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 (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-11, 13, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehllehner et al. (US 2006/0261276) hereinafter known as Muehllehner.
With regards to claim 1, Muehllehner discloses a cavity of a medical device ([0018]; FIG. 2; “…a non-circular receiving area or aperture 36 of the PET scanner….”), comprising:
a bore ([[0018]; circular bore 18); and
an accommodating cavity ([0018]; aperture 36 and radiation shield 38) configured to accommodate at least a portion of a couch ([0018]; couch 12), wherein
the accommodating cavity extends along an axial direction of the bore ([0018]; “The aperture 36 has a larger dimension D1 along the axis substantially parallel to the horizontal, transverse axis drawn through the shorter dimension of the couch 12.”), and
the accommodating cavity 36 38 is configured to form, with the bore 18, a connected space in which the at least a portion of the couch 12 is allowed to move along at least one of a first direction ([0016]; “The subject support 12 is advanced and retracted to achieve the desired positioning of the subject 14 within the bore 18, e.g. with the region of interest centered in the field of view of the detectors.”) or a second direction (claim 22; “…wherein the subject support moves vertically to raise and lower the subject in the bore…”) in the connected space,
Muehllehner do not specifically disclose wherein a movement range of the at least a portion of the couch in the first direction is larger than a movement range of the at least a portion of the couch in the second direction, the first direction and the second direction being radial directions of the bore. However, Muehllehner teaches that the subject support can be advanced and retracted within the bore to position the subject within the field of view of the detectors [0016], and further teaches that the vertical dimensions of the oval aperture 36 is 50 cm ([[0018]; FIG. 2)(CLAIM 22 discloses that the subject support can raise the subject vertically within the bore.). The Examiner considers the advancement and retraction of the subject into the bore as a first direction and the vertical movement direction as the second direction. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to recognize that the first direction movement range, to allow the entrance and retraction of the into the bore, would be larger than the vertical distance of 50 cm.
With regards to claim 2, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 1, wherein a length of the accommodating cavity (FIG. 2; D1; 70 cm) is less than a length of the bore in the axial direction (FIG. 1-2; 16, 18).
With regards to claim 3, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 1, wherein the accommodating cavity extends from an entrance of the bore. ([0018]; “…a non-circular receiving area or aperture 36 of the PET scanner is defined by radiation shields 38 mounted at the entrance and exit of the circular bore 18…”)
With regards to claim 4, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 1, wherein the accommodating cavity 36 38 is configured to accommodate a couch top of the couch 12, a width of the accommodating cavity (FIG. 2; D1; 70 cm) being larger than a width of the couch top (fig. 2; 12.
With regards to claim 5, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 4, wherein the couch includes a support portion configured to support the couch top ([0016]; “…a subject support means 12, such as a table or couch, which supports a subject…”), and the accommodating cavity (FIG. 1; 36) is configured to accommodate the support portion 12, a width of the accommodating cavity (FIG. 2; D1; 70 cm) being larger than a width of the support portion (FIG. 1; 12).
With regards to claim 6, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 1, wherein the accommodating cavity is configured to accommodate the at least a portion of the couch in a vertical direction. (see the rejection of claim 1)
With regards to claim 7, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 1, wherein a cross section of the cavity is of a shape other than a circle. ([0018]; oval aperture 36)
With regards to claim 8, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 7, wherein the cross section of the cavity is polygonal. [0016]
With regards to claim 9, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 1, wherein the first direction is a vertical direction. (see the rejection of claim 1)
With regards to claim 10, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 9, wherein a distance between a center line of the bore in the axial direction and an upper inner wall of the cavity is less than a distance between the center line and a lower inner wall of the cavity. [0006][0007]
With regards to claim 15, Muehllehner discloses the cavity of claim 1, wherein the accommodating cavity is disposed on a radial direction of the bore (see the rejection of claim 1), and the radial direction on which the accommodating cavity is disposed is perpendicular to a connection line between imaging components [0016].
With regards to claim 20, Muehllehner discloses a cavity of a medical device (see the rejection of claim 1), comprising:
a bore (see the rejection of claim 1); and
an accommodating cavity configured to accommodate at least a portion of a couch (see the rejection of claim 1), wherein
the accommodating cavity extends along an axial direction of the bore and is configured to form, with the bore, a connected space (see the rejection of claim 1), and
a cross section of the cavity is of a shape other than a circle ([0018]; oval aperture 36).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehllehner, and further in view of Khamaisi (US 2011/0152662).
With regards to claim 11, Muehllehner teaches that the subject support moves vertically to raise and lower the subject in the bore (claim 22) and further teaches that the subject support can be retracted to achieve the desired positioning of the subject 14 within the bore 18 [0016].
Muehllehner do not specifically disclose an adjustment assembly including a raised configuration and a retracted configuration, wherein when the adjustment assembly is at the retracted configuration, a distance between the adjustment assembly and an opening of the accommodating cavity is larger than 0.
Khamaisi discloses a multi-modality imaging system discloses a positioning system 124 that can move the patient in an axial direction (e.g., in a direction along the examination axis 190) into and through the central opening 125 of a bore 122. The positioning system can also move a pallet/couch 130 up-down in a vertical manner or side-to-side in a lateral manner and is configured to position the patient within one or more field-of-views (FOVs) of the imaging system 100 [0023]. Further, the reference teaches that the pallet may be retracted to the loading position in which it can be rotated [0032]. FIG. 1 shows the pallet/couch 130 fully extended from the opening 125 of the bore 116 with a distance of larger than 0.
In view of Khamaisi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing gate of the claimed invention to modify the medical device with a positioning system capable of attaining a retracted configuration and further can obtain a retraction distance, between the accommodating cavity and the subject support, that is larger than 0. The motivation is to gain a subject support capable of being retracted to a distance away from the accommodating cavity to allow the rotation of the couch and/or for the placement and removal of the subject.
With regards to claim 13, Muehllehner, in view of Khamaisi, discloses the cavity of claim 11, further comprising:
a control assembly (Khamaisi; [0053][0056]) configured to control the adjustment assembly to switch between the raised configuration and the retracted configuration (Khamaisi; [0023][0032][0057]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are allowed.
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 12, Muehllehner, in view of Khamaisi, discloses the cavity of claim 11, wherein the adjustment assembly includes a cover configured to cover the opening of the accommodating cavity when the adjustment assembly is at the raised configuration.
With regards to claim 14, Muehllehner do not disclose the cavity of claim 1, further comprising a second accommodating cavity, wherein the second accommodating cavity is configured to form, with the bore and the accommodating cavity, the connected space.
With regards to claim 16, Muehllehner discloses a system, comprising:
a first medical device and a second medical device, wherein a first bore of the first medical device and a second bore of the second medical device are coaxial and connected with each other; and
a couch including a couch top configured to move into or out of the first bore and the second bore along an axial direction, wherein
the first medical device or the second medical device includes an accommodating cavity that forms, with the first bore or the second bore, a connected space, wherein the accommodating cavity is configured to accommodate at least a portion of the couch, the second medical device is disposed between the first medical device and the couch, and the second medical device includes the accommodating cavity.
Claims 17-19 are allowed due to being dependent on allowed base claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schloesser et al. (US 2007/0032795)
Gagnon et al. (US 2009/0123042)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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 at 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights