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 Objections
Claim 65 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last line of claim 65, the term “patient” should be changed to --patient’s--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 74 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant), regards as the invention. The structural cooperation between the rotating disc as recited in the second line of dependent claim 74 and the patient support is generally unclear, thereby rendering claim 74 indefinite.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1- 3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184. In other words, claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16
of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80 and therefore anticipate claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80. Since claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80 are anticipated by claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of the patent, they are not patentably distinct from claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16. Thus the invention of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of the patent is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of the patent, claims 65-67, 71, 72, 79 and 80 not patentably distinct from claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16.
Claims 68-70, 73, 75-78 and 81 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0183641 to Harper et al. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 do not specifically disclose conditions wherein the patient support is configurable between a first configuration to support a patient in a substantially seated position to a second configuration to support a patient in a substantially standing position; wherein the seat is horizontal and configured to contact a patient's buttocks; wherein the seat is inclined downward and is configured to contact a patient's thighs; wherein the shin rest is horizontally translatable; wherein the patient support is vertically and/or horizontally translatable; wherein the patient support is tiltable; wherein the
patient support is configured to support a patient in an upright position and with a patient torso tilted at an angle with respect to a vertical axis; wherein the patient torso is tiled at an angle of approximately 0 to 20°; and further comprising a head rest. Harper et al. ‘641 provides the basic teaching of a patient support comprising all of the structural limitations as recited in independent claim 65 as well as in dependent claims 68-70, 73, 75-78 and 81, since U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0268327 to Feain et al. is incorporated by reference as stated on page 23, in paragraph 0169 of Harper et al. ‘641; please also refer to paragraph 4 of the previous Office action dated May 28, 2026 for the detailed rejection of claims 68-70, 73, 75-78 and 81 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 in view of Feain et al. ‘327. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the patient support disclosed in claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 with the various patient support configurations and head rest taught in Harper et al. ‘641 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved the desirable results of facilitating treatment and positioning of patients of different sizes relative to a radiation source and "to comfortably receive patients of varying size" secured to the patient support as taught by Harper et al. '641 (see Feain et al. ‘327, Figures 13, 15A, 15B & 24A; page 6, paragraphs 0171 & 0176; page 8, paragraph 0187 and page 10, paragraph 0196).
Claim 82 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 in view of U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2013/0219621 to Eder et al. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 do not specifically disclose the use of a fluid control cassette. Eder et al. '621 provides the basic teaching of a patient support (31) for use with a magnetic resonance apparatus (10), and a fluid control cassette (32, 45) disposed underneath the patient support
(see Figures 1-3; page 2, paragraphs 0024 & 0025; page 3, paragraphs 0029 & 0030 and page 4, paragraph 0039). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the patient support disclosed in claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,184 with the fluid control cassette taught in Eder et al. '621 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable results of protecting the patient support (and an associated medical imaging apparatus) from damage and "[facilitating] simple cleaning" of the patient support as taught by Eder et al. '621 (page 1, paragraphs 0006 & 0009 and page 2, paragraph 0020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 65-73, 75-81 and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harper et al. ‘641. With respect to claims 65-67, Harper et al. ‘641 provides the basic teaching of a patient support comprising a seat (2003-2005), a back rest (2010), a shin rest (2001), and a heel stop (2002), wherein the heel stop is configured to contact one or both of a patient’s heel(s), wherein the patient support is configured to support a patient in an upright position, and wherein the patient support is configured to support a patient in a standing, a sitting, a kneeling or a perched position (as shown in Figures 20A-20C and as described on page 23, in paragraph 0169).
With respect to claims 68-73, 75-81 and 84, Harper et al. ‘641 further discloses all of the structural limitations as recited in these claims, since U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0268327 to Feain et al. is incorporated by reference as stated on page 23, in paragraph 0169 of Harper et al. ‘641; please also refer to paragraph 8 of the previous Office action dated May 28, 2026 for the detailed rejection of claims 68-73, 75-81 and 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Feain et al. ‘327.
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.
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 74, 86 and 87, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. ‘641. Harper et al. ‘641 does not specifically disclose conditions wherein the heel stop (2002) is slidably mounted with respect to a rotating disc and is lockable in position; wherein the heel stop is mounted to a platform comprising a plurality of holes provided at several horizontal offsets relative to the back rest (2010), such that a horizontal distance between the back rest and the heel stop is adjusted by mounting the heel stop (2002) to a different hole; and wherein the heel top is horizontally translatable. However, Harper et al. ‘641 also discloses that the heel stop (2002) “[comprises] interface structures (e.g., pegs, tabs, hooks) that are structured to interface with and attach the [heel stop] to the patient support” and “[is] also movable and/or translatable” (as described on page 23, in paragraph 0169). Accordingly, the examiner respectfully asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the patient support of Harper et al. ‘641 with a heel stop which is slidably mounted with respect to a rotating disc and is lockable in position; which is mounted to a platform comprising a plurality of holes provided at several horizontal offsets relative to the back rest, such that a horizontal distance between the back rest and the heel stop is adjusted by mounting the heel stop to a different hole; or which is horizontally translatable, in order to impart adjustability to the heel stop which “[provides] custom configurable support for a patient placed on the patient support” also as taught by Harper et al. ‘641 (page 23, paragraph 0169).
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. ‘641 in view of Eder et al. ‘621. Harper et al. '641 does not specifically disclose the use of a fluid control cassette. Eder et al. '621 provides the basic teaching of a patient support (31) for use with a magnetic resonance apparatus (10), and a fluid control cassette (32, 45) disposed underneath the patient support (see Figures 1-3; page 2, paragraphs 0024 & 0025; page 3, paragraphs 0029 & 0030 and page 4, paragraph 0039). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the patient support disclosed in Harper et al. ‘641 with the fluid control cassette taught in Eder et al. '621 with a reasonable expectation of success because this would have achieved the desirable results of protecting the patient support (and an associated medical imaging apparatus) from damage and "[facilitating] simple cleaning" of the patient support as taught by Eder et al. '621 (page 1, paragraphs 0006 & 0009 and page 2, paragraph 0020).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-10 of the amendment with respect to the rejections of claims 65-82 and 84 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot in view the new ground(s) of rejection. Moreover, with respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the amendment with respect to independent claim 83 and newly-added dependent claim 85, the examiner respectfully agrees. Hence, the rejection of claim 83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as indicated in the previous Office action has been respectfully withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 83 and 85 are allowed. The examiner respectfully asserts that none of the prior art, taken either singly or in combination is seen to teach or suggest the use of a patient support comprising the particular structural configuration of and cooperation between the seat, the back rest, the shin rest, the heel stop and the non-metallic axle, wherein the seat is configured to rotate around the non-metallic axle between the claimed first and second positions and the non-metallic axle is positioned so as not to interfere with an imaging or treatment beam, as explicitly recited in independent claim 83.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2026/0224915 and 2026/0137358 as listed in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form are both considered to disclose the use of a patient support comprising a seat, a back rest, a shin rest and a heel stop.
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 ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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, Justin C 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
