DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 24 June 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and being examined herein.
3. All objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
4. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained, updated to reflect the amended claim language as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-8, 11-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160206471 A1).
7. Regarding claim 1, Rapoport discloses an imaging apparatus (ANTI accommodated within an MRI bore, par 0072, FIGS. 2d and 2p) comprising:
a tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d, elongated container 100) configured to receive an object to be examined by the imaging apparatus (accommodating the neonate parallel to the MRD bore, Abstract, FIG. 2p); and
an air channel device (tube 114 with inlet at distal end 102 and outlet at proximal end 101, pars 0263 and 0265, FIG. 2d) configured to
draw air from the tubular receptacle at an intake device of the air channel device (a tube 114 is connecting between the TRV or venting module at the distal end…which controls the amount of air flowing from the distal TRV, par 0265),
guide drawn-in air through an air filter device for decontamination (airflow is streamed via filter 106, par 0263; FIG. 2d, filter 106), and
output decontaminated air into the tubular receptacle at an output device of the air channel device (airflow is streamed via filter 106 to the inner environment of the incubator, par 0263; FIG. 2d, air output through filter 106); wherein
the air channel device is an integrated part within the imaging apparatus (air channel 114 integrated part of 100, par 0265 and FIG. 2d; ANTI inserted into MRD bore i.e., within the imaging apparatus, pars 0029 and 0220),
the air channel device is configured to guide a main airstream of air along the tubular receptacle from the output device to the intake device (FIG. 2d, airflow arrows from fan/filter at proximal end 101 to distal end 102, described in par 0263),
the main airstream flows through the tubular receptacle towards a receptacle opening of the tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d, opening in receptacle at distal end 102), and
the imaging apparatus is configured to obtain one or more medical images of the object to be examined (inserting the ANTI into the MRD bore, and imaging the neonate, par 0220).
Rapoport does not specifically teach that the air filter device would be of the air channel device, as the filter is located adjacent to the output device within the tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d, filter 106). However, shifting the position of the filter from adjacent downstream to the output device to just upstream of the output device would not have modified the operation of the device, providing filtered air to all accessible points within the tubular receptacle. As an obvious matter of design choice, this change would not distinguish patentably over the prior art of Rapoport. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shift the position of the air filter device 106 to be within the air channel device just upstream of the output device in the apparatus of Rapoport, as doing so would predictably provide the same air filtration for the airflow into the tubular receptacle.
Examiner notes that Rapoport teaches a general imaging device embodied as an MRI, CT scanner, or X-ray device (par 0274) used systematically with the ANTI device that reads upon the tubular receptacle accommodated therein (pars 0029 and 0031), the two devices together defining the apparatus for safe imaging of the neonate to read upon the claim. The air channel device, being an integrated part of the ANTI device that is within the imaging apparatus, also therefore reads upon the limitation the air channel device being an integrated part within the imaging apparatus.
8. Regarding claim 2, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the output device has at least one free-jet nozzle (temperature regulating vent is in fluid communication with the proximal side, and comprising at least one first fluid venting module, e.g., a jet, pars 0098 and 0263).
9. Regarding claim 3, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but the embodiment relied upon above does not teach wherein the air channel device includes an air barrier device configured to output at least a portion of the decontaminated air to generate an air barrier in the tubular receptacle between the intake device and the receptacle opening.
In another embodiment, Rapoport teaches one or more air bafflers that force air to flow parallel to the walls of the tubular receptacle in a linear manner (par 0267, FIG. 2f), reading upon the air barrier device claimed. Rapoport teaches that these bafflers, which can be a shaped surface comprising one or more apertures, can eliminate air turbulences and prevent the neonate from being subjected to perpendicular airflow (par 0267).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the air channel device of Rapoport to include an air channel device configured to output at least a portion of the decontaminated air to generate an air barrier in the tubular receptacle between the intake device and the receptacle opening. Incorporating this air baffle structure from the FIG. 2f embodiment of Rapoport would predictably eliminate air turbulences and prevent the neonate from being subjected to perpendicular airflow in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
10. Regarding claim 4, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the air barrier device is configured to output the portion of the decontaminated air for generating the air barrier in the tubular receptacle (air is forced to flow via upper and/or lower apertures of baffler 121A…can eliminate air turbulences and prevent the neonate from being subjected to perpendicular airflow, par 0267, FIG. 2f) at a guide rail device of the imaging apparatus (portion of shaped surface 121A that guides airflow 123, FIG. 2f), said guide rail device being arranged in the tubular receptacle (FIG. 2f).
11. Regarding claim 5, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air channel device is configured to guide the main airstream within an upper half of the tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d; makes sure in this case that air 35 flowing through it may circulate, par 0088).
12. Regarding claim 6, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air channel device is configured to adjust the output of the decontaminated air at the output device and an intake of the air at the intake device (tube comprises a regulator 114 which controls the amount of air flowing from the distal TRV 115 and fresh air 113 from the surroundings into the incubator, par 0265). Rapoport does not teach for this embodiment that this adjustment is made such that the main airstream through the tubular receptacle has a laminar flow characteristic .
In another embodiment, Rapoport includes bafflers that force air to flow parallel to the walls of the tubular receptacle in a linear manner (par 0267, FIG. 2f), reading upon the air barrier device claimed. Rapoport teaches that these bafflers, which can advantageously eliminate air turbulences and prevent the neonate from being subjected to perpendicular airflow (par 0267).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the air channel device of Rapoport to adjust the main airstream to have a laminar flow characteristic. Incorporating this air baffle structure from the FIG. 2f embodiment of Rapoport would predictably eliminate air turbulences and prevent the imaging object from being subjected to perpendicular airflow in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
13. Regarding claim 7, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air channel device comprises:
a further intake device configured to draw air from an environment of the imaging apparatus (FIG 2d, fresh air intake 113 from the surroundings, par 0265), wherein
the air channel device is configured to supply drawn-in air from the environment for decontamination by the air filter device of the air channel device (airflow is streamed via filter 106 to the inner environment, par 0263).
14. Regarding claim 8, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1 but does not teach wherein the air channel device comprises a further output device configured to output at least a portion of the decontaminated air into an environment of the imaging apparatus.
In another embodiment, Rapoport teaches that a thermo-regulated airflow 108 is facilitated from the inner environment to the outside environment, via e.g., opening at the distal end (pars 0261), reading upon a further output device configured to output at least a portion of the decontaminated air post filtration into an environment of the imaging apparatus. This opening i.e. output device would be advantageously applied to the embodiment of FIG. 2d to balance the air intake from opening 113 upstream of the filter (par 0283).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the air channel device of Rapoport to include a further output device configured to output a portion of the decontaminated air into the surrounding environment. Doing so would predictably provide the same thermo-regulated airflow to the space while balancing the inflow with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
15. Regarding claim 11, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air filter device is arranged in at least one of a screening tube or a screening container (FIG. 2d, filter 106 arranged within tube containing baby for screening).
16. Regarding claim 12, Rapoport teaches an air channel device (ANTI 100 in which a tube 114 is connecting between the TRV or venting module at the distal end with the TRV at the proximal end, par 0265) for an imaging apparatus (ANTI accommodated within an MRI bore, par 0072, FIGS. 2d and 2p), said air channel device configured to
draw air from the tubular receptacle at an intake device (a tube 114 is connecting between the TRV or venting module at the distal end…which controls the amount of air flowing from the distal TRV, par 0265),
guide drawn-in air through an air filter device of the air channel device for decontamination (airflow is streamed via filter 106, par 0263; FIG. 2d, filter 106), and
output decontaminated air into the tubular receptacle at an output device of the air channel device (airflow is streamed via filter 106 to the inner environment of the incubator, par 0263; FIG. 2d, air output through filter 106), wherein
the air channel device is an integrated part within the imaging apparatus (air channel 114 integrated part of 100, par 0265 and FIG. 2d; ANTI inserted into MRD bore i.e., within the imaging apparatus, pars 0029 and 0220), and
the imaging apparatus is configured to obtain one or more medical images of the object to be examined (inserting the ANTI into the MRD bore, and imaging the neonate, par 0220).
Rapoport does not specifically teach that the air filter device would be of the air channel device, as the filter is located adjacent to the output device within the tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d, filter 106). However, shifting the position of the filter from adjacent downstream to the output device to just upstream of the output device would not have modified the operation of the device, providing filtered air to all accessible points within the tubular receptacle. As an obvious matter of design choice, this change would not distinguish patentably over the prior art of Rapoport. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shift the position of the air filter device 106 to be within the air channel device just upstream of the output device in the apparatus of Rapoport, as doing so would predictably provide the same air filtration for the airflow into the tubular receptacle.
17. Regarding claim 13, Rapoport discloses a method for operating (fluid venting module…operative in a method, par 0263) an imaging apparatus (ANTI accommodated within an MRI bore, par 0072, FIGS. 2d and 2p) having a tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d, elongated container of ANTI 100) formed as part of the imaging apparatus (configured to be inserted into MRD bore for imaging, pars 0029 and 0031) configured to receive an object to be examined by the imaging apparatus (accommodating the neonate parallel to the MRD bore, Abstract, FIG. 2p), the method comprising:
drawing in air from the tubular receptacle via an intake device of an air channel device of the imaging apparatus (tube 114 is connecting between the TRV or venting module at the distal end…which controls the amount of air flowing from the distal TRV, par 0265), the air channel device being an integrated part within the imaging apparatus (air channel 114 integrated part of 100, par 0265 and FIG. 2d; ANTI inserted into MRD bore i.e., within the imaging apparatus, pars 0029 and 0220);
guiding drawn-in air through the air channel device for decontamination by an air filter device (airflow is streamed via filter 106, par 0263; FIG. 2d, filter 106); and
outputting decontaminated air into the tubular receptacle via an output device of the air channel device (airflow is streamed via filter 106 to the inner environment of the incubator, par 0263; FIG. 2d, air output through filter 106), wherein
a main airstream of air is guided along the tubular receptacle from the output device to the intake device via the air channel device (FIG. 2d, airflow arrows from fan/filter at proximal end 101 to distal end 102, described in par 0263), and
the main airstream flows through the tubular receptacle towards a receptacle opening of the tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d, opening in receptacle contains baby) , and
obtaining one or more medical images of the object to be examined, via the imaging apparatus (inserting the ANTI into the MRD bore, and imaging the neonate, par 0220).
Rapoport does not specifically teach that the air filter device would be of the air channel device, as the filter is located adjacent to the output device within the tubular receptacle (FIG. 2d, filter 106). However, shifting the position of the filter from adjacent to the output device to just upstream of the output device would not have modified the operation of the device, providing filtered air to all accessible points within the tubular receptacle. As an obvious matter of design choice, this change would not distinguish patentably over the prior art of Rapoport. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shift the position of the air filter device 106 to be within the air channel device just upstream of the output device in the method of Rapoport, as doing so would predictably provide the same air filtration to the airflow into the tubular receptacle.
18. Regarding claim 14, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the air channel device is configured to adjust the output of the decontaminated air at the output device and an intake of the air at the intake device such that the main airstream through the tubular receptacle has a laminar flow characteristic (force air to flow parallel to the walls of the tubular receptacle in a linear manner, par 0267).
19. Regarding claim 17, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the air channel device is configured to adjust the output of the decontaminated air at the output device and an intake of the air at the intake device such that the main airstream through the tubular receptacle has a laminar flow characteristic (force air to flow parallel to the walls of the tubular receptacle in a linear manner, par 0267).
20. Regarding claim 20, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 5,
wherein the air channel device is configured to adjust the output of the decontaminated air at the output device and an intake of the air at the intake device (tube comprises a regulator 114 which controls the amount of air flowing from the distal TRV 115 and fresh air 113 from the surroundings into the incubator, par 0265). Rapoport does not teach for this embodiment that this adjustment is made such that the main airstream through the tubular receptacle has a laminar flow characteristic .
In another embodiment, Rapoport includes bafflers that force air to flow parallel to the walls of the tubular receptacle in a linear manner (par 0267, FIG. 2f), reading upon the air barrier device claimed. Rapoport teaches that these bafflers, which can advantageously eliminate air turbulences and prevent the neonate from being subjected to perpendicular airflow (par 0267).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the air channel device of Rapoport to adjust the main airstream to have a laminar flow characteristic. Incorporating this air baffle structure from the FIG. 2f embodiment of Rapoport would predictably eliminate air turbulences and prevent the imaging object from being subjected to perpendicular airflow in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
21. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160206471 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mei (WO 2020037851 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
22. Regarding claim 9, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air filter device may be embodied as an air ionizer to remove contaminants not limited to dust, pollen, mold, bacteria, viruses, volatile organic compounds or ozone, etc. (pars 0128-0129). Rapoport does not specifically teach that this filter device is configured as a plasma filter.
Mei teaches an analogous air filtering and purification device (Abstract) with advantageous miniaturization of filter size while providing sterilization and treatment of gaseous pollutants (par 0003) relying on plasma generation within a ladder shaped module to purify the air that passes through the ladder mesh i.e. plasma filter plane (par 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the air filter device of Rapoport to include a plasma filter as taught by Mei. Doing so would predictably provide sterilization and treatment of gaseous pollutants in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
23. Regarding claim 10, Rapoport as modified by Mei teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 9, wherein the air filter device comprises a plasma filter. However, the combination above does not specifically teach the claimed structure of the plasma filter.
Mei further teaches the structure of the plasma filter, namely at least one electrode device (plasma generating ladder module 7, par 0024, FIGS. 1-7), the at least one electrode device having a first planar composite electrode (left electrode 11 and n left discharge rods 12, par 0024, FIGS. 2-3) and a second planar composite electrode (right electrode 14 and n+1 right discharge rods 15, par 0024), wherein
the first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode are arranged in a coplanar manner in a principal surface plane of the at least one electrode device (FIG. 3), and the first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode are physically separated from each other by a discharge gap (reasonable discharge gap “a” for the module DBD dielectric barrier discharge, par 0024, FIG. 3), and
each of first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode has a respective electrode plate (array of left discharge rods 12 and right discharge rods 15) with a respective dielectric coating (a dielectric barrier layer 13 for the left discharge rods, par 0024; dielectric barrier layer 16 of the electric pole, par 0024; FIG. 3) at least at a boundary surface of the respective electrode plate relative to the discharge gap (FIG. 3); and
a voltage source configured to supply an alternating voltage to the at least one electrode device (left and right electrodes are connected to a high-frequency high-voltage power supply, par 0025), wherein
the alternating voltage is parameterized to cause formation of a plasma (frequency range is 50Hz to 40KHz and the voltage is 2KV to 50KV, controlled by the controller 3 to control the opening and closing, thereby controlling the generation of plasma, par 0025) via a dielectric barrier discharge in the discharge gap (discharge gap for the module DBD dielectric barrier discharge, par 0024), and
the plasma filter is configured to guide the air along a filter flow direction (air…passing through the working section of the plasma generating module, par 0023), the filter flow direction being oriented parallel to a normal of the principal surface plane of the at least one electrode device (FIG. 1, flow arrow perpendicular to plane of electrode device 7), and through the discharge gap (FIG. 2, par 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to structure the plasma filter device of modified Rapoport as a first composite electrode and second composite electrode with an alternating voltage source as taught above by Mei, because this plasma filter structure would predictably provide the same dielectric barrier discharge/plasma generation conditions demonstrated to effectively sterilize and remove contaminants (Mei par 0003). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
24. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160206471 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mei (WO 2020037851 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
25. Regarding claim 15, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the air filter device may be embodied as an air ionizer to remove contaminants not limited to dust, pollen, mold, bacteria, viruses, volatile organic compounds or ozone, etc. (pars 0128-0129). Rapoport does not specifically teach that this filter device is configured as a plasma filter.
Mei teaches an analogous air filtering and purification device (Abstract) with advantageous miniaturization of filter size while providing sterilization and treatment of gaseous pollutants (par 0003) relying on plasma generation within a ladder shaped module to purify the air that passes through the ladder mesh i.e. plasma filter plane (par 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the air filter device of Rapoport to include a plasma filter as taught by Mei, because doing so would predictably provide sterilization and treatment of gaseous pollutants in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
26. Regarding claim 16, Rapoport as modified by Mei teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 15, wherein the air filter device comprises a plasma filter. However, the combination above does not specifically teach the claimed structure of the plasma filter.
Mei further teaches the structure of the plasma filter, namely at least one electrode device (plasma generating ladder module 7, par 0024, FIGS. 1-7), the at least one electrode device having a first planar composite electrode (left electrode 11 and n left discharge rods 12, par 0024, FIGS. 2-3) and a second planar composite electrode (right electrode 14 and n+1 right discharge rods 15, par 0024), wherein
the first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode are arranged in a coplanar manner in a principal surface plane of the at least one electrode device (FIG. 3), and the first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode are physically separated from each other by a discharge gap (reasonable discharge gap “a” for the module DBD dielectric barrier discharge, par 0024, FIG. 3), and
each of first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode has a respective electrode plate (array of left discharge rods 12 and right discharge rods 15) with a respective dielectric coating (a dielectric barrier layer 13 for the left discharge rods, par 0024; dielectric barrier layer 16 of the electric pole, par 0024; FIG. 3) at least at a boundary surface of the respective electrode plate relative to the discharge gap (FIG. 3); and
a voltage source configured to supply an alternating voltage to the at least one electrode device (left and right electrodes are connected to a high-frequency high-voltage power supply, par 0025), wherein
the alternating voltage is parameterized to cause formation of a plasma (frequency range is 50Hz to 40KHz and the voltage is 2KV to 50KV, controlled by the controller 3 to control the opening and closing, thereby controlling the generation of plasma, par 0025) via a dielectric barrier discharge in the discharge gap (discharge gap for the module DBD dielectric barrier discharge, par 0024), and
the plasma filter is configured to guide the air along a filter flow direction (air…passing through the working section of the plasma generating module, par 0023), the filter flow direction being oriented parallel to a normal of the principal surface plane of the at least one electrode device (FIG. 1, flow arrow perpendicular to plane of electrode device 7), and through the discharge gap (FIG. 2, par 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to structure the plasma filter device of modified Rapoport as a first composite electrode and second composite electrode with an alternating voltage source as taught above by Mei. Doing so would predictably provide the same dielectric barrier discharge/plasma generation conditions demonstrated to effectively sterilize and remove contaminants (Mei par 0003). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
27. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US 20160206471 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mei (WO 2020037851 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
28. Regarding claim 18, Rapoport teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air filter device may be embodied as an air ionizer to remove contaminants not limited to dust, pollen, mold, bacteria, viruses, volatile organic compounds or ozone, etc. (pars 0128-0129). Rapoport does not specifically teach that this filter device is configured as a plasma filter.
Mei teaches an analogous air filtering and purification device (Abstract) with advantageous miniaturization of filter size while providing sterilization and treatment of gaseous pollutants (par 0003) relying on plasma generation within a ladder shaped module to purify the air that passes through the ladder mesh i.e. plasma filter plane (par 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the air filter device of Rapoport to include a plasma filter as taught by Mei, because doing so would predictably provide sterilization and treatment of gaseous pollutants in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
29. Regarding claim 19, Rapoport as modified by Mei teaches the imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the air filter device comprises a plasma filter. However, the combination above does not specifically teach the claimed structure of the plasma filter.
Mei further teaches the structure of the plasma filter, namely at least one electrode device (plasma generating ladder module 7, par 0024, FIGS. 1-7), the at least one electrode device having a first planar composite electrode (left electrode 11 and n left discharge rods 12, par 0024, FIGS. 2-3) and a second planar composite electrode (right electrode 14 and n+1 right discharge rods 15, par 0024), wherein
the first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode are arranged in a coplanar manner in a principal surface plane of the at least one electrode device (FIG. 3), and the first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode are physically separated from each other by a discharge gap (reasonable discharge gap “a” for the module DBD dielectric barrier discharge, par 0024, FIG. 3), and
each of first planar composite electrode and the second planar composite electrode has a respective electrode plate (array of left discharge rods 12 and right discharge rods 15) with a respective dielectric coating (a dielectric barrier layer 13 for the left discharge rods, par 0024; dielectric barrier layer 16 of the electric pole, par 0024; FIG. 3) at least at a boundary surface of the respective electrode plate relative to the discharge gap (FIG. 3); and
a voltage source configured to supply an alternating voltage to the at least one electrode device (left and right electrodes are connected to a high-frequency high-voltage power supply, par 0025), wherein
the alternating voltage is parameterized to cause formation of a plasma (frequency range is 50Hz to 40KHz and the voltage is 2KV to 50KV, controlled by the controller 3 to control the opening and closing, thereby controlling the generation of plasma, par 0025) via a dielectric barrier discharge in the discharge gap (discharge gap for the module DBD dielectric barrier discharge, par 0024), and
the plasma filter is configured to guide the air along a filter flow direction (air…passing through the working section of the plasma generating module, par 0023), the filter flow direction being oriented parallel to a normal of the principal surface plane of the at least one electrode device (FIG. 1, flow arrow perpendicular to plane of electrode device 7), and through the discharge gap (FIG. 2, par 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to structure the plasma filter device of modified Rapoport as a first composite electrode and second composite electrode with an alternating voltage source as taught above by Mei, because this plasma filter structure would predictably provide the same dielectric barrier discharge/plasma generation conditions demonstrated to effectively sterilize and remove contaminants (Mei par 0003). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
30. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 24 June 2026, pages 15-17, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the ANTI of Rapoport which comprises the air filter device as claimed is not an imaging device and therefore not an integral part of an imaging apparatus. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that the amendment to make the claimed tubular receptacle “part of” / “an integrated part within” the imaging apparatus does not distinguish patentably over Rapoport.
Merriam-Webster defines the term ‘apparatus’ as “a set of materials or equipment designed for a particular use”. Under that working definition, the imaging apparatus of Rapoport is mapped in the rejection to “ANTI device accommodated within the MRI bore” (par 0072), both the ANTI device and the MRI device functioning as a set of equipment designed for the particular use of safely imaging neonates by magnetic resonance (Rapoport par 0029). The ANTI device is integral to the function carried out by the apparatus, as Rapoport emphasizes that the inclusion of the ANTI device provides a standard of care with fewer repetitions, less stress, and improved safety (par 0031). The air channel device is an integrated part of the ANTI device, which functions when the ANTI device is inserted into the MRI bore, i.e., physically within the imaging apparatus. No further structure was added to define the imaging apparatus, as the amendment only added functional language that “the imaging apparatus is configured to obtain one or more medical images of the object to be examined”, a feature generic to all medical imaging apparatuses, and so the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the same references.
Conclusion
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al (CN 215607847 U, references made to English Machine Translation) discloses an air disinfection device for the inside of a medical CT scanner (Abstract, par 0019) with the air sterilizing device, inlets, outlets, lamps, etc. physically and fully integrated into the imaging device frame (pars 0006-0009, FIGS. 1-2).
32. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights