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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument on Pages 7-9 regarding the rejections of Claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fain has been fully considered but is not persuasive under new grounds of rejection as below.
Regarding the rejection of all remaining corresponding claims, applicant’s argument submitted on Page 9 relies on the supposed deficiencies with respect to the rejection of parent Claims 1 and 9. Applicant’s argument is moot for the same reasons detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 112568892) in view of Jo et al. (US 20160015330).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system ([0049] “magnetic resonance apparatus 10”), for imaging a human breast region of a patient, (Claim 1 “The breast imaging device with the superconducting magnetic resonance of the integrated coil system”), and configured to accommodate a spine coil pre-positioned on a tabletop (Fig. 1 and Page 3 “The bed plate 7 is provided with a spinal coil 6.”).
However, Wu does not explicitly teach the MRI system comprising: a breast coil comprising: a housing including a top portion, a bottom portion, a left support portion, and a right support portion wherein the top portion, bottom portion, and left support portion define a left cup opening, and the top portion, bottom portion, and right support portion define a right cup opening; and a receive coil configured to image the breast region of the patient; wherein the bottom portion of the housing comprises: a first side adjacent the spine coil, the first side and the spine coil each being disposed on the tabletop; and a second side overlapping a top surface of the spine coil such that a top surface of the bottom portion is approximately horizontal.
In an analogous magnetic resonance imaging field of endeavor, Jo teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, ([0053] “magnetic resonance imaging apparatus”), for imaging a human breast region of a patient, (Fig. 2 and [0099] “The chest support 510 is disposed near the RF reception coil 157 and is configured to provide spaces for accommodating breasts of the object ob. […] The supporting frames may press the breasts from the outside while imaging the breasts of the object ob so as to reduce movement of regions to be diagnosed.”), the MRI system comprising:
a) a breast coil, (Fig. 2 and [0099] “The chest support 510 is disposed near the RF reception coil 157 and is configured to provide spaces for accommodating breasts of the object ob.”), comprising:
i) a housing, ([0096] “chest support 510”), including a top portion, a bottom portion, a left support portion, and a right support portion, (Fig. 3, annotated by examiner below), wherein
1) the top portion, bottom portion, and left support portion define a left cup opening, (Fig. 3, annotated by examiner below), and
2) the top portion, bottom portion, and right support portion define a right cup opening (Fig. 3, annotated by examiner below); and
ii) a receive coil configured to image the breast region of the patient ([0099] “The chest support 510 is disposed near the RF reception coil 157 and is configured to provide spaces for accommodating breasts of the object ob.”);
b) wherein the bottom portion of the housing comprises:
i) a first side adjacent the spine coil, the first side and the spine coil each being disposed on the tabletop (When combined with the spine coil table of Wu, the combination meets the limitations of the claim, as Jo teaches the support 510, interpreted as the housing, is placed on top of (bottom side facing) the table 180, which would house the spine coil of Wu.); and
ii) a second side overlapping a top surface of the spine coil such that a top surface of the bottom portion is approximately horizontal (As shown in Fig. 3 below, the design of the support 510, interpreted as the housing, includes structures that are approximately horizonal with the table, which when combined with Wu, includes the spine coil.).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Jo
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Wu with the breast coil of Jo because combination provides comfortable support to the patient, as taught by Jo in [0097], while enhancing the ability for a clinician to diagnose or plan treatment.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified system of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Jo teaches wherein the breast coil further comprises a ramp, (Fig. 3 and [0100] “abdomen support 520 may have a slope”), which is releasably coupled to the housing (Fig. 5A of Jo demonstrates an attachment to housing (support 510). It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that substituting removable or exchangeable wedge padding to other components is known and widely used in the art as support for positioning patients of differing body sizes or weights during MRI procedures. See Penn-Jersey X-Ray NPL.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the ramp of Jo because combination provides a comfortable way of patient and interchangeability between patients of different sizes, if desired.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified system of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 2, as discussed above. Furthermore Jo teaches wherein the ramp is at least partially disposed on the top surface of the spine coil (Fig. 3, when combined with the top surface of the spine coil of Wu, meets the limitations of the claim.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the ramp of Jo for the same reasons as Claims 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified system of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 2, as discussed above. Furthermore, Jo teaches wherein the ramp is coupled to the housing with threaded fasteners (Fig. 5A, of Jo demonstrates an attachment of the ramp (support 520) to housing (support 510). It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that applying threaded fasteners as a way to attach the support 520 to support 510 improves the design to yield predictable results. The ramp thereby is exchangeable for other sizes, or if desired, not to be used at all. The threaded fastener design ensures stability while allowing for removal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the ramp of Jo for the same reasons as Claims 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified system of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 2, as discussed above. Furthermore, Jo teaches wherein the ramp comprises a protrusion mateable with a recess in the housing (Fig. 5A, of Jo demonstrates an attachment of the ramp (support 520) to housing (support 500). It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that applying a protrusion mateable with a recess in the housing as a way to attach the support 520 to support 500 improves the design to yield predictable results. The ramp thereby is exchangeable for other sizes, or if desired, not to be used at all. The mateable design is relatively inexpensive to produce and simple for clinicians to piece together prior to the imaging procedure.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the ramp of Jo for the same reasons as Claims 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 9, Wu teaches a method of operating an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system (Abstract “The invention has simple structure, low cost and strong practicability; it can improve the comfort of the patient and improve the imaging quality of the breast in the process of applying to the breast imaging” and [0049] “magnetic resonance apparatus 10”), for imaging a human breast region of a patient, (Claim 1 “The breast imaging device with the superconducting magnetic resonance of the integrated coil system”), the MRI system configured to accommodate a spine coil pre-positioned on a tabletop (Fig. 1 and Page 3 “The bed plate 7 is provided with a spinal coil 6.”).
However, Wu does not explicitly teach the method comprising: providing a breast coil comprising: a housing including a top portion, a bottom portion, a left support portion, and a right support portion wherein the top portion, bottom portion, and left support portion define a left cup opening, and the top portion, bottom portion, and right support portion define a right cup opening; and a receive coil configured to image the breast region of the patient; disposing, on the tabletop, a first side of the bottom portion, the first side being adjacent the spine coil; and overlapping a top surface of the spine coil with a second side of the bottom portion such that a top surface of the bottom portion is approximately horizontal.
In an analogous magnetic resonance imaging field of endeavor, Jo teaches a method of operating, (Claim 15 “A method for displaying an image generated by a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus”), an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, ([0053] “magnetic resonance imaging apparatus”), for imaging a human breast region of a patient, (Fig. 2 and [0099] “The chest support 510 is disposed near the RF reception coil 157 and is configured to provide spaces for accommodating breasts of the object ob. […] The supporting frames may press the breasts from the outside while imaging the breasts of the object ob so as to reduce movement of regions to be diagnosed.”), the method comprising:
a) providing a breast coil, (Fig. 2 and [0099] “The chest support 510 is disposed near the RF reception coil 157 and is configured to provide spaces for accommodating breasts of the object ob.”), comprising:
i) a housing, ([0096] “chest support 510”), including a top portion, a bottom portion, a left support portion, and a right support portion, (Fig. 3, annotated by examiner above), wherein
1) the top portion, bottom portion, and left support portion define a left cup opening, (Fig. 3, annotated by examiner above), and
2) the top portion, bottom portion, and right support portion define a right cup opening (Fig. 3, annotated by examiner above); and
ii) a receive coil configured to image the breast region of the patient ([0099] “The chest support 510 is disposed near the RF reception coil 157 and is configured to provide spaces for accommodating breasts of the object ob.”);
b) disposing, on the tabletop, a first side of the bottom portion, the first side being adjacent the spine coil (When combined with the spine coil table of Wu, the combination meets the limitations of the claim, as Jo teaches the support 510, interpreted as the housing, is placed on top of (bottom side facing) the table 180, which would house the spine coil of Wu.);
c) overlapping a top surface of the spine coil with a second side of the bottom portion such that a top surface of the bottom portion is approximately horizontal (As shown in Fig. 3 above, the design of the support 510, interpreted as the housing, includes structures that are approximately horizonal with the table, which when combined with Wu, includes the spine coil.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Wu with the breast coil of Jo because combination provides comfortable support to the patient, as taught by Jo in [0097], while enhancing the ability for a clinician to diagnose or plan treatment.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified method of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 9, as discussed above. Furthermore, Jo teaches wherein the breast coil further comprises a ramp, (Fig. 3 and [0100] “abdomen support 520 may have a slope”), and the operating MRI system further comprises releasably coupling the ramp to the housing (Fig. 5A of Jo demonstrates an attachment to housing (support 510). It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that substituting removable or exchangeable wedge padding to other components is known and widely used in the art as support for positioning patients of differing body sizes or weights during MRI procedures. See Penn-Jersey X-Ray NPL.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the ramp of Jo because combination provides a comfortable way of patient and interchangeability between patients of different sizes, if desired.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified method of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 10, as discussed above. Furthermore, Jo teaches wherein releasably coupling the ramp to the housing comprises coupling the ramp to the housing with a threaded fastener (Fig. 5A, of Jo demonstrates an attachment of the ramp (support 520) to housing (support 510). It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that applying threaded fasteners as a way to attach the support 520 to support 510 improves the design to yield predictable results. The ramp thereby is exchangeable for other sizes, or if desired, not to be used at all. The threaded fastener design ensures stability while allowing for removal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the ramp of Jo for the same reasons as Claims 9 and 10.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified method of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 10, as discussed above. Furthermore, Jo teaches wherein releasably coupling the ramp to the housing comprises mating a protrusion of the ramp within a recess in the housing (Fig. 5A, of Jo demonstrates an attachment of the ramp (support 520) to housing (support 500). It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that applying a protrusion mateable with a recess in the housing as a way to attach the support 520 to support 500 improves the design to yield predictable results. The ramp thereby is exchangeable for other sizes, or if desired, not to be used at all. The mateable design is relatively inexpensive to produce and simple for clinicians to piece together prior to the imaging procedure.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the ramp of Jo for the same reasons as Claims 9 and 10.
Regarding Claim 14, the modified method of Wu teaches all limitation of Claim 9, as discussed above. Furthermore, Wu teaches wherein the tabletop comprises a first tabletop portion coupled to a second tabletop portion, (Fig. 1 “bed plate 7,” “upper half foam pad 1,” and “lower half foam pad 2”), and the method further comprises:
a) disposing the spine coil on the second tabletop portion, (Page 2 “the spinal coil is embedded in the patient bed plate”); and
b) positioning the first tabletop portion adjacent the second tabletop portion (Fig. 1).
Moreover, Jo teaches wherein the tabletop comprises a first tabletop portion coupled to a second tabletop portion, (Fig. 3 and [0061] “table 180”), and the method further comprises:
a) disposing the first side of the bottom portion on the first tabletop portion (Fig. 3); and
b) positioning the first tabletop portion adjacent the second tabletop portion (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified method of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 14, as discussed above. Furthermore, Jo teaches wherein the first tabletop portion comprises a first connector in electrical communication with the breast coil, ([0067] “The RF reception coil 157 is connected to the image processor 160.”), the second tabletop portion comprises a second connector, and the method further comprises mating the first connector and the second connector (Figs. 2 and 5A, where the table components are interconnected/presented as one. It is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing that mating connectors to form a cohesive tabletop improves the design to yield predictable results. The tabletop thereby is exchangeable for a variety of sizes of patients and/or positioning of patients. The electrical communication ensures the imaging process is carried out completely to the processor in order for the clinician to proceed with diagnosis or treatment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further combine with the tabletop portions of Jo because combination provides a comfortable way of patient and interchangeability between patients of different sizes and positions, if desired.
Claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 112568892) in view of Jo et al. (US 20160015330), as applied to Claims 1 and 9, further in view of Nock et al. (US 20160081676).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified system of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, the modified system of Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the breast coil further comprises at least one diagnostic paddle.
In an analogous modular patient and antenna support structure field of endeavor, Johnson teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system for imaging a human breast region of a patient, ([0080] “MRI compatible biopsy system (10) […]. […] Biopsy device (14) is positioned and guided by localization fixture (16) attached to breast coil (18) that may be placed upon a gantry (not shown) of a MRI or other imaging machine.”), wherein the breast coil further comprises at least one diagnostic paddle ([0087] “an instrument, such as needle (90) of probe (91) that is engaged to holster portion (32) to form biopsy device (14).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further modify with the diagnostic paddle of Nock because the modification allows for an efficient biopsy procedure of the breast, which may ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of the breast of the patient.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified system of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 6, as discussed above. Furthermore, Nock teaches wherein the at least one diagnostic paddle is configured to be releasably coupled to the receive coil by moving the at least one diagnostic paddle along a medial-lateral axis (Fig. 3, where the biopsy device 14 will be removed along the medial-lateral axis in order to disconnect from the guide cube 104 and cannula 94 in the breast coil 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further modify with the diagnostic paddle of Nock because the modification allows for the user to have complete control over the biopsy procedure following the imaging of the patient’s breast for accurate localization of the tissue of interest.
Regarding Claim 13, the modified method of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 9, as discussed above. However, the modified method of Wu does not explicitly teach releasably coupling at least one diagnostic paddle to the receive coil by moving the at least one diagnostic paddle along a medial-lateral axis.
In an analogous modular patient and antenna support structure field of endeavor, Johnson teaches a method of operating an MRI system for imaging a human breast region of a patient, ([0080] “MRI compatible biopsy system (10) […]. […] Biopsy device (14) is positioned and guided by localization fixture (16) attached to breast coil (18) that may be placed upon a gantry (not shown) of a MRI or other imaging machine.”), comprising releasably coupling at least one diagnostic paddle to the receive coil, ([0087] “an instrument, such as needle (90) of probe (91) that is engaged to holster portion (32) to form biopsy device (14).”), by moving the at least one diagnostic paddle along a medial-lateral axis (Fig. 3, where the biopsy device 14 will be removed along the medial-lateral axis in order to disconnect from the guide cube 104 and cannula 94 in the breast coil 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further modify with the diagnostic paddle of Nock because the modification allows for an efficient biopsy procedure of the breast, which may ensure proper diagnosis and treatment of the breast of the patient. Furthermore, the modification allows for the user to have complete control over the biopsy procedure following the imaging of the patient’s breast for accurate localization of the tissue of interest.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 112568892) in view of Jo et al. (US 20160015330), as applied to Claims 1 and 9, further in view of Srinivasan (US 20200275859).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified system of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, the modified system of Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the first side of the bottom portion of the housing comprises a channel configured to receive a cable extending from the spine coil.
In an analogous pediatric MRI field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, (Abstract “pediatric magnetic resonance (MRI) system”), for imaging a human breast region of a patient, ([0002] “the invention relates to an infant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sub-system” and [0087] “anterior cardiac/torso array 71”), wherein the first side of the bottom portion of the housing comprises a channel configured to receive a cable extending from the spine coil ([0087] “The anterior, cardiac/torso RF coil array 71 may connect to spine array 73 of the patient table and allow cables to flow underneath the patient table to a system receiver.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further modify with the channel and cable of Srinivasan because the modification allows for minimal cable interaction with the patient, which reduces the risk of RF burns generally caused by close proximity to the patient, as taught by Srinivasan in [0088].
Regarding Claim 16, the modified method of Wu teaches all limitations of Claim 9, as discussed above. However, the modified method of Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the first side of the bottom portion of the housing comprises a channel configured to receive a cable extending from the spine coil.
In an analogous pediatric MRI field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches a method of operating an magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, (Abstract “pediatric magnetic resonance (MRI) system”), for imaging a human breast region of a patient, ([0002] “the invention relates to an infant magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sub-system” and [0087] “anterior cardiac/torso array 71”), wherein the first side of the bottom portion of the housing comprises a channel configured to receive a cable extending from the spine coil ([0087] “The anterior, cardiac/torso RF coil array 71 may connect to spine array 73 of the patient table and allow cables to flow underneath the patient table to a system receiver.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to further modify with the channel and cable of Srinivasan because the modification allows for minimal cable interaction with the patient, which reduces the risk of RF burns generally caused by close proximity to the patient, as taught by Srinivasan in [0088].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY whose telephone number is (571)272-8022. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 EST.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
