DETAILED ACTION
The following Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on March 20, 2026. Claims 1-13, 15-16, and 18-21 are currently pending.
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 Arguments
Concerning the “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102” and “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103” sections on pages 6-8 of the Applicant’s Response filed on March 20, 2026, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the Weigand reference does not teach the added limitation of a positioning system for positioning a movable object within a bore of a medical imaging apparatus or a radiotherapy apparatus, wherein the positioning system is configured to position the movable object within the bore during operation of the medical imaging apparatus or radiotherapy apparatus, arguing that the Weigand reference teaches a working platform for a milling machine and the box-shaped frame for the milling machine cannot reasonably be considered the bore of a medical imaging apparatus or a radiotherapy apparatus. However, the examiner asserts that the limitation of “a bore of a medical imaging apparatus or a radiotherapy apparatus” is located within the preamble of the claim, wherein it has been held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claim invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” [MPEP 211.02(II)]. In the instant case, the limitation of defining “a bore of a medical imaging apparatus or a radiotherapy apparatus” does not provide any distinct definition to any of the claimed invention’s limitations. There is no specific structures that are specifically associated with “a medical imaging apparatus or a radiotherapy apparatus” that would distinguish the limitations or impart any structure to the claimed invention. In fact, the medical imaging apparatus or radiotherapy apparatus is not even positively recited, and is merely functionally recited, therein further showing that it does not provide any structure to the claim and should not be given patentable weight. Furthermore, given the limitation is merely functionally recited, it is reasonable to interpret Weigand’s apparatus as being capable of being used as a medical apparatus as hypothetical capability contrary to the applicant’s argument. Lastly, the examiner further asserts that the term “medical imaging apparatus” may be broadly interpreted. A medical imaging apparatus does not indicate any specific associated structure. Any apparatus that may be utilized for the purposes of medical imaging in some way may be interpreted as a medical imaging apparatus, and the term medical imaging may itself be broadly interpreted as any process that creates an image for medical purposes. Merely utilizing the platform to take pictures of a patient with a camera allows the platform to be interpreted as a “medical imaging apparatus” given it is an apparatus that can be used for medical imaging purposes. Therefore, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 stand.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiegand et al. (US 6,099,217, hereinafter Wiegand).
Concerning claim 1, the Wiegand et al. prior art reference teaches a positioning system for positioning a movable object within a bore of an apparatus capable of being used for medical imaging (i.e. apparatus may be used to allow a patient to lie on the platform while a medical professional takes medical images) (Figure 6; 50), the positioning system comprising: at least one track configured to be arranged along an inner surface of the bore (Figure 1; 7a); a plurality of sliders configured to independently slide along the at least one track (Figure 1; 6b, 6c), wherein the plurality of sliders are mechanically coupled to the movable object (Figure 1; 1) via at least one hinged connection (Figure 1; 5b, 5c); at least one articulated member (Figure 1; 4b, 4c), wherein each articulated member is connected to one of the sliders (Figure 1; 6b, 6c) via a first hinged connection at a first end of the articulated member (Figure 1; 5b, 5c), wherein each articulated member is further connected to the movable object via a second hinged connection at a second end of the articulated member (Figure 1; 3b, 3c); at least one actuator configured to move at least one first slider of the plurality of sliders along the at least one track independently of at least one second slider of the plurality of sliders (Figure 2; 12), wherein the positioning system is configured to position the movable object within the bore during operation of the apparatus.
Concerning claim 2, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one track is linear and is oriented in a longitudinal direction (Figure 1; 7a) parallel to a central axis of the bore (Figure 6; 50).
Concerning claim 3, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each articulated member has an invariable length in between the slider and the movable object (Figure 1; 4b, 4c are rigid rods).
Concerning claim 4, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least two of the sliders (Figure 1; 6bc) can be moved away from each other to move the movable object toward the inner surface of the bore.
Concerning claim 5, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the bore comprises a support member for supporting an object to be subjected to the operation of the apparatus on one side of the support member (Figure 6; inner surface of the bottom of structure 50 provides a support member), and the at least one track is located on the same side of the support member as a space of the object to be subjected to the operation (Figure 6; support member extends from front side of the structure to back side of structure, which is the same sides in which the tracks extend).
Concerning claim 6, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one track is suspended to at least one suspension element (Figure 6; top of structure 50 may be interpreted as a suspension element).
Concerning claim 7, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the apparatus comprises the at least one suspension element (Figure 6; top of structure 50).
Concerning claim 8, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one suspension element is configured to be supported by a bottom surface of the bore (Figure 6; bottom supports top via the pillars of 50).
Concerning claim 15, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator is mechanically coupled to the slider by means of a mechanical coupling member arranged along the at least one track (Figure 2; 12).
Concerning claim 16, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a control unit configured to automatically control the at least one of the sliders via the at least one actuator based on a desired position or desired orientation of the movable object (Figure 1; 8).
Concerning claim 18, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the movable object comprises an end effector (Figure 1; 1 includes a tip which may include a working tool which may be interpreted as an end effector | Column 3, Lines 11-25).
Concerning claim 19, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the end effector may be utilized for a medical purpose, allowing it to be defined as a surgical instrument (Column 3, Lines 11-25, defines a working tool, wherein the working tool is capable of performing a basic operation within a surgical procedure, therein allowing it to be defined as a surgical tool).
Concerning claim 20, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one articulated member is configured to be removably connected to the one of the sliders or the movable object, so that the at least one of the at least one articulated member or the moveable object may be replaced (Figures 4-5; the articulated member is mechanically connected to slider via a mechanical joint, which may be dismantled if a user chooses to do so).
Concerning claim 21, the Weigand et al. prior art reference teaches a method of positioning a movable object within a bore of an apparatus, wherein the apparatus may be capable of being used as a medical imaging apparatus (i.e. apparatus may be used to allow a patient to lie on the platform while a medical professional takes medical images) (Figure 6; 50), the method comprising: arranging at least one track along an inner surface of the bore (Figure 1; 7a); providing a plurality of sliders on the at least one track (Figure 1; 6b, 6c), wherein the plurality of sliders are mechanically coupled to the movable object via at least one hinged connection (Figure 1; 5b, 5c); providing at least one articulated member (Figure 1; 4b, 4c), wherein each articulated member is connected to one of the sliders via a first hinged connection at a first end of the articulated member (Figure 1; 5b, 5c), wherein each articulated member is further connected to the movable object via a second hinged connection at a second end of the articulated member (Figure 1; 3b, 3c); and controlling each of the plurality of sliders to independently slide along the at least one track (Column 2, Lines 11-22) to position the movable object within the bore during operation of the apparatus.
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) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegand et al. (US 6,099,217, hereinafter Wiegand) in view of Crawford (US 2020/0147784).
Concerning claims 9 and 10, the Wiegand reference teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the at least one suspension element comprises at least one further track oriented differently from the at least one track (Figure 7; walls of structure 52 defines two surfaces which may be interpreted as tracks, that are shaped and thus oriented differently than the tracks), but it does not specifically teach the at least one track being configured to slide along the at least one further track.
However, the Crawford reference teaches a positioning system for positioning a movable object (Figure 1A; 100) similar to that of the Wiegand reference, wherein the positioning system includes a plurality of tracks (Figure 1A; 102a-c), a plurality of sliders (Figure 1A; 104a-c), and a plurality of articulated arms (Figure 1A; 106a-c) attached to a movable object (Figure 1A; 112), wherein the system additionally includes a plurality of further tracks (Figure 1A; 107), wherein the tracks are configured to slide along the plurality of further tracks (Figures 8-9; 200), wherein an actuator is configured to move the at least one track along the at least one further track ([¶ 0077-0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tracks of the Wiegand reference be slidable along at least one further track structured as in the Crawford reference to allow the system to achieve additional orientations of the movable object within the structure space (Crawford; [¶ 0077-0079]).
Concerning claims 11 and 12, the combination of the Wiegand and Crawford references as discussed above teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the Wiegand reference further teaches the wall of the bore comprising the further track, therein having the further track having a shape corresponding to at least part of a circumference of a cross section of the bore (Figure 7; 52).
Concerning claim 13, the combination of the Wiegand and Crawford references as discussed above teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the Crawford reference teaches that the at least one further track (Figure 1A; 107) may be positioned to extend beyond an attached structure (Figure 1A; 101), therein teaching that the further track of the Wiegand and Crawford reference may also have the at least one further track extend beyond the structure of the bore, therein being positioned outside the bore.
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 MARTIN TRUYEN TON whose telephone number is (571)270-5122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; EST 10:00 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/MARTIN T TON/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights