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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the powered system of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The limitation “powered system” in claim 2, ln 2 meets all 3 prongs of the analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The limitation meets prong (A) because “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”. The limitation meets prong (B) because the generic placeholder (the “system”) is modified by functional language (“for moving the patient support between its folded configuration and its unfolded configuration”). The limitation meets prong (C) because this claim element is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function, as “powered” is a functional rather than a structural modifier.
After a review of the specification there appears to be no corresponding structures described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
The limitation “gross movement mechanism” in claim 16, ln 4 meets all 3 prongs of the analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The limitation meets prong (A) because “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”. The limitation meets prong (B) because the generic placeholder (the “mechanism”) is modified by functional language (“for transporting the imaging unit across room distances”). The limitation meets prong (C) because this claim element is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function, as “gross movement” is a functional rather than a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that free-rolling casters (¶[0014]) or powered mecanum wheels (¶[0017]) or Liddiard wheels (¶[0018]) appear to be the possible corresponding structures described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
The limitation “fine movement mechanism” in claim 16, ln 6 meets all 3 prongs of the analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The limitation meets prong (A) because “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”. The limitation meets prong (B) because the generic placeholder (the “mechanism”) is modified by functional language (“for moving the imaging unit precisely, relative to a patient, during scanning”). The limitation meets prong (C) because this claim element is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function, as “fine movement” is a functional rather than a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that a plurality of centipede belt drives (¶[0014]) or a plurality of powered wheels (¶[0017]) or Liddiard wheels (¶[0018]) appear to be the corresponding structures described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a powered system”. Examiner notes the limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and lacks written description because the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure that performs the entire claimed function of “moving the patient support between its folded configuration and its unfolded configuration”. For at least these reasons, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the original time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 and 18-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a powered system for moving the patient support between its folded configuration and its unfolded configuration”. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean the patient support’s folded configuration and the patient supports unfolded configuration, however, clarification is required.
Claim limitation “powered system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide sufficient structure as to what is considered a powered system. It is therefore, unclear what the structure of the powered system is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any system which may be capable of moving the patient support between its folded configuration and its unfolded configuration, however, clarification is required.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “positioning the patient support in its second, unfolded configuration”. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean the patient support’s second, unfolded configuration, however, clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “positioning an object on the patient support”. It is unclear if this is the same object recited previously or a different/distinct object. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any object, however, clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “patient support in its second”. It is unclear what “its” is referring to. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean the patient support’s second, unfolded configuration, however, clarification is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhongqiang et al. (US 20130305452 A1), hereinafter Zhongqiang. Examiner notes that Zhongqiang is included in applicant’s IDS filed 12/29/2025.
Regarding claim 1,
Zhongqiang discloses an imaging system (at least figs. 1-5 and corresponding disclosure in at least [0010]-[0014] or at least figs. 10-13 and corresponding disclosure in at least [0019]-[0021]) for imaging an object ([0040] which discloses a diagnostic bed for carrying an object to be inspected), the imaging system comprising:
an imaging unit (at least figs. 1-5 (1 and 51 in combination) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0025]-[0026] or at least figs. 10-13 (1 or 1 and 53 in combination) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0053]) comprising a housing (1 and 51) having a center opening (See dotted lines in figs. 1-13. Examiner notes that a CT gantry necessarily has a center opening and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognized the dotted lines in the images are representative of said opening);
a patient support (at least figs 1-5 and 10-13 (2) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0025] and [0053]) for supporting the object to be imaged ([0025] and [0053]), the patient support (2) being pivotally mounted to the housing (see at least figs. 1-5 and figs. 10-13 in which the patient support 2 is pivotally mounted to housing 51 or 1 and 53 in figs. 10-13), wherein the patient support is configured to pivot between (i) a first, folded configuration in which the patient support is disposed close to the housing (see at least fig. 5 or fig. 13), whereby to facilitate transport of the imaging unit ([0067]), and (ii) a second, unfolded configuration (at least fig. 1 or fig. 10) in which the patient support is aligned with a center opening of the housing (see at least figs. 1 and 10 in which the patient support 2 is aligned with a center opening (designated by dotted lines in the gantry 1), whereby to facilitate imaging of the object on the patient support ([0025] which discloses carrying an object to be inspected and [0031] which discloses in an unfolding state of a normally used CT apparatus. Examiner thus notes that the unfolded configuration is necessarily to facilitate imaging of the object on the patient support),
Regarding claim 2,
Zhongqiang further discloses further comprising a powered system (at least figs. 1-5 (41) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0025] and [0027] or at least figs. 10-13 (43) and correspodnign disclosure in at least [0056]) for moving the patient support between its folded configuration (FIG. 5 or fig. 13) and its unfolded configuration (FIG. 1 or fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3,
Zhongqiang further discloses further comprising at least one telescoping arm (at least figs. 1-5 (41) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0025] and [0027]) for moving the patient support between its folded configuration (see at least fig. 5 and disclosure in at least [0031]-[0036]) and its unfolded configuration (see at least fig. 2 and disclosure in at least [0031]).
Regarding claim 4,
Zhongqiang further discloses wherein the at least one telescoping arm is pivotally mounted to the housing (see at least figs. 1-5 in which actuating mechanism 41 is rotatably connected to the base 51).
Regarding claim 5,
Zhongqiang further discloses wherein the patient support comprises two portions (see at least figs. 10-11 depicting two portions) pivotally connected to one another at a hinge (at least fig. 10 (O) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0054]).
Regarding claim 8,
Zhongqiang further discloses further comprising at least one deployable foot (at least figs. 10-12 (53) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0055]-[0057]) for stabilizing the imaging system (Examiner notes that the base 53 supporting the diagnostic bed would necessarily stabilize the imaging system).
Regarding claim 9,
Zhongqiang further discloses wherein the at least one deployable foot is pivotally mounted to the housing (at least figs. 10-13 (OA) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0055]), whereby to be capable of assuming (i) a deployed configuration in which the at least one deployable foot engages a floor surface upon which the imaging system is disposed (see at least figs. 10-12 and disclosure in at least [0053]), and (ii) a storage configuration in which the at least one deployable foot does not engage the floor surface upon which the imaging system is disposed (see at least fig. 13 and disclosure in at least [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhongqiang further discloses wherein the imaging unit comprises a CT imaging unit ([0025] which discloses facilitates transporting and installing the CT apparatus).
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhongqiang in view of Yahata et. al. (U.S. Pat. 5034970), hereinafter Yahata. Examiner notes that Yahata is included in applicant’s IDS filed 12/29/2025.
Regarding claim 6,
Zhongqiang teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated.
Zhongqiang fails to explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of powered rollers for advancing the patient support into, and out of, the center opening of the housing.
Yahata teaches an imaging system further comprising a plurality of powered rollers (pair of rollers 27: FIG. 2, column 3, lns. 2-18 and column 3, lns. 25-43) for advancing the patient support into, and out of, the imaging space (column 3 lns. 2-18) for the purpose of reducing the need for additional alignment work of the patient support and housing (column 3 lns. 44-68 and column 4 lns. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging system Zhongqiang further comprise a plurality of powered rollers for advancing the patient support into, and out of, the center opening of the housing as taught by Yahata for the purpose of reducing the need for additional alignment work of the patient support and housing (column 3 lns. 44-68 and column 4 lns. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7,
Zhongqiang, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 6 as previously stated. Yahata further teaches an imaging system further comprising a roller conveyer (at least fig. 2 (28) and corresponding disclosure in at least column 3 lines 10-13) for stabilizing the patient support (at least fig. 2 (9) and corresponding disclosure in at least column 3 lines 10-13) while the patient support is advanced into, and out of, a center opening of the housing (column 3 lines 13-18).
Zhongqiang, as currently modified, fails to specifically disclose the roller conveyor comprising a plurality of roller conveyors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a plurality of idler rollers, instead of just one, for supporting the patient support while the patient support is advanced into, and out of, the imaging space since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.04 St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhongqiang in view of Griffiths et al. (US 20090177050 A1), hereinafter Griffiths.
Regarding claim 10,
Zhongqiang teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated.
Zhongqiang fails to explicitly teach the imaging system further comprising a contrast injector mounted to the housing.
Griffiths teaches a contrast injector (at least fig. 2 and/or 9 (221) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0057]) mounted to a housing (at least fig. 1 (201’) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0057]) of an imaging unit (201)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging system of the first embodiment of Zhongqiang and Bailey to include a contrast injector mounted to the housing Griffiths in order to provide a fully integrated imager and injector providing significant benefits to the patients, operators, doctors, and manufacturerers thorugh physical information, and/or operation integration to increase efficiency and/or capability (Griffiths [0032]). Such a modification would provide benefits for providing contrast to a subject in a manner which saves space, material, cost, and time (Griffith [0056]). Such a modification would further allow for a user convenience and simplicity for controlling power to the imaging system and injector ([0067]).
Regarding claim 11,
Zhongqiang, as modified, teaches the elemetns of claim 10 as previously stated. Griffiths, as applied to claim 10 above further teaches further comprising a postionable arm (at least fig. 9 (225) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0089]) for movably mounting the contrast injector (221) to the housing (see at least fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12,
Zhongqiang, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 10 as previously stated. Griffiths, as applied to claim 10 above, further teaches further comprising a cabinet (at least fig. 2 (219) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0057]) for storing the contrast injector (see at least fig. 2 and [0057]).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhongqiang in view of Wood et. al. (U.S. Pub. 20070167806), hereinafter Wood. Examiner notes that Wood is cited in applicant’s IDS filed 12/29/2025.
Regarding claim 13,
Zhongqian teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated.
Zhongqiang fails to explicitly teach further comprising an ultrasound imager.
Wood teaches an imaging system (at least fig. 1 and corresponding disclosure in at least [0027]) further comprising an ultrasound imager (at least figs. 1, 2A and 2B (40) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0027] and [0030]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging system Zhongqiang to include an ultrasound imager as taught by Wood for the purpose of using multi-modality medical imaging to provide a more complete representation of a patient, area of disease, or target tissue of interest than an individual modality alone (Wood [0004] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 15,
Zhongqiang, as modified, teaches the element of claim 1 as previously stated.
Wood, as applied to claim 13 above further teaches further comprising a visual display (at least fig. 1 (32) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0032]) for displaying data obtained by the ultrasound imager ([0040] which discloses for display of data from… US imaging).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhongqiang and Wood as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jonge et. al. (US 20210045712 A1), hereinafter Jonge. Examiner notes that Jonge is included in applicant’s IDS filed 12/29/2025.
Regarding claim 14,
Zhongqiang, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 13 as previously .
Zhongqiang, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the housing comprises a cradle for receiving the ultrasound imager.
Jonge teaches a cradle (at least fig. 3 (104) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0038]) for receiving an ultrasound imager ([0038])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhongqiang, as currently modified, to include a cradle as taught by Jong in order to allow for removably attaching the ultrasound probe to the housing. Such a modification would allow for the clinician to conveniently clip the ultrasound imager on their person as well as storing the imager on the medical equipment (Jong [0068]).
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhongqiang in view of Bailey et. al. (US 9986954 B2), hereinafter Bailey. Examiner notes that Bailey is cited in Applicant’s IDS filed on 12/29/2025.
Regarding claim 16,
Zhongqiang teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated.
Zhongqiang fails to explicitly wherein the housing comprises a transport mechanism for moving the imaging unit, wherein the transport mechanism comprises (i) a gross movement mechanism for transporting the imaging unit across room distances, and (ii) a fine movement mechanism for moving the imaging unit precisely, relative to a patient, during scanning.
Bailey, in a similar field of endeavor involving computerized tomography equipment, teaches an imaging system (at least fig. 2 (5) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 1 lines 46-51), comprising an imaging unit (at least fig. 1 (5 and/or 10 and 15) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 1 lines 46-51 and Col. 2 lines 17-24) comprising a housing (10 and 15) having a center opening (at least fig. 2 (20) and corresponding disclosure in at least col. 1 lines 46-51), wherein the housing (10 and 15) comprises a transport mechanism (at least figs. 4-5 (50) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 2 lines 50-55) for moving the imaging unit (10 and 15), wherein the transport mechanism comprises (i) a gross movement mechanism (at least figs. 4-5 (55) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 2 lines 55-56) for transporting the imaging unit across room distances (Col. 2), and (ii) a fine movement mechanism (at least figs. 4-5 (60) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 2 lines 60-64) for moving the imaging unit precisely, relative to a patient, during scanning (Col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Zhongqiang to include a transport mechanism for moving the imaging unit, wherein the transport mechanism comprises (i) a gross movement mechanism for transporting the imaging unit across room distances, and (ii) a fine movement mechanism for moving the imaging unit precisely, relative to a patient, during scanning as taught by Bailey in order to allow for moving the imaging unit relatively quickly across room distances, such that the patient can be scanned at their bedside without needing to be moved to a radiology department, therefore allowing movement of the CT imaging system to the patient and scanning the patient without having to transport the patient to a different location (column 2 lines 38-67 and column 3 lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 18,
Zhongqiang teaches a method comprising:
Providing an imaging system comprising:
an imaging unit (at least figs. 1-5 (1 and 51 in combination) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0025]-[0026] or at least figs. 10-13 (1 or 1 and 53 in combination) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0053]) comprising a housing (1 and 51) having a center opening (See dotted lines in figs. 1-13. Examiner notes that a CT gantry necessarily has a center opening and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognized the dotted lines in the images are representative of said opening);
a patient support (at least figs 1-5 and 10-13 (2) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0025] and [0053]) for supporting the object to be imaged ([0025] and [0053]), the patient support (2) being pivotally mounted to the housing (see at least figs. 1-5 and figs. 10-13 in which the patient support 2 is pivotally mounted to housing 51 or 1 and 53 in figs. 10-13), wherein the patient support is configured to pivot between (i) a first, folded configuration in which the patient support is disposed close to the housing (see at least fig. 5 or fig. 13), whereby to facilitate transport of the imaging unit ([0067]), and (ii) a second, unfolded configuration (at least fig. 1 or fig. 10) in which the patient support is aligned with a center opening of the housing (see at least figs. 1 and 10 in which the patient support 2 is aligned with a center opening (designated by dotted lines in the gantry 1), whereby to facilitate imaging of the object on the patient support ([0025] which discloses carrying an object to be inspected and [0031] which discloses in an unfolding state of a normally used CT apparatus. Examiner thus notes that the unfolded configuration is necessarily to facilitate imaging of the object on the patient support),
positioning the patient support in its second unfolded configuration (see at least figs. 1-3 and figs. 10-12);
positioning an object on the patient support while the patient support is in its second, unfolded configuration ([0026] which discloses a diagnostic bed 2 for carrying an object to be inspected. Examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized positioning the object on the patient support in its unfolded configuration as opposed to its folded configuration for storage/transport)
Examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the gantry and inspecting the object would comprise moving the object into the central opening and imaging the object in the central opening, however, such method steps are not explicitly disclosed by Zhongqiang.
Nonetheless, Bailey, in a similar field of endeavor involving Computerized tomography, teaches moving an object into a central opening of an imaging unit housing (Col. 3 lines 39-41 which discloses The patient's body is then advanced (i.e., along the Z-axis) into center opening 20, i.e., by advancing the patient support platform of scanning table T into center opening 20); and imaging the object in the central opening (Col. 1 lines 57-Col. 2 lines 10 which discloses X-ray beam and detected X-ray is passed through the patient anatomy disposed in center opening 20 and moving the patient and CT imaging system 5 relative to one another during scanning))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified Zhongqiang to include moving the object into the central opening; and imaging the object in the central opening as taught by Bailey in order to inspect the object accordingly.
Regarding claim 19,
Zhongqiang further teaches further comprising positioning the patient support in its second, unfolded configuration (See at least fig. 2) and transporting the imaging system ([0009] which discloses which its gantry and diagnostic bed can be deployed or retracted conveniently and thus can be transported easily. See also [0067]-[0068] disclosing the transporting of the gantry-diagnostic bed).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhongqiang and Bailey, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Yahata.
Regarding claim 20,
Zhongqiang, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 18 as previously stated. Zhongqiang, as currently modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the imaging system further comprises a plurality of powered rollers for moving the object into, and out of, the center opening of the housing.
Yahata teaches the method of imaging an object wherein the imaging system further comprises a plurality of powered rollers (pair of rollers 27: FIG. 2, column 3 lns. 2-18) for moving the object into, and out of, the imaging space (column 3 lns. 2-18) for the purpose of reducing the need for additional alignment work of the patient support and housing (column 3 lns. 44-68 and column 4 lns. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhongqiang, as currently modified, to further include a plurality of powered rollers for moving the object into, and out of, the center opening of the housing as taught by Yahata for the purpose of examining the object or subject within the CT scanner (see Yahata Abstract).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12376805 B2 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims clearly anticipate the instant claims and are merely an obvious broadening of the reference claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE L KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/BROOKE LYN KLEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights