DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amended claim set, filed 10/28/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-8, 10-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4-8, 10-13, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amended claim set, filed 10/28/25, with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in further view of Biber. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in further view of Biber in further view of Hayama. Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in further view of Biber in further view of Bollenbeck. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in further view of Biber in further view of Bollenbeck.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed with the EPO on 12/20/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP22214872.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is 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 13 contains the trademark/trade name “Velcro” in line 2. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of fastener, i.e., a material or product, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 6-10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0029559), hereinafter “Nufer,” in further view of Biber et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0289492), hereinafter “Biber.”
Regarding claim 1, Nufer discloses a method for positioning a patient couch in a patient tunnel of a magnetic resonance system, wherein the patient tunnel is defined by a main magnet unit with a main magnet operable to generate a main magnetic field (a method for automatically moving a patient table inside a basic field magnet of a scanner of a MRI apparatus, wherein the basic magnetic field is defined by a basic field magnet operable to generate a basic magnetic field, Abstract, [0007]), the method comprising:
positioning a position determination unit comprising a magnetic field sensor at a marker position on the patient couch or on a patient supported on the patient couch (a position detection unit comprising a magnetic field sensor is placed on a local RF-coil coupled to a patient table and/or positioned on the patient’s body, [0006]-[0008], [0014]-[0015], [0020], [0038]);
evaluating sensor data of the magnetic field sensor using a control system to establish the marker position in a coordinate system of the magnetic resonance system, in which a field of view position of a field of view of the magnetic resonance system is known (magnetic field sensor data is evaluated using a control computer to establish the local RF-coil position in a coordinate system of the MRI apparatus in which an isocenter position of the MRI apparatus is known, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]);
determining a desired required position of the field of view relative to the marker position for a subsequent measurement of magnetic resonance data by the control system from the marker position at least in a longitudinal direction of the patient couch corresponding to a direction of movement of the patient couch (the relative distance between the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position is determined for a subsequent measurement of MR data by the control computer from the local RF-coil position at least in a z-direction of the patient table corresponding to a direction of movement of the patient table, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]); and
controlling the patient couch by the control system, using the marker position and the field of view position, in such a way that the desired required position of the field of view relative to the marker position is set (patient table automatic movement is controlled using the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position such that the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position is set, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]).
However, while Nufer discloses positioning a position determination unit comprising a magnetic field sensor at a marker position on the patient couch or on a patient supported on the patient couch as detailed above, Nufer does not appear to disclose a standalone position determination unit, wherein the position determination unit is freely positionable and independent of local coil arrangements.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positioning a patient in an MR system tunnel, Biber teaches a standalone position determination unit comprising a magnetic field sensor, wherein the position determination unit is freely positionable and independent of local coil arrangements (magnetic field probe comprises one or more magnetic field strength sensors used to determine position, Abstract, [0008], [0025]; magnetic field probe comprises one or more magnetic field strength sensors that can be attached in a detacheable manner to a local coil, i.e., the magnetic field probe is freely positionable and independent of the local coil, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of providing a position determining magnetic field probe comprising one or more magnetic field strength sensors that can be attached and detached from a local coil to Nufer’s known process of providing a position detection unit comprising a magnetic field sensor placed on a local RF-coil coupled to a patient table and/or positioned on the patient’s body to achieve the predictable result that a PHOSITA would find it obvious to make the magnetic field strength sensors portable (See MPEP 2144.04 V. A. Making Portable) or make the magnetic field strength sensors separable from the local coil (See MPEP 2144.04 V. C. Making Separable) such that one or more sensors at a time can be used at various positions on the local coil as desired to achieve a desired level of measurement precision. See, e.g., Biber, [0021].
Regarding claim 2, Nufer discloses determining a desired location of the field of view as a middle of the field of view at least in the longitudinal direction at the marker position by the control system (the relative distance between the position of the local RF-coil and the isocenter of the scanner is determined in at least the z-direction by the control computer, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Nufer discloses the magnetic field sensor is a Hall sensor or is an orientation sensor (the magnetic field sensor is a Hall sensor, [0008], [0015], [0020], [0047], [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Nufer discloses by the control system, using the sensor data of the magnetic field sensor or of the orientation sensor, orientation information describing the orientation of the position determination unit is determined (control computer uses the sensor data of the magnetic field sensor to determine orientation information describing the orientation of the position detection unit, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]); and the control system, from the orientation information, using an orientation to control information, which relates to a subsequent movement of the patient couch or a subsequent measurement of magnetic resonance data, or determination information, which describes the determination of the required position from the marker position, assignment specification to be assigned, control information and/or determination information, wherein the control system controls the magnetic resonance system in accordance with the control information or determines the required position in accordance with the determination information (the relative distance between the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position is determined for a subsequent measurement of MR data by the control computer from the local RF-coil position at least in a z-direction of the patient table corresponding to a direction of movement of the patient table, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Nufer discloses wherein the control information relates to a support of the patient or to a speed of movement of the patient couch or to a local coil arrangement to be used or to a recording program to be used or to a magnetic resonance sequence to be used, or that the position determination unit comprises optical markings for visual distinction, or assignment of the orientations provided on its outer side (the control computer determines the relative distance between the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position for a subsequent measurement of MR data such that the control computer controls the direction of movement of the patient table, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Nufer discloses wherein activation of the patient couch by the control system only takes place on fulfillment of a trigger condition (patient table is activated by the operator selection of the move to center icon, [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Nufer discloses wherein the trigger condition evaluates actuation of an operating element on the main magnet unit or on the position determination unit (display and input units of the MRI imaging apparatus control computer, [0034]-[0035]; patient table is activated by the operator selection of the move to center icon, [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Nufer discloses wherein identification information specifying a number is used for a number of consecutive measurements of magnetic resonance data in different examination regions (local RF-coil has an information element that provides a series of numbers to uniquely identify the RF-coil for a particular examination region, [0034]; a plurality of different examination regions upon which one or more local RF-coils may be placed include the hip, arm, shoulder, and foot, [0014], [0041], claim 8; control computer is used to conduct measurements of MR data including localizer and diagnostic scans in the respective examination regions by moving the patient table to align the local RF-coil at the respective examination region with the isocenter of the scanner, [0006]-[0007], [0017]-[0018], [0019], [0033], [0038]-[0040]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in further view of Biber as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0276474), hereinafter “Hayama.”
Regarding claim 3, while Nufer discloses a position determination unit comprising a magnetic field sensor (a position detection unit comprising a magnetic field sensor, [0006]-[0008], [0014]-[0015], [0020], [0038]), Nufer in further view of Biber does not appear to teach wherein the position determination unit comprises an optical marker on its outer side, corresponding to the position of the magnetic field sensor in the position determination unit, for visual description of a current marker position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of magnetic field sensors and solving substantially the same problem of visually marking the location of the magnetic field sensor on the exterior of a housing within which the magnetic field sensor is positioned, Hayama teaches wherein the position determination unit comprises an optical marker on its outer side, corresponding to the position of the magnetic field sensor in the position determination unit, for visual description of a current marker position (the magnetic azimuth detecting device comprises a visible marker on its outer surface, corresponding to the position of a magnetic field sensor in the magnetic azimuth detecting device, for recognition of the position of the magnetic sensor, [0058]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Hayama’s known technique of visibly marking the outer surface of the position determination unit to Nufer in further view of Biber’s known process of providing a magnetic field sensor at a local RF-coil to achieve the predictable result that providing such a mark allows for recognition of the position of the magnetic field sensor and allows for a person to distinguish between the position of a plurality of magnetic field sensors or magnetic field sensor elements from the outside. See, e.g., Hayama, [0059].
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in further view of Biber as in claim 1 above, and further in view of Bollenbeck et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0103479), hereinafter “Bollenbeck.”
Regarding claim 4, Nufer in further view of Biber does not appear to teach wherein the position determination unit further comprises an energy supply device or a wireless communication device operable to transfer the sensor data wirelessly to the control system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of MRI imaging and solving substantially the same problem of providing a local power supply or wireless/cordless communication device for the magnetic field sensor, Bollenbeck teaches wherein the position determination unit further comprises an energy supply device (a magnetic field sensor within a communication element housing, [0030], [0047], [0070], Figs. 1-3; communication element including the magnetic field sensor is powered via an energy storage element, [0027], [0054], [0067], [0085]) or a wireless communication device operable to transfer the sensor data wirelessly to the control system (a magnetic field sensor within a communication element housing, [0030], [0047], [0070], Figs. 1-3; communication element is wireless/cordless, [0024]-[0025], [0032], [0041], [0044], [0062], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique providing a local power supply and/or wireless/cordless communication device including a magnetic field sensor to Nufer in further view of Biber’s known process of providing a magnetic field sensor to achieve the predictable result that this provides a simple and reliable transmission of communication signals (see, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0024]) and/or provides a ready means by which to provide recharge the energy storage for the magnetic field sensor and communication system during the MRI procedure (see, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0027], [0054], [0067]).
Regarding claim 5, Nufer in further view of Biber does not appear to teach the energy supply device is charged by alternating fields occurring during a measurement of magnetic resonance data in the patient tunnel or the sensor data is transmitted automatically on request or at regular intervals.
However, in the same field of endeavor of MRI imaging and solving substantially the same problem of providing a local power supply for the magnetic field sensor, Bollenbeck teaches the energy supply device is charged by alternating fields occurring during a measurement of magnetic resonance data in the patient accommodating region (energy storage element is charged by alternating fields occurring during a measurement of a magnetic resonance data in the patient tunnel, [0027], [0054], [0067]; tunnel-shaped patient accommodating region, [0015], Fig. 1) or the sensor data is transmitted automatically on request or at regular intervals (communication element transmits the magnetic field sensor data upon activation and/or continuously during a defined and/or specific period of time, [0047]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique providing a local power supply and/or wireless/cordless communication device including a magnetic field sensor to Nufer in further view of Biber’s known process of providing a magnetic field sensor to achieve the predictable result that this provides a simple and reliable transmission of communication signals (see, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0024]) and/or provides a ready means by which to provide recharge the energy supply for the magnetic field sensor and communication system during the MRI procedure (see, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0027], [0054], [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Nufer does not appear to disclose the position determination unit has a housing in which the magnetic field sensor is accommodated, or has a maximum extent of 1 to 10 cm or volume of 1 too 100 cubic centimeters or is fastened using a fastener to the patient couch or to an item of clothing or to a cover or to a local coil arrangement.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positioning a patient in an MR system tunnel, Biber teaches attaching and detaching the position determination unit to the patient couch or to an item of clothing or to a cover or to a local coil arrangement (magnetic field probe comprises one or more magnetic field strength sensors used to determine position, Abstract, [0008], [0025]; magnetic field probe comprises one or more magnetic field strength sensors that can be attached in a detacheable manner to a local coil, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of providing a position determining magnetic field probe comprising one or more magnetic field strength sensors that can be attached and detached from a local coil to Nufer’s known process of providing a position detection unit comprising a magnetic field sensor placed on a local RF-coil coupled to a patient table and/or positioned on the patient’s body to achieve the predictable result that a PHOSITA would find it obvious to make the magnetic field strength sensors portable (See MPEP 2144.04 V. A. Making Portable) or make the magnetic field strength sensors separable from the local coil (See MPEP 2144.04 V. C. Making Separable) such that one or more sensors at a time can be used at various positions on the local coil as desired to achieve a desired level of measurement precision. See, e.g., Biber, [0021].
However, Nufer in further view of Biber does not appear to explictly teach the position determination unit is fastened using a fastener.
However, in the same field of endeavor of MRI imaging and solving substantially the same problem of attaching a magnetic field sensor, Bollenbeck teaches a housing in which the magnetic field sensor is accommodated (a magnetic field sensor within the communication element housing, [0030], [0047], [0070], Figs. 1-3), the magnetic field sensor housing is fastened using a fastener to the patient couch or to an item of clothing or to a cover or to a local coil arrangement (fastening element can include a clip to the clothes of the patient and/or a Velcro fastener, [0037], [0074], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique of providing a fastener to attach the magnetic field sensor housing to Nufer in further view of Biber’s known process of providing a placement of the magnetic field sensor to determine the position of the object to which the magnetic field sensor is attached to achieve the predictable result that a fastening element such as a clip or Velcro strap allows for a simple and rapid arrangement of the magnetic field sensor housing. See, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0037].
Regarding claim 13, Nufer in further view of Biber does not appear to teach the fastener comprises a clip or Velcro.
However, in the same field of endeavor of MRI imaging and solving substantially the same problem of attaching a magnetic field sensor, Bollenbeck teaches the fastener comprises a clip and/or Velcro (fastening element can include a clip to the clothes of the patient and/or a Velcro fastener, [0037], [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique of providing a fastener to attach the magnetic field sensor housing to Nufer in further view of Biber’s known process of providing a placement of the magnetic field sensor to determine the position of the object to which the magnetic field sensor is attached to achieve the predictable result that a fastening element such as a clip or Velcro strap allows for a simple and rapid arrangement of the magnetic field sensor housing. See, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0037].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in further view of Biber in further view of Bollenbeck.
Regarding claim 15, Nufer discloses a magnetic resonance system comprising:
a main magnet unit with a patient tunnel and a main magnet operable to generate a main magnetic field (a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus having a basic field magnet of a scanner of the MRI apparatus wherein the patient table is moved inside the basic field magnet, wherein the basic field magnet generates a basic magnetic field, Abstract, [0007], [0016], [0033]);
a patient couch movable into the patient tunnel in a longitudinal direction (patient table is movable into the basic field magnet in a z-direction, Abstract, [0006]-[0007], [0017]-[0018], [0037], [0039], [0048]);
a control system (control computer, [0006], [0017], [0019], [0023], [0033], [0038]-[0039]); and
a position determination unit with a magnetic field sensor freely supported on the patient couch positionable at a marker position (a position detection unit comprising a magnetic field sensor is placed on a local RF-coil coupled to a patient table and/or positioned on the patient’s body, [0006]-[0008], [0014]-[0015], [0020], [0038]),
wherein the control system comprises:
an evaluation unit operable to evaluate the sensor data of the magnetic field sensor to establish the marker position in a coordinate system of the magnetic resonance system, in which a field of view position of a field of view of the magnetic resonance system is also known (magnetic field sensor data is evaluated using a control computer to establish the local RF-coil position in a coordinate system of the MRI apparatus in which an isocenter position of the MRI apparatus is known, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]);
a determination unit operable to establish a desired required position of the field of view relative to the marker position from the marker position at least in the longitudinal direction of the patient couch for a subsequent measurement of magnetic resonance data (the relative distance between the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position is determined for a subsequent measurement of MR data by the control computer from the local RF-coil position at least in a z-direction of the patient table corresponding to a direction of movement of the patient table, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]); and
a controller operable to activate the patient couch while using the marker position in such a way that the desired relative required position of the field of view for the marker position is assumed (patient table automatic movement is controlled using the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position such that the position of the local RF-coil and the scanner isocenter position is assumed, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0016]-[0018], [0039], [0043]-[0050]).
However, while Nufer discloses positioning a position determination unit comprising a magnetic field sensor at a marker position on the patient couch or on a patient supported on the patient couch as detailed above, Nufer does not appear to disclose a standalone position determination unit, wherein the position determination unit is freely positionable and independent of local coil arrangements.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positioning a patient in an MR system tunnel, Biber teaches a standalone position determination unit with a magnetic field sensor, wherein the position determination unit is freely positionable and independent of local coil arrangements (magnetic field probe comprises one or more magnetic field strength sensors used to determine position, Abstract, [0008], [0025]; magnetic field probe comprises one or more magnetic field strength sensors that can be attached in a detacheable manner to a local coil, i.e., the magnetic field probe is freely positionable and independent of the local coil, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of providing a position determining magnetic field probe with one or more magnetic field strength sensors that can be attached and detached from a local coil to Nufer’s known apparatus providing a position detection unit with a magnetic field sensor placed on a local RF-coil coupled to a patient table and/or positioned on the patient’s body to achieve the predictable result that a PHOSITA would find it obvious to make the magnetic field strength sensors portable (See MPEP 2144.04 V. A. Making Portable) or make the magnetic field strength sensors separable from the local coil (See MPEP 2144.04 V. C. Making Separable) such that one or more sensors at a time can be used at various positions on the local coil as desired to achieve a desired level of measurement precision. See, e.g., Biber, [0021].
However, Nufer in further view of Biber does not appear to teach a communication device to transmit sensor data of the magnetic field sensor to the control system.
However, in the same field of endeavor of MRI imaging and solving substantially the same problem of providing a wireless/cordless communication device for the magnetic field sensor, Bollenbeck teaches a communication device to transmit sensor data of the magnetic field sensor to the control system (a magnetic field sensor coupled to a communication element within a communication element housing, [0030], [0047], [0070], Figs. 1-3; communication element is wireless/cordless, [0024]-[0025], [0032], [0041], [0044], [0062], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique providing a local power supply and/or wireless/cordless communication device including a magnetic field sensor to Nufer in further view of Biber’s known apparatus providing a magnetic field sensor to achieve the predictable result that this provides a simple and reliable transmission of communication signals (see, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gall et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0338614) discloses a method and MRI system for positioning a patient couch with an MRI tunnel of the main magnet using a Hall probe to determine the distance and speed of the patient couch relative to the isocenter of the magnet and the position of the Hall probe.
Ferguson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0025845) discloses a method and MRI system for positioning a patient couch within an MRI tunnel of the main magnet using a Hall sensor to determine the distance of the patient couch relative to the isocenter of the magnet and the position of the Hall sensor.
Biber et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0329422) discloses a method and MRI system for positioning a patient couch within an MRI tunnel of the main magnet using a Hall sensor to determine the distance of the patient couch relative to the isocenter of the magnet and the position of the Hall sensor.
Ludwig et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0248665) discloses a method and MRI system for positioning a patient couch within an MRI tunnel of the main magnet using a Hall sensor to determine the distance of the patient couch relative to the isocenter of the magnet and the position of the Hall sensor.
Hetz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0231622) discloses a method and MRI system for positioning a patient couch within an MRI tunnel of the main magnet using a Hall sensor to determine the distance of the patient couch relative to the isocenter of the magnet and the position of the Hall sensor.
Greim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0128149) discloses a method and MRI system for positioning a patient couch within an MRI tunnel of the main magnet using a Hall sensor to determine the distance of the patient couch relative to the isocenter of the magnet and the position of the Hall sensor.
Hengerer et al. (DE102020200466A1) discloses a method and MRI system for positioning a patient couch within an MRI tunnel of the main magnet using one or more uniquely identified Hall sensors to determine the distance of the patient couch relative to the isocenter of the magnet and the position of the Hall sensor.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnathan Maynard whose telephone number is (571)272-7977. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798