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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
In light of the applicant’s amendments and remarks the claim interpretation under 112f section has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-19 remain pending in the current application.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartels (US 20070094796 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bartels teaches a patient table for a medical imaging apparatus (1) ([0010] A device for supporting a patient),
wherein the patient table is configured to support a patient in an examination position in the medical imaging apparatus for imaging ([0010] A device for supporting a patient for a CT which assures stable positioning of the patient with respect to a CT or other device)
the patient table comprising a pivoting apparatus configured to pivot the patient in the examination position about an axis extending through an isocenter ([0028] In an aspect shown in FIG. 2, the load-bearing arm 9 that carries the stretcher 7 is supported in the device 5 for supporting a patient rotatably about a vertical axis. The load-bearing arm 9 is shown pivoted about the vertical axis of rotation such that the stretcher guide 11 and the stretcher 7 are rotated away from the gantry 3 The load-bearing arm 9 is pivoted together with the load-bearing arm bearing 13 and the height adjuster 15)
PNG
media_image1.png
736
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bartels teaches the medical imaging apparatus is a magnetic resonance tomograph ([0001] This application relates to a device for supporting a patient for a computer tomography device, and to a computer tomograph having such a device for supporting a patient)
Regarding claim 3, Bartels teaches suspension apparatus configured for suspended fastening to a support apparatus ([0011] The device for supporting a patient has a height adjuster, for supporting a stretcher adjustably in height. The height adjuster may be mounted on a computer tomography device in such a way that it is located laterally with respect to the examination opening. An effect of the lateral location of the height adjuster is that the space underneath the examination opening in front of the gantry remains free, and a patient or a stretcher can be lowered especially far when disposed in that position. The lowerability is not hindered by the location of the height adjuster)
Regarding claim 4, Bartels teaches wherein the pivoting apparatus is part of the suspension apparatus ([0028] The load-bearing arm 9 is pivoted together with the load-bearing arm bearing 13 and the height adjuster 15)
Regarding claim 5, Bartels teaches wherein the pivoting apparatus comprises a pivoting arm, and wherein the pivoting arm is configured to guide the patient table during a pivoting movement about the vertical axis ([0028] In an aspect shown in FIG. 2, the load-bearing arm 9 that carries the stretcher 7 is supported in the device 5 for supporting a patient rotatably about a vertical axis. The load-bearing arm 9 is shown pivoted about the vertical axis of rotation such that the stretcher guide 11 and the stretcher 7 are rotated away from the gantry 3 The load-bearing arm 9 is pivoted together with the load-bearing arm bearing 13 and the height adjuster 15)
Regarding claim 6, Bartels teaches ([0028] In an aspect shown in FIG. 2, the load-bearing arm 9 that carries the stretcher 7 is supported in the device 5 for supporting a patient rotatably about a vertical axis. The load-bearing arm 9 is shown pivoted about the vertical axis of rotation such that the stretcher guide 11 and the stretcher 7 are rotated away from the gantry 3 The load-bearing arm 9 is pivoted together with the load-bearing arm bearing 13 and the height adjuster 15)
Regarding claim 7, Bartels teaches a bed surface for the patient ([0025] The stretcher 7)
and a tilting apparatus about a longitudinal axis, the tilting apparatus being configured to orient the bed surface in a position tilted by a predetermined angle with respect to the horizontal ([0012] In an aspect, the height adjuster can be mounted on the computer tomography (CT) device in such a way that it is located laterally with respect to the gantry. In such a position, the height adjuster does not impede a tilting motion of the gantry about a horizontal axis, and such a motion being useful in the field of medical diagnosis. The gantry can be tilted unhindered next to and thus past the height adjuster)
Regarding claim 8, Bartels teaches a bed surface for the patient ([0025] The stretcher 7)
and a tilting apparatus about a longitudinal axis, the tilting apparatus being configured to orient the bed surface in a position tilted by a predetermined angle with respect to the horizontal ([0012] In an aspect, the height adjuster can be mounted on the computer tomography (CT) device in such a way that it is located laterally with respect to the gantry. In such a position, the height adjuster does not impede a tilting motion of the gantry about a horizontal axis, and such a motion being useful in the field of medical diagnosis. The gantry can be tilted unhindered next to and thus past the height adjuster)
Regarding claim 9, Bartels teaches a bed surface for the patient ([0025] The stretcher 7)
and a tilting apparatus about a longitudinal axis, the tilting apparatus being configured to orient the bed surface in a position tilted by a predetermined angle with respect to the horizontal ([0012] In an aspect, the height adjuster can be mounted on the computer tomography (CT) device in such a way that it is located laterally with respect to the gantry. In such a position, the height adjuster does not impede a tilting motion of the gantry about a horizontal axis, and such a motion being useful in the field of medical diagnosis. The gantry can be tilted unhindered next to and thus past the height adjuster)
Regarding claim 10, Bartels teaches a bed surface for the patient ([0025] The stretcher 7)
and a tilting apparatus about a longitudinal axis, the tilting apparatus being configured to orient the bed surface in a position tilted by a predetermined angle with respect to the horizontal ([0012] In an aspect, the height adjuster can be mounted on the computer tomography (CT) device in such a way that it is located laterally with respect to the gantry. In such a position, the height adjuster does not impede a tilting motion of the gantry about a horizontal axis, and such a motion being useful in the field of medical diagnosis. The gantry can be tilted unhindered next to and thus past the height adjuster)
Regarding claim 11, Bartels teaches a system comprising a patient table for a medical imaging apparatus ([0010] A device for supporting a patient)
the patient table being configured to support a patient in an examination position in the medical imaging apparatus for imaging ([0010] A device for supporting a patient for a CT which assures stable positioning of the patient with respect to a CT or other device)
a support apparatus configured for arranging the patient table relative to the medical imaging apparatus and a pivoting apparatus configured to pivot the patient in the examination position about a vertical axis extending through an isocenter ([0028] In an aspect shown in FIG. 2, the load-bearing arm 9 that carries the stretcher 7 is supported in the device 5 for supporting a patient rotatably about a vertical axis. The load-bearing arm 9 is shown pivoted about the vertical axis of rotation such that the stretcher guide 11 and the stretcher 7 are rotated away from the gantry 3 The load-bearing arm 9 is pivoted together with the load-bearing arm bearing 13 and the height adjuster 15)
Regarding claim 12, Bartels teaches a rail system having a curvature about the vertical axis ([0024] The CT 1 has a gantry 3; [0005] A CT has a so-called "gantry", inside of which the X-ray beam source and the X-ray image detector rotate. At the center of rotary motion, the gantry has an opening, in which the patient is positioned for the acquisition of the raw image data. The device for supporting a patient serves to slide a patient, supported on the supporting device, into the opening in the gantry)
and a guide element for engaging in the rail system ([0028] load-bearing arm 9)
wherein the patient table is configured to perform a pivoting movement about the vertical axis by moving along the rail system ([0028] In an aspect shown in FIG. 2, the load-bearing arm 9 that carries the stretcher 7 is supported in the device 5 for supporting a patient rotatably about a vertical axis. The load-bearing arm 9 is shown pivoted about the vertical axis of rotation such that the stretcher guide 11 and the stretcher 7 are rotated away from the gantry 3 The load-bearing arm 9 is pivoted together with the load-bearing arm bearing 13 and the height adjuster 15)
Regarding claim 13, Bartels teaches the rail system is arranged on the support apparatus, and the guide element is arranged on the patient table (observe configurations in figs. 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 14, Bartels teaches wherein the rail system is arranged on the patient table, and the guide element is arranged on the support apparatus (observe configurations in figs. 1 and 2)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartels as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pinault (US 20190167212 A1).
Regarding claims 15-17, Bartels fails to teach the support apparatus is arranged above the medical imaging apparatus.
However, Pinault teaches the support apparatus is arranged above the medical imaging apparatus ([0014] Generally, the coupling region may thus allow for arranging the patient support device at a positioning system such that the positioning system connects to the patient support device from above or, in other words, to an upper side thereof. Hence, the patient support device may be arranged at the positioning system in a hanging configuration)
Bartels and Pinault are considered analogous because both disclose support apparatuses to be used during a tomography procedure. therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to hang the height adjustment apparatus from the ceiling so that the coupling region is arranged closer to a ceiling area of a treatment room than the support plane (Pinault [0014])
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartels as applied to claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Harder (US 20210093221 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Bartels fails to teach the isocenter is a location of a greatest magnetic field homogeneity.
However, Bartels teaches the isocenter is a location of a greatest magnetic field homogeneity ([0019] In this context, an isocenter shall be understood to mean in particular a point and/or a region of the medical imaging apparatus that exhibits the most optimum and/or most ideal conditions for a medical imaging examination during operation of the medical imaging apparatus. The isocenter preferably describes a point inside an isocenter region. The isocenter is preferably situated within the patient receiving region. For example, the isocenter within a magnetic resonance apparatus, in particular within the patient receiving region, encompasses a point and/or a region at which the magnetic field of the magnetic resonance apparatus is designed to be the most homogeneous).
Bartels and Harder are considered analogous because both disclose MRI medical imaging systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the pending application to designate the isocenter as the location with highest magnetic field homogeneity in order to exhibit the most optimum and/or most ideal conditions for a medical imaging examination (Harder [0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Bartels fails to teach the isocenter is a location of a greatest magnetic field homogeneity.
However, Bartels teaches the isocenter is a location of a greatest magnetic field homogeneity ([0019] In this context, an isocenter shall be understood to mean in particular a point and/or a region of the medical imaging apparatus that exhibits the most optimum and/or most ideal conditions for a medical imaging examination during operation of the medical imaging apparatus. The isocenter preferably describes a point inside an isocenter region. The isocenter is preferably situated within the patient receiving region. For example, the isocenter within a magnetic resonance apparatus, in particular within the patient receiving region, encompasses a point and/or a region at which the magnetic field of the magnetic resonance apparatus is designed to be the most homogeneous).
Bartels and Harder are considered analogous because both disclose MRI medical imaging systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the pending application to designate the isocenter as the location with highest magnetic field homogeneity in order to exhibit the most optimum and/or most ideal conditions for a medical imaging examination (Harder [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are centered around the allegation that the primary Bartels reference does not teach the newly amended limitation reading ‘a vertical axis extending through an isocenter’. However, in the independent claim, applicant does not define a reference system in order to determine where said isocenter would be located. In the absence of a specified reference system, an ‘isocenter’ can be placed at any arbitrary location, including the center of rotation as disclosed by the Bartels reference. While new claims 18 and 19 differentiate the invention from the Bartels reference by specifying where an isocenter is to be located, the independent claims as drafted continue to be anticipated by Bartels under broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-7065. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798