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 with respect to claims 1-11 and 21-26 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.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in Jia related to required surface area for passively cooling the projector. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 2 does not recite anything related to a surface area for cooling the projector. In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner pointed to eat dissipation module that may include a heat sink in Lee; see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0025, 0082-0084 and 0094. Claim 2 require generating a magnetic field having a flux density up to 3 Tesla. The Examiner cited Jia to teach such limitation.
Regarding claims 4 and 25, the Applicant argues that the cited reference do not teach that the walls, ledge and the lid don’t form the required 90-degree turn. The Examiner also disagrees.
As shown below in Fig. 2, Hogan discloses a Faraday cage electronic enclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
677
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The enclosure includes a housing 101, a cover ledge 103 that holds the cover 102. It is clear that walls of the enclosure, the ledge 103 and the lid 102 for a 90-degree turn.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 10 have been amended, claims 12-18 and 20 have been cancelled and claims 21-26 have been newly added. The 112 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 was amended but still recite “Original”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24 depends on itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0048825) in view of Anderson (US 2020/0289075).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) projector system comprising:
i. a projector having a heat sink (a beam projector 160 with heat dissipation module that may include a heat sink; see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0025, 0082-0084 and 0094);
ii. a surface area of the heat sink being sufficiently large to passively cool the projector while projecting images into an MRI bore of an MRI system while the MRI system collects magnetic resonance images (a heat dissipation module that may include a heat sink for the projector that projects various content during an MRI scan; see at least paragraphs 0082-0084, 0088 and 0094);
iii. a stand that holds the projector above a bed of the MRI system, while the projector projects optical images into the MRI bore (the projector is attached to a detachable module installed on a moving table; see at least paragraphs 0084-0086 and 0111-00114);
iv. a patient table including a bed for a patient to lie on while taking an MRI, the patient table extends into the MRI bore (table; see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0082-0083); and
v. a stand that holds the projector above the bed of the MRI system while the projector projects the optical images into the MRI bore (the projector is attached to a detachable module installed on a moving table; see at least paragraphs 0084-0086 and 0111-00114).
Lee is not clear about a floor-supported stand to hold the projector and being independent of the bed.
Anderson discloses the above missing limitation; a projector is supported by a movable frame 107 that is supported by the floor and independent of the bed; see at least Fig. 9B and paragraph 0135.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by the teachings of Anderson by having the above limitations so to have a translatable projector; see at least paragraph 0135.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 1, the projector including a controller that controls the projector; and the controller being located within a housing, the projector being housed in the housing, the heat sink including the housing (Lee; see at least Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0092-0094).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 1, the MRI projector system further comprising:
a server that includes a module that controls the projector (Lee; a console that selects to be projected image; see at least paragraphs 0081, 0095, 0108 and 0119).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 6, the server being located in a room that is RF shielded from the MRI system (Lee; the console is provided outside the MRI apparatus and usually in different room; see at least paragraphs 0079 and 0081).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 6, further comprising a client device storing a UI (User Interface) for a control module on the server that controls the projector (Lee; a console that selects to be projected image; see at least paragraphs 0081, 0095, 0107-0108 and 0119).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 6, further comprising:
a shielded cable that communicatively connects the projector and the server (Lee; fiber cable; see at least paragraphs 0150 and 0158).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson and further in view of Jia (US 2024/0036135).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 1 wherein the MRI system is capable of generating a magnetic field, as in the rejection of claim 1, but are not clear about having a flux density up to 3 Tesla.
Jia discloses the above missing limitation; a MRI system that generates a magnetic flux density in the range of 1-3 tesla; see at least paragraph 0033.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson by the teachings of Jia by having the above limitations so to provide a hybrid CT-MRI system; see at least paragraph 0003.
Claims 3-4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson and further in view of Hogan (US 2009/0183912).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 1 further comprising:
a housing, which shields electronics of the projector from leaking electromagnetic radiation outside of the metallic housing (Lee; see at least paragraphs 0094, 0096 and 0113), but are not clear about a metallic housing.
Hogan discloses a die-cast aluminum enclosure; see at least paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0014-0015.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson by the teachings of Hogan by having the above limitations so to provide a corrosion resistant Faraday cage electronic enclosure assembly; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Anderson and further in view of Hogan disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 3, the metallic housing having a removable lid, the removable lid resting on a ledge surrounding an interior of the metallic housing (Hogan; see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0014-0016); and
the ledge being oriented at an angle of 90 degrees with respect to walls of the interior of the metallic housing so that while the removable lid is resting on the ledge, electromagnetic radiation needs to travel through a 90-degree turn to exit that housing (Hogan; see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0014-0016).
Regarding claim 22, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 1, the projector including a controller that controls the projector; and the controller being located within a housing, the projector being housed in the housing, the heat sink including the housing (Lee; see at least Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0092-0094), but are not clear about the metallic housing.
Hogan discloses a die-cast aluminum enclosure; see at least paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0014-0015.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson by the teachings of Hogan by having the above limitations so to provide a corrosion resistant Faraday cage electronic enclosure assembly; see at least the Abstract.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson and further in view of Yoon (US 2015/0347114).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 6 and the server, but are not clear about a server having an IOT (Internet of Things) module.
Yoon discloses the above missing limitation; an IOT control device that controls multiple IOT devices including a projector; see at least paragraphs 0092,0095-0098 and 0216.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson by the teachings of Yoon by having the above limitations for the purpose of controlling Internet of Things (IoT) devices; see at least paragraph 0002.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson in view of Thompson (US 6,735,616).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 6, the MRI projector system further comprising a client device having a UI (User Interface) ((a console that allows a user to select to be projected image; Lee; see at least paragraphs 0081, 0095, 0107-0108 and 0119), but are not clear about the UI including a page having an on/off- link, which when activated turns the projector on and off.
Thompson discloses the above missing limitation; a projector power management web page that enables the projector to be powered on/off; see at least col. 8, lines 38-50 and col. 9, line 16-col. 10, line 65.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson by the teachings of Thompson by having the above limitations so to be able to provide remote projector administration and control; see at least the Abstract.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson in view of Balanchi (US 2025/0076746).
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 1, but are not clear about the heat sink comprises exterior heat-dissipating surfaces, which include a plurality of fins.
Balanchi discloses the above missing limitation; a projector with heat sink exterior to the housing and having fins; see at least Fig 1 and paragraphs 0029, 0031 and 0035.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson by the teachings of Lin by having the above limitations so to be able to provide a low-cost projector; see at least the Abstract.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson in view of Balanchi and further in view of Hogan.
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Anderson disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 1, the projector having a housing and heat sink (Lee; see at least Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0092-009), but are not clear about a heat sink including a housing and fins extending from the housing, the housing also forming a Faraday cage.
Balanchi discloses a heat sink including a housing and fins extending from the housing; a projector with heat sink exterior to the housing and having fins; see at least Fig 1 and paragraphs 0029, 0031 and 0035.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson by the teachings of Lin by having the above limitations so to be able to provide a low-cost projector; see at least the Abstract.
Lee in view of Anderson and further in view of Balanchi are not clear about the housing forming a Faraday cage.
Hogan discloses a die-cast aluminum enclosure; see at least paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0014-0015.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Anderson and further in view of Balanchi by the teachings of Hogan by having the above limitations so to provide a corrosion resistant Faraday cage electronic enclosure assembly; see at least the Abstract.
Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, Lee in view of Anderson in view of Balanchi and further in view of Hogan disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 24, the housing being metallic, and the housing including a removable lid, the removable lid resting on a ledge, the ledge surrounding an interior of the housing, the ledge having an edge that is closer to the interior of the housing and an edge that further from the interior of the housing (Hogan; see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0014-0016); and
the ledge being oriented at an angle of 90 degrees with respect to walls that surround the removable lid, the walls being connected to the ledge closer to the edge that is further from the interior of the housing than the edge that is closer to the interior of the housing, wherein while the removable lid is resting on the ledge, electromagnetic radiation needs to travel through a 90-degree turn to exit or enter the housing (Hogan; see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0014-0016).
Regarding claim 26, Lee in view of Anderson in view of Balanchi and further in view of Hogan disclose the MRI projector system of Claim 24, the fins extending from at least two sides of the projector (fins extending beyond the housing shells 210 and 211; see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph 0031).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
