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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In view of the amendments, an updated search was conducted resulting in the Damadian reference which is applied in the modified 103 Rejection set forth below.
In view of the amendments, the 112(b) rejection will be withdrawn.
In view of the amendments to the Drawings, the objection is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (2023/0051255) in view of Damadian et al. (6934574).
With respect to claim 1, Yan et al. teach of a medical imaging apparatus comprising a scanner 106 [0044], a patient receiving region or patient positioning system 108 [0045] partially surrounded by the scanner (fig. 2), and a patient support structure 110 comprising a patient chair having a first support region and a second support region of the two support regions for the back, and seat (fig. 3, 0045, 0046) and adjusters or actuators 114, 116, 118 configured to adjust an orientation of the different support areas [0047].
With respect to claim 1, Yan et al. do not teach of the plurality of adjusting elements each adjusting element configured to independently adjust an orientation of the respective support area. In a similar field of endeavor Damadian et al. teach of patient chair/bed support for a MRI scanner that includes a patient positioner 230 that includes a base 231, back rest support 232, lower support 234 (fig. 3, col. 5 lines 5-8) where the back support 232 includes a locking mechanism 237 or adjusting element to allow the back rest portion 232 to be set to various angles such that the patient may be positioned in a stand-up or lie down position (col. 5 lines 22-27). Damadian et al. also teach of a lower support section 234 attached to a hinged portion 244 and locking mechanism or adjusting element 238 secures the lower section at any appropriate angle for scanning (col. 5 lines 28-35). Damadian et al. therefore teach of a patient support with individual adjusting elements for each portion or support of the chair. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Damadian et al. to modify Yan et al. to further add to the ease of scanning and helps alleviate any discomfort for patients and orient the patient within the gap quickly and accurately (col. 2 lines 9-13).
With respect to claim 2, Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. teach of the first support region to comprise a seat region 170 [0054, fig. 3] and wherein the second support region is configured to support an upper body or the backrest 168 of the patient [0054, fig. 3].
With respect to claim 3, Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. teach of the patient chair comprising a further support region configured to support the head of a patient with a further support area and the adjuster is configured to adjust an orientation of the further support area [0090].
With respect to claim 4, Yan et al. in view of t Damadian et al. teach of the patient chair comprising a support region 172 for lower legs and/or feet of the patient and the adjuster configured to adjust an orientation of the support region for the legs/feet [0054, fig. 3].
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. teach of the chair being configured to provide a laying mode with adjustment mechanism to adjust the position of the support regions of the patient chair into a laying position and the chair is movable into the patient receiving region or adjusted to a sitting mode [0046].
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. teach of the adjuster or actuators comprising a controller configured to perform separate actuation of the support regions for adjusting an orientation of the first and second support areas [0045] where the chair can be one or more portions of the chair that can be actuable relative other portions or back can pivot relative to the seat [0045]. Yan et al. teach of adjusting in three or more degrees of freedom [0045] and also pivoting the back portion of the chair such that it is substantially coplanar with the seat [0046] where the actuators 114, 116, 118 can be compressed/expanded as needled [0048] to position the patient as needed for the scan/treatment [0049]. Yan et al. therefore teach of the patient support comprising a base with vertical adjuster to adjust the vertical position of the chair.
With respect to claim 10, Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. teach of the patient support comprising a rotator or pivotal linkages 188, 190 that can be rotatably pushed by respective motor to adjust the orientation of the chair and therefore be configured to adjust an orientation of the patent chair relative to the scanner and/or base of the patient support [0055].
With respect to claim 12, Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. teach of the patient support comprising a stationary patient support relative to the scanner where the patient is fixed relative to the scanner or secure the patient to the patient support relative to the scanner [0039, 0043, 0047].
With respect to claim 14, Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. teach of a MRI apparatus that is compatible with the patient support [0044].
With respect to claims 7 and 15-18, Yan et al. do not teach of the laying portion of the patient chair. Damadian et al. teaches of adjusting the chair (as shown in figure 3) such that the patient is prone laying down (fig. 4) or on their back where the back and front support areas are the same height (as shown in figure 2A) to form a continuous laying area of the patient. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the Damadian et al. reference, the support areas (front and back parts of chair in figure 3) are adjustable, the support areas may be adjustable by individual adjusting mechanisms at to various inclination angles from a chair to a narrow bed]. With respect to claim 18, Damadian et al. teach of the patient chair being configured to be movable in a longitudinal direction of the patient receiving region to position the patient in a magnetic resonance examination position (as shown in figure 2A) where the chair may include a height- to allow the patient’s head to be in close proximity to the opening to position the patient’s head or entire upper body within the MRI magnet to start the scanning process (fig. 2A). With respect to claim 19, Damadian et al. teach of the adjuster comprises a controller or control system configured to automatically actuate the adjusting elements with respect to the support areas (angle of back rest 232/lower portion 234) into a predefined orientation corresponding to the chair mode (as in sitting or supine or standing up ) (col. 5 lines 28-35). It would have therefore been obvious to use the teaching by Damadian et al. to modify Yan et al. to further add to the ease of scanning and helps alleviate any discomfort for patients and orient the patient within the gap quickly and accurately (col. 2 lines 9-13).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. in view of Damadian et al. and further in view of Biglieri et al. (2008/0139921). Yan et al. teach of the chair or patient support to include reflective markers that are incorporated on the chair [0095] but do not explicitly teach of a receiving region to receive an accessory. In a similar field of endeavor Biglieri et al. teach of a MRI based imaging apparatus that includes a chair for the patient which includes an housing 105 for receiving MRI coil 5 [0114, 0115]. Biglieri et al. also teach a mobile patient support with wheels to be mobile [0120] and compatible with the MRI scanner. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Biglieri et al. to modify Yan et al. to obtain MRI images of the specific patient region for improved signal acquisition and diagnostics [Biglieri, 0122].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights