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 .
Remarks
This communication is in response to Application No. 19/035,733 filed on 01/23/2025.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/23/2025 are acceptable.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the following issues:
PNG
media_image1.png
368
1357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: [[
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim purports to be directed to a medical bed mattress but the body of the claim recites no structure pertaining to the medical bed mattress and merely recites structure which is in no way linked or associated with a medical bed mattress. In claim 1 the recitation “…with both side surfaces of a subject …” is indefinite as both side surfaces lack antecedent basis.
Claims 2-11 are rejected via dependency.
In this case, claim 10 recites a method, but depends from claim 1 which is an apparatus claim. Because Applicant is claiming two separate statutory classes together in a single claim, claim 10 is deemed indefinite.
In this case, claim 11 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a medical image examination program executable by a computer to execute processing of: detecting the mark provided on the medical bed mattress according to claim 1” . Because Applicant is claiming two separate statutory classes together in a single claim, claim 11 is deemed indefinite.
Therefore claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
A suggested clarification would be to eliminate the claim dependency of claims 10 and 11 on claim 1 by positively reciting the structure of claim 1.
NOTE: any prior art rejection provided below is made as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues above.
PNG
media_image2.png
1896
1508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1801
1349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-11, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 10 2007 037 022 B4, hereinafter D1. The annotated figures above are provided for convenience.
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses a medical bed mattress (see annotated figures 1-2; for the purpose of examination the preamble is treated as non-limiting to the scope of the claims, i.e. the preamble is best understood as interpreted as setting forth an environment for the limitations which follow because there is no relationship between the preamble and the positively recited elements) comprising:
a pair of holders (see annotated figure 2) that are disposed to be (this is not a limiting recitation as the use of “to be” is interpreted as an intended use and the prior art is capable of the claimed recitation, MPEP 2111.04) in contact with both side surfaces of a subject (see annotated figure 1; Note the recitation of a subject is not a positive recitation. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. MPEP 2115); and
a mark (a reference means 8, 9, 10) that is provided on at least one holder of the pair of holders (see fig. 2) and that is used to check a positional relationship between the holder and the subject (note the phrase “is used” is typically used to connect structure to a function, similar to the word “for.” “Is used” (for) usually means the structure can perform the function with no additional modification therefore this recitation is interpreted as a functional recitation. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally; apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114. All functional implications have been carefully considered but are deemed not to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by the prior art reference).
As to claim 2.
D1 discloses the holder has a translucent or transparent portion in at least a part of the holder (use of Plexiglas, translation page 2 last paragraph).
As to claim 3.
D1 discloses a medical image examination apparatus (fig. 3) comprising:
a processor (23, 24, 25), wherein the processor is configured to perform processing of: detecting the mark (translation page 5 “To capture projections of the head 5 becomes the patient table 19 through the opening 22 in the housing of the computed tomography device 18 in the measuring range of the recording system 21 adjusted. The scanning of the head area takes place during rotation of the gantry with simultaneous continuous feed of the head 5 in the measuring range of the recording system 21 , The projections of the head area obtained in this way by a helical scan are sent to a computing unit 23 transmitted and to tomographic three-dimensional slices 24 charged, which on a display unit 25 are representable. Storing the raw data of the recording system obtained for the projections 21 takes place together with the stored position data of the stop means 2 . 3 . 4) provided on the medical bed mattress according to claim 1 (see explanation for claim 1); and notifying of a detection result of the mark (results displayed on display unit 25).
As to claim 4.
D1 discloses wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a detected state of the mark is a predetermined state (i.e. the result of a scan); and notify of a determination result as the detection result of the mark (via 25).
As to claim 10.
D1 discloses a medical image examination method comprising: via a computer (23) performing processing of: detecting the mark (see explanation for claim 3) provided on the medical bed mattress according to claim 1 (see explanation for claim 1); and notifying of a detection result of the mark (see explanation for claim 3).
As to claim 11.
D1 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a medical image examination program executable by a computer to execute processing of (see explanation for claim 3):
detecting the mark (see explanation for claim 3) provided on the medical bed mattress according to claim 1 (see explanation for claim 1); and notifying of a detection result of the mark (see explanation for claim 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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: the art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the “….determine whether the detected state of the mark is the predetermined state by determining whether a positional relationship between the mark and the subject is within a predetermined range” of claim 5 or “…wherein the processor is configured to notify that a holding state of the holder is defective in a case where the holder is not in a predetermined state” of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE Justin Mikowski can be reached at (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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 21 May 2026
Prosecution Insights