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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (US 20210236068 A1) in view of D2 (US 20140054254 A1).
With regards to claims 1, 11, 15, and 16, D1 discloses a medical imaging system comprising:
a bed on which a subject 10 is placed (Fig. 1);
a console 5, 6 including a plurality of operation units 53, 63 and configured to allow a predetermined operation unit to be operated to give an instruction to move a table on the bed in a movement direction corresponding to the predetermined operation unit [0037-0043, 0048];
a movement mechanism 3 configured to move the table on the bed on the basis of operation information of the predetermined operation unit [0036, 0043-0045]; and
a presenting unit configured to present, around the bed or on the table on the bed, information about the movement direction corresponding to the predetermined operation unit [0022, 0027, 0040-0042].
D1 does not expressly teach a determining unit configured to determine whether an operator has pressed the predetermined operation unit halfway; and wherein the presenting unit presents when the determining unit determines that the operator has touched the predetermined operation unit halfway.
However, D2 teaches such functionality. Specifically, D2 teaches an embodiment in which a switch is depressed to a first stage (halfway) whereupon a display device displays a small arrow toward the intended moving direction before movement begins [0125, 0129]. Accordingly, D2 teaches determining that an operator has touched or initially actuated an operation unit and presenting movement direction information in response thereto before movement occurs. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration as taught by D2 in order to improve operational safety and reducing the likelihood of collisions or injury.
With regards to claims 2 and 12, D2 teaches wherein the determining unit is capable of distinguishing between a state in which the operator has touched the predetermined operation unit halfway and a state in which the operator has fully pressed the predetermined operation unit [0125].
With regards to claims 3 and 13, D1 does not teach the claimed contact sensor and press sensor. However, D2 teaches it was known to provide a switch detection mechanism to detect operational states of switch and determine display operation based upon the detected switch state [0105], wherein a first stage operation of switch is distinguished from a deeper stage of operation corresponding to movement of the moveable portion [0125, 0129]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the multi-stage switch detection taught by D2 using separate sensing elements for detecting the initial touch state and the fully pressed state in order to improve reliability and accuracy with which the system distinguishes between the preview stage and the movement stage of operation.
With regards to claims 4 and 14, D1 discloses wherein the controller moves the table while the move direction units are operated and simultaneously controls light emitter and light sources to indicate movement direction for the table [0040-0045]. D2 teaches that after movement-direction information is displayed during an initial stage of switch operation, movement of the moveable portion is subsequently initiated upon further actuation of the switch [0119-0120, 0125]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with D2 to separate the preview function from the movement function to improve user awareness and operational safety.
With regards to claim 5, D1 discloses wherein the presenting unit includes a plurality of light-emitting devices [0027, 0040, 0042].
With regards to claim 6, D1 discloses wherein the plurality of light-emitting devices are installed on the table on the bed, and the medical imaging system comprises a controller configured to perform control such that a light-emitting device corresponding to the movement direction emits light [0027, 0040-0042].
With regards to claim 7, D1 does not expressly teach projecting an image around the bed or onto the table on the bed. However, those skilled in the art recognize that image projection was already known in the art. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to substitute the visual indicators taught by D1 with a projected image in order to display information over a larger visible area.
With regards to claim 8, D1 does not teach projecting an image related to the movement direction at a position avoiding the position of the subject. Nevertheless, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration so as not to overlap a patient to avoid obscuring or distracting the user.
With regards to claim 9, D2 teaches wherein the presenting unit has different modes of presentation to allow a distinction between when the determining unit determines that the operator has touched the predetermined operation unit and when the determining unit determines that the operator has fully pressed the predetermined operation unit [0125, 0129].
With regards to claim 10, D2 does not teach wherein the presenting unit is configured to present information indicating that a limit of movement is near. However, those skilled in the art recognize that image projection was already known in the art. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to improve operational safety and prevent collisions or unintended movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights