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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the remarks filed on 03/13/2023.
The amendment filed 03/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
The objection to claim 16 has been withdrawn in light of claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the correct sequence of patients " in lines 31-32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, this limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what distinguishes the “the correct sequence of patients” from a different case, for example, an incorrect sequence. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted as displaying multiple patients on a display screen.
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the correct sequence of patients" in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, this limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what distinguishes the “the correct sequence of patients” from a different case, for example, an incorrect sequence. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted as displaying multiple patients on a display screen.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the correct sequence of patients" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, this limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what distinguishes the “the correct sequence of patients” from a different case, for example, an incorrect sequence. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted as displaying multiple patients on a display screen.
Claims 16-20 are rejected to dependency on claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations: “determine control information for the movable bed, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information and … utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed and /or … utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or … is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain sensor information and scanner information and move the bed based off of the given information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of: “display”, “acquire at least one medical image of the patient”, “acquire sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed, and … acquire the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed prior to movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre and/or during movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre, “provide the sensor information to the processor unit”, “provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit”, “wherein the display is adapted to display information to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner”.
Acquiring a medical image, sensor information, and scanner status information is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity. Displaying information is a post-solution insignificant activity
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites a movable bed, a medical imaging scanner, a sensor, a processor unit, and a display, however, the above listed components are well-known generic components that are used medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claims 2-3,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed”, and “wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data; skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing”.
Obtaining vital sign data is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claims 2-3 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner, however, these scanners are well-known generic components that are used for medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 4 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”.
Obtaining sensor information a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites ” wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”, a however, MRI image units and wireless MRI coils are well-known generic components that are used for MRI imaging.
Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 6-7,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils”, and “wherein the control information for the movable bed comprises coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient”.
Obtaining coil configuration information and status information of the coils a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 6-7 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations “determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could determine how the medical image is configured using sensor information and scanner status information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 8 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use and/or an indication when the scanner will be available for use”
An indication/notification of the scanner status a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds”, and “acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients”.
Acquiring scanner status and sensor information, and acquiring medical images a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites movable beds and a medical imaging scanner however, movable beds and medical imaging scanners are well-known generic components that are used to capture medical images.
Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claims 11-13,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the control information comprises instructions to control one or more brakes for one of more wheels of the movable bed”, “wherein the control information comprises instructions to control the provision of movement information to an operator, wherein the movement information comprises information displayed on at least one visual display unit; and/or wherein the movement information comprises information output on at least acoustic output unit”, and “wherein the at least one visual display unit comprises a visual display unit mounted to the movable bed; and/or wherein the at least one visual display unit comprises a visual display unit separated from the movable bed; and/or wherein the at least one acoustic output unit comprises an acoustic output unit mounted to the movable bed; and/or wherein the at least one acoustic output unit comprises an acoustic output unit separated from the movable bed”.
Obtaining control information a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Displaying movement information a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites visual display units and acoustic output unit, however, visual display units and acoustic output units are well-known generic components that are used for viewing directions or instructions.
Accordingly, claims 11-13 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A medical imaging method with a medical imaging system is disclosed, therefore a method is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations:
“determining … for the movable bed, the determining comprising utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed and /or utilizing by … the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by … the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain sensor information and scanner information and move the bed based off of the given information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of: “providing a display”, “moving a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient”, “b) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient acquiring by at least one sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed”, “c) providing the sensor information to a processor unit”, “d) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient providing scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit”, “displaying information on the display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner”.
Acquiring a medical image, sensor information, and scanner status information is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity. Displaying information is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites a display, a movable bed, a medical imaging scanner, a sensor, a processor unit, however, the above listed components are well-known generic components that are used medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations “prior to the moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient, determine control information for the movable bed, wherein the determination comprises utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed and /or utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could obtain sensor information and scanner information and move the bed based off of the given information.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “move a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located, and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient”, “prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, acquire by at least one sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed” , “provide the sensor information to a processor unit, “prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit”, “provide information on a display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner”.
Acquiring a medical image, sensor information, and scanner status information is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity. Proving information on a display is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim as noted above.
Furthermore, it is noted that Claim 15 is directed to a “computer program element”, which under its broadest reasonable interpreted, impermissibly attempts to claim software per se. Suggested amendments would include changing “A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium” to --A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable instructions--
Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 16-17,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed”, and “wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data; skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing”.
Obtaining vital sign data is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claims 16-17 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 18,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner, however, these scanners are well-known generic components that are used for medical imaging.
Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 19,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”.
Obtaining sensor information a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites ” wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil”, a however, MRI image units and wireless MRI coils are well-known generic components that are used for MRI imaging.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 20,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit, is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils”,
Obtaining coil configuration information and status information of the coils a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 20 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160089054 A1, of record) in view of Souissi (US 20210386326 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rapoport teaches a medical imaging system (MRS system (900) [0271]), comprising:
a movable bed (MRI-safe cart (800) [0272]);
a medical imaging scanner (MRD (950) [0271]; a magnetic resonance device);
at least one sensor (sensors connected to the patient [0216]); and
a processor unit (CPU [0291]);
a display (user interfaced including a display (450) [0435])
wherein the movable bed is configured to move a patient on the movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where the medical imaging scanner is located (para. [0019] and [0206]-[0208] disclose that the cart/movable bed can be moved/displaced between multiple different positions, such as up and down, tilt, linear movement, etc.);
wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient (produce a three dimensional image [0210]);
wherein the at least one sensor is configured to acquire sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation [0216]), and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to acquire the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed prior to movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre and/or during movement of the patient from the first area of the medical centre to the second area of the medical centre (the cart/movable bed is maneuverable at any point during the procedure as disclosed in [0428], [0019] and [0206]-[0208], the sensors are attached to the cart as disclosed in [0216] and acquires sensor information during operation of the Magnetic Resonance device, i.e. can inherently collect data if the patient is moved to a second area)
wherein the at least one sensor is configured to provide the sensor information to the processor unit ([0216] and [0246] discloses that that sensor information is provided to CPU/processing unit)
wherein the medical imaging scanner is configured to provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit (A computer is also utilized to implement the data received into a viewable picture. Additionally or alternatively, the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc [0216]); and
wherein the processor unit is configured to determine control information for the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both [0216]; the cart incubator is connected to the cart by a maneuverable connection enabling movement selected from a group consisting of: rotational, linear horizontal, linear vertical, tilting, oscillating movement, and any combination thereof [0362]), the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]) and wherein the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. … the user interface harbors a display, indicators (sensible, auditable, visual), and operating buttons or means of communication with the CPU such as touch screen, mouse, keyboard, voice command and etc. [0216]) and /or the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or the processor unit is configured to utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
Rapaport, however, does not teach provide information on a display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner.
Souissi is considered analogous to the instant application as “System And Method For Live Patient Tracking For Surgical Centers And Hosptials” is disclosed (title).
Souissi teaches provide information on a display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner (The system updates internal monitors and displays with patient location and status information relevant to medical staff [0032]; Displayed information includes the physician name (401), type of procedure (404), time spent in PACU (405), bed assigned to patient (403), [0044]; patients could move to radiology rooms to take an x-ray or a scan or to special rooms to perform physical examination, lab testing or other types of medical services [0002]; [0048] further discloses movement of patient across different rooms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include provide information on a display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner, as suggested by Souissi. Doing so would allow for notifying medical staff about events relevant to their workflow in real time, as suggested by Souissi.
Regarding claim 2, modified Rapoport teaches according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed (sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rapoport teaches according to claim 2, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]); skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing.
Regarding claim 4, modified Rapoport teaches according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit (MRI [0050]), an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner.
Regarding claim 11, modified Rapoport teaches according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the control information comprises instructions to control one or more brakes for one of more wheels of the movable bed ([0289], [0328],[0393] disclose control of the cart automatically, which contains platform which has wheels as described in [0289] and shown in fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Rapoport teaches according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the control information comprises instructions to control the provision of movement information to an operator ([0291] discloses a user interface that shows different control features and sensors of the bed/cart and MR device), wherein the movement information comprises information displayed on at least one visual display unit (visual display disclosed in [0291]); and/or wherein the movement information comprises information output on at least acoustic output unit.
Regarding claim 13, modified Rapoport teaches according to claim 12, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the at least one visual display unit comprises a visual display unit mounted to the movable bed (the cart can hold a user interface including a selected from a group consisting of a screen (400) [0291]; cart is the movable bed as claimed).
Regarding claim 14, Rapoport teaches medical imaging method, with a medical imaging system (MRS system (900) [0271]), the method comprising:
providing a display (a user interfaced including a display (450) [0435])
a) moving a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located (para. [0019] and [0206]-[0208] disclose that the cart/movable bed can be moved/displaced between multiple different positions, such as up and down, tilt, linear movement, etc.), and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient (produce a three dimensional image [0210]);
b) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient acquiring by at least one sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation [0216]);
c) providing the sensor information to a processor unit ([0216] and [0246] discloses that that sensor information is provided to CPU/processing unit);
d) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient providing scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit (A computer is also utilized to implement the data received into a viewable picture. Additionally or alternatively, the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc [0216]); and
e) prior to moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient determining by the processor unit control information for the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both [0216]; the cart incubator is connected to the cart by a maneuverable connection enabling movement selected from a group consisting of: rotational, linear horizontal, linear vertical, tilting, oscillating movement, and any combination thereof [0362]), the determining comprising utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]) and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. … the user interface harbors a display, indicators (sensible, auditable, visual), and operating buttons or means of communication with the CPU such as touch screen, mouse, keyboard, voice command and etc. [0216]) and /or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
Rapoport, however, does not teach displaying information on the display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner.
Souissi is considered analogous to the instant application as “System And Method For Live Patient Tracking For Surgical Centers And Hosptials” is disclosed (title).
Souissi teaches displaying information on the display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner (The system updates internal monitors and displays with patient location and status information relevant to medical staff [0032]; Displayed information includes the physician name (401), type of procedure (404), time spent in PACU (405), bed assigned to patient (403), [0044]; patients could move to radiology rooms to take an x-ray or a scan or to special rooms to perform physical examination, lab testing or other types of medical services [0002]; [0048] further discloses movement of patient across different rooms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include displaying information on the display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner, as suggested by Souissi. Doing so would allow for notifying medical staff about events relevant to their workflow in real time, as suggested by Souissi.
Regarding claim 15, Rappoport teaches a computer program element comprising executable instructions (The term “CPU”, central processing unit, interchangeably refers hereinafter to the hardware within a computer that carries out the instructions of a computer program by performing the basic arithmetical, logical, and input/output operations of the system [0255]), stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which when executed by a processor unit (these systems comprise a user interface connected to a control mechanism such as a CPU, to control these systems operation [0276]) to:
move a patient on a movable bed from a first area of a medical centre to a second area of the medical centre where a medical imaging scanner is located (para. [0019] and [0206]-[0208] disclose that the cart/movable bed can be moved/displaced between multiple different positions, such as up and down, tilt, linear movement, etc.), and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image of the patient (produce a three dimensional image [0210]);
prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, acquire by at least one sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation [0216]);
provide the sensor information to a processor unit ([0216] and [0246] discloses that that sensor information is provided to CPU/processing unit);
prior to the moving of the patient and/or during movement of the patient, provide scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner to the processor unit (A computer is also utilized to implement the data received into a viewable picture. Additionally or alternatively, the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc [0216]); and
prior to the moving the patient and/or during movement of the patient, determine control information for the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both [0216]; the cart incubator is connected to the cart by a maneuverable connection enabling movement selected from a group consisting of: rotational, linear horizontal, linear vertical, tilting, oscillating movement, and any combination thereof [0362]), wherein the determination comprises utilizing the sensor information and the scanner status information (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]) and utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to come to the movable bed (the MRD harbors a user interface for allowing the handler to observe, monitor and/or control different parameters of the MRD operation such as scanning, alarm systems detecting RF signals, metallic objects, temperature, movement, sound levels, vibrations and etc. … the user interface harbors a display, indicators (sensible, auditable, visual), and operating buttons or means of communication with the CPU such as touch screen, mouse, keyboard, voice command and etc. [0216]) and /or utilize the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to move the movable bed and/or utilizing by the processing unit the control information to provide a communication that an operator is required to stop moving the movable bed.
Rapoport, however, does not teach provide information on a display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner.
Souissi is considered analogous to the instant application as “System And Method For Live Patient Tracking For Surgical Centers And Hosptials” is disclosed (title).
Souissi teaches provide information on a display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner (The system updates internal monitors and displays with patient location and status information relevant to medical staff [0032]; Displayed information includes the physician name (401), type of procedure (404), time spent in PACU (405), bed assigned to patient (403), [0044]; patients could move to radiology rooms to take an x-ray or a scan or to special rooms to perform physical examination, lab testing or other types of medical services [0002]; [0048] further discloses movement of patient across different rooms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include provide information on a display to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner, as suggested by Souissi. Doing so would allow for notifying medical staff about events relevant to their workflow in real time, as suggested by Souissi.
Regarding claim 16, modified Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 15, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises vital signs data for the patient on the movable bed (sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 15, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the vital signs data comprises one or more of: ECG data; anesthesia data; heart beat data; blood pressure data (All the data can be collected by designated sensors connected to the MRD, cart or both. Further information can also be collected from sensors connected to the patient, such as cardio sensors, respiratory sensors, temperature, brain activity, vibration, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, and etc. [0216]; skin conductance data; breathing rate data; motion data of body parts determined from RF and/or optical sensing).
Regarding claim 18, modified Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 15, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches wherein the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit (MRI [0050]), an X-ray image unit, a PET image unit, a CT-Radiation therapy unit, or a MR-LINAC scanner.
Claims 5-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160089054 A1, of record) in view of Souissi (US 20210386326 A1) and Choi et al. (US 20130119981 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 4, as discussed above. Rapoport further teaches the medical imaging scanner is an MRI image unit (MRI [0050]). Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil.
Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [0008]) and
wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 5, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils.
Choi, however, teaches wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 5, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the control information for the movable bed comprises coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient.
Choi, however, teaches coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient (a computer system configured to form a magnetic resonance image based on a radio frequency signal which is received by the wireless radio frequency coil; and an output unit configured to output the magnetic resonance image formed by the computer system and information about an operation of the MRI apparatus [0035]; [0050], [0076] discloses obtaining configuration information of the wireless MRI coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to modify the control information for the movable bed taught in Rapoport to include the coil configuration information to configure the wireless MRI compatible coil with respect to the acquisition of the at least one medical image of the patient, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the processor unit is configured to determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information.
Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches:
wherein the processor unit (computer system [0035]) is configured to determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner (a computer system 770 which generates an MRI, a control unit 780 which enters commands or information, and an output unit 790 which outputs an MRI [0111]; [0050] and [0075] discloses obtaining configuration information for the scanner), the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the processor unit is configured to determine configuration information for the medical imaging scanner, the determination comprising utilization of the sensor information and the scanner status information, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rapoport teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use and/or an indication when the scanner will be available for use.
Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches: wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use ([0071] discloses that the status can indicate if the coil is on/off).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the scanner status information for the medical imaging scanner comprises an indication of whether the scanner is in use, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 18, as discussed above.
Rapoport, however, is silent regarding wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil. Choi is considered analogous to the instant application as “Wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging, method of controlling the coil, and magnetic resonance imaging apparatus using the coil” is disclosed (title). Choi teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (wireless radio frequency coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [0008]) and
wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, and wherein the sensor information relating to the patient on the movable bed comprises status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Rapoport teaches computer program element according to claim 19, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: battery status of the wireless MRI compatible coil or coils; type of the coil or coils; the coil vendor or vendors; RF power limit of the coil or coils; operational temperature of the coil or coils; service data of the coil or coils; functionality data of the coil or coils.
Choi, however, teaches wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils (display unit 330 displays the status of a power voltage supplied to the wireless radio frequency coil unit 360. The status of a power voltage, for example, is displayed by turning on and off a lamp (a visual method) or generating an alarm sound (an auditory method [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the status information relating to the at least one wireless MRI compatible coil comprises one or more of: functionality data of the coil or coils, as taught by Choi. Doing so would prevent a result of not being able to obtain MRI, due to a user forgetting to turn on a mechanical switch of a wireless radio frequency coil, as suggested by Choi ([0121]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160089054 A1, of record) in view of Souissi (US 20210386326 A1) and Damadian (US 5606970 A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Rapoport teaches the system of claim 1, as discussed above. Rapoport, however, does not teach wherein the system comprises one or more further movable beds, and wherein the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds, and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients.
Damadian is considered analogous to the instant application as “Multiple patient scanning on a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus” is disclosed (title). Damadian teaches:
wherein the system comprises one or more further movable beds and wherein the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds (two patients (8a, 8b), laying on their respective movable bed structure 7 of the patient handling systems 5, is translated through the aperture and positioned in the imaging volume, Col. 4 lines 36-40; In the case of multipatient mode scanning of more than one patient, where magnetic resonance imaging data from more than one patient would be contained in individual images, it is necessary to provide means for separation of image data such that data collected for each patient may be diagnosed and archived separately, Col. 6 lines 1-7; scan information from multiple movable beds are acquired together) and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients (The result of these operations is two separated images, 23 and 24 in FIG. 4a, and FIG. 4b, each from a different patient and represented in a standardized orientation for subsequent diagnosis, Col. 6 lines 30-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapoport to include wherein the system comprises one or more further movable beds, and wherein the scanner status information comprises sensor information relating to one or more other patients on the one or more further movable beds, and wherein the medical imaging scanner is intended to acquire at least one medical image for each of the one or more other patients, as taught by Damadian. Doing so would enhance patient throughput on medical magnetic resonance scanners, as suggested by Damadian (Col. 1 lines 53-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant request for interview in the response is acknowledged, and based on Applicant’s response, it has been determined that the interview would not result in expediting allowance of the application. (See MPEP 713.01 (V) Examiners should inspect all incoming papers. See MPEP § 714.05. Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1 and 15, applicant arguments on pages 8-11 that the limitation regarding “a display that is adapted to display information to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner” demonstrate integration into a practical application, however, it is unclear what distinguishes a “correct sequence” from an “incorrect sequence”, as noted in the 112(b) rejection above. Further, displaying information is a post-extra solution activity as noted in the rejection above.
Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 14, and 15, applicant argues on pages 13-15 that Rapoport does not teach the newly added limitation regarding “display information to a user to allow only the correct sequence of patients arriving at the scanner". This argument is moot in view of new grounds of rejection which relies upon on Souissi (US 20210386326 A1) to teach this limitation. Accordingly, this argument is moot.
Applicant’s arguments on page 14 and 15 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of the claims that are dependent on claims 1, 14, and 15 are premised upon the assertion that the claims are allowable for the same reasons as stated for claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NESHAT BASET whose telephone number is (571)272-5478. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-17:30 CST.
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, PASCAL M. BUI-PHO can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights