DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 12/30/2025 concerning application no. 18/881,769 filed on 01/07/2025.
Claims 1-11 and 15 are 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-11 and 15) in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-11 and 15 are 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 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein the second interface is configured to be connected to a controller for communicating with the at least one medical device”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “communicating with the at least one medical device” is performed by the second interface or the controller.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the controller is part of a trolley for transporting the patient bed”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim establishes “the patient bed comprising:…” It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the trolly is part of the patient bed or is a different component that is transporting the patient bed. It unclear how the patient bed is able to comprise a component that carries itself.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the position and/or orientation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein the second interface is configured to be connected to a controller for communicating with the at least one medical device”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “communicating with the at least one medical device” is performed by the second interface or the controller.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cumpson et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0194942).
Regarding claim 1, Cumpson teaches a patient bed for accommodating a patient in a medical imaging system, the patient bed comprising:
a table top configured for receiving the patient (Abstract teaches to position an imaging subject in an imaging or therapy system, the imaging subject is arranged on a linearly translatable tabletop disposed on a movable trolley. See Fig. 1); and
an interface module comprising a first interface and a second interface, wherein the first interface is configured to be connected to at least one medical device attached to the patient, and wherein the second interface is configured to be connected to a controller for communicating with the at least one medical device (Paragraph 0034 teaches the selection of the region of interest using the elongated position selector can be done with the movable trolley positioned away from the MRI scanner. For example, it may be advantageous to prepare the patient, including positioning the patient with suitable comfort items such as pillows, installing local radio frequency coils, and selecting the region of interest, in another room or at a sufficient distance away from the MRI scanner to avoid exposure of the radiologist to magnetic fields produced by the MRI scanner. Paragraph 0037 teaches a coil coupling element couples local coils disposed on the tabletop with the MRI scanner. See Fig. 1);
wherein the controller is part of a trolley for transporting the patient bed (Paragraph 0034 teaches the selection of the region of interest using the elongated position selector can be done with the movable trolley positioned away from the MRI scanner. See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cumpson further teaches a patient bed, wherein the second interface is configured to disconnect from the trolley and to connect with the medical imaging system when the patient bed is moved from the trolley to the medical imaging system (Paragraph 0037 teaches a coil coupling element couples local coils disposed on the tabletop with the MRI scanner).
Regarding claim 3, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cumpson further teaches a patient bed, wherein the at least one medical device is a physiological sensor for detecting a body function of the patient, a coil of the medical imaging system, or a device for treating the patient (Paragraph 0034 teaches the selection of the region of interest using the elongated position selector can be done with the movable trolley positioned away from the MRI scanner. For example, it may be advantageous to prepare the patient, including positioning the patient with suitable comfort items such as pillows, installing local radio frequency coils, and selecting the region of interest, in another room or at a sufficient distance away from the MRI scanner to avoid exposure of the radiologist to magnetic fields produced by the MRI scanner. See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cumpson further teaches a patient bed, wherein the second interface is configured to establish the connection to the controller automatically (Paragraph 0037 teaches a coil coupling element couples local coils disposed on the tabletop with the MRI scanner. Paragraph 0035 teaches the movable trolley is docked with the MRI scanner. Docking is achieved using a suitable docking member on the MRI scanner that mates with a corresponding docking member on the movable trolley. The docking positions the trolley 30 at a fixed position respective to the MRI scanner. In some embodiments, the docking automatically provides electrical and communication connections. In other embodiments, one or more separate connectors are used to establish electrical and communication connection).
Regarding claim 6, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cumpson further teaches a patient bed, wherein the connection of the first interface with the at least one medical device and/or the connection of the second interface with the controller is a galvanic, an optical, or a wireless connection (Paragraph 0037 teaches a coil coupling element couples local coils disposed on the tabletop with the MRI scanner. Paragraph 0035 teaches the movable trolley is docked with the MRI scanner. Docking is achieved using a suitable docking member on the MRI scanner that mates with a corresponding docking member on the movable trolley. The docking positions the trolley 30 at a fixed position respective to the MRI scanner. In some embodiments, the docking automatically provides electrical and communication connections. In other embodiments, one or more separate connectors are used to establish electrical and communication connection).
Regarding claim 7, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cumpson further teaches a patient bed, wherein the interface module is configured to test a functionality of the at least one medical device (Paragraph 0036 teaches as a consequence of the docking, the elongated position selector has a predetermined position respective to the isocenter of the MRI scanner when the trolley is docked. Paragraph 0037 teaches a coil coupling element couples local coils disposed on the tabletop with the MRI scanner. Paragraph 0035 teaches the movable trolley is docked with the MRI scanner. Docking is achieved using a suitable docking member on the MRI scanner that mates with a corresponding docking member on the movable trolley. The docking positions the trolley 30 at a fixed position respective to the MRI scanner. In some embodiments, the docking automatically provides electrical and communication connections. In other embodiments, one or more separate connectors are used to establish electrical and communication connection).
Regarding claim 9, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cumpson further teaches a patient bed, wherein the patient bed is configured to be used in a computed tomography apparatus, a magnetic resonance imaging system, positron emission tomography, X-ray imaging, ultrasound, and/or therapy systems like MR LINAC, MR hyperthermia, and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0045 teaches the device is readily used for patient positioning in conjunction with magnetic resonance spectroscopy, positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging, computed tomography (CT) imaging, radiation therapy, and so forth).
Regarding claim 10, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cumpson further teaches a patient bed, wherein the patient bed comprises a power connector configured to receive electric power from the trolley and/or from the medical imaging system (Paragraph 0037 teaches a coil coupling element couples local coils disposed on the tabletop with the MRI scanner. Paragraph 0035 teaches the movable trolley is docked with the MRI scanner. Docking is achieved using a suitable docking member on the MRI scanner that mates with a corresponding docking member on the movable trolley. The docking positions the trolley 30 at a fixed position respective to the MRI scanner. In some embodiments, the docking automatically provides electrical and communication connections. In other embodiments, one or more separate connectors are used to establish electrical and communication connection).
Regarding claim 15, Cumpson teaches a method for accommodating a patient in a medical imaging system, the method comprising:
providing a table top configured for receiving the patient (Abstract teaches to position an imaging subject in an imaging or therapy system, the imaging subject is arranged on a linearly translatable tabletop disposed on a movable trolley. See Fig. 1); and
providing an interface module comprising a first interface and a second interface, wherein the first interface is configured to be connected to at least one medical device attached to the patient, and wherein the second interface is configured to be connected to a controller for communicating with the at least one medical device, and wherein the controller is part of a trolley for transporting a patient bed (Paragraph 0034 teaches the selection of the region of interest using the elongated position selector can be done with the movable trolley positioned away from the MRI scanner. For example, it may be advantageous to prepare the patient, including positioning the patient with suitable comfort items such as pillows, installing local radio frequency coils, and selecting the region of interest, in another room or at a sufficient distance away from the MRI scanner to avoid exposure of the radiologist to magnetic fields produced by the MRI scanner. Paragraph 0037 teaches a coil coupling element couples local coils disposed on the tabletop with the MRI scanner. See Fig. 1).
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, 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumpson et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0194942) in view of Dai et al. (PGPUB No. US 2021/0153767).
Regarding claim 5, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 4, as discussed above.
However, Cumpson is silent regarding a patient bed, wherein the connection to the controller is established using 3D sensing to detect the position and/or orientation of the second interface of the patient bed with respect to the medical imaging system.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding patient bed design, Dai teaches a patient bed, wherein the connection to the controller is established using 3D sensing to detect the position and/or orientation of the second interface of the patient bed with respect to the medical imaging system (Paragraph 0004 teaches that a 3D camera captures 3D images of the scan subject located on a scanning table of an MRI. The control device is able to set the scanning parameters according to body position. Paragraph 0007 teaches that the 3D camera is configured to photograph a scanning table of the magnetic resonance imaging system and a scan subject located on the scanning table to obtain a three-dimensional image wherein the scan subject is coupled to an RF receive coil, and the RF receive coil comprises a plurality of coil units arranged in an array. Paragraph 0011 teaches when the first receive coil is selected, the processing device is configured to select a required coil unit from the first receive coil based on relative position information of the part of interest of the scan subject and the first receive coil; when the second receive coil is selected, the processing device is configured to select a required coil unit from the second receive coil based on relative position information of the part of interest of the scan subject and the second receive coil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cumpson with Dai’s teaching of 3D sensing to detect position and orientation of a second interface. This modified apparatus would allow the user to arrange a surface receive coil more rapidly and accurately (Paragraph 0182 of Dai). Furthermore, the modification addresses the need for optimization in both the pre-scanning process and the scanning process to meet increasing clinical diagnostic requirements (Paragraph 0003 of Dai).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumpson et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0194942) in view of Wedeleit et al. (PGPUB No. US 2010/0235994).
Regarding claim 8, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Cumpson is silent regarding a patient bed, wherein the table top is a modular table top and configured to adapt the patient bed to an individual positioning of the patient.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding patient bed design, Wedeleit teaches a patient bed, wherein the table top is a modular table top and configured to adapt the patient bed to an individual positioning of the patient (Paragraph 0001 teaches an operating table top consisting of one or several basic sections and one or several additional modules with such modules and basic sections being adjustable relative to each other and the modules being designed so as to be separable from the operating table top. Paragraph 0002 teaches that the patient resting on the operating table top can be brought into a position most favorable for the envisaged operation. If necessary, additional modules which are also adjustable may be attached to such an operating table top. This enables operating tables to be suitably extended as and when required. See Fig. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cumpson with Wedeleit’s teaching of a modular table top. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have the patient in a position that is most favorable and the table is suitably extended as needed (Paragraph 0002 of Wedeleit). Furthermore, the modification makes it possible to examine a patient, for example by magnetic resonance or computer tomography, without the necessity of moving them off the operating table (Abstract of Wedeleit).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumpson et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0194942) in view of Yang et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0081081).
Regarding claim 11, Cumpson teaches the patient bed in claim 10, as discussed above.
However, Cumpson is silent regarding a patient bed, wherein the power connector is an inductively coupled power transmission.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding patient bed design, Yang teaches a patient bed, wherein the power connector is an inductively coupled power transmission (Paragraph 0027 teaches that the connectors can be electrically connected via inductive coupling to the RF units with the table).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cumpson with Yang’s teaching of inductive coupling power transmission. This modified apparatus would allow the user to minimize the distance between the patient and the coil (Paragraph 0021 of Yang). Furthermore, the modification can cover the patient on the head side only and not the face side using the flexible coil, because covering the face of a claustrophobic patient may cause them distress (Paragraph 0030 of Yang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nufer et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0029559): Teaches a 3D camera that is tracking the patient table and its contents.
Popescu (PGPUB No. US 2018/0348314): Teaches a 3D camera that is tracking the patient table and its contents.
Huang et al. (PGPUB No. US 2023/0206501): Teaches a 3D camera that is tracking the patient table and its contents.
Hetz et al. (PGPUB No. US 2018/0231622): Teaches a 3D camera that is tracking the patient table and its contents.
Krause et al. (US Patent No. 5,065,760): Teaches inductive coupling for a patient bed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 on 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798