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 filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the 102 rejections have been withdrawn. However, newly-found reference of Morich has been introduced to teach correcting distortion caused by non-linearity of the magnetic field gradients.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Rejections under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 06/01/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 12, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammang (US 2015/0201863) in view of Morich (US 2002/0171424).
Regarding claim 1, Flammang teaches a method for patient positioning using a patient table (patient table 2, [0036]) of a magnetic resonance device (MR apparatus 1, [0036]) that can be moved ([0036]) within a patient receiving area (examination region 9, [0036]), wherein the patient table has at least two degrees of freedom with respect to its movement within the patient receiving area ([0036]), the method comprising:
introducing a patient into the patient receiving area ([0036]), wherein, for this purpose, the patient table is positioned in a first patient table position (table position in the first examination step, [0043]; [0011]) within the patient receiving area ([0042]);
capturing first magnetic resonance data from the patient (first, defining examination step 30, [0042]; [0011]);
determining first image data from the first magnetic resonance data ([0012] & [0042]), wherein at least one target anatomy of the patient and/or a position of at least one region of interest with the at least one target anatomy (measurement volumes, [0011] & [0042]-[0043]) is ascertained and/or determined in the first image data ([0011] & [0042]);
ascertaining at least one second patient table position (first table position, [0012] & [0043]) by analyzing the first image data to identify a location of the at least one target anatomy and/or the at least one region of interest ([0011] & [0042]), wherein, in the at least one second patient table position, the at least one region of interest and/or at least one target anatomy of the patient has a minimum possible distance from an isocenter of the magnetic resonance device ([0012] & [0015]); and
positioning the patient table in the at least one second patient table position ([0012] & [0044]), wherein at least two degrees of freedom are available to the patient table for movement into the at least one second patient table position ([0036]).
However, Flammang fails to disclose that the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data is performed with distortion correction that corrects geometric distortion artifacts caused by non-linearity of magnetic field gradients.
Morich teaches that the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data is performed with distortion correction that corrects geometric distortion artifacts caused by non-linearity of magnetic field gradients ([0036] & [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flammang such that the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data is performed with distortion correction that corrects geometric distortion artifacts caused by non-linearity of magnetic field gradients, as taught by Morich. It is well-known that non-linearity of magnetic field gradients can cause artifacts in MR images; correcting this distortion increases the quality of these images.
Regarding claim 2, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 1, and Flammang further teaches: after positioning the patient table in the at least one second patient table position (step 36, [0044], Figure 3), adjusting at least one parameter (adjustment measurements 38 & adjustment parameters 32, [0044], Figure 3) of the region of interest to the at least one second patient position ([0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 1, and Flammang further teaches: after positioning the patient table in the at least one second patient table position, capturing second magnetic resonance data (data acquisition 40, [0044], Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 1, and Flammang further teaches: after positioning of the patient table in the at least one second patient table position, performing at least one adjustment step (implementation of adjustment measurements 38, [0044], Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 1, and Flammang further teaches: if there are two or more target anatomies of the patient, and thus two or more regions of interest, calculating and/or ascertaining a second patient table position for each of the regions of interest ([0044] & Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 8, and Flammang further teaches: for ascertaining a plurality of second patient table positions, in each case taking a preceding second patient table position into account as a starting position for a patient table movement ([0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 12, Flammang in view of Morich teach a magnetic resonance device, comprising:
a magnet unit (basic field magnet 4, [0036]);
a patient receiving area (examination region 9, [0036]) at least partially surrounded by the magnet unit ([0036] & Figures 1-2);
a patient table (patient table 2, [0036]) that is movable within the patient receiving area ([0036]), and has at least two degrees of freedom with respect to its movement within the patient receiving area ([0036]); and
a control unit (control unit 6, [0037]) embodied to control the magnetic resonance device such that a method for patient positioning using a patient table that is movable within a patient receiving area is executed as claimed in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Flammang in view of Morich teach a non-transitory computer program product, which comprises a program (program, [0037]) and is loadable directly into a memory (digital storage medium 15, [0037]) of a programmable control unit (control unit 6, [0037]), with a program operable to control a method for patient positioning using a patient table that is movable in at least two spatial directions within a patient receiving area as claimed in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1), when the program is executed in the control unit ([0037]).
Claims 4-6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammang in view of Morich, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Saracen (US 2005/0234327).
Regarding claim 4, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, Flammang in view of Morich fail to disclose that four degrees of freedom are available to the patient table for movement of the patient table into the at least one second patient table position.
Saracen teaches that four degrees of freedom ([0048] & Figure 2A) are available to the patient table (patient treatment couch 103, [0048]) for movement of the patient table into the at least one second patient table position ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flammang and Morich such that four degrees of freedom are available to the patient table for movement of the patient table into the at least one second patient table position, as taught by Saracen. Providing additional degrees of freedom allows a more precise positioning of the patient table, allowing the table to be brought closer to the isocenter and maximize image quality.
Regarding claim 5-6, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 1.
However, Flammang in view of Morich fail to disclose that ascertaining the at least one second patient table position comprises using a collision model to verify that the at least one second patient table position does not result in collision between the patient and an enclosure surrounding the patient receiving area, wherein the collision model comprises an anatomy and/or size of the patient to be examined and/or position information for the patient table.
Saracen teaches that ascertaining the at least one second patient table position comprises using a collision model (anti-collision model, [0090]) to verify that the at least one second patient table position does not result in collision between the patient and an enclosure (linac gantry or other moving parts of the robot-based linac system 406, [0090]) surrounding the patient receiving area ([0090]), wherein the collision model comprises an anatomy and/or size of the patient to be examined (patient’s body, [0090]) and/or position information for the patient table ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flammang and Morich such that ascertaining the at least one second patient table position comprises using a collision model to verify that the at least one second patient table position does not result in collision between the patient and an enclosure surrounding the patient receiving area, wherein the collision model comprises an anatomy and/or size of the patient to be examined and/or position information for the patient table, as taught by Saracen. This prevents the table from being placed in a potentially dangerous position, reducing any potential harm that may be done to the patient.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammang in view of Morich, as applied to claim 8, above, in further view of Windolf (US 2011/0166447).
Regarding claim 9, Flammang in view of Morich teach the method as claimed in claim 8.
However, Flammang in view of Morich fail to disclose: analyzing the first image data to determine whether all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured in the first magnetic resonance data; and repeating the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data if not all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured and/or determined during the analyzing of the first image data.
Windolf teaches:
analyzing the first image data to determine whether all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured in the first magnetic resonance data ([0086]-[0087]); and
Paragraph [0087] teaches that the imaging step is repeated “until the projection of all targets of each object are visible in one of said images”. In order for the system to know when an image is satisfactory and does not need to be recaptured, an analysis of the image must occur to determine that all anatomies are present.
repeating the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data if not all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured and/or determined during a first capturing of first magnetic resonance data ([0086]-[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Flammang and Morich to include: analyzing the first image data to determine whether all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured in the first magnetic resonance data; and repeating the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data if not all target anatomies and/or regions of interest of the patient are captured and/or determined during the analyzing of the first image data, as taught by Windolf. This increases overall efficiency of the procedure, as each anatomy can be imaged consecutively, rather than return to the capturing of the first magnetic resonance data to obtain the anatomies not obtained the first time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights