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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 and 13 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-11 and 13 have been amended. Claims 3, 9, and 12 have been cancelled. This action is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 1/13/2026. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 9/4/2025 has been considered by the office.
Claim Objections
The Claim Objections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 7/14/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 1/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 Claim Rejections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 7/14/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 1/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanz (US 20120330130 A1) in view of Toddes (US 20140100444 A1), further in view of Haishi (JP 2010029313 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lanz discloses a general-purpose functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) equipped with a bed unit (animal bed 16), and a helmet unit (See Fig. 1 depicting helmet unit portion of top part 1), wherein the bed unit is constituted to hold a laboratory animal in the sphinx position (See Fig. 1, animal in a sphinx position), the helmet unit (top part 1) is configured to immobilize [[the]] a head of the laboratory animal in a resting state (“head holding mechanism connected to the bed for holding the head of the animal in a fixed position”; [0014]), so as to perform functional MRI measurement (“obtain maximum filling factor and optimum SNR”; [0027]), and the helmet unit comprising a coil integrated therein (See Fig. 1, coil is integrated into top part 1) and an outer helmet (See Fig. 1, top part 1 acts as an outer helmet), and the general-purpose functional MRI bed is configured for use with a marmoset, mouse, rat, macaque, or guinea pig (“such as a rodent (rats or mice or other animals”; [Abstract]).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lanz fails to explicitly disclose a collar unit, a inner helmet, and the collar unit is configured to restrain [[the]] a neck and [[the]] a shoulder of the laboratory animal.
However, Toddes teaches a collar unit is to restrain [[the]] a neck and [[the]] a shoulder of the laboratory animal (See Fig. 2, “shoulder yoke assembly 140 for restraining a shoulder/neck portion of the animal”; [0020]).
PNG
media_image2.png
450
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz by adding the collar unit to restrain the neck and shoulder taught by Toddes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “secure and lock the animal’s body in the desired position”; (Toddes, [0021]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach an inner helmet unit comprising a coil.
However, Haishi teaches an inner helmet unit comprising a coil (See Fig. 3, coil 5 acts as an inner helmet as it is slid over the head of the patient).
PNG
media_image3.png
688
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by adding inner helmet taught by Haishi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the shape is hemispherical, it is suitable for analyzing deep brain regions”; (Haishi). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanz (US 20120330130 A1) in view of Toddes (US 20140100444 A1), further in view of Haishi (JP 2010029313 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Sayler (US 10595744 B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Lanz, as modified, teaches the general-purpose functional MRI bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) of claim 1.
Lanz in view of Toddes in view of Haishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the bed, the helmet, and the collar are made of non-magnetic materials.
However, Sayler teaches the bed, the helmet, and the collar are made of non-magnetic materials (“MRI-compatible device is typically made of a non-ferromagnetic material”; [Col. 5, Lines 65-66], this implies any material used within the MRI bed is required to be non-magnetic or else the system will not be operate as intended).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes in view of Haishi by using non-magnetic material as taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “a device is safe for use in an MRI environment that can operate as intended in an MRI environment and not introduce artifacts into MRI images”; (Sayler, [Col. 5, Lines 61-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 4-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanz (US 20120330130 A1) in view of Toddes (US 20140100444 A1), further in view of Sayler (US 10595744 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, Lanz discloses a general-purpose functional MRI bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) equipped with a bed unit (animal bed 16), a helmet unit (See Fig. 1 depicting helmet unit portion of top part 1), and a U-shaped fixture (See Fig. 1, bottom part 2), wherein the bed unit is constituted to hold a laboratory animal in the sphinx position (See Fig. 1, animal in a sphinx position), the helmet unit is (top part 1) configured to immobilize [[the]] a head of the laboratory animal in a resting state (“head holding mechanism connected to the bed for holding the head of the animal in a fixed position”; [0014]), so as to perform functional MRI measurement (“obtain maximum filling factor and optimum SNR”; [0027]), and a U-shaped fixture (See Fig. 1, locking pins 3 are latched to mount the bottom part 2), and the U-shaped fixture is adjustable in accordance with the dimensions and the configuration of the head of the laboratory animal subjected to functional MRI measurement (“the height of the bottom part 2 of the array coil is adjusted depending on the size of the animal head”; [0032]) and is configured to come into direct contact with the head of the laboratory animal thereby fixating the head of the laboratory animal (“animal head should be positioned so that the skull is placed directly against the bottom of the top part 1”; [0032]), and the general-purpose functional MRI bed is configured for use with a marmoset (“such as a rodent (rats or mice or other animals”; [Abstract] other animal can include a marmoset, further marmosets are similar in size to rats or mice).
Lanz fails to explicitly disclose a collar unit, the collar unit is configured to restrain [[the]] a neck and [[the]] a shoulder of the laboratory animal and a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit.
However, Toddes teaches a collar unit, the collar unit is configured to restrain [[the]] a neck and [[the]] a shoulder of the laboratory animal. (See Fig. 2, “shoulder yoke assembly 140 for restraining a shoulder/neck portion of the animal”; [0020]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz by adding the collar unit to restrain the neck and shoulder taught by Toddes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “secure and lock the animal’s body in the desired position”; (Toddes, [0021]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit.
However, Sayler teaches a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit (hoop mount 60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by adding the U-shaped fixture mount taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “attach a trajectory guide”; (Sayler, [Col. 1, Line 45]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, Lanz, as modified, teaches the general-purpose functional MRI bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) of claim 4.
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach the helmet unit comprises two or more U-shaped fixture-mounting units to mount U-shaped fixtures.
However, Sayler teaches the helmet unit comprises two or more U-shaped fixture-mounting units (hoop mount 60, turret base 70) to mount U-shaped fixtures.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by adding the two or more U-shaped fixture mounts taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “attach a trajectory guide”; (Sayler, [Col. 1, Line 45]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Lanz, as modified, teaches the general-purpose functional MRI bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) of claim 4.
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach the U- shaped fixture-mounting unit is constituted to mount the U-shaped fixture at a right angle to the longitudinal direction of the MRI bed unit or to mount the U-shaped fixture at an oblique angle to the longitudinal direction of the MRI bed unit.
However, Sayler teaches the U- shaped fixture-mounting unit is constituted to mount the U-shaped fixture at a right angle to the longitudinal direction of the MRI bed unit (See Fig. 6B, turret arm 80 is mounted at a right angle relative to the surface) or to mount the U-shaped fixture at an oblique angle to the longitudinal direction of the MRI bed unit.
PNG
media_image4.png
624
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by adding the U-shaped fixture mounted at a right angle as taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “position a respective surgical tool”; (Sayler, [Col. 7, Lines 45-46]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Lanz, as modified, teaches the general-purpose functional MRI bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) of claim 6
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach the U-shaped fixture-mounting unit is constituted to mount a U-shaped fixture at a sharp angle to the longitudinal direction of the MRI bed unit.
However, Sayler teaches the U-shaped fixture-mounting unit is constituted to mount a U-shaped fixture at a sharp angle to the longitudinal direction of the MRI bed unit (See Fig. 6B, as telescoping end portion 80t extends, it becomes sharp with the surface).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by adding the U-shaped fixture mounted at a sharp angle as taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “position a respective surgical tool”; (Sayler, [Col. 7, Lines 45-46]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, Lanz, as modified, teaches the general-purpose functional MRI bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) of claim 4.
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach the bed, the helmet, the collar, the U-shaped fixture, and a screw configured to immobilize the U-shaped fixture are made of non-magnetic materials.
However, Sayler teaches the bed, the helmet, the collar, the U-shaped fixture, and a screw configured to immobilize the U-shaped fixture are made of non-magnetic materials (“MRI-compatible device is typically made of a non-ferromagnetic material”; [Col. 5, Lines 65-66], this implies any material used within the MRI bed is required to be non-magnetic or else the system will not be operate as intended).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by using non-magnetic material as taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “a device is safe for use in an MRI environment that can operate as intended in an MRI environment and not introduce artifacts into MRI images”; (Sayler, [Col. 5, Lines 61-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Lanz discloses a functional MRI bed system comprising a general-purpose functional MRI bed (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]) and wherein the general-purpose functional MRI bed is equipped with a bed unit (animal bed 16), a helmet unit (See Fig. 1 depicting helmet unit portion of top part 1), and a U-shaped fixture (See Fig. 1, bottom part 2), wherein the bed unit is constituted to hold a laboratory animal in the sphinx position (See Fig. 1, animal in a sphinx position), the helmet unit (top part 1) is configured to immobilize a head of the laboratory animal in a resting state (“head holding mechanism connected to the bed for holding the head of the animal in a fixed position”; [0014]), so as to perform functional MRI measurement (“obtain maximum filling factor and optimum SNR”; [0027]), and the U-shaped fixture is adjustable in accordance with the dimensions and the configuration of the head of the laboratory animal subjected to functional MRI measurement (“the height of the bottom part 2 of the array coil is adjusted depending on the size of the animal head”; [0032]) and is configured to come into direct contact with the head of the laboratory animal thereby fixating the head of the laboratory animal (“animal head should be positioned so that the skull is placed directly against the bottom of the top part 1”; [0032]), and the general-purpose functional MRI bed is configured for use with a marmoset (“such as a rodent (rats or mice or other animals”; [Abstract] other animal can include a marmoset, further marmosets are similar in size to rats or mice).
Lanz fails to explicitly disclose a collar unit, and the helmet unit comprises a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit to mount a U-shaped fixture, the collar unit is configured to restrain a neck and a shoulder of the laboratory animal.
However, Toddes teaches a collar unit, the collar unit is configured to restrain a neck and a shoulder of the laboratory animal (See Fig. 2, “shoulder yoke assembly 140 for restraining a shoulder/neck portion of the animal”; [0020]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz by adding the collar unit to restrain the neck and shoulder taught by Toddes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “secure and lock the animal’s body in the desired position”; (Toddes, [0021]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit to mount a U-shaped fixture.
However, Sayler teaches a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit to mount a U-shaped fixture (hoop mount 60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by adding the U-shaped fixture mount taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “attach a trajectory guide”; (Sayler, [Col. 1, Line 45]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, Lanz discloses a method of functional MRI measurement for an animal (“animal bed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [Abstract]), comprising using a [[the]] general-purpose functional MRI bed (animal bed 16) , wherein the general-purpose functional MRI bed is equipped with a bed unit (animal bed 16), a helmet unit (See Fig. 1 depicting helmet unit portion of top part 1), and a U-shaped fixture (See Fig. 1, bottom part 2), wherein the bed unit is constituted to hold a laboratory animal in the sphinx position (See Fig. 1, animal in a sphinx position), the helmet unit (top part 1) is configured to immobilize a head of the laboratory animal in a resting state (“head holding mechanism connected to the bed for holding the head of the animal in a fixed position”; [0014]), so as to perform functional MRI measurement (“obtain maximum filling factor and optimum SNR”; [0027]), and the U-shaped fixture is adjustable in accordance with the dimensions and the configuration of the head of the laboratory animal subjected to functional MRI measurement (“the height of the bottom part 2 of the array coil is adjusted depending on the size of the animal head”; [0032]) and is configured to come into direct contact with the head of the laboratory animal thereby fixating the head of the laboratory animal (“animal head should be positioned so that the skull is placed directly against the bottom of the top part 1”; [0032]), and the general-purpose functional MRI bed is configured for use with a marmoset (“such as a rodent (rats or mice or other animals”; [Abstract] other animal can include a marmoset, further marmosets are similar in size to rats or mice), said method comprising holding a laboratory animal in the sphinx position (See Fig. 1, animal in a sphinx position), immobilizing a head of the laboratory animal in a resting state with the helmet (“head holding mechanism connected to the bed for holding the head of the animal in a fixed position”; [0014]), fixating the head of the laboratory animal with the U-shaped fixture (“animal head should be positioned so that the skull is placed directly against the bottom of the top part 1”; [0032]), and carrying out functional MRI measurement in a resting state (“obtain maximum filling factor and optimum SNR”; [0027]).
Lanz fails to explicitly disclose a collar unit, and the helmet unit comprises a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit to mount a U-shaped fixture, the collar unit is configured to restrain a neck and a shoulder of the laboratory animal, restraining a neck and a shoulder of the laboratory animal with the collar unit.
However, Toddes teaches a collar unit, the collar unit is configured to restrain a neck and a shoulder of the laboratory animal (See Fig. 2, “shoulder yoke assembly 140 for restraining a shoulder/neck portion of the animal”; [0020]), restraining a neck and a shoulder of the laboratory animal with the collar unit (See Fig. 2, “shoulder yoke assembly 140 for restraining a shoulder/neck portion of the animal”; [0020]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz by adding the collar unit to restrain the neck and shoulder taught by Toddes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “secure and lock the animal’s body in the desired position”; (Toddes, [0021]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Lanz in view of Toddes fails to explicitly teach a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit to mount a U-shaped fixture.
However, Sayler teaches a U-shaped fixture-mounting unit to mount a U-shaped fixture (hoop mount 60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes by adding the U-shaped fixture mount taught by Sayler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “attach a trajectory guide”; (Sayler, [Col. 1, Line 45]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanz (US 20120330130 A1) in view of Toddes (US 20140100444 A1), in view of Sayler (US 10595744 B2), as applied to Claim 11 above, further in view of Bammer (US 20160228005 A1)
Regarding Claim 13, Lanz, as modified, teaches the method (“apparatus and method including a restraining assembly …in combination with a split array coil for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”; [0003]) of claim 11.
Lanz in view of Toddes in view of Sayler fails to explicitly disclose providing an imaging device performing the MRI measurement
However, Bammer teaches providing an imaging device (See Fig. 1, imaging coil 140 is in front of face of human (or animal) 130), and performing the MRI measurement (“optically observe a subject during MR imaging. For example…tracking eye movement”; [0037]).
PNG
media_image5.png
620
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Lanz in view of Toddes in view of Sayler by adding the eye tracking taught by Bammer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “optically observe a subject during MR imaging”; (Bammer, [0037]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Claim 1:
“Lanz describes a functional magnetic resonance imaging bed. The bed is designed under the premise of anesthetizing the animal. See e.g., paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0009] and [0010]. An animal under anesthesia is immobilized and is markedly different from animals not under anesthesia, such as an animal that is awake and in a resting state. For example, it is not possible to extract the activity of the default mode network by measuring functional MRI of an anesthetized animal brain. In contrast, the claimed general-purpose functional MRI bed is to be used on an animal in a resting state.”
“Regarding Toddes, Toddes describes an animal holder for performing neuroimaging. Toddes is completely silent on an inner helmet unit comprising a coil.”
“Regarding Haishi, Haishi teaches a nuclear magnetic resonance image diagnostic system. On page 6 of the Office Action, the Examiner alleges that Haishi teaches an inner helmet unit comprising a coil. From the figures and from the entire contents of Haishi, it is clear to the skilled artisan that the helmet is for humans (see e.g., Background art section and Figure 3). According to common general knowledge and state of the art at the time of filing of the present application, it was not possible to readily adapt an MRI helmet for humans to an MRI helmet for animals. Further, the human subject in Haishi is lying on his or her back, face up toward the celling. For animal subjects, it is difficult to lay the animal on its back, face up towards the celling. Moreover, for animal subjects, it is not possible to communicate via language and, therefore, it is difficult to fix the head of the subject. It therefore would be necessary for the skilled artisan to redesign and reconstruct an MRI bed for animal subjects. Such hypothetical MRI bed would be entirely different from what is disclosed in Haishi. Further, Haishi describes that 'in head surgery, an MRI diagnosis is preformed to confirm the progress of surgery while fixing the head with a stereotaxic instrument and performing an operation such as removing a tumor using an endoscope or a microscope.' Moreover, Haishi does not teach a collar unit to restrain the neck and the shoulder of the human. From such descriptions it can be understood that the nuclear magnetic resonance image diagnostic system of Haishi is to be used on an anesthetized human patient.”
“A human under anesthesia is immobilized and is markedly different from a human not under anesthesia, such as a human that is awake and in a resting state. For example, it is not possible to extract the activity of the default mode network by measuring functional MRI of an anesthetized human brain. In contrast, the claimed general-purpose functional MRI bed is to be used on an animal in a resting state. The claimed invention can extract the activity of the default mode network of the animal. Further, amended claim 1 specifies that the animal is a marmoset, mouse, rat, macaque, or guinea pig, and amended claim 4 specifies that the animal is a marmoset. Thus, the cited references do not teach or fairly suggest each and every aspect of the claims as currently presented.”
Claim 4:
“On page 10 of the Office Action, the Examiner alleges that Sayler teaches a U-shaped fixture mounting unit (hoop mount 60). However, Figure 4A of Sayler clearly shows that hoop mount 60 is underneath the head of the subject and not in direct contact with the head of the subject. In Figure 4A of Sayler, it can be understood that the head of the subject is fixed by lower fixation members 56 and 57. It can also be understood that lower fixation members 56 and 57 are driven directly into the head of the patient and that with these members (screws), the head is fixated. This is in stark contrast to Figure 5 of the present application, which shows that screws 11 are driven not into the head of the animal but into the U-shaped fixture 3 and that the U- shaped fixture 3 is in direct contact with the head of the animal and thus fixating the head. Without acquiescing to the merits of the rejection and solely to highlight the difference between the U-shaped fixture of the present invention and the hoop mount of Sayler, claim 4 has been amended to specify that the U-shaped fixture is capable of directly fixating the head of the laboratory animal. It should also be noted that turret base 70 of Sayler does not come into direct contact with the head of the subject. Accordingly, turret base 70 of Sayler does not correspond to the U- shaped fixture of the present invention. Sayler is silent on a U-shaped fixture that is configured to come into direct contact with the head of a laboratory animal to thereby fixate the head of the laboratory animal. Thus, a skilled artisan could not combine the teachings of Sayler, Lanz, and Toddes to arrive at the subject matter of present claim 4. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
Claim 5:
“In Figure 6A of Sayler, mount member 85 comes into direct contact with the head of the subject. However, the turret arm 80 does not. Thus, turret arm 80 of Sayler does not correspond to the U-shaped fixture of the present invention. Sayler is completely silent on a U-shaped fixture that is configured to come into direct contact with the head of a laboratory animal to thereby fixate the head of the laboratory animal. A skilled artisan thus could not combine the teachings of Sayler, Lanz, and Toddes to arrive at the subject matter of present claim 5. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
Claim 13:
“On page 15 of the Office Action, Bammer is cited as allegedly teaching an imaging device provided in front of the face of the subject animal of imaging. First, the MRI bed of Lanz is designed under the premise of anesthetizing the animal. See e.g., paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0009] and [0010] of Lanz. This is not compatible with Bammer since the human (animal) in Bammer is not anesthetized. Further, in Figure 1, Bammer describes that the head of the human is partially enclosed by an imaging coil 140 which includes one or more integrated cameras 141. See paragraph [0022]. In the present invention, this would amount to providing the camera on the helmet, for example, shown in Figure 5 of the present application. With regard to Figure 2A, Bammer teaches that if a bore mounted camera 201 is used, this will suffer from the disadvantage that its field of view 202 will be significantly blocked by head coil 22. See paragraph [0023]. In view of such technical problem, Bammer teaches that by mounting cameras 221 on head coil 220, the field of view 220 for observing target 211 can be improved, as shown in Figure 2B. As such, the configuration being taught in Bammer is one in which the cameras 221 are mounted on the head coil 220. In the present invention, this would amount to placing the camera between the head of the animal and the coil. Such configuration does not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the presently claimed technology. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is therefore respectfully requested.”
Examiner’s Response:
Claim 1: In response to the applicant’s arguments that the cited references do not teach or fairly suggested each and every aspect of claim 1 as currently presented, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons below and the rejection is maintained.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The prior art of Lanz is capable of immobilizing a head of the laboratory animal in a resting state (“head holding mechanism connected to the bed for holding the head of the animal in a fixed position”; [0014]).
The prior art of Toddes is merely pointed to for the teachings of its collar unit, and the examiner acknowledges the short comings regarding the helmet unit coil.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Haishi teaches an inner helmet unit comprising a coil (See Fig. 3, coil 5 acts as an inner helmet as it is slid over the head of the patient). Haisi and Lanz are analogous art in the space of MRI systems justifying the addition of the inner helmet of Haishi to the disclosed helmet of the primary reference of Lanz. Further, the prior art of Haishi is merely pointed to for the teachings of its inner helmit unit, and the examiner acknowledges the short comings regarding the collar unit.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “extract the activity of the default mode network of the animal”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 4:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the teachings of Saylor, Lanz, and Toddes could not be combined to teach the subject matter of claim 4, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Lanz teaches a U-shaped fixture configured to come into direct contact with the head of the laboratory animal thereby fixating the head of the laboratory animal (“animal head should be positioned so that the skull is placed directly against the bottom of the top part 1”; [0032]). Lanz is silent to a U-shaped fixture mounting unit, but points to the teachings of Saylor to teach a U-shaped fixture mounting unit (hoop mount 60). Thus the rejection of claim 4 is maintained.
Claim 5:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the teachings of Saylor, Lanz, and Toddes could not be combined to teach the subject matter of claim 5, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. Lanz is silent to two or more U-shaped fixture mounting unit, but points to the teachings of Saylor to teach two or more U-shaped fixture mounting unit (hoop mount 60, turret base 70). There is no claim language within claim 5 stating the mounting units contact the head of the subject. Thus, the rejection of claim 4 is maintained.
Claim 13:
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art of Lanz is nto compatible with Bammer, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Thus, the rejection of claim 13 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130131497 A1: Linz discloses an MRI platform comprising a RF coil within a helmet-like structure, RF coils for the body, and a bed.
EP 2166367 A1: Wolke discloses a device and method for positioning a small animal within an MRI system for imaging.
US 20040106336 A1: Menon discloses a coil set for an MRI.
US 20010053878 A1: Ferris discloses a restraining assembly for awake animals in MRI systems.
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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673