9DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/06/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one module comprises at least one of a two-loop module and a horseshoe module.” (Claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12, directed toward a method, depends from claim 1 directed toward a system. It is believed that Applicant intended to depend claim 12 to independent method claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “high performance” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high performance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driemel [US 8,638,100] and further in view of Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”.
Claim 1, Driemel discloses a head coil system comprising a plurality of portions [1 and 2], each portion of the plurality of portions comprising a magnetically conductive receiver coil and a frame configured to accommodate the magnetically conductive receiver coil [col. 3 lines 1-15], and each portion of the plurality of portions configured to couple [figure 2] and decouple [figure 3] with another portion of the plurality of portions [col. 3 lines 1-5]; at least one coupling feature [5 and 6] configured to at least one of couple, lock, unlock, and decouple at least one portion of the plurality of portions in relation to another at least one portion of the plurality of portions, the at least one coupling feature comprising a forward coupling feature [5] and an aft coupling feature [6].
Driemel fails to teach a tilting feature configured to dispose at least one portion of the plurality of portions at an angle in relation to a horizontal plane.
Driemel ’178 teaches a head coil system, comprising: a plurality of portions [1 and 2], and a tilting feature [4] configured to dispose at least one portion [2] of the plurality of portions at an angle in relation to a horizontal plane [figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including the tilt feature of Driemel ’178 in the head coil system of Driemel in order tilt the head coil relative the MRI for specific diagnostic imaging needs.
Claim 4, Driemel as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the angle can be changes within a range along direction BEW as defined by three latching recesses [RA] of base element [8; figure 7] but fails to teach that the range is of approximately 0 degrees to approximately 10 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the angle by adjusting the location of the recess so that the range of tilt is between about 0 and 10 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5, Driemel as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the tilting feature comprises a wedge configuration [figure 4].
Claim 10, as best understood, Driemel as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Driemel ’178 further teaches that the magnetically conductive receiver coil provides high performance in relation to an MRI machine having a low magnetic field, and wherein the low magnetic field is approximately 0.5 Tesla [0.2 Tesla to 3 Tesla col. 2 lines 6-15.]
Claims 11, 14, 15 and 19, a method of fabricating a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claims 1, 4, 5 and 10 above by Driemel in view of Driemel ‘137.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driemel [US 8,638,100] and further in view of Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tramm et al. [US 10,827,948].
Claim 2, Driemel as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of portions [1 and 2] comprises an upper portion [1] and a lower portion [2]; wherein at least one of the upper portion is configured to operably couple with the lower portion and the lower portion is configured to operably couple with the upper portion [col. 3 lines 1-15].
Driemel as modified fails to teach that the upper portion is configured to interchange with at least one module, and wherein the at least one module comprises at least one of a two-loop module and a horseshoe module.
Tramm et al. teaches a head coil [101; figure 1] comprising plurality of portions [150/140/130/120] with comprises an upper portion [150] and a lower portion [120] wherein the upper portion is configured to interchange with at least one module, and wherein the at least one module comprises at least one of a two-loop module and a horseshoe module [col. 21 lines 22-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide interchangeable upper portion in the head coil of Driemel as modified as taught by Tramm et al. in order to support a plurality of different frequencies and/or multiple nuclei/frequencies [col. 21 lines 22-35].
Claims 12, a method of fabricating a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claim 2 above by Driemel in view of and Driemel ‘137 and Tramm et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driemel [US 8,638,100] in view of Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou [US 2022/0291309].
Claim 9, Driemel as modified discloses the system of claim 1, with the exception of the magnetically conductive receiver coil comprises at least one of copper and a copper tube.
Hou teaches that the coil elements in a MRI are commonly made from conductive material, such as, copper braid, copper wire [paragraph 0129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the conductive receiver coil of Driemel as modified from copper as this was a well know material as taught by Hou, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3, 6, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driemel [US 8,638,100] in view of Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Driemel ‘756 [US 2013/0023756] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘756”.
Claim 3, Driemel as modified discloses the system of claim 2, with the exception of the tilting feature is configured to couple, lock, unlock, and decouple the lower portion in relation to a bed of a medical transporter.
Driemel ‘756 teaches a head coil system [1] comprising a tilting feature [2] is configured to couple [via guides 7, lock, unlock, and decouple the lower portion in relation to a bed [3] of a medical transporter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the lower portion of the head coil of Driemel as modified onto a bed of a medical transporter as taught by Driemel ‘756 in order to improve image quality by limiting the movement by the subject being imaged.
Claim 6, Driemel as modified discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the tilting feature comprises a trough configuration complementing that of the bed [figure 2, the titling feature fits into the recess in bed 3 generally created by K-L figure 1].
Claims 13 and 16, a method of fabricating a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claims 3 and 6 above by Driemel in view of Driemel ‘137 and Driemel ‘756.
Claim 20, a method of using a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claim 3 above by Driemel in view of Driemel ‘137 and Driemel ‘756.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan [US 7,345,483] in view of Driemel [US 8,638,100] and further in view of Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”.
Claim 1, Vaughan discloses a head coil system, comprising: a plurality of portions [26, 28], each portion of the plurality of portions comprising a magnetically conductive receiver coil and a frame [27] configured to accommodate the magnetically conductive receiver coil [col. 9 lines 13-23], and each portion of the plurality of portions configured to couple and decouple [via guides 32] with another portion of the plurality of portions; at least one coupling feature [32] configured to at least one of couple, lock, unlock, and decouple at least one portion of the plurality of portions in relation to another at least one portion of the plurality of portions [col. 10 lines 6-8]; and that the at least one coupling feature comprising a two side coupling features.
Vaughan fails to teach that the at least one coupling feature comprising a forward coupling feature and an aft coupling feature.
Driemel teaches a head coil system comprising a plurality of portions [1 and 2], each portion of the plurality of portions comprising a magnetically conductive receiver coil and a frame configured to accommodate the magnetically conductive receiver coil [col. 3 lines 1-5], and each portion of the plurality of portions configured to couple [figure 2] and decouple [figure 3] with another portion of the plurality of portions [col. 3 lines 1-5]; at least one coupling feature [5 and 6] configured to at least one of couple, lock, unlock, and decouple at least one portion of the plurality of portions in relation to another at least one portion of the plurality of portions, the at least one coupling feature comprising a forward coupling feature [5] and an aft coupling feature [6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coupling features of Driemel in the head coil of Vaughan in order to provide a secure means of latching the plurality of portions together [Driemel col 3 lines 3-4].
Vaughan in view of Driemel fails to teach a tilting feature configured to dispose at least one portion of the plurality of portions at an angle in relation to a horizontal plane.
Driemel ’178 teaches a head coil system, comprising: a plurality of portions [1 and 2], and a tilting feature [4] configured to dispose at least one portion [2] of the plurality of portions at an angle in relation to a horizontal plane [figure 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to including the tilt feature of Driemel ’178 in the head coil system of Vaughan in view of Driemel in order tilt the head coil relative the MRI for specific diagnostic imaging needs.
Claim 7, Vaughan as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Vaughan further discloses comprising a viewing accessory [40] configured to facilitate viewing of an environment outside an MRI machine [col. 10 lines 9-44].
Claim 8, Vaughan as modified discloses the system of claim 7, wherein Vaughan further discloses that the viewing accessory comprises a mirror [col. 10 lines 9-44].
Claim 10, as best understood, Vaughan as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein Driemel ’178 further teaches that the magnetically conductive receiver coil provides high performance in relation to an MRI machine having a low magnetic field, and wherein the low magnetic field is approximately 0.5 Tesla [0.2 Tesla to 3 Tesla col. 2 lines 6-15.]
Claims 11 and 17-19, a method of fabricating a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claim 1, 7, 8 and 10 above by Vaughan in view of Driemel and Driemel ‘137.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan [US 7,345,483] in view of Driemel [US 8,638,100] and Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tramm et al. [US 10,827,948].
Claim 2, Vaughan as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of portions [1 and 2] comprises an upper portion [1] and a lower portion [2]; wherein at least one of the upper portion is configured to operably couple with the lower portion and the lower portion is configured to operably couple with the upper portion [col. 3 lines 1-15].
Vaughan as modified fails to teach that the upper portion is configured to interchange with at least one module, and wherein the at least one module comprises at least one of a two-loop module and a horseshoe module.
Tramm et al. teaches a head coil [101; figure 1] comprising plurality of portions [150/140/130/120] with comprises an upper portion [150] and a lower portion [120] wherein the upper portion is configured to interchange with at least one module, and wherein the at least one module comprises at least one of a two-loop module and a horseshoe module [col. 21 lines 22-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide interchangeable upper portion in the head coil of Vaughan as modified as taught by Tramm et al. in order to support a plurality of different frequencies and/or multiple nuclei/frequencies [col. 21 lines 22-35].
Claims 12, a method of fabricating a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claim 2 above by Vaughan in view of Driemel, Driemel ‘137 and Tramm et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan [US 7,345,483] in view of Driemel [US 8,638,100] and Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou [US 2022/0291309].
Claim 9, Vaughan as modified discloses the system of claim 1, with the exception of the magnetically conductive receiver coil comprises at least one of copper and a copper tube.
Hou teaches that the coil elements in of an MRI are commonly made from conductive material, such as, copper braid, copper wire [paragraph 0129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the conductive receiver coil of Vaughan as modified from copper as this was a well know material as taught by Hou, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3, 6, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan [US 7,345,483] in view of Driemel [US 8,638,100] and Driemel [US 10,379,178] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘178”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Driemel ‘756 [US 2013/0023756] hereafter referred to as “Driemel ‘756”.
Claim 3, Vaughan as modified discloses the system of claim 2, with the exception of the tilting feature is configured to couple, lock, unlock, and decouple the lower portion in relation to a bed of a medical transporter.
Driemel ‘756 teaches a head coil system [1] comprising a tilting feature [2] is configured to couple [via guides 7, lock, unlock, and decouple the lower portion in relation to a bed [3] of a medical transporter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the lower portion of the head coil of Vaughan as modified onto a bed of a medical transporter as taught by Driemel ‘756 in order to improve image quality by limiting the movement by the subject being imaged.
Claim 6, Vaughan as modified discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the tilting feature comprises a trough configuration complementing that of the bed [figure 2, the titling feature fits into the recess in bed 3 generally created by K-L figure 1].
Claims 13 and 16, a method of fabricating a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claims 3 and 6 above by Vaughan in view of Driemel, Driemel ‘137 and Driemel ‘756.
Claim 20, a method of using a head coil system is obvious in the product structure as outlined in claim 3 above by Vaughan in view of Driemel, Driemel ‘137 and Driemel ‘756.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837