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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to election requirement of 11/06/2025, applicant elected species I, and species A without traverse. Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-22 are considered for examination. Claims 6,15 are withdrawn.
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 1-5, 7-14, 16-22 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 “examination sites are triggered.” Examination site means a location or position on a patient or device or space”. It is not understood what is being meant by triggering this location position. Examiner interprets as movement-protocols for the table to different examination sites are triggered.
Claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-22, encompass or recite similar limitations and are rejected for same reasons as above.
Claims 8, 17 recite “different second trigger modes” There is confusion as to whether the first distances are being triggered by another set of modes or in addition to the first trigger modes of parent claims. In view of spec. ¶0069. Claim 9, Examiner interprets as ---further triggered and stored by…---.
Claims 9, 18 depend of claims 8, 17 and are rejected in view of dependency.
Claims 16, 18-22 recite third keys” or “different third keys”, “fourth key”. There is no reference to any first or second keys in the parent claims 12. Hence it is not understood which keys are being referred to here. Examiner interprets as different keys.
Note, all rejections that follow are in view of the 112 (b) rejections above.
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 1-3, 7-13, 16-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pettinato [US 20150078514 A1].
As per claim 1, Pettinato teaches a movement control method, applied to a medical device comprising a movable table (Pettinato Fig 1), characterized by comprising:
determining and storing first distances (Pettinato ¶0025 “one or more positioning algorithms 140 stored in storage 142. In the illustrated embodiment, the one or more positioning algorithms 140 cause the base 114 to move through …different predetermined locations”),
of movement of a table (Pettinato Fig 1 item 116, ¶0023),
corresponding to different examination sites (Pettinato ¶0025-¶0026 sites for trauma and cardiac applications),
wherein the different examination sites are triggered by different first trigger modes (Pettinato Figs 3-4, ¶0033-¶0034 activation device is controlled (triggered), and the corresponding algorithm for moving the table to different locations is invoked),
so that the table is then moved by the corresponding first distances(Pettinato Figs 3-4).
As per claim 2, Pettinato further teaches when a scan is performed, triggering a first trigger mode corresponding to a site to be examined, so that the table is automatically moved by the first distance corresponding to the site to be examined
(Pettinato ¶0031“If a cardiac scan and/or general scan are subsequently ordered, for the same or different patient, either cardiac mode or general imaging mode (or one following the other) are invoked by activating the corresponding control of the activation device 144, which will move the base 114 to a cardiac or general location”).
As per claim 3, Pettinato further teaches determining and storing the first distances of movement of the table corresponding to the different examination sites (Pettinato ¶0025 “one or more positioning algorithms 140 stored in storage 142… cause the base 114 to move through …different predetermined locations”) and scanning protocols (Pettinato ¶0029 “invokes one of the one or more positioning algorithms 140 to cause the base 114 to move to a predetermined location, or through selection of an imaging protocol.”) corresponding to the different examination sites (Pettinato ¶0026 cardiac scan vs general scan), wherein the first distances and the scanning protocols corresponding to the different examination sites are triggered by different first trigger modes (Pettinato ¶0029 “when activated, invokes one of the one or more positioning algorithms 140”); and when a scan is performed, triggering the first trigger mode corresponding to the site to be examined (Pettinato ¶0026 cardiac scan vs general scan), so that the table is automatically moved by the first distance corresponding to the site to be examined and the medical device is controlled to automatically load the scanning protocol corresponding to the site to be examined (Implied from Pettinato ¶0025-¶0026, ¶0029, since each distances for each application results in automatically moving by the first distance corresponding to the site to be examined).
As per claim 7, Pettinato further teaches the different first trigger modes comprise: different physical keys, different virtual keys, different key pressing means, different voice commands, different numbers of keys, or different key combinations (Pettinato ¶0028 “he activation device 144 includes a physical and/or software generated control 145 such as a button, switch, etc.”).
As per claim 8, Pettinato further teaches the first distances corresponding to the different examination sites are further triggered and stored by different second trigger modes (In view of 112 rejection above, Pettinato ¶0028 “algorithms 140 include three (3) positioning algorithms, … the activation device 144 may include three (3) different physical controls 145,”).
As per claim 9, Pettinato further teaches the second trigger modes are associated with the corresponding first trigger modes (Implied from Pettinato since the position algorithms are associated with distances).
As per claim 10, Pettinato further teaches the physical keys are provided on the table, on a magnet housing of the medical device, or on a control panel of an operating room (Pettinato, ¶0028).
As per claim 11, Pettinato further teaches the physical keys are existing function keys or combinations of the existing function keys of the medical device (Pettinato ¶0028 “the activation device 144 may include three (3) different physical controls 145,”, implies they are existing), or, the physical keys are newly added keys of the medical device.
As per claim 12, Pettinato further teaches a medical device (Pettinato Fig 2), characterized by comprising: a movable table (Pettinato Fig 2 item 116) and a controller (Different items in Fig 2 like VDS, SFDS, HDS, console).
As per claim 13, Pettinato further teaches characterized by comprising: a computed tomography device or a magnetic resonance device (Pettinato ¶0019).
As per claim 16, Pettinato further teaches characterized by further comprising: a plurality of third keys, wherein different third keys correspond to different first trigger modes (In view of 112 rejection, Pettinato ¶0028 “the activation device 144 may include three (3) different physical controls 145,”,).
As per claims 17-22, they have limitations similar to claims 8-11 and are rejected for same reason. Note, the rejections are in view of the 112 rejections.
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 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettinato as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wong [US 5474069 A].
As per claim 4, Pettinato does not expressly teach that after the table is moved by the first distance from an initial position, a center position of a local coil of the medical device is aligned with a scanning center of the medical device, or the center position of the local coil of the medical device is aligned with a positioning light of the medical device.
Wong, in a related field of magnetic resonance imaging methods teaches, after the table is moved by the first distance from an initial position, a center position of a local coil of the medical device is aligned with a scanning center of the medical device (Wong Col 5 lines 15-20 “The local coil assembly 8 is not directly attached to the bore tube 12 but rather is attached to the table …The table 16 may be moved along the z-axis 13 to position the local coil assembly 8 at the center of the bore tube 12”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Pettinato by integrating alignment technique as in Wong for optimizing for acquiring of images with fast NMR (Wong Col 2 lines 47-50).
Status of claims 5, 14
Claims 5, 14 do not have any prior art rejections. Although use of alignment lights and local coil locations are known to be used for determining appropriate scanning locations, none of references of record, applied individually or in combination teaches alignment steps as needed in these claims. Claims are currently not objected in view of the pending 112 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797