Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the cradle comprising a foam core seems to contradict claim 10 that states the cradle lacks a foam core. Is claim 11 supposed to be dependent on claim 1? Clarification is requested for this inconsistency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. For instance, claim 1 already indicates the cradle is located above the fixed structure, and claim 2 further specifies the implicit feature that cradle has a first width in a first direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cradle – therefore, claim 3 is not considered further limiting. Same analysis applies to claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Schwehr”, US Patent 4475072.
Regarding claim 1, Schwehr discloses a patient table for a medical imaging system, comprising:
a base [3];
a cradle [e.g., 11, 7] configured to support a subject to be imaged and to move bi-directionally relative to the base [col.5, ll.31-34]; and
a fixed structure [fig.3: e.g., 33, 35, 39, 41, 5] coupled to both the base and the cradle [fig.1; e.g., 33 etc. including housing of elevator 5 coupled to the cradle 11 with intermediate support 7], wherein the cradle is configured to move relative to the fixed structure [col. 5, ll.22-39] without a portion of the subject being pinched between the cradle and the fixed structure [fig.1 and 3; patient lying with body within curved cradle 11 would not be pinched between 11/7 and 33 etc. of elevator 5].
Regarding claim 8, Schwehr discloses wherein the cradle is configured to support a single subject point load to enable the subject both to load and to unload onto cradle solely utilizing the cradle [col.7, ll.16-18: cantilever designed to bear the load of the patient].
Regarding claim 9, Schwehr discloses wherein the cradle is configured to provide a flat surface [fig.3, cradle 11 has flat bottom] for engagement with a radiation therapy table top.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schwehr.
Regarding claim 2, Schwehr discloses wherein the cradle has a first width in a first direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cradle, and the first width is greater than a second width of the fixed structure in the first direction [fig.3: width of cradle 11/7 across the page left/right – i.e., in first direction wider than at least fixed structure 33].
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly have the cradle be as wide as possible [e.g., cradle 11/7 wider than at least fixed structure 33 or housing 5] so the cradle has a first width in a first direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cradle, and the first width is greater than a second width of the fixed structure in the first direction, in order to accommodate potential large/wide patients.
Regarding claim 3, Schwehr discloses wherein the cradle is located above the fixed structure along the first width as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Schwehr did not disclose explicitly any particular dimensions. 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 5, Schwehr discloses wherein a cross-section of the cradle along the first
width comprises a plurality of sections with at least two sections sloped [curved] relative to a central section of the plurality of sections [fig.3; col.7, ll.7-9].
Regarding claims 12-15, Schwehr discloses a CT imaging system comprising: a gantry [fig.1] having a bore [e.g., 19] and coupled to imaging components [e.g., 21] configured to acquire imaging data of a subject [Background of the Invention]; and a patient table comprising the elements as discussed above in reference to claims 1-5.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwehr as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of “Wiener”, US Patent 8395129.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Schwehr discloses the cradle can be designed to withstand cantilevered deflection [col.7, ll.7-20], but did not disclose explicitly any particular dimensions.
Wiener teaches a similar medical imaging system with a cradle [e.g., 30] that varies in thickness along the longitudinal axis in both in the first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction [col. 5, ll.8-15: non-uniform thickness with thin center near the spine].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the central thinness teaching of Weiner into Schwehr’s cradle, resulting in the cradle that varies in thickness along the longitudinal axis in both in the first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. An ordinary artisan would be motivated to make the modification in order to better image the spine while maintaining/enhancing the thickness [Wiener: col.5, ll.12-14] of the surrounding edges [particularly the longitudinal attached end] to better withstand cantilevered deflection [Schwehr: col.7, ll.7-20].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Schwehr discloses wherein the cradle comprises a first section [portion of 11 that extends into gantry] and a second section along the longitudinal axis, the first section is configured to be extended beyond the fixed structure while the second section is configured to remain located above the fixed structure [portion of 11/7 that remains attached to 5 in cantilevered fashion] when the first section is extended beyond the fixed structure [col.2, ll.5-24], but did not disclose explicitly any particular dimensions.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the central thinness teaching of Weiner into Schwehr’s cradle 11 as discussed above; and/or explicitly detail Schwehr’s second section 7 as thicker than first section 11, resulting in the cradle with: the first section has a first thickness in the second direction along the longitudinal axis and the second section has a second thickness in the second direction along the longitudinal axis, and the second thickness is greater than the first thickness. An ordinary artisan would be motivated to make the modification in order to better image the spine while maintaining/enhancing the thickness [Wiener: col.5, ll.12-14] of the surrounding edges [particularly the longitudinal attached end] and/or making Schwehr’s second section 7 thicker to better withstand cantilevered deflection [Schwehr: col.7, ll.7-20].
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwehr as applied to at least claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Wiener as applied to at least claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, Schwehr and Wiener disclose the patient table for an imaging system as discussed above in reference to claims 1 and 7, including the cradle comprising a top and bottom surface [Schwehr: fig.3+].
Regarding claim 19, Schwehr discloses the limitation as discussed above in reference to claims 8.
Regarding claim 20, Schwehr discloses the limitation as discussed above in reference to claims 2 and 5.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwehr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Falbo”, US Publication 20080260107.
Regarding claim 10, Schwehr discloses the importance of affecting attenuation [col.7, ll.18-20], but did not disclose details of the cradle composition which generally affects attenuation.
Falbo teaches a similar medical imaging system wherein the cradle [imaging support] lacks a foam core [e.g., 8mm of thin carbon fiber sandwich], and the cradle has a lower X-ray attenuation [e.g., 2%] than a cradle having the foam core [e.g., 24%] [0049-50+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the attenuation teachings of Falbo into Schwehr’s cradle, resulting in the cradle that lacks foam core [also varies in thickness] with a lower X-ray attenuation. An ordinary artisan would be motivated to make the modification in order to lessen transmission loss of imaging signal [0050+].
Regarding claim 11, Falbo also teaches that using foam core can reduce radiation exposure in accordance with the particular circumstance that may provide the desired benefit/advantage [0050+].
Conclusion
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