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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “a MRI bore” in the beginning of the claim and “an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging)” at the end of the claim. The Examiner suggests defining the MRI by adding the (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to the “MRI bore” in the beginning of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2020/0289075).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) projector viewing system comprising:
two side panels (support frame; see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0113-0114),
a screen attached to the two side panels, the screen being translucent (a translucent projector screen 110; see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs 0083-0085, 0093 and 0113);
two pivots (a viewing mirror may be pivotally mounted to the support frame; see at least Figs. 4 and 12 and paragraphs 0113 and 0158);
the two side panels support the two pivots (a viewing mirror may be pivotally mounted to the support frame; see at least Figs. 4 and 12 and paragraphs 0113 and 0158);
a retractable arm being rotatably mounted to the two side panels (an extension member that connects a viewing mirror to the head coil; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158); and
a mirror attached to the retractable arm (viewing mirror is attached to the extension member; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158); and
the retractable arm having
a first position, which is an extended position, in which the mirror is deployed and the
retractable arm is extended for viewing an image reflected from the screen (extension member is connected to pivot joints 425 and mirror through pivot 420; see a least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158, wherein the patient views the projected screen through the viewing mirror; see at least paragraph 0083) and
a second position in which the mirror is retracted (the mirror may be pivotally mounted to the head coil or slidably extendable and it may be movable to a plurality of degree of freedom; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 1,
each of the two pivots having an arm, the arm of each pivot of the two pivots having a slot, when
the retractable arm is in the extended position, the retractable arm rests in each slot of each arm
of the two pivots (see at least Fig. 12 and paragraphs 0157-159).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 1, further comprising at least one connector connecting the retractable arm to the mirror (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 4, one of the connector and the mirror having a button structure, another of the connector and the mirror having an opening that engages the button structure fastening the mirror to the connector (joints; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 5, the button structure and the opening that fastens the mirror to the connector being a first button structure and a first opening, respectively one of the connector and the retractable arm having a second button structure, another of the connector and the retractable arm having a second opening that engages the second button structure fastening the connector to the retractable arm (joints; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 4, one of the connector and the retractable arm having a button structure, another of the connector and the retractable arm having an opening that engages the button structure fastening the connector to the retractable arm (joints; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of claim 1, one of the retractable arm and the two pivots having two holes and another of the retractable arm and the two pivots having two button structures that engage the two holes, allowing the retractable arm to rotate on the two pivots (joints; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 0158).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of claim 1,
at least one pivot of the two pivots having two button structures and the two side panels each
having two holes that engage the two button structures, that hold the at least one pivot of the two
pivots to the two side panels, without rotating (joints and a stop that limit the rotation; see at least paragraph 0158).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 1, further comprising feet that attach to a bottom of the side panels and interlock with a bed of an MRI system (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph 0114).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 1, further comprising a projector positioned over a bed of an MRI system (projector 100; see at least Figs. 1A-1B and 9A-9C and paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses An MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) projecting viewing system comprising:
a projector located over a bed of an MRI system (projector 100; see at least Figs. 1A-1B and 9A-9C and paragraph 0083);
a translucent screen being mounted at a MRI bore of the MRI system, the projector located on a
first side of a screen (see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
a mirror mounted on a second side of the translucent screen (see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
the mirror being angled to reflect images from the second side of the screen toward a bed
of the MRI system (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson discloses the method of Claim 14, the mirror being supported by a retractable arm (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses the method of Claim 15, the screen being connected to side panels, the side panels supporting a pivot upon which the retracted arm rotates (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses the method of Claim 16,
extending the retractable arm from a retracted position to an extended position, by rotating the
retractable arm on the pivot connected to one side panels of the side panels;
the pivot having an arm, the arm of the pivot having a slot, and when the retractable arm is
extended, the retractable arm rests in the slot of the pivot (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses the method of Claim 15, wherein a connector connects the retractable arm to the mirror (see at least the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson discloses the method of Claim 19, wherein one of the connector and the mirror having a button structure, another of the connector and the mirror having an opening that engages the button structure fastening the mirror to the connector (joints; see at least Fig. 12 and paragraph 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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Ueda (US 2017/0168124).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 1, and disclose the retractable arm, but is not clear about having an arc shape.
Ueda discloses the above missing limitation; a support arm has a semi0ring shape or a semi-saddle shape which includes an arcuate portion along a contour of a screen; see at least Figs. 5 and 8 and paragraphs 0108
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 Anderson by the teachings of Ueda by having the above limitations in order not to interrupt the filed of view of an external observer; see at least paragraph 0109.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lin (US 2009/0058236).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses the MRI projector viewing system of Claim 1, and discloses connected screen and side panels; as above, but is not clear about slots and tabs that interlock.
Lin discloses the above missing limitation; a cover that has a plurality of tabs and a mating slot disposed on a housing that interlock; see at least paragraph 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 Anderson by the teachings of Lin by having the above limitations so to be able to latch a cover to a housing; see at least paragraph 0001.
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