TWO-DIMENSIONAL DISPLAY FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

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 . PROSECUTION REOPENED In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 7/6/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBYREOPENED. See the rejection set forth below. To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one ofthe following two options: file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or areply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or, initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice ofappeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however,the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they werepreviously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increasedfees and the amount previously paid. A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below: /ANNE M KOZAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797 Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 is missing a period. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN201920723U) in view of Ford (US 20150207990 A1) and Hwang (US 20100073271 A1) Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches a magnetic resonance imaging magnet assembly configured for supporting a subject within an imaging zone ([0028] Figure 1 shows a cross-sectional view of a magnetic resonance equipment. The magnetic resonance equipment includes a magnetic resonance equipment main body 100; [0029] patients undergoing examination in the examination area 200 will not suffer from discomfort because the examination area 200 is narrow and closed) PNG media_image1.png 491 800 media_image1.png Greyscale a magnetic resonance imaging magnet wherein the magnetic resonance imaging magnet is configured for generating a main magnetic field with the imaging zone ([0028] The magnetic resonance equipment main body 100 is annular. Main magnets are arranged in sequence from the outside to the inside of the annular magnetic resonance equipment main body (not labeled in the figure)), gradient coils (not labeled in the figure) and radio frequency coils (not labeled in the figure)) an optical image generator configured for generating a two-dimensional image ([0022] There is a host computer at one end of the control device, and the control device can quickly transmit the images generated by the host computer to the display screen in a timely manner, so that the patient can obtain imaging information at the same time; [0012] the control device generates an optical signal through the projection device, and transmitted to the display screen through optical fibers) an optical waveguide bundle configured for coupling to the optical image generator ([0034] The optical fiber 400 is used to receive the optical signal from the projection device 500 and transmit the optical signal) and a two-dimensional display comprising pixels (display screen 300), wherein each of the pixels is optically coupled to at least one optical waveguide selected from the optical waveguide bundle ([0029] , the display screen 300 is a fiber optic display screen or a display screen 300 made of electrochromic material, and is arranged on the top of the inspection area 200; [0036] The control device 600 generates light signals through the projection device 500 and transmits them to the display screen 300 through the optical fiber 400 to display colorful pictures and videos) wherein the optical waveguide bundle and the two-dimensional display are configured for displaying the two-dimensional image ([0029] a magnetically compatible display screen 300 is provided on the inner wall of the detection area 200. In the magnetic resonance equipment, it has little impact on the distribution of the magnetic field. The magnetically compatible display screen 300 can play back self-stored pictures, videos, etc. Specifically, the display screen 300 is a fiber optic display screen or a display screen 300 made of electrochromic material, and is arranged on the top of the inspection area 200; [0031] Figure 2 shows a diagram of auxiliary equipment connected to the display screen. The magnetic resonance equipment also includes an optical fiber 400 connected to the display screen 300, a projection device 500 connected to the optical fiber 400, and a control device 600 connected to the projection device 500.; [0036] The control device 600 generates light signals through the projection device 500 and transmits them to the display screen 300 through the optical fiber 400 to display colorful pictures and videos). Xie fails to teach wherein each of the pixels comprises a diffusor, wherein the diffusor is a diffusor plate, wherein each of the pixels is optically coupled to at least one optical waveguide selected from the optical waveguide bundle, wherein the at least one optical waveguide of each of the pixels is configured for illuminating the diffusor and thereby the pixel comprised by the diffuser for viewing within the imaging zone. However, Ford teaches wherein each of the pixels comprises a diffusor ([0111] The diagram 592 shows a conventional FSI pixel with an exemplary lightguide designed to collect all the light incident on the pixel lenslet surface. The diagram 593 shows an exemplary modified focal plane pixel, which is configured to absorb large-angle (stray) light. For example, some manufacturers use an internal waveguide to increase light collection in each pixel). wherein each of the pixels is optically coupled to at least one optical waveguide selected from the optical waveguide bundle ([0111] CMOS image sensors can be fabricated using lenslets over each pixel, e.g., to concentrate light. For example, the disclosed technology can employ light filtering techniques including light-guided CMOS pixels, which can be modified to introduce absorption of stray light. FIG. 5C shows exemplary diagrams 591, 592, and 593 depicting light filtering into light guided CMOS pixels, modified to introduce absorption of stray light, e.g., showing front-side illuminated (FSI) vs. back-side illuminated (BSI) focal planes. The diagram 591 shows a conventional FSI pixel. The diagram 592 shows a conventional FSI pixel with an exemplary lightguide designed to collect all the light incident on the pixel lenslet surface. The diagram 593 shows an exemplary modified focal plane pixel, which is configured to absorb large-angle (stray) light. For example, some manufacturers use an internal waveguide to increase light collection in each pixel) PNG media_image2.png 467 783 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein the at least one optical waveguide of each of the pixels is configured for illuminating the diffusor and thereby the pixel comprised by the diffuser for viewing within the imaging zone ([0262] the image forming optical system is modified to direct light to couple into the waveguides over a wider range of angles using a uniform two-dimensional light angle diffusor structure. For example, an output surface of the monocentric optical surface and/or the spherical intermediate image surface can include light directing structures to optically couple the light into the waveguides. In some examples, a light diffusor can be implemented. Xie and Ford are considered analogous because both disclose imaging methods that involve an optical waveguide. Therefore, given that the Xie reference discloses a generic display in the bore of the MRI machine, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the generic display disclosed in Xie with features disclosed in the display in Ford’s disclosure including light filtering means such as light diffusion in each pixel of a display and further to couple the display and the optical waveguide with a diffuser in order to direct light to couple into the waveguides over a wider range of angles (Ford [0262]). Xie in view of Ford fails to teach wherein the diffusor is a diffusor plate. However, Hwang teaches wherein the diffusor is a diffusor plate ([0042] a diffusion plate 50) Xie as modified and Hwang are considered analogous because both disclose optical based LCD displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to equip the generic display disclosed in Xie which operates with principles disclosed in ford with diffusor plates in order to diffuse light emitted from the lamps 60 and may thus prevent bright lines from appearing along the contours of the lamps 60 (Hwang [0046]) Regarding claim 2, Xie teaches wherein the magnetic resonance imaging magnet assembly further comprises a subject support, wherein the optical waveguide bundle is integrated into the subject support ([0034] The optical fiber 400 is used to receive the optical signal from the projection device 500 and transmit the optical signal. Specifically, the optical fiber 400 includes an optical fiber bundle head 410, and the optical fiber bundle head 410 receives optical signals. The optical fiber 400 is mainly composed of glass fiber, has magnetic compatibility, and can be set in the area of the magnetic resonance equipment). Regarding claim 3, Xie teaches wherein the subject support comprises a display support (slide rail 210), wherein the two-dimensional display is attached to the display support ([0030] a slide rail 210 is provided on the inner wall of the detection area 200, and the display screen 300 is provided on the slide rail 210 and can slide along the slide rail 210. Adjust the position of the display screen 300 to achieve the best viewing position for the patient and improve comfort). Regarding claim 7, Xie fails to teach wherein the optical waveguide bundle is a three-dimensional printed optical waveguide bundle or formed from lithographically structured foils. However, Ford teaches wherein the optical waveguide bundle is a three-dimensional printed optical waveguide bundle or formed from lithographically structured foils ([0133] a thin conformal layer 1701, e.g., patterned with micro optics along peripheral optical fibers of the concave input face to deflect the input light at optical angles similar to that of those of optical fibers aligned along the center field, as shown in FIG. 17. FIG. 17 shows a diagram depicting light coupling into and out of an exemplary straight fiber bundle 1700 with a concave input face, in which the concave surface has been modified with beam-deflecting features (e.g., holographic or lithographic input structure) to improve uniformity of output divergence). Xie and Ford are considered analogous because both disclose imaging methods that involve an optical waveguide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optical waveguide out of a lithographic structure in order to improve uniformity of output divergence (Ford [0133]). Regarding claim 8, Xie teaches wherein the optical waveguide bundle is formed from multiple optical fibers ([0034] the optical fiber 400 includes an optical fiber bundle head 410, and the optical fiber bundle head 410 receives optical signals. The optical fiber 400 is mainly composed of glass fiber, has magnetic compatibility, and can be set in the area of the magnetic resonance equipment). Regarding claim 9, Xie teaches wherein optical waveguides of the optical wave guide bundle are configured for any one of the following: forming an optical coupling surface that abuts the optical wave guide ([0034] the optical fiber 400 includes an optical fiber bundle head 410, and the optical fiber bundle head 410 receives optical signals. The optical fiber 400 is mainly composed of glass fiber, has magnetic compatibility, and can be set in the area of the magnetic resonance equipment) PNG media_image3.png 271 909 media_image3.png Greyscale Xie fails to teach the diffusor of each voxel and forming the diffusor on an end surface. However, Ford teaches the diffusor of each voxel ([0262] the image forming optical system is modified to direct light to couple into the waveguides over a wider range of angles using a uniform two-dimensional light angle diffusor structure) forming the diffusor on an end surface ([0263] the light diffusor can be structured to include substantially concentric grooves or ridges on the waveguide input surface and/or the spherical intermediate image surface of the image forming optical system). Xie and Ford are considered analogous because both disclose imaging methods that involve an optical waveguide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a diffusor that works over a wide range of angles on the input surface of the device in order to direct light to couple into the waveguides over a wider range of angles (Ford [0262]) Regarding claim 10, Xie teaches wherein the optical waveguides of the optical wave guide bundle comprise a reflective end surface, wherein the optical waveguides of the optical wave guide bundle are configured to couple to the diffusor using the reflective end surface ([0038] A reflector 710 is also provided in the darkroom 700, which can change the propagation direction of the light path and adjust the position between the projection device 500 and the optical fiber 400 in a certain manner). Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Ford and Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20140125337 A1). Regarding claim 4, Xie fails to teach wherein the magnetic resonance imaging magnet assembly comprises a gradient coil assembly, wherein the magnetic resonance imaging magnet assembly comprises a magnet cover encasing the magnetic resonance imaging magnet and the gradient coil assembly, wherein the two- dimensional display is any one of the following: integrated into the magnet cover and attached to the magnet cover, and wherein the optical waveguide bundle is attached to the magnet cover, wherein the optical waveguide bundle is between the gradient coil assembly and the magnet cover. However, Lee teaches wherein the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI apparatus 100) magnet assembly comprises a gradient coil assembly ([0081] gradient coil which is used to apply a gradient magnetic field), wherein the magnetic resonance imaging magnet assembly comprises a magnet cover (housing 110) encasing the magnetic resonance imaging magnet and the gradient coil assembly ([0081] the magnetic field generation unit which is accommodated within the housing 110 includes a main magnet which is used to apply a strong magnetic field to a human body, a gradient coil which is used to apply a gradient magnetic field to provide location information which relates to a magnetic field, and a radio frequency (RF) coil which is used to apply an electromagnetic wave to a human body so that a magnetization vector resonates within the human body and to receive a magnetic resonance signal from the human body. The magnetic field generation unit for performing MRI is well known in the art, and does not limit exemplary embodiments) wherein the two- dimensional display ([0036] video unit) is any one of the following: integrated into the magnet cover and attached to the magnet cover, and wherein the optical waveguide bundle ([0036] optical fiber cable unit) is attached to the magnet cover, wherein the optical waveguide bundle is between the gradient coil assembly and the magnet cover ([0036] The projector may include an optical fiber projector, the optical fiber objector including a video unit which is disposed outside of the bore of the housing, an optical fiber cable unit which is configured to transmit a light beam of an image produced by the video unit, and a projection lens unit which is configured to project the light beam of the image received via the optical fiber cable unit onto the inner wall that at least partially forms the bore of the housing). Xie and Lee are considered analogous because they both disclose MRI apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a housing to encase both the MR magnet as well as gradient coils with the optical waveguide on the outside of the housing in order to reduce boredom of the inspection target (Lee [0006]). Regarding claim 5, Xie teaches wherein the magnetic resonance imaging magnet is a cylindrical magnet with a bore for receiving the subject, wherein the two-dimensional display is within the bore ([0004] magnetic resonance imaging system is characterized by a cylindrical tubular closed space; [0029] The main body 100 of the magnetic resonance equipment is concave to form an inspection area 200, and a magnetically compatible display screen 300 is provided on the inner wall of the detection area 200). Regarding claim 6, Xie teaches wherein the optical image generator is attached to the magnetic resonance imaging magnet assembly, wherein the optical image generator is outside of bore ([0031] Figure 2 shows a diagram of auxiliary equipment connected to the display screen. The magnetic resonance equipment also includes ...a control device 600 connected to the projection device 500; [0032] Because the data signals provided by the control device 600 are electrical signals, they should be installed in an area far away from the magnetic resonance equipment). Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Ford and Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of St. Hilaire (US 20190011722 A1). Regarding claim 16, Xie as modified fails to teach the diffuser of each pixel has one side contacting one of the optical waveguides and an opposite side projecting into the imaging zone. However, St. Hilaire teaches the diffuser of each pixel (diffuser 703) has one side contacting one of the optical waveguides (Laser Diode 701) and an opposite side projecting into the imaging zone (Lens 705) ([0059] A laser from the laser diode 701, which is driven by the modulator 705, passes through the first diffuser 703. The light beams passing through the first diffuser 703 also pass through a separate condensing lens 705 before entering a multimode fiber 707 and propagating therethrough. The lens 705 helps to couple light into the multimode fiber 707.) PNG media_image4.png 388 693 media_image4.png Greyscale Xie as modified and St. Hilaire are considered analogous because both involve medical imaging devices that focus on how light is directed in the imaging process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to connect a light diffusing element between a waveguide such as a laser diode and an imaging zone in order to reduce laser speckling (St. Hilaire [0005]). Regarding claim 17, Xie as modified fails to teach the optical waveguide coupled to each pixel flares outwardly and contacts the diffuser. However, St. Hilaire teaches the optical waveguide coupled to each pixel flares outwardly and contacts the diffuser ([0058] FIG. 7A shows a pseudo-random first diffuser 703 that causes a reflected ray 709 to reflect back into a laser diode 701. The photons from the light beam 708 bounce back from each part of the first diffuser 703 to cause a number of reflected rays 709 to scatter the light). Xie as modified and St. Hilaire are considered analogous because both involve medical imaging devices that focus on how light is directed in the imaging process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to have a waveguide such as a laser diode emit light in an outward direction toward the diffusing element in order to reduce laser speckling (St. Hilaire [0005]). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 18 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see appeal brief, filed 7/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 16-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly cited Hwang reference. Applicant has argued firstly that the combination of Xie and Ford fails to teach a diffusor plate and that the previously cited Farr reference failed to remedy this shortcoming, alleging that the diffusor plate in the Farr reference is to be utilized in a microscope rather than a display. Applicant is reminded that diffusor plates in a breadth of applications are well known in the art, and as a result, the newly cited Hwang reference is cited, a reference which utilizes a diffusor plate in the specific context of an optical screen, an application analogous to that of the pending application. Furthermore, the use of such a screen as the ones disclosed in the Ford and Hwang references in the context of an MRI is well known in the art, applicant is pointed to a study by Ko, a piece of non-patent literature, which discloses “an MR compatible, low-cost display unit based on organic light-emitting diodes (OLED) and demonstrated its performance” [abst]. Thus, arriving at the applicant’s secondary point and providing a concrete motivation to combine the aforementioned references that is well known in the art. While arguing a “different structural relationship” between the two references applicant makes the case that Ford describes a ‘different type of pixel’ as opposed to the pixels present in the independent claim. First and foremost, applicant attempts to back up this allegation with features which are not present in the claims. The claims simply require a pixel. Ford discloses pixels. The features are analogous. Secondly, applicant states that they do not understand the motivation for combining the references. The primary Xie reference discloses the vast majority of the structural components of the independent claim, and while Xie claims a display on the inside of the MRI machine as required by the claim, Xie does not go in depth on the particulars of said display. Firstly, it must be stated that given that this is an MRI machine, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the necessity for using optical components to power a screen in such a setting. A screen powered by copper wires or any metal components would destroy the functionality of the MRI and as a result it is impossible to incorporate a screen into an MRI machine without the use of an optical waveguide. That is the motivation why Ko in the cited non-patent literature would use an OLED screen as the disclosed and this is the motivation why anyone having ordinary skill in the art would use an optical based screen in the bore of an MRI machine. Thus, one or ordinary skill in the art would deduce that the screen present in Xie’s invention utilizes an optical waveguide that performs some sort of light diffusion. While Xie omits relevant details regarding this aspect of their invention, Ford focuses specifically on the functionality of a screen with an optical waveguide. Given the impossibility of using copper wire based screens in an MRI machine as was described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no choice but to use a screen analogous to the one in the Ford disclosure. Figure 5C from the Ford disclosure illustrates the exact pixel by pixel manner of light diffusion that would be deduced from the way the claims are worded. Ford does not explicitly state that their invention is to be used in an MRI machine, but it can be deduced by one of ordinary skill in the art that the generic display component in Xie will likely function with principles such as those in the screen Ford discloses. Thus, the references are very clearly able to be combined. The singular detail missing from the combination of these two references is the fact that the diffusor is a diffusor plate as Ford remains silent to the specific shape of the diffusor. Thus, given that it is known in the art that a light diffusor could be plate shaped, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the diffusor in such a manner given that Ford provides no concrete reason to do otherwise. Furthermore, the newly cited Hwang reference provides a very explicit motivation for why the diffusor might be a diffusor plate: in order to prevent bright lines from appearing along the contours of the lamps (Hwang [0046]). In order to justify applicant’s allegation that the references are improperly combined, applicant continues to attack each reference on the particular shortcomings of each rather than as a whole, which to reiterate, the generic screen in Xie is considered to operate with principles of the LED display disclosed in Ford and furthermore the generic diffusor in Ford is considered to be a diffusor plate for reasons disclosed in Hwang. This line of argument by the applicant is impermissible by MPEP section 2145, IV which reads: One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As a recap Xie discloses every aspect of the independent claim while omitting structural details of the display used, Xie simply discloses a generic display. Due to the limitations of MRI technology, it can be deduced that Xie must be using a screen analogous to that which Ford discloses with diffusion principles as Ford is describing and seeing as Ford does not specify the shape of the diffusor one of ordinary skill in the art could easily use a plate like configuration as disclosed in Farr. Thus, it is maintained that one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1 by a thorough analysis of the three cited references in combination with each other and as a result, the claims are unpatentable. Dependent claims are similarly unpatentable due to their dependency upon an unpatentable base claim. However, dependent claim 18 has been identified to contain allowable subject matter should it be presented in independent form. For at least the aforementioned reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizuuchi (US 20100103347 A1) teaches [abst] The display includes a liquid crystal display panel 204, laser light sources 205, 206, 207 emitting laser light having wavelengths of green, red, and blue colors, a waveguide plate 201 arranged at the back side of the liquid crystal display panel 204 and performing multiple reflection of laser light, and a diffusion plate 202 arranged at the back side of the waveguide plate 201, diffusing laser light propagating in the waveguide plate 201 and emitting the light toward liquid crystal display panel 204. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-7065. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM. 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. /GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797