DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and amendments filed on 6/24/24. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are rejected.
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 .
Abstract
The abstract is objected to. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract appears to be a literal translation from the original language, and appears have numerous grammatical errors. For example the Abstract states, “there is no concern that the traveling unit is not locked due to operation forgetting, the locking release of the top plate is not in time for an operation timing, or the like.” It is unclear what is meant by this sentence.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Words that are redundant can be deleted, such as restatement of the title of the invention. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites a second solenoid coil and a second spring member. A first solenoid and a first spring member are recites in claim 4, however claim 5 depends from claim 1, not claim 4. Similarly, claim 6 recites a third solenoid and spring member, and claim 6 depends from neither claim 4 or claim 5
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1 and 12 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claims 1 and 12 recite “a top plate on which a subject is placed…”. These recitations appear to require the human body in defining the structure of the invention. The human body cannot form a part of the scope of the claimed invention, and should be referred to only functionally. To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that these recitations be amended to recite “is configured to” or “adapted to” do something to or for a part of a human. (for example, — a top plate that is configured to support a user —).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0173752 to Weiler in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247253 to Takamura et al. (“Takamura”).
Claim 1. An examination table device comprising: a body part (Weiler, Fig. 1) including a top plate (Weiler, Fig. 2, LB) on which a subject is placed; a traveling unit (Weiler, Fig. 2, T) that causes the body part to travel; a connection connector unit (Weiler, Fig. 2, AN-TR) that mechanically and electrically connects the body part to a medical image capturing apparatus configured separately from the body part (Weiler does not provide details of the medical imaging apparatus, however, Takamura teaches a different system as seen in Fig. 1, and teaches a bed system that is connected electronically as well as mechanically as stated in at least the Abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrical connection of Takamura in order to ensure that mechanical separation or movement of the bed does not happen at an incorrect time; see Fig. 11), in an attachable and detachable manner; a connection operation member that receives operations of giving instructions to perform the connection and a release of the connection (Weiler discloses automation of the connection in paragraphs [0015]-[0016]; Takamura also teaches receiving operations regarding connection and release in Fig. 11); a connection detection unit that detects presence or absence of the connection (Weiler’s automation of the connection in paragraphs [0015]-[0016] implies that the connection is detected; Also see Takamura Fig. 11, and paragraphs [0056]-[0057]); and a controller that controls a locking state of the top plate and a travelable state of the traveling unit based on the detected presence or absence of the connection (Weiler discloses automation of the connection in paragraphs [0015]-[0016] which implies the use of a controller; Takamura also teaches a sequence controller 34 in Fig. 1), wherein the controller locks the traveling unit to make the body part unable to travel and releases locking of the top plate to make the top plate slidable in response to the detection of the connection via the connection detection unit, and releases the locking of the traveling unit to make the body part travelable and locks the top plate to make the top plate unable to slide in response to the detection of the release of the connection via the connection detection unit (the apparatus of Weiler provides this functionality, see paragraphs [0015]-[0016]).
Claim 2. The examination table device according to claim 1, wherein the traveling unit includes a caster that is lockable via electric power, and the controller locks the caster via the electric power to make the body part unable to travel, and releases the locking to make the body part travelable (Takemura Fig. 1 teaches a user input interface #43 which electronically controls the caster locks).
Claim 7. The examination table device according to claim 1, wherein the connection operation member includes a connection pedal (Takamura teaches the use of a coupling pedal in paragraph [0042]) that receives an operation for the connection, and a connection release pedal (Takamura teaches the use of a separation pedal in paragraph [0042]) that receives an operation for the release of the connection
Claim 8. The examination table device according to claim 1, further comprising: a panel that displays one or more of a state of the connection, a locking state of the traveling unit, or the locking state of the top plate (Takamura, Fig. 1, #43 teaches a user interface panel).
Claim 9. The examination table device according to claim 8, wherein the panel includes a locking operation member that receives a locking operation of giving an instruction to lock the traveling unit in a case in which the examination table device is not connected to the medical image capturing apparatus, and a locking release operation of giving an instruction to release the locking via the locking operation, and the controller locks the traveling unit in response to the locking operation, and releases the locking of the traveling unit in response to the locking release operation (Takamura, Fig. 1, #43 teaches a user interface panel that provides a user the capability to lock and/or release the caster wheels of the combined apparatus of Weiler and Takamura, thereby locking the patient trolley from moving or traveling).
Claim 10. A medical image capturing system comprising: the examination table device according to claim 1; and the medical image capturing apparatus (Weiler, Fig. 1).
Claim 11. The medical image capturing system according to claim 10, wherein the medical image capturing apparatus includes any one of an MRI apparatus, an X-ray CT apparatus, or a PET apparatus (Weiler discloses the use of X-ray CT in at least paragraph [0003]).
Claim 12. Applicant’s claim limitations are directed towards methods performed by structures that are recited in claim 1. Weiler and Takamura disclose the claimed structures, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Regard method steps, including “locking the traveling unit” and “releasing the locking of the traveling unit”, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process; In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of the prior art teachings of Weiler and Takamura, contain all of the claimed structures of Applicant's invention; furthermore, Applicant’s invention can inherently be used to carry out the claimed method, therefore the prior art, which contains all of the claimed structures, can also inherently be used to carry out the claimed method; thus, the combination of the prior art would necessarily perform the method claimed, and the prior art references read on the claimed method steps; see MPEP §2112.02).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0173752 to Weiler and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247253 to Takamura et al. (“Takamura”), in view of US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi et al. (“Lussi”).
Claim 3. The examination table device according to claim 1, wherein the traveling unit includes a stopper that is able to protrude toward a traveling surface from the body part, and the controller locks the traveling unit by causing the stopper to protrude and abut on the traveling surface, and releases the locking of the traveling unit by separating the stopper from the traveling surface (Weiler does not teach a “stopper” that protrudes toward the floor, however such devices are known in the prior art, as taught by Lussi at least in Fig. 3 at #44; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Weiler with the floor engaging members of Lussi at least for the purpose of providing a greater amount of stability and resistance to movement for the apparatus of Weiler).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0173752 to Weiler and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247253 to Takamura et al. (“Takamura”), US Patent 5,564,662 to Lussi et al. (“Lussi”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0080293 to Huber et al. (“Huber”).
Claim 4. The examination table device according to claim 3, wherein the traveling unit includes a first solenoid coil, a first spring member that is compressed by energizing the first solenoid coil, and the stopper connected to the first spring member, and the controller separates the stopper from the traveling surface by energizing the first solenoid coil to compress the first spring member, and causes the stopper to protrude and abut on the traveling surface by stopping energizing the first solenoid coil to stop compressing the first spring member (Lussi teaches floor engaging members that read on Applicant’s “stopper”, and teaches actuators to move these stoppers, Lussi teaches that these actuators are hydraulic, Lussi does not teach that the actuators are electric solenoids; however Huber teaches a similar bed system and teaches the use of electric solenoids in at least paragraph [0032], including a “spring bias”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the floor engaging members with electrical solenoids instead of hydraulic actuators since doing so would have simply been substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0173752 to Weiler and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247253 to Takamura et al. (“Takamura”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0080293 to Huber et al. (“Huber”).
Claim 5. The examination table device according to claim 1, wherein the body part includes a second solenoid coil, a second spring member that is compressed by energizing the second solenoid coil, and a locking pin connected to the second spring member, and the controller removes the locking pin from the top plate by energizing the second solenoid coil to compress the second spring member, and causes the locking pin to protrude and inserts the locking pin into the top plate by stopping energizing the second solenoid coil to stop compressing the second spring member (Weiler paragraph [0015] discloses that the top plate is locked and automatically released when the patient support is mechanically docked, but does not teach a solenoid for this locking means; however Huber teaches a similar bed system and teaches the use of electric solenoids in at least paragraph [0032], including a “spring bias” and a “locking lever” that reads on Applicants locking pin; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the floor engaging members with electrical solenoids instead of hydraulic actuators since doing so would have simply been substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Regarding Claim 6 Applicant’s claim limitations directed toward a solenoid coil and a magnetic material that are used to lock the sliding capability of the top plate of the patient support, this combination of limitations is not found in the prior art. As noted in the above rejections, US Patent Application Publication 2007/0080293 to Huber teaches the use of a solenoid to lock a sliding table top, but Huber does not disclose the same mechanical configuration, including a magnetic material, and there would be no motivation to modify the combined teachings of Weiler, Takamura, and Huber, at least since doing so would have required a significant redesign of the prior art structures, and additionally the prior art structures provide the same functionality with the existing structural configuration. The independent claims would be allowable if amended to include all of the limitations of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673