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 § 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 1-6, 9-10, and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.1S.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 recites the limitation "the power supply unit" in line 9. It is not clear if this is the same as the power supply, also introduced in line 9. For examination purposes, it is assumed the power supply and the power supply unit refer to the same structure. Claims 2-6, 9-10, and 17-27 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “preferably arranged to store the data storage medium an indication of the occurred impact”. It is not clear from the term “preferably” if this limitation is a required feature of the claim. Claims 5-6 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the impact information is transmitted” in line 2. A claim which contains limitations directed to both a product and a process of using the product are considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when creating a product capable of performing the claimed method steps or when the method steps are actually performed. In this regard, MPEP 2173.05(p) and n re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011) are relevant. Examiner recommends the languages “wherein the impact information is arranged to be transmitted.”
Claims 17 and 25 recite the limitation “preferably arranged to wirelessly transmit the information”. It is not clear from the term “preferably” if this limitation is a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the impact determination unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed this feature was intended to read “the impact detection unit” which was introduced in claim 1, line 7.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 18-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0177362) in view of Kostic (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0298229).
Regarding claim 1, Filiberti (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0177362) discloses a couchtop extension 104 configured to be releasably coupled to a couchtop base station 102 and configured to support a patient during medical diagnosis or treatment (paragraph 0037 and Figure 2), the couchtop extension 104 comprising a panel 108 extending between a first longitudinal end (defined by the end of the panel 108 opposite to couch 102, Figure 2) and a second longitudinal end (defined by the end of the panel 108 which abuts couch 102, Figure 2), wherein the couchtop extension 104 comprises a part of coupling means 126 for releasably coupling the couchtop extension panel 108 to the couchtop base station 102 (Figures 2 and 7 and paragraph 0053).
Filiberti does not disclose wherein the couchtop extension further comprises an impact detection unit, the impact detection unit being configured for detecting impact between the panel and a foreign object, and wherein the couchtop extension further comprises a power supply, the power supply unit being configured to power the impact detection unit at least whilst the couchtop extension is not coupled to the couchtop base station.
Kostic teaches wherein the couchtop extension 36 further comprises an impact detection unit 56, the impact detection unit 56 being configured for detecting impact between the panel 38 and a foreign object (paragraph 0097), and wherein the couchtop extension further comprises a power supply 110, the power supply unit being configured to power the impact detection unit 56 at least whilst the couchtop extension is not coupled to the couchtop base station (paragraph 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Filiberti (directed to a couchtop extension) with Kostic (directed to a patient support unit) and arrived at an impact detection unit, the impact detection unit being configured for detecting impact between the panel and a foreign object, and wherein the couchtop extension further comprises a power supply, the power supply unit being configured to power the impact detection unit at least whilst the couchtop extension is not coupled to the couchtop base station. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the impact detection unit of Kostic allows for collisions to detected and recorded (paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 2, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the couchtop extension 104 is arranged for supporting the patient in a magnetic field or in a radiation zone during medical diagnosis or treatment (see Filiberti, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 3, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the impact detection unit 56 comprises a sensor 104e arranged to sense a parameter indicative of an impact between the panel 38 and the foreign body (see Kostic, paragraph 0097), and a data storage medium arranged to store the sensed parameter (paragraph 0107).
Regarding claim 4, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the impact detection unit comprises a controller 108 arranged to determine from the sensed parameter whether an impact has occurred (see Kostic, paragraph 0097), and preferably arranged to store in the data storage medium an indication of the occurred impact (see Kostic, paragraph 0107).
Regarding claim 5, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3-4. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the sensor 104e is an accelerometer arranged to sense acceleration of the panel (see Kostic, paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 6, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3-5. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the controller 108 determines that an impact has occurred when the sensed acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold (see Kostic, paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 18, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the part of the coupling means 126 which is provided on the couchtop extension 104 comprises one of a tab and a cavity 130 (see Filiberti, Figure 7 and paragraph 0053), arranged to couple with a part of the coupling means 132 which is provided on the couchtop base station or docking station 102 (see Filiberti, paragraph 0053 and Figure 7), the part 132 of the coupling means 130 and 132 which is provided on the couchtop base station or docking station 102 comprising the other one of the tab 132 and the cavity (see Filiberti, paragraph 0053 and Figure 7), wherein the cavity 130 is configured to receive the tab 132 upon coupling the couchtop extension to the couchtop base station or docking station 102 such as to support the couchtop extension 104 with the couchtop base station or docking station 102 (see Filiberti, Figure 7 and paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 19, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the impact determination unit 180 is provided on the part of the coupling means 126 which is provided on the couchtop extension (see Filiberti, paragraph 0058-0059 and Figures 13-15).
Regarding claim 20, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein power supply 172 is provided on the part of the coupling means 126 which is provided on the couchtop extension 104 (see Filiberti, Figure 18B and paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 21, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the part of the coupling means 130 and 132 which is provided on the couchtop extension 104, is provided on the second longitudinal end of the panel 108 (see Filiberti, Figures 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 22, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the panel 108 is made of a radiolucent material such that the interference of the medical radiation by the panel is reduced (see Filiberti, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 23, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses an assembly comprising at least one couchtop extension 104 according to claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1, above), and further comprising a couchtop base station and/or a docking station 102 (see Filiberti, paragraph 0037 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further disclose couchtop base station 104 and/or the docking station comprises a communication module 92 arranged to send the impact information to an external data storage medium such as a cloud- based hosting service (see Kostic, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 26, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses a method of detecting an impact between a couchtop extension and a foreign object, the method comprising providing a couchtop extension according to claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1, above), and detecting an impact between the couchtop extension and a foreign body by means of the impact detection unit 56 powered by the power supply unit 110 (see Kostic, paragraphs 0075 and 0097).
Regarding claim 27, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 26. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the step of detecting an impact between the couchtop extension and a foreign body by means of the impact detection unit 56 powered by the power supply unit 110 takes place whilst the couchtop extension is not coupled to a couchtop base station or a docking station (see Kostic, paragraphs 0075 and 0097).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti in view of Kostic and further in view of Tessmer (U.S. Publication No. 10,893,988).
Regarding claim 9, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Filiberti, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the couchtop extension is arranged to transmit the information stored in the data storage medium to the couchtop base station.
Tessmer (U.S. Publication No. 10,893,988) teaches wherein the patient support 22 is arranged to transmit the information stored in the data storage medium to the couchtop base station 24 (Col. 13, line 58-Col. 14, line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Filiberti, as modified, (directed to a couchtop extension) with Tessmer (directed to a patient support unit) such that the couchtop extension is arranged to transmit the information stored in the data storage medium to the couchtop base station. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the data transmission system of Tessmer allows for data regarding the patient support to be transferred and used by the base station (Col. 13, line 58-Col. 14, line 9).
Regarding claim 10, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 3, and 9. Filiberti, as modified, further discloses wherein the impact information is transmitted upon coupling the couchtop extension with the couchtop base station (see Tessmer, Col. 13, line 58-Col. 14, line 9).
Claims 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filiberti in view of Tessmer and further in view of Monson (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0277397).
Regarding claim 17, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 3. Filiberti, as modified, does not disclose wherein the couchtop extension further comprises a communication module arranged to communication wirelessly with a communication module of another couchtop extension, wherein the couchtop extension is preferably arranged to wirelessly transmit the information stored in the data storage to another couchtop extension upon the two couchtop extensions being proximate.
Monson teaches wherein the couchtop extension further comprises a communication module 640 arranged to communication wirelessly with a communication module of another couchtop extension (paragraphs 0331-0332), wherein the couchtop extension is preferably arranged to wirelessly transmit the information stored in the data storage to another couchtop extension upon the two couchtop extensions being proximate (paragraph 0331-0332).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Filiberti, as modified, (directed to a couchtop extension) with Tessmer (directed to a patient support unit) such that the couchtop extension further comprises a communication module arranged to communication wirelessly with a communication module of another couchtop extension, wherein the couchtop extension is preferably arranged to wirelessly transmit the information stored in the data storage to another couchtop extension upon the two couchtop extensions being proximate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the ability to communicate between nearby patient supports allows for collisions between them to be prevented (paragraphs 0331-0332).
Regarding claim 25, Filiberti, as modified, discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 23. Filiberti, as modified, does not disclose wherein multiple couchtop extensions are provided wherein the multiple couchtop extensions comprise a communication module (106) arranged to communicate wirelessly with a communication module of another couchtop extension, wherein the couchtop extension is preferably arranged to wirelessly transmit the information stored in the data storage medium, to another couchtop extension upon the two couchtop extensions being proximate.
Monson teaches wherein patient support apparatuses are provided (paragraph 0331-0332), wherein the multiple patient support apparatuses comprise a communication module 640 arranged to communicate wirelessly with a communication module of another couchtop extension (paragraph 0331-0332), wherein the couchtop extension is preferably arranged to wirelessly transmit the information stored in the data storage medium, to another couchtop extension upon the two couchtop extensions being proximate (paragraph 0331-0332).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Filiberti, as modified, (directed to a couchtop extension) with Tessmer (directed to a patient support unit) such that multiple couchtop extensions are provided and wherein the multiple couchtop extensions comprise a communication module arranged to communicate wirelessly with a communication module of another couchtop extension, and is preferably arranged to wirelessly transmit the information stored in the data storage medium to another couchtop extension upon the two couchtop extensions being proximate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the ability to communicate between nearby patient supports allows for collisions between them to be prevented (paragraphs 0331-0332).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coppens (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0121497) which discloses a radiolucent extension for a medical couchtop.
Coppens (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0214570) which discloses a radiolucent extension for a medical couchtop.
Wilson (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0312184) which discloses a joint for a detachable couchtop extension.
Zacharopoulos (U.S. Patent No. 6,914,599) which discloses a joint for a detachable couchtop extension.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights