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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/04/2026.
Note: Preliminary amendment filed 05/28/2024 and 6/11/2024 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “being sufficiently large” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “being sufficiently large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “being sufficiently large” is not giving a patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2015/0048825).
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); and
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).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses 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 (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0092-0094).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the MRI projector system of Claim 1, the MRI projector system further comprising:
a server that includes a module that controls the projector (a console that selects to be projected image; see at least paragraphs 0081, 0095, 0108 and 0119).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the MRI projector system of Claim 6, the server being located in a room that is RF shielded from the MRI system (the console is provided outside the MRI apparatus and usually in different room; see at least paragraphs 0079 and 0081).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses 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 (a console that selects to be projected image; see at least paragraphs 0081, 0095, 0107-0108 and 0119).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the MRI projector system of Claim 6, further comprising:
a shielded cable that communicatively connects the projector and the server (fiber cable; see at least paragraphs 0150 and 0158).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jia (US 2024/0036135).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses 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 is 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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hogan (US 2009/0183912).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the MRI projector system of Claim 1 further comprising:
a metallic housing, which shields electronics of the projector from leaking electromagnetic radiation outside of the metallic housing (see at least paragraphs 0094, 0096 and 0113), but is 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 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 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yoon (US 2015/0347114).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the MRI projector system of Claim 6 and the server, but is 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 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 Thompson (US 6,735,616).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses 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; see at least paragraphs 0081, 0095, 0107-0108 and 0119), but is 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 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.
Conclusion
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