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
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, pages 6-8, 9-11) filed 8/26/2026 regarding the amendment to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the prior Office action in connection with the prior art rejections of claim 18 (the subject matter of which is now incorporated into claim 1), Official notice was taken as follows:
“The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of indicators that blink at a constant frequency to better draw a user’s attention to the indicator compared to non-blinking indicators was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” OA, pages 14, 24-25.
Applicant traverses this Official notice, stating for example:
“For example, assertions of technical facts in the areas of esoteric technology or specific knowledge of the prior art must always be supported by citation to some reference work recognized as standard in the pertinent art” (Remarks, pages 7, 10, citations omitted),
and
“The facts asserted to be well-known are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known, and would require specific knowledge of the art relevant to magnetic resonance imaging” (Remarks, pages 8, 10-11).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact asserted - the well-known and conventional use of indicators that blink at a constant frequency to better draw a user’s attention to the indicator compared to non-blinking indicators prior to the effective filing data - is of such notorious and well-known character in the field of alert-based indicators that citation to a prior art reference is unnecessary. Merely because the blinking indicator of the claimed invention is used in connection with an MRI-related device does not render the Officially-noticed fact “assertions of technical facts in the areas of esoteric technology” as argued by applicant. The cited prior art combinations already establish the use of light-based indicators for demarcating regions of magnetic field strength of MRI devices. The use of blinking light-based indicators in this context merely serves better capture user attention and is no different in this regard from other common uses of blinking light indicators, e.g., blinking highway warning signs or blinking dashboard annunciators in an automobile.
The examiner further notes that applicant’s statement “[t]he facts asserted to be well-known are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known, and would require specific knowledge of the art relevant to magnetic resonance imaging” is merely conclusory and fails to provide a substantive explanation as to why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. The traversal is therefore inadequate, and the Officially-noticed fact is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.C. Although not necessary to support the Officially-noticed fact, the examiner directs applicant’s attention to the references listed in the Conclusion section below in connection with prior art uses of blinking lights.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 8/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of McNulty in view of Hidekazu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13, 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007/229052A to Hidekazu et al. (Hidekazu) in view of US 2020/0249293 to Saunders et al. (Saunders).
Teachings of Hidekazu are considered at the outset. Hidekazu relates to a technique for alerting a person who enters the vicinity of an MRI apparatus to an external leakage magnetic field of a magnetic field generation apparatus of the MRI apparatus. Hidekazu’s objective is to provide a leakage magnetic field range display device of an MRI apparatus that can easily confirm a range of an external leakage magnetic field of a predetermined value or more of the MRI apparatus (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 6). To this end, Hidekazu discloses in connection with Figs. 2-3 point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d and a light source control unit 22 are attached to the ceiling 20 (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 20), with each point light source 21 being an electric lamp such as a light-emitting diode or a light bulb that does not easily influence the electromagnetic noise on the MRI (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 21). Importantly, Hidekazu discloses that in other embodiments the light source may be arranged in the casing of the MRI apparatus instead of the ceiling (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 30).
Hidekazu discloses that the light source control unit 22 may be provided to suitably turn on and off of the point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 22). In one mode of operation, light from point light sources (for example, red light emitting diodes) 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d is projected from the ceiling 20 to the floor 30, with the intervals at which the red light emitting diodes 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d are attached to the ceiling 20 being such that the spots 31a, 31b, 31c, and 31d projected onto the floor surface 30 are continuous (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 24). The light source control unit 22 secures the light amount of the light emitting diodes 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d so that a sufficiently large spot can be seen on the floor surface even when the indoor fluorescent lamp is attached, thus, for example, making the 5 Gauss area visible as a solid line (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 24). In one embodiment, the intervals at which the red light emitting diodes 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d are attached to the ceiling 20 being such that the area is projected as a dotted line instead of a solid line (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 25). As shown in Fig. 4, in one embodiment the projection angle of the point light source 21′ may be set as desired when showing a leakage magnetic field region other than the 5 Gauss area (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 26). In this embodiment, the projection angle includes an attachment portion 41 for rotatably attaching the point light source 21', and an angle control portion 42 for controlling the attachment angle of the attachment portion 41 and the point light source 21' (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 26). Thus, not only the 5 Gauss area but also information on a desired leakage magnetic field region such as a 3 Gauss area or a 7 Gauss area can be notified to the operator (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 27). In this way, leakage magnetic field region of the MRI apparatus can be projected and displayed around the MR apparatus using a light source, and the presence of the leakage magnetic field can be notified in a three-dimensional space (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 28).
Turning now to claim 1 in view of Hidekazu’s teachings discussed above, Hidekazu discloses a light gauss guard device coupled to a base of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, the light gauss guard device comprising:
at least one light source arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary around at least a portion of the MRI device, wherein the visible boundary demarcates a region within which a magnetic field strength of a magnetic field generated by the MRI device equals or exceeds a threshold (see Hidekazu as discussed above, e.g., Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 6, 20-28 and 30, at least point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d in combination with light source control unit 22; note MRI apparatus 1; also note in particular that the light sources may be arranged in the casing of the MRI apparatus 1, in which case the light sources are coupled at least indirectly to a base of Hidekazu’s MRI apparatus 1).
Hidekazu is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that MRI apparatus 1 is a portable MRI apparatus. Regarding the term “portable”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term as used in connection with an MRI apparatus means an MRI apparatus that is transportable, cartable or otherwise generally mobile so as to be deployable where needed (see Specification, e.g., paragraph 18, last two sentences, “ … by virtue of being transportable, cartable or otherwise generally mobile so as to be deployable where needed. As a result of this portability …”). Saunders relates to a movable MRI system for use in surgical procedures (Saunders, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph 151, weight and dimension of magnet (e.g., magnet 17 of Fig. 1) allows the magnet to be carried on an air cushion support system 23 or track system described later supported from the floor of a conventional operating theater applying suitable loads to the structure of the building without additional structural stiffening or supporting components; also see, e.g., paragraph 171, two people can to move/steer the MR; also see, e.g., paragraph 174, as an alternative, the magnet can have a motorized wheel mechanism associated with a bottom frame; also see, e.g., paragraph 188, a modified embodiment using a track mover; also see, e.g., Fig. 13 and paragraphs 193, 199, two adjacent operating rooms 70 and 71 each having a floor and walls containing an operating table (not shown) for receiving a patient for a surgical procedure; module 72 is located between the rooms where the magnet is movable on its drive tracks or other transport system into the storage module 72 and from the storage module to the table each of the rooms; the MRI system storage module thus accesses the two adjacent rooms. It travels between the two rooms on the servo motor controlled tracked mover). Saunder’s therefore discloses an MRI device that is transportable, cartable or otherwise generally mobile so as to be deployable where needed and, therefore, portable. It 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 to modify Hidekazu such that Hidekazu’s MRI apparatus 1 is portable in the manner disclosed by Saunders. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Saunder’s, Hidekazu’s MRI apparatus 1 can be moved between operating rooms as needed without the need for additional structural stiffening or supporting components in the structure of the building.
Hidekazu is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, alternate between projecting the visible boundary and not projecting the visible boundary. This language is construed to mean that the at least one light source, when operated, projects the visible boundary in a blinking manner. The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of indicators that blink at a constant frequency to better draw a user’s attention to the indicator compared to non-blinking indicators was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. It 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 to modify Hidekazu such that the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, alternate between projecting the visible boundary and not projecting the visible boundary at a constant frequency. In this way, the ability to draw a user’s attention to the visual indicator can be enhanced relative to the use of a non-blinking indicator.
Regarding claim 2, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that surrounds the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as discussed above in connection with claim 1, particularly paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 3, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that surrounds the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as discussed above in connection with claim 1, e.g., Figs. 2-3 , point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d).
Regarding claim 4, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises a first light source, wherein an angle of the first light source relative to the portable MRI device is adjustable such that adjusting the angle of the first light source changes a shape and/or size of the visible boundary (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding claim 5, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises multiple light sources, and wherein respective angles of the multiple light sources may be adjusted independently of one another such that different light sources of the multiple light sources may be positioned at different angles relative to the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding claim 6, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the device is further configured to hold the first light source at a fixed angle relative to the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 4, e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding claim 9, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein a brightness of the at least one light source is set based on a brightness of ambient lighting in an environment of the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 24, the amount of light is secured so that a sufficiently large spot can be seen on the floor 330 even when other lights in the operating room are turned on).
Regarding claim 10, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the magnetic field strength within the region is between 1 Gauss and 30 Gauss (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 11, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the magnetic field strength within the region is between 1 Gauss and 10 Gauss (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 12, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the visible boundary indicates a 5 Gauss line of the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 13, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a plurality of projections (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 25, dotted line; also see Fig. 3, spots 31a, 31b, 31c, and 31d).
Regarding claim 17, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a continuous projection of light (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 20, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project the visible boundary onto a surface which supports the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1 , e.g., paragraphs 23-24, floor).
Regarding claim 21, Hidekazu in view of Saunders discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project the visible boundary onto a surface which supports the portable MRI device (see Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraphs 23-24, floor).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidekazu in view of Saunders, and further in view of SafetyCast Virtual Sign Projectors (SafetyCast), available at https://www.laserglow.com/product/byapplication/SafetyCast-Virtual-Sign-Projector/ on 6/17/2021.
Regarding claims 7-8, Hidekazu in view of Saunders as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary comprising text (claim 7) and wherein the text comprises an indication of the magnetic field strength at or within the visible boundary (claim 8). SafetyCast relates to and LED-based projector to project a clear sign at distances of up to 70m (SafetyCast, e.g., page 1). The projected signs may comprise text information/symbols for conveying information to a user. It 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 to modify Hidekazu in view of Saunders such that the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary comprising text, and such that the text comprises an indication of the magnetic field strength at or within the visible boundary. In this way, text-based information may be conveyed to a user regarding the nature of the hazard represented by the visible boundary.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidekazu in view of Saunders, and further in view of JP2003135425A to Makoto (Makoto).
Regarding claims 15-16, Hidekazu in view of Saunders as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that is radially symmetrical (claim 16) and wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that is asymmetrical (claim 17). Makoto discloses that the shape of a 5 gauss line of an MRI apparatus may be radially symmetrical (Makoto, e.g., Fig. 3, a line of 5 gauss is formed into a uniform circle centered on the MRI superconducting magnet device 10) or asymmetrical (Makoto, e.g., Fig. 4, 5 Gauss line is formed in an arbitrary shape). Makoto discloses arrangements in which the shape of the Gaussian line around the device body can be arbitrarily adjusted (Makoto, e.g., page 2, an object of the present invention is to provide a superconducting magnet device in which the shape of the Gaussian line around the device body can be arbitrarily adjusted). It 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 to modify Hidekazu in view of Saunders such that the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that is radially symmetrical (claim 15) or asymmetrical (claim 16) in view of Makoto’s teachings that the leakage fields adjacent an MRI apparatus (e.g., a 5 gauss line) may be either symmetrical in certain cases or asymmetrical in other cases.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13, 15-17 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0324098 to McNulty et al. (McNulty) in view of JP2007/229052A to Hidekazu et al. (Hidekazu).
Regarding claim 1, McNulty discloses a light gauss guard device coupled to a base of portable magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, the light gauss guard device comprising:
at least one arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary around at least a portion of the portable MRI device, wherein the visible boundary demarcates a region within which a magnetic field strength of a magnetic field generated by the portable MRI device equals or exceeds a threshold (McNulty, e.g., Figs. 3A and paragraphs 69-71, deployable guard device 300 coupled to portable MRI system 100; also see Fig. 4 and paragraph 86, deployable guard device 300 extends beyond the region 400 (e.g., 1 Gauss, G gauss, 10 Gauss, 20 Gauss, etc.) such that the guard device 300 is capable of inhibiting physical encroachment within this region; therefore, the guard device according to the embodiments described herein is capable of demarcating any strength Gauss line as desired; note in Fig. 3A that portable MRI system 100 includes a base (e.g., like base 110 in Fig. 1) and that deployable guard device 300 is at least indirectly coupled to the base).
McNulty is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that the visible indicator is or includes at least one light source that projects the visible boundary around at least a portion of the portable MRI device. In closely related art, Hidekazu relates to a technique for alerting a person who enters the vicinity of an MRI apparatus to an external leakage magnetic field of a magnetic field generation apparatus of the MRI apparatus. Hidekazu’s objective is to provide a leakage magnetic field range display device of an MRI apparatus that can easily confirm a range of an external leakage magnetic field of a predetermined value or more of the MRI apparatus (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 6). To this end, Hidekazu discloses in connection with Figs. 2-3 point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d and a light source control unit 22 are attached to the ceiling 20 (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 20), with each point light source 21 being an electric lamp such as a light-emitting diode or a light bulb that does not easily influence the electromagnetic noise on the MRI (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 21). Importantly, Hidekazu discloses that in other embodiments the light source may be arranged in the casing of the MRI apparatus instead of the ceiling (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 30).
Hidekazu discloses that the light source control unit 22 may be provided to suitably turn on and off of the point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 22). In one mode of operation, light from point light sources (for example, red light emitting diodes) 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d is projected from the ceiling 20 to the floor 30, with the intervals at which the red light emitting diodes 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d are attached to the ceiling 20 being such that the spots 31a, 31b, 31c, and 31d projected onto the floor surface 30 are continuous (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 24). The light source control unit 22 secures the light amount of the light emitting diodes 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d so that a sufficiently large spot can be seen on the floor surface even when the indoor fluorescent lamp is attached, thus, for example, making the 5 Gauss area visible as a solid line (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 24). In one embodiment, the intervals at which the red light emitting diodes 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d are attached to the ceiling 20 being such that the area is projected as a dotted line instead of a solid line (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 25). As shown in Fig. 4, in one embodiment the projection angle of the point light source 21′ may be set as desired when showing a leakage magnetic field region other than the 5 Gauss area (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 26). In this embodiment, the projection angle includes an attachment portion 41 for rotatably attaching the point light source 21', and an angle control portion 42 for controlling the attachment angle of the attachment portion 41 and the point light source 21' (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 26). Thus, not only the 5 Gauss area but also information on a desired leakage magnetic field region such as a 3 Gauss area or a 7 Gauss area can be notified to the operator (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 27). In this way, leakage magnetic field region of the MRI apparatus can be projected and displayed around the MR apparatus using a light source, and the presence of the leakage magnetic field can be notified in a three-dimensional space (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 28).
It 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 to modify McNulty to include at least one light source visible indicator arranged to, when operated, further project the visible boundary around at least a portion of the portable MRI device onto the floor, with the visible floor-based boundary also demarcating the same region within which the magnetic field strength of the magnetic field generated by the portable MRI device equals or exceeds the threshold. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Hidekazu, an additional floor-based indication of McNulty’s leakage field may be indicated to a user using a light source configured to be coupled the MRI device in order to enhance the operational safety of McNulty’s portable medical imaging device. The examiner notes that modification of McNulty’s portable MRI system 100 to include at least one light source visible indicator (e.g., Hidekazu’s point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d and a light source control unit 22) will result in the at least one light source visible indicator being coupled at least indirectly to the base of the portable MRI system 100.
McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied above is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, alternate between projecting the visible boundary and not projecting the visible boundary. This language is construed to mean that the at least one light source, when operated, projects the visible boundary in a blinking manner. The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of indicators that blink at a constant frequency to better draw a user’s attention to the indicator compared to non-blinking indicators was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. It 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 to modify McNulty in view of Hidekazu such that the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, alternate between projecting the visible boundary and not projecting the visible boundary. In this way, the ability to draw a user’s attention to the visual indicator can be enhanced relative to the use of a non-blinking indicator.
Regarding claim 2, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that surrounds the portable MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 3, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises a plurality of light sources (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., Figs. 2-3 , point light sources 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d).
Regarding claim 4, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises a first light source, wherein an angle of the first light source relative to the portable MRI device is adjustable such that adjusting the angle of the first light source changes a shape and/or size of the visible boundary (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding claim 5, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the at least one light source comprises multiple light sources, and wherein respective angles of the multiple light sources may be adjusted independently of one another such that different light sources of the multiple light sources may be positioned at different angles relative to the portable MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g.,Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding claim 6, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the device is further configured to hold the first light source at a fixed angle relative to the portable MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 4, Hidekazu, e.g.,Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding claim 9, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein a brightness of the at least one light source is set based on a brightness of ambient lighting in an environment of the portable MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 24, the amount of light is secured so that a sufficiently large spot can be seen on the floor 330 even when other lights in the operating room are turned on).
Regarding claim 10, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the magnetic field strength within the region is between 1 Gauss and 30 Gauss (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 11, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the magnetic field strength within the region is between 1 Gauss and 10 Gauss (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 12, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the visible boundary indicates a 5 Gauss line of the portable MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 13, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a plurality of projections (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 25, dotted line; also see Hidekazu. Fig. 3, spots 31a, 31b, 31c, and 31d).
Regarding claim 15, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that is radially symmetrical (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, in which combination the light source(s) are arranged to project the visible boundary around at least a portion of the portable MRI device onto the floor, with the visible floor-based boundary also demarcating the same region within which the magnetic field strength of the magnetic field generated by the portable MRI device equals or exceeds the threshold; in this combination the light source(s) demarcate the same boundary as McNulty’s guard device, which in at least Figs. 3A-3B is radially symmetrical; also see McNulty, e.g., paragraphs 16, 69).
Regarding claim 16, McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that is asymmetrical. One of ordinary skill in the art would nonetheless understand that the shape of the visible boundary protected by the light source(s) in McNulty in view of Hidekazu will depend in part on the physical environment in which McNulty’s modified portable medical imaging device is provided. For example, in an environment such as shown in Fig. 6 of McNulty one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the shape of the visible boundary protected by the light source(s) onto the floor to be radially symmetrical (e.g., circular), whereas in an environment such as shown in Fig. 6 of McNulty one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the shape of the visible boundary protected by the light source(s) onto the floor to be asymmetrical due to obstructions (e.g., a wall) adjacent the modified portable medical imaging device. For these reasons, the recitation that the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary that is asymmetrical does not patentably define over McNulty in view of Hidekazu when considered in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 17, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a continuous projection of light (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 24).
Claim 20 recites wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project the visible boundary onto a surface which supports the portable MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraphs 23-24, floor).
Claim 21 recites wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project the visible boundary onto a surface which supports the portable MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, Hidekazu, e.g., paragraphs 23-24, floor).
Regarding claim 22, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses a system, comprising:
a portable magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device; and
a light gauss guard device coupled to a base of the portable MRI device comprising at least one light source arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary around at least a portion of the portable MRI device, wherein the visible boundary demarcates a region within which a magnetic field strength of a magnetic field generated by the portable MRI device equals or exceeds a threshold,
for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1, especially noting Hidekazu’s disclosure that the light source may be arranged in the casing of the MRI apparatus instead of the ceiling (Hidekazu, e.g., paragraph 30).
McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied above is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is operable to project the visible boundary while the portable MRI device is transported such that the visible boundary that is projected moves with the portable MRI device. McNulty further discloses that when the system 100 is in transit (e.g., through a hallway 600 or other common corridor), in storage or in any environment with an uncertain degree of access control, one or more guard devices 300, 500 may be deployed (McNulty, e.g., paragraph 88). It 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 to modify McNulty in view of Hidekazu such that the at least one light source is operable to project the visible boundary while the portable MRI device is transported such that the visible boundary that is projected moves with the portable MRI device. In this way, in a manner analogous to that disclosed by McNulty, the at least one light source is operable to project the visible boundary while the portable MRI device is transported so as to provide a floor-based indication of Gauss line(s) in an environment with an uncertain degree of access control, e.g., such as a hallway during transport.
Regarding claim 23, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses a portable magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, the portable MRI device being coupled to a light gauss guard device comprising at least one light source arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary around at least a portion of the portable MRI device, wherein the visible boundary demarcates a region within which a magnetic field strength of a magnetic field generated by the portable MRI device equals or exceeds a threshold for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1. Further, McNulty in view of Hidekazu discloses a method of using this arrangement that includes operating the light gauss guard device to project the visible boundary and imaging, using the MRI device (see McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1, with McNulty’s portable medical imaging device performing the imaging function). McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied above is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing prior to imaging, using the MRI device, operating the light gauss guard device to stop projecting the visible boundary. McNulty nonetheless discloses that in contrast to the case when the portable medical imaging device is in transit (e.g., through a hallway 600 or other common corridor) or in storage or in any environment with an uncertain degree of access control, when the system has been brought to and set up within a patient room, the room may become the controlled access area through applicable signage that is placed on the room door, for example as set forth in IEC 60601-2-33 (McNulty, e.g., paragraph 88). McNulty therefore teaches that deployment of a device-based guard is no longer necessary once the portable medical imaging device has been set up within a patient room, as room door signage renders the room a controlled access area. It 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 to modify McNulty in view of Hidekazu to include prior to imaging using the MRI device, operating the light gauss guard device to stop projecting the visible boundary. In this way, in the manner disclosed by McNulty, room door signage can be used to provide the controlled access area instead of device-based guards/indicators once the portable medical imaging device has been brought to and set up within a patient room to perform an imaging operation.
Regarding claim 24, McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is operable to project the visible boundary while the portable MRI device is transported. McNulty further discloses that when the system 100 is in transit (e.g., through a hallway 600 or other common corridor), in storage or in any environment with an uncertain degree of access control, one or more guard devices 300, 500 may be deployed (McNulty, e.g., paragraph 88). It 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 to modify McNulty in view of Hidekazu such that the at least one light source is operable to project the visible boundary while the portable MRI device is transported. In this way, in a manner analogous to that disclosed by McNulty, the at least one light source is operable to project the visible boundary while the portable MRI device is transported so as to provide a floor-based indication of Gauss line(s) in an environment with an uncertain degree of access control, e.g., such as a hallway during transport.
Claim 25 recites transporting the MRI device from a first location to a second location while the visible boundary is projected by the light gauss guard device and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over McNulty in view of Hidekazu for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 24.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNulty in view of Hidekazu, and further in view of SafetyCast Virtual Sign Projectors (SafetyCast), available at https://www.laserglow.com/product/byapplication/SafetyCast-Virtual-Sign-Projector/ on 6/17/2021.
Regarding claims 7-8, McNulty in view of Hidekazu as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary comprising text (claim 7) and wherein the text comprises an indication of the magnetic field strength at or within the visible boundary (claim 8). SafetyCast relates to and LED-based projector to project a clear sign at distances of up to 70m (SafetyCast, e.g., page 1). The projected signs may comprise text information/symbols for conveying information to a user. It 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 to modify McNulty in view of Hidekazu such that the at least one light source is arranged to, when operated, project a visible boundary comprising text, and such that the text comprises an indication of the magnetic field strength at or within the visible boundary. In this way, text-based information may be conveyed to a user regarding the nature of the hazard represented by the visible boundary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,532,009 to Grassner relates to a magnetic resonance apparatus having a magnetic field generation device for generating a magnetic field; see, e.g., col. 2, lines 42-43, “Such a warning device can be a horn or a blinking light or a monitor on which appropriate information is output”.
US 8,416,076 to Mamourian et al. relates to a magnetic proximity sensor system that includes a magnetic field sensor for sensing a magnetic field strength and an alarm in communication with the field sensor alerts a practitioner if a threshold of magnetic strength has been exceeded; see, e.g., col. 3, lines 23-26, “Alarm 104 may alternatively be, or optionally include, a visual alarm, such as a flashing or blinking light, to provide awareness of the magnetic proximity sensor in loud environments, such as an MRI suite.”
US 8,901,928 to Alexiuk et al. relates to a safety control system in an MRI apparatus; see, e.g., col. 5, lines 63-65, “The alerts are configurable and may consist of an audible noise of a certain frequency, a flashing light in the room and/or the disabling of magnet movement.”
US 9,952,296 to Krueger et al. relates to a magnetic resonance safety monitor; see, e.g., col. 7, lines 22-29, “As yet another additional or alternative response, the remediation signal 70 may be directed to the computer 34 or other display device in order to provide a visual alarm to the physician or other medical personnel indicating the potentially unsafe condition. Such alarm is optionally also accompanied by an audio alarm, flashing light, or other attention signal.”
US 2007/0057786 to McClure et al. relates to methods and apparati used in pre-screening to prevent entry of ferromagnetic threat objects into the vicinity of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) magnet; see, e.g., paragraph 40, “In this embodiment, a light source receiving power from the coil's power supply could flash at a timed interval, such as every two seconds, signifying that the threat object is not safe for use in the magnet room.”
US 4,074,252 to Keller, see, e.g., col. 1, lines 47-50, “The flasher will attract attention much more readily than a conventional red or amber colored light because of the fact that it is turning on intermittently.”
US 4,400,696 to Klingensmith, see, e.g., col. 3, lines 55-59, “In addition, a flasher cell 66 may be provided in series with the light energization wiring (in conventional manner) so that whatever type of light 62 is used, it can be flashed intermittently to further attract attention.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-1964. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights