Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Moulin”, WO 2015087102.
Regarding claim 1, Moulin discloses a patient table for a medical imaging system [abstract], comprising:
a base [e.g., 2];
a cradle [tabletop 1] configured to support a subject [e.g., 4] to be imaged and to move bi-directionally relative to the base [abstract: tabletop (1) longitudinally translate with respect to said table column (2)]; and
a fixed structure [24] directly coupled to both the base and the cradle [fig.1], wherein the cradle is configured to move relative to the fixed structure without a portion of the subject being pinched between the cradle and the fixed structure [fig.2: tabletop comprises elevated portion 3 to be leveled with 25 so oversized subject won’t be pinched].
Regarding claim 2, Moulin discloses wherein the cradle has a first width [e.g., 3] in a first direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cradle, and the first width is greater than a second width [25] of the fixed structure in the first direction [fig.1: 14 wider than 25 in the same first direction; pg.8, 4th paragraph].
Regarding claim 9, Moulin discloses wherein the cradle is configured to provide a flat surface [fig.1, 2] for engagement with a radiation therapy table top.
Regarding claim 11, Moulin discloses wherein the cradle comprises a foam core [pg.5, 6th paragraph].
Regarding claim 12, Moulin discloses a CT imaging system [pg. 11, line 5] comprising: a gantry having a bore [e.g., fig.3A] and coupled to imaging components configured to acquire imaging data of a subject [pp. 10-11]; and a patient table comprising the elements as discussed above in reference to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Moulin discloses the patient table as discussed above, but did not disclose explicitly the first width of the cradle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the cradle to have the first width be at least 42 centimeters in order to accommodate wide population of patients as it’s commonly known.
Regarding claim 8, Moulin discloses wherein the cradle is configured to enable the subject both to load and to unload onto cradle solely utilizing the cradle [e.g., fig. 3B-C], but did not disclose explicitly a single subject point load. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly implement a “single subject point load” as a structural point-load design to have safe support during transfer and imaging as a functional requirement.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of “Wiener”, US Patent 8395129.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Moulin discloses a tabletop for the subject, but does not explicitly describe that “a cross-section… comprises a plurality of flat sections with at least two flat sections sloped relative to a central flat section.”
Wiener teaches a similar patient table with a rigid thin sheet having a bevel/chamfer that reduces edge artifacts and is characterized by a structured bevel geometry with a height and length relationship to sheet thickness [col.4, ll.33-54; col.5, ll.26-67]. The bevel spreads the attenuation transition across multiple pixels/voxels by using a bevel dimension “x” substantially larger than resolution [col.6, l.50 to col.7, l.2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moulin’s cradle to incorporate the bevel/chamfer teaching of Weiner, resulting in the cradle with a cross-section of the cradle along the first width comprising a plurality of flat sections with at least two flat sections sloped relative to a central flat section of the plurality of flat sections. An ordinary artisan would be motivated to implement the bevel as multiple planar/flat segments (i.e., a “plurality of flat sections” including sloped flats and a central region) to achieve the gradual attenuation transition and artifact reduction [Wiener: col.1, l.56 to col.2, l.3].
Regarding claim 10, Moulin discloses a tabletop having an inner foam. However, Wiener discloses an alternative imaging pallet including a rigid thin sheet with thickness less than about six millimeters and discusses sheet materials such as aluminum or carbon fiber [0014-0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Moulin’s inner foam cradle with Wiener’s rigid sheet materials in order to lower attenuation compared to a foam-core cradle in the context of radiation transmission imaging [0003+; 0013+].
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin in view of Wiener as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of “Bonner”, US Publication 20170112455.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Moulin and Wiener combined provides support for multi-direction thickness/geometry variation -- Wiener describes the rigid sheet may have non-uniform thickness and that the bevel effectively thins the sheet at the edge region [col.5, ll.8-15] to have the radiation attenuation transition at the edge to be gradual rather than abrupt which suppresses edge artifacts [col.1, l.56 to col.2, l.3], and did not disclose explicitly that the cradle varies in thickness along the longitudinal axis both in the first direction and a second direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the longitudinal axis.
Bonner teaches longitudinal height variation and angled top/bottom surfaces along the support to compensate sag/deflection [0020, 0023-0024, 0029] which indicates the support geometry varies along the longitudinal axis. Using Bonner’s angled top/bottom geometry and combined Moulin-Wiener’s edge bevel thinning, an ordinary artisan would be motivated to implement thickness that changes along the longitudinal axis at the edge region (bevel thins) and also changes due to the angled/non-parallel surfaces (sag compensation), resulting in thickness variation relative to multiple perpendicular directions.
Regarding claims 7, 17, Moulin teaches a longitudinal translation stroke sufficient for only part of the tray supporting the mattress to be shifted so it no more overhangs the guiding part, while another part remains guided and horizontal [pg.8: “The longitudinal translation stroke… sufficient for all the part of the tray… to be shifted so as to no more overhang the guiding part 24… while the remaining part… is guided by the guiding part 24… horizontal”]. This supports the concept of proximal vs distal sections relative to the guiding/fixed structure during extension.
As discussed above, Bonner teaches height decreasing toward the distal end [0024, 0029]. Interpreting the “extended beyond fixed structure” portion as the distal portion into the imaging region, Bonner’s height decrease supports that the distal [first] section is thinner than the proximal [second] section.
It would have been obvious to combine Moulin’s overhang/guided-length disclosure with Bonner’s sag-compensation geometry [as the references address geometry changes along the extension direction to maintain functional imaging positioning] so that the distal section extending into the imaging region has a different thickness/profile than the proximal guided section for functional compensation during imaging.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin as applied to at least claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Bonner as applied to at least claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, Moulin and Bonner disclose the patient table for an imaging system as discussed above in reference to claims 1 and 7, including the cradle comprising a thicker second [proximal] section for functional compensation during imaging.
Regarding claim 19, Moulin discloses the limitation as discussed above in reference to claim 8.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulin in view of Bonner as discussed above in reference to claim 18 above, and further in view of Weiner as applied to at least claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, Moulin, Bonner and Wiener disclose the patient table for an imaging system as discussed above in reference to claims 18 and 5, with thickness variation relative to multiple perpendicular directions with Wiener’s teaching of non-uniform thickness and bevels that effectively thin the sheet at the edge region [col.5, ll.8-15] to have the radiation attenuation transition at the edge to be gradual rather than abrupt which suppresses edge artifacts [col.1, l.56 to col.2, l.3].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 4/22/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Schwehr applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Tse Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-3672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights