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 Amendment
The amendment filed 01/13/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4-5, 11, and 16-17, cancellation of claim 7, and new claim 21 are acknowledged. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
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.
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: “measurement facility”, “determination unit”, “first/second data interface” and “comparison unit” in claim 11
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.
“Measurement facility” will be interpreted as a “a Hall effect sensor, a Tilt sensor, a camera, an ultrasound sensor, a radar sensor or a near field sensor” consistent with para [0014] of applicant’s specification.
“determination unit” will be interpreted as “processor hardware” consistent with para [00123] of applicant’s specification.
“comparison unit” will be interpreted as “processor hardware” consistent with para [00123] of applicant’s specification.
“first/second data interface” will be interpreted as “wired or wireless interfaces that are connected to a local area network (LAN), the Internet, a wide area network (WAN), or combinations thereof.” consistent with para [00124] of applicant’s specification.
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 § 101
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “providing of a protocol for the MRT examination”, “providing patient information, the patient information comprising at least information about body dimensions and orientation of the patient”, “measuring a location of the coil…”, “automatically determining an examination region of the patient from the protocol and the patient information provided and a required location of the coil”, “automatically determining a relative location of the coil as a difference between the location of the coil and the required location”, “comparing the relative location of the coil with a predetermined boundary region around a predetermined required location of the coil”, and “and outputting output data based on the relative location of the coil when the relative location of the coil lies outside the predetermined boundary region, the output data including a visual warning including an animation indicating how to adjust the coil with respect to an avatar of the patient such that the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a measurement facility”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0015]: “a well-known three-dimensional position measuring device using a gyrosensor built in the three-dimensional camera” of Yoshikawa et al. (US 20200305702 A1). Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. The “hall effect sensor” disclosed in claim 21, this element is not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0055]: “Hall effect sensor can be used as the handheld magnet sensor 217, as is well known in the art.” Of Sison (US 20130267826 A1). Regarding claims 14 and 15, a generic computer structure such as “a computer unit” is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Thus, claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 11 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receive a protocol for the MRT examination and patient information, the patient information comprising at least information about body dimensions and orientation of the patient”, “measure a location of the coil…”, “automatically determine an examination region of the patient from the protocol determined and the patient information, a required location of the coil above the examination region, and a relative location of the coil as a difference between the required location and the location of the coil;”, “compare the relative location of the coil determined with a predetermined boundary region around a predetermined required location of the coil;”, and “and outputting output data based on the relative location of the coil when the relative location of the coil lies outside the predetermined boundary region, the output data including a visual warning including an animation indicating how to adjust the coil with respect to an avatar of the patient such that the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a measurement facility”, “a determination/comparison unit”, and “a first/second interface”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0015]: “a well-known three-dimensional position measuring device using a gyrosensor built in the three-dimensional camera” of Yoshikawa et al. (US 20200305702 A1). Furthermore, a generic computer structure such as a processor or data interface is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 11 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 1011. Thus, claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Possanzini (US 20240103105 A1) view of Benner et al. (US 20170069120 A1), hereinafter Benner.
Regarding claim 1, Possanzini discloses a method for supporting a magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) examination of a patient via a coil placed on the patient, comprising (abstract) : providing of a protocol for the MRT examination ([0098]: “store a set of instructions 142 that may cause the medical system 100, if executed by the processor 132, to implement steps of a procedure of preparing and conducting an acquisition of magnetic resonance image data of the subject 102 using the MRI coil 104 (MRI instructions 142).”); providing patient information, the patient information comprising at least information about body dimensions and orientation of the patient ([0015] " the posture recognition system data comprises a set of subject coordinates... wherein the set of subject coordinates are descriptive of anatomical features of a subject", Fig 2 element 202 [0116]: “The subject coordinates 150 and the coil coordinates 154 may be given in a current coordinate system associated with the camera image 144.”, [0111]: “orientation(s) of the anatomical feature(s) of the model subject represented by the common geometry information in the standard coordinate system into the corresponding position(s) and orientation(s) of the anatomical feature(s) of the subject 102 represented by the same common geometry information in the current coordinate system.”, wherein the subject coordinates and orientation are mapped to a standard coordinate system); measuring a location of the coil via an automated data acquisition by a measurement facility ([0015]: "wherein the set of coil coordinates are descriptive of a coil location of a magnetic resonance imaging coil.", [0095]: "The cameras 110 are shown with an orientation that may allow for acquiring camera image data 148 of the subject 102 and the MRI coil 104."); automatically determining a relative location of the coil as a difference between the location of the coil and the required location of the coil ([0015]: " coil data comprising a predefined range of coil positioning coordinates referenced to the anatomical features is associated with the magnetic resonance imaging coil”, [0108]: “The range 164 of coil positioning coordinates may be descriptive of multiple anatomical features of the model subject where a use of the MRI coil 104 for acquiring MRI data is permitted… may comprise a range 164 of coil positioning coordinates for each coordinate describing a range of permitted use of the MRI coil 104 for one of the permitted anatomical features.”); automatically determining a relative location of the coil as a difference between the location of the coil and the required location ([0052]: " information characterizing a difference between the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates may comprise one or more indications of distance (e.g., length in millimeters) between a mismatching pair of corresponding coordinates in the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates."); comparing the relative location of the coil determined with a predetermined boundary region around a predetermined required location of the coil ([0029]: “one or more of the coil coordinates in the set of coil coordinates being outside the boundaries of the allowed range of coil coordinates.", [0113]: “configured for respecting a tolerance range added to one or more allowed ranges”, wherein the tolerance add a boundary region to the required location); and outputting output data based on the relative location of the coil when the relative location of the coil lies outside the boundary region ([0017]: "provide a warning signal in case of a mismatch between the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates.").
While Possanzini discloses the output data includes a visual warning ([0030]: "additional outputs caused by the warning signal may comprise an output on a graphical user interface, which may comprise… one or more of a description of the mismatching coordinate(s) ")”), they fail to disclose an animation indicating how to adjust the coil with respect to an avatar of the patient such that the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region.
Benner discloses a method of supporting a magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) examination (abstract, [0027]) wherein the output data includes a visual warning including an animation ([0040]: “The visual information can also run as a film”) indicating how to adjust the coil with respect to an avatar of the patient ([0040]: “the visual information is created such that the operator recognizes how the RF coil is laid on the person under examination 12”, wherein the visual information contains the person under examination) such that the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region ([0014]: “or the correct location can be projected by the viewing facility into the field of vision.”). As Possanzini discloses outputting visual instructions to a user (Possanzini [0030]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the outputted data to include an animation as disclosed by Benner in order to simplify the execution of the adjustment step (Benner [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Possanzini further discloses the coil is a flexible coil ([0030]: "a description about steps to perform to move the MRI coil", wherein the coil is movable, consistent with applicant’s specification para [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Possanzini further discloses determining a twisting of the coil in one plane or in space with regard to a predetermined coordinate system based on the location of the coil ([0029]: “A further exemplary criterion may consider a deviating orientation of the MRI coil as a mismatch, wherein the corresponding predefined range of coil positioning coordinates describes an angular range within which the orientation of the MRI coil is required.”, wherein the angle of the coil’s orientation is considered a twisting in a plane); and comparing the twisting with a maximum twisting in the predetermined coordinate system ([0029]: “an angular range within which the orientation of the MRI coil is required.”), wherein the outputting outputs the output data when the twisting is greater than the maximum twisting ([0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 5, Possanzini further discloses the measurement facility comprises at least one measurement element, the at least one measurement element being a Hall effect sensor, a Tilt sensor, a camera, an ultrasound sensor, a radar sensor or a near field sensor, the at least one measurement element is arranged on at least one of the coil or the camera ([0095]: "The cameras 110 are shown with an orientation that may allow for acquiring camera image data 148 of the subject 102 and the MRI coil 104.").
Regarding claim 6, Possanzini further discloses the output data includes the location of the coil determined ([0030]: "a log file entry descriptive of the detection of the mismatch between the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates… , one or more of a description of the mismatching coordinate(s)")
Regarding claim 8, Possanzini further discloses the outputting outputs at least one of a visual warning, an acoustic warning or information when the relative location of the coil lies outside the predetermined boundary region or a measurement region of the MRT examination, at least one of a visual warning, an acoustic warning or information indicating how the coil is to be positioned such that the relative location of the coil lies within at least one of the predetermined boundary region or a measurement region ([0030]: "additional outputs caused by the warning signal may comprise an output on a graphical user interface, which may comprise, without limitation, one or more of a description of the mismatching coordinate(s), a timestamp, a magnitude of deviation(s) between the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates, a description of a correct placement of the MRI coil, a description about steps to perform to move the MRI coil to the prescribed position and/or orientation, etc.")
Regarding claim 9, Possanzini further discloses the output data is used to adjust the protocol to the location of the coil ([0030]: "a description of a correct placement of the MRI coil, a description about steps to perform to move the MRI coil to the prescribed position and/or orientation, etc.")
Regarding claim 10, Possanzini further discloses an MRT examination only takes place when the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region or there is a manual input by an operator ([0030]: " The warning signal may alternatively or additionally influence the control flow of the MRI system, such as, without limitation, preventing or stopping an imaging scan … requiring a user to confirm ignoring the mismatch for the next MRI scan.")
Regarding claim 11, Possanzini discloses an apparatus for supporting a magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) examination of a patient via a coil placed on the patient (abstract), comprising: a first data interface ([0094]: “hardware or network interface 134”) configured to receive a protocol for the MRT examination and patient information (([0098-0099]: “set of instructions 142 that may cause the medical system 100, if executed by the processor 132, to implement steps of a procedure of preparing and conducting an acquisition of magnetic resonance image data of the subject 102 using the MRI coil 104 (MRI instructions 142)… may have access to the hardware or network interface 134”), the patient information comprising at least information about body dimensions and orientation of the patient [0015] " the posture recognition system data comprises a set of subject coordinates... wherein the set of subject coordinates are descriptive of anatomical features of a subject", Fig 2 element 202 [0116]: “The subject coordinates 150 and the coil coordinates 154 may be given in a current coordinate system associated with the camera image 144.”, [0111]: “orientation(s) of the anatomical feature(s) of the model subject represented by the common geometry information in the standard coordinate system into the corresponding position(s) and orientation(s) of the anatomical feature(s) of the subject 102 represented by the same common geometry information in the current coordinate system.”, wherein the subject coordinates and orientation are mapped to a standard coordinate system); a determination unit ([0018]: “a processor”) configured to automatically determine an examination region of the patient from the protocol determined and the patient information ([0108]: “The range 164 of coil positioning coordinates may be descriptive of multiple anatomical features of the model subject where a use of the MRI coil 104 for acquiring MRI data is permitted… may comprise a range 164 of coil positioning coordinates for each coordinate describing a range of permitted use of the MRI coil 104 for one of the permitted anatomical features.”, a required location of the coil above the examination region ([0015]: " coil data comprising a predefined range of coil positioning coordinates referenced to the anatomical features is associated with the magnetic resonance imaging coil”), and a relative location of the coil as a difference between the required location and the location of the coil ([0052]: " information characterizing a difference between the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates may comprise one or more indications of distance (e.g., length in millimeters) between a mismatching pair of corresponding coordinates in the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates."; a comparison unit configured to compare the relative location of the coil determined with a predetermined boundary region around a predetermined required location of the coil ([0029]: “one or more of the coil coordinates in the set of coil coordinates being outside the boundaries of the allowed range of coil coordinates.", [0113]: “configured for respecting a tolerance range added to one or more allowed ranges”, wherein the tolerance add a boundary region to the required location); a second data interface ([0030]: “graphical user interface") configured to output of output data based on the relative location of the coil when the location of the coil lies outside the boundary region ([0017]: "provide a warning signal in case of a mismatch between the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates.", [0030]),
While Possanzini discloses the output data includes a visual warning ([0030]: "additional outputs caused by the warning signal may comprise an output on a graphical user interface, which may comprise… one or more of a description of the mismatching coordinate(s) ")”), they fail to disclose an indicating how to adjust the coil with respect to an avatar of the patient such that the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region.
Benner discloses a method of supporting a magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) examination (abstract, [0027]) wherein the output data includes a visual warning including an animation ([0040]: “The visual information can also run as a film”) indicating how to adjust the coil with respect to an avatar of the patient ([0040]: “the visual information is created such that the operator recognizes how the RF coil is laid on the person under examination 12”, wherein the visual information contains the person under examination) such that the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region ([0014]: “or the correct location can be projected by the viewing facility into the field of vision.”). As Possanzini discloses outputting visual instructions to a user (Possanzini [0030]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the outputted data to include an animation as disclosed by Benner in order to simplify the execution of the adjustment step (Benner [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Possanzini further discloses a control facility for controlling a magnetic resonance tomography system, which is configured to carry out the method of claim 1 ([0067]: “a computer program comprising machine executable instructions for execution by a computational system controlling a medical system,”).
Regarding claim 13, Possanzini further discloses a magnetic resonance tomography system comprising the control facility of claim 12 ([0019]: “the mismatch check may be integrated in the MRI control software”).
Regarding claim 14, Possanzini further discloses a non-transitory computer program product with a computer program with program sections for carrying out the method of claim 1 when the computer program is executed in a computing system or a control facility of a magnetic resonance tomography system ([0018]: “The memory may comprise a built-in component of the computational system, an exchangeable medium that is readable by the computational system, and/or an online memory that can be accessed by the computational system via a communications network”).
Regarding claim 15, Possanzini further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including program sections that, when executed by a computer unit, cause the computer unit perform the method of claim 1 ([0018]: “The memory may comprise a built-in component of the computational system, an exchangeable medium that is readable by the computational system, and/or an online memory that can be accessed by the computational system via a communications network”).
Regarding claim 16, Possanzini further discloses determining a twisting of the coil in one plane or in space with regard to a predetermined coordinate system based on the location of the coil ([0029]: “A further exemplary criterion may consider a deviating orientation of the MRI coil as a mismatch, wherein the corresponding predefined range of coil positioning coordinates describes an angular range within which the orientation of the MRI coil is required.”, wherein the angle of the coil’s orientation is considered a twisting in a plane); and comparing the twisting with a maximum twisting in the predetermined coordinate system ([0029]: “an angular range within which the orientation of the MRI coil is required.”), wherein the outputting outputs the output data when the twisting is greater than the maximum twisting ([0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Possanzini further discloses providing a visualization of the coil based on the output data ([0030]: "additional outputs caused by the warning signal may comprise an output on a graphical user interface, which may comprise… one or more of a description of the mismatching coordinate(s) ").
Regarding claim 19, Possanzini further discloses providing a visualization of the coil based on the output data ([0030]: "additional outputs caused by the warning signal may comprise an output on a graphical user interface, which may comprise… one or more of a description of the mismatching coordinate(s) ").
Claim(s) 3, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Possanzini in view of Benner in further view of Gu et al. (US 20170160353 A1), hereinafter Gu.
Regarding claim 3, Possanzini as modified by Benner discloses determining a lateral distance from the coil to the examination region being the location of the coil ([0052]: “information characterizing a difference between the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates may comprise one or more indications of distance (e.g., length in millimeters) between a mismatching pair of corresponding coordinates in the set of coil coordinates and the allowed range of coil coordinates.”), and the outputting includes, outputting the lateral distance when the lateral distance is greater than a limit value ([0052]: “Said one or more characterizing and/or descriptive information such transported by the warning signal, shortly called the “mismatch information” in the following, may be displayed to an operator of the medical system and/or the MRI system using the user interface.”).
However, Possanzini as modified by Benner fails to disclose determining an isocenter of the coil from the measured location of the coil, and a lateral distance from the isocenter to the examination region being the location of the coil.
Gu discloses a method positioning a coil for an MRI system (abstract), including determining an isocenter of the coil from the measured location of the coil ([0024]: “RF receiver coil 420 may be provided with… the center of the RF receiver coil”, wherein as stated above, the isocenter is the center of the coil), and a lateral distance from the isocenter to the examination region being the location of the coil ([0027]: “from the center of the RF receiver coil to the imaging center of the MRI system may be calculated.”).
As Possanzini discloses a method of calculating a lateral distance from the position of the coil to the examination region, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Possanzini as modified by Benner to further calculate distance from an isocenter as disclosed by Gu in order to allow for positioning of an isocenter of a coil to improve image quality (Gu [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Possanzini as modified by Benner and by Gu discloses the method of claim 3, and Possanzini further discloses determining a twisting of the coil in one plane or in space with regard to a predetermined coordinate system based on the location of the coil ([0029]: “A further exemplary criterion may consider a deviating orientation of the MRI coil as a mismatch, wherein the corresponding predefined range of coil positioning coordinates describes an angular range within which the orientation of the MRI coil is required.”); and comparing the twisting with a maximum twisting in the predetermined coordinate system ([0029]: “an angular range within which the orientation of the MRI coil is required.”), wherein the outputting outputs the output data when the twisting is greater than the maximum twisting ([0029-0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Possanzini as modified by Benner and Gu discloses the method of claim 17, and Possanzini further discloses providing a visualization of the coil based on the output data ([0030]: "additional outputs caused by the warning signal may comprise an output on a graphical user interface, which may comprise… one or more of a description of the mismatching coordinate(s) ").
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Possanzini in view of Benner in further view of Verghese (US 20180164392 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Possanzini as modified by Benner discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the measurement facility is a Hall effect sensor disposed on the coil.
Verghese discloses wherein a measurement facility is a Hall effect sensor disposed on a coil ([0109] The RF coil position detector 124 receives a detection value from the hall effect sensor 171 contained in the RF reception coil 170).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known measurement facility disclosed by Possanzini as modified by Benner with the known Hall effect sensor disclosed by Verghese for the predictable result of determining a position of a coil.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of applicant’s Remarks that the amendment to claims 1 and 11 to recite “the output data including a visual warning including an animation indicating how to adjust the coil such that the relative location of the coil lies within the predetermined boundary region” overcomes the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not being directed to patent eligible subject matter. However, outputting instructions to adjust a location of a coil may be performed in the human mind. Per MPEP 2106.04, claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," are directed to mental processes. (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Regarding applicant’s argument that the outputting step constitutes an improvement to a a technological field, an animation of a visual warning does not incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application, it constitutes an insignificant post-solution activity. As such, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s Remarks pages 10-11,with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. On further review, Benner recites an animation with respect to an avatar, as the visual warning displays the position of the coil with respect to a person (see rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leussler et al. (US20230384403A1) – discloses an animation with respect to an avatar
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791