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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 remain pending in the current application.
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.
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) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartels (US 20070094796 A1) in view of Harder (US 20210093221 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
Bartels fails to teach the isocenter is a location of a greatest magnetic field homogeneity.
However, Harder 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 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)
Bartels fails to teach the isocenter is a location of a greatest magnetic field homogeneity.
However, Harder 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 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(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])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claim to incorporate the subject matter of now cancelled dependent claim 19, specifying that the vertical axis extends through an isocenter which pertains to a location of greatest magnetic field homogeneity. By defining a reference point for where said isocenter is to lie, applicant has effectively overcome the prior 102 rejection set forth in the previous office action. However, the claims are still rejected under 35 USC 103 in light of the secondary Harder reference. The Harder reference specifies an isocenter analogous to that in the claimed subject matter, thus obviating the independent claim to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant alleges that this modification of the primary Bartels reference would destroy the intended purpose of the invention in the Bartels reference. However, this is not the case. One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the Bartels’ invention to generate the magnetic field from the center of the pivoting apparatus without substantially altering the form of the device by placing the field generator on the same vertical axis as reference no 13 in fig. 1. This way, the pivoting apparatus would still operate as intended and reads on the independent claim as currently drafted.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
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, Anne 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.
/GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights