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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 12 August 2026. Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 3, as well as the cancellation of claim 10.
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 1-9 and 11-15 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ring gantry an isocenter" in line 3. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that the ring gantry is an isocenter, or that the ring gantry includes/has an isocenter, or something else. Suggested language would be --the ring gantry having an isocenter--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a guide element" in line 2. As detailed in the previous Office action, this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure is taught for this component. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the support of the couch board" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; claim 1 previously recites a support and a couch board as separate components (not the support being a part of the couch board). Claim 3 also recites this limitation in line 11, which may need to be amended in kind. Suggested language would be simply --the support--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "in an area of" in lines 2-3. The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear; it is not clear how close the components must be to meet the claim language.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "in an area of" in line 3. The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear; it is not clear how close the components must be to meet the claim language.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the upper counter elements are configured to transmit compressive forces acting to the fixing plate" in lines 3-4. It is not clear what is meant by "acting to" in this limitation. Suggested language would be --the upper counter elements are configured to transmit compressive forces to the fixing plate-- or --the upper counter elements are configured to transmit compressive forces acting from above to the fixing plate--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein at least one of the upper counter elements or the lower counter elements are, adjustable in a vertical direction, on the intermediate element." It is not clear what is meant by this limitation with "adjustable in a vertical direction" being set apart by commas. Suggested language would be --wherein at least one of the upper counter elements or the lower counter elements are adjustable in a vertical direction--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "distal support element" in line 1. It is not clear if this is meant to refer to the previously recited distal support element or to a separate component. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the distal support element--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "in an area of" in line 3. The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear; it is not clear how close the components must be to meet the claim language.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the upper counter elements are configured to transmit compressive forces acting to the fixing plate" in lines 3-4. It is not clear what is meant by "acting to" in this limitation. Suggested language would be --the upper counter elements are configured to transmit compressive forces to the fixing plate-- or --the upper counter elements are configured to transmit compressive forces acting from above to the fixing plate--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "wherein at least one of the upper counter elements or the lower counter elements are, adjustable in a vertical direction, on the intermediate element." It is not clear what is meant by this limitation with "adjustable in a vertical direction" being set apart by commas. Suggested language would be --wherein at least one of the upper counter elements or the lower counter elements are adjustable in a vertical direction--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "distal support element" in line 1. It is not clear if this is meant to refer to the previously recited distal support element or to a separate component. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the distal support element--.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as detailed in the previous Office action, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests an Omega drive for rotation of the intermediate element about the vertical axis, in combination with the previously recited components as part of such a medical treatment facility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejection based upon the lack of structure for “a base element” has been withdrawn. Additionally, upon further investigation and consideration, the rejection based upon “an Omega drive” has been withdrawn. This type of drive would be sufficiently known and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The remaining rejections remain pending, as Applicant has not amended the claims to address them.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references both teach Omega drives for rotating a C-arm of an x-ray apparatus: U.S. Pub. Nos. 2012/0106701 A1 and 2021/0378610 A1.
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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights