is translated from the table to a gantry where imaging of the subject is performed.
operate a moving mechanism capable of moving the table-top to the gantry to move the table-top to the gantry along the path indicated by the first path information.
-Zapata utilizes moving mechanisms, such a rearward elevator and a forward elevator, ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0027, which are coupled to respective servomotors, ¶0030-0031, which raise and/or lower ends of the table to compensate for the sage of the pallet and raise the volume of interest (i.e., the patient) to the desired height within the examination region.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zapata (2010/0287703 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Koken et al (US 2020/0237334 A1).
Claim 2: Zapata discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Zapata fails to disclose, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the subject position information based on a first captured image that is an image of an upper surface of the table-top.
However, Koken in the context of determination of a subject profile with a camera discloses: wherein the processor is configured to acquire the subject position information based on a first captured image that is an image of an upper surface of the table-top.
Upon review of the limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claim states that the processor is configured to acquire the subject position information based on [emphasis added] a first captured image that is an image of an upper surface of the table-top. The term “based on” is ambiguous and lacks precision. The term “based on” is a broad and ambiguous term that doesn’t clearly define the extent or nature of the relationship that claimed invention is intended to present. As such, the term “based on” implies that the claim invention is derived from or closely related to an image of an upper surface of the table-top.
-Accordingly, the processor of Zapata calculates a height profile (150) of the subject (i.e., the subject position information) on the subject support (102) ¶Abstract, ¶0014-0015, ¶0051, ¶0053, ¶0086. The height profile is directly dependent on an initial captured image taken while the subject is on the support. The professor acquires the initial image (142) with camera (110) when the subject support is in the first position (124), ¶Abstract, ¶0051, ¶0086. The camera is configured for imaging the support surface (108) in the first position, ¶Abstract, ¶0050-0052, ¶0079- ‘The support surface 108 is facing a camera 110. The camera 110 is able to acquire images of the support surface 108 and/or the subject 106 when the subject support 102 is in various positions.’. The height profile of the subject is calculated by comparing the initial image and the intermediate image, ¶Abstract, ¶0014-0015, ¶0051, ¶0053, ¶0086. Therefor the subject’s position information is derived from the comparison process the fundamentally utilizes the initial image that is an image of an upper surface of the table-top, (i.e., captured when the camera images the support surface with the subject ton it) in the first position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor configured to acquire the subject position information of Zapata to include related to a first captured image that is an image of an upper surface of the table-top of Koken. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving means of measuring a height profiled of the subject using a single camera, ¶0007 of Koken.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zapata (2010/0287703 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Huang et al (WO 2022222976 A1, which contains substantively identical paragraphs equivalent to US 2024/0046,520 A1-(The rejection of Huang is based on 2022222976; paragraph citations are to US 2024/0046,520 A1 for clarity)).
Claim 3: Zapata discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Zapata fails to disclose, wherein the processor is configured to acquire a state of deflection occurred in the table-top as a measured value based on a second captured image that is an image of the table-top, correct the calculated amount of deflection of the table-top based on the measured value, and generate the first path information based on the corrected amount of deflection of the table-top.
However, Huang in the context of calibrating table-tops discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to acquire a state of deflection occurred in the table-top (the table top 1131 is the upper surface of the couch 113; hence, (movement, measurement, or calculation) of the couch is indicative of the table top 1131) as a measured value based on a second captured image that is an image of the table-top, correct the calculated amount of deflection of the table-top based on the measured value, and
-The system of Huang obtains an second image of the couch (113) that includes a table top (1131), ¶0010, that includes optical marks disposed on the couch, ¶0013, ‘The system may obtain an image of the couch including an optical marker disposed on the couch acquired by an image acquisition device after the couch moves the object to the position in the bore of the medical device.’ Based on this second image, the system of Huang determines the position of the optical marker in the second coordinate system, ¶0013. The system determines a state of deformation defined by a deformation level of the couch in the first coordinate system based on the position of the optical marker and the transform relationship between the first coordinate system and the second coordinate system, ¶0013. The couch may deform (e.g. deflect or sag) to generate this deformation level, ¶0107. This deformation level is a value of a sag level along a vertical direction, ¶0109, ¶0125-0126, ¶0128, that defines a state of deformation.
-After determining the deformation level, the system of Huang uses this value, along with other parameters, (object weight, couch extension, and a calibration result) to determine an assessment result of the couch, ¶0013, ¶0125-0127, Claim 9. This assessment result is a correction of the calculated amount of deflection of the table top (upper surface of the couch) based on the value of the deformation level. The processing device determines the assessment result relating to the status of the couch, ¶0129-0130, ¶0132, and determines a sag level difference between the measured sag level (part of the deformation level) and a reference deformation level. If this sage level difference is greater than a fourth threshold, the system determines that the height of the couch needs to be adjusted and prompts a message to a user to indicate this adjustment, ¶0132. That is, this height adjustment is a correction of the calculated amount of deflection of the table-top based on the measured value.
generate the first path information based on the corrected amount of deflection of the table-top.
-Note; the claim does not constitute what defines first path information, accordingly, Huang discloses, if the assessment relates to the couch’s status, the path (i.e., first path information) involves user notification regarding necessary positional adjustment, ¶0132.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Zapata to be configured to include acquiring a state of deflection occurred in the table-top as a measured value based on a second captured image that is an image of the table-top, correct the calculated amount of deflection of the table-top based on the measured value, and generate the first path information based on the corrected amount of deflection of the table-top as taught by Huang. The motivation to do this yields predictable results acquiring deflection from the image to ensuring accuracy of the subsequent scan, as suggested by Huang, ¶0133-0134.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-8 are allowed at least by virtue of their respective dependency upon an allowable claim (i.e., Claim 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798