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 claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kruip (US 7,071,694), hereinafter ‘Kruip’.
Regarding Claim 1, Kruip discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system comprising: a support member (Col. 4, Lines 63-65; base plate); and permanent magnets (Fig. 8, ferromagnetic rods; Col. 2, Lines 24-31 disclosing permanent magnets may be used) positioned within the support member such that the permanent magnets are the permanent magnets are arranged uniformly along a single plane (Fig. 8; Col. 4, Lines 63-67), wherein the permanent magnets increase in size with distance from a centerpoint of the support member (Figs. 8 and 9, centerpoint of support member defined by cluster 93a with rods increasing in size as shown by annotated Fig. 9 below), rods shown increase and are arranged in concentric rings positioned in adjacent relation such that the permanent magnets extend continuously from the centerpoint of the support member to a periphery of the support member along a radius thereof (Figs. 8 and 9; Col. 5, lines 4-12 varying the diameter of the rods in each cluster higher order improvement in the homogeneity of the primary magnetic field can be achieve; Col. 5, Lines 28-35 disclosing optimizing parameters to provide optimum degree of compensation for non-homogeneity in the primary magnetic field; thus providing alternative variations of spacing and sizing will be appreciated and obvious by those skilled in the art).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
578
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kruip further discloses wherein the permanent magnets are arranged such that the single plane is linear (Col. 4, Lines 63-65; base plate with magnets formed from a plurality of concentric permanent magnets).
Regarding Claim 8, Kruip further discloses wherein the permanent magnets increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of the support member (Figs. 8 and 9; Col. 5, lines 4-12 varying the diameter of the rods in each cluster higher order improvement in the homogeneity of the primary magnetic field can be achieve).
Regarding Claim 9, Kruip further discloses wherein the permanent magnets are generally uniform in height (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 21, Kruip further discloses wherein the permanent magnets include generally annular transverse cross-sectional configurations (Figs. 8 and 9).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruip (US 7,071,694), hereinafter ‘Kruip’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hugon et al. (US 11275137), hereinafter ‘Hugon’.
Regarding Claims 4-6, Kruip fails to explicitly disclose wherein the permanent magnets are arranged such that the single plane is a curved hyperplane of Claim 4, the curved hyperplane is hemispherical of Claim 5 and hemicylindrical of Claim 6.
Hugon teaches a magnet assembly for magnetic resonance imaging wherein the permanent magnets are arranged such that the single plane is a curved hyperplane of Claim 4 (Fig. 5A, 5B) and the curved hyperplane is hemicylindrical of Claim 6 (Fig. 4B-4C, 5A-5C; Col. 2, Lines 64-Col. 3, Line 8) for the benefit of providing an alternative arrangement and accommodations for various body parts of patients and various magnetic moments along segments (Col. 11, Lines 34-45; Col. 14, Lines 13-33; Col. 20, Lines 3-22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide an arrangement wherein the curved hyperplane is hemicylindrical for the benefit of providing an alternative arrangement where various magnetic moments are along segments as taught by Hugon in Col. 11, Lines 34-45; Col. 14, Lines 13-33 and Fig. 4B-4C, 5A-5C; Col. 2, Lines 64-Col. 3, Line 8.
Further Hugon discloses the claimed invention of a magnetic assembly in consideration of and to accommodate various body parts of patients (Col. 20, Lines 3-22) except for explicitly disclosing the curved hyperplane is hemispherical of Claim 5. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the magnetic assembly as a curved hyperplane is hemispherical, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the plane of the component to accommodate various testing shapes for various body parts of a patient. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 uspq 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 10, Kruip fails to explicitly disclose wherein the permanent magnets increase in height with distance from the centerpoint of the support member.
Hugon discloses the permanent magnets increase in height with distance from the centerpoint of the support member (Fig. 5A, 5B) for the benefit of selecting heights to accommodate various body parts and providing various magnetic moments in a segment (Col. 14, Lines 14-33; Col. 20, Lines 3-22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the permanent magnets increasing in height with distance from the centerpoint of the support member for the benefit of selecting heights to accommodate various body parts and providing various magnetic moments in a segment as taught by Hugon in Fig. 5A, 5B and Col. 14, Lines 14-33; Col. 20, Lines 3-22.
Claim(s) 11-20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hugon et al. (US 11275137), hereinafter ‘Hugon’ in view of Kruip (US 7,071,694), hereinafter ‘Kruip’.
Regarding Claim 11, Hugon discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system (Abstract) comprising: a support member including a non-magnetic, low conductivity material (Fig. 5B,5C, 530; Col. 14, Lines 58-67); and permanent magnets positioned within the support member in a uniform, symmetrical distribution (Fig. 5C, elements 510 with line of symmetry across 512 in substantially x direction; Col. 4, Lines 47-51).
Hugon fails to explicitly disclose such that the permanent magnets are arranged in concentric rings extending continuously about the support member.
Kruip teaches a MRI system comprising permanent magnets arranged in concentric rings extending continuously about the support member (Fig. 8 and 9) for the benefit of providing the optimum degree of compensation for non-homogeneity in the primary magnetic field (Col. 5, Lines 4-12 and 24-35).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the permanent magnets arranged in concentric rings extending continuously about the support member for the benefit of providing the optimum degree of compensation for non-homogeneity in the primary magnetic field as taught by Kruip in Figs. 8 and 9 and Col. 5, Lines 4-12 and 24-35.
Regarding Claim 12, Hugon further discloses wherein the permanent magnets include generally annular transverse cross-sectional configurations (Fig. 5C, 510 and 512).
Regarding Claim 13, Hugon further discloses wherein the permanent magnets vary in size (Fig. 5A; Col. 14, Lines 22-33).
Regarding Claim 14, Hugon further discloses wherein the permanent magnets vary in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from a centerpoint of the support member (Fig. 5A; Col. 14, Lines 22-33).
Regarding Claim 15, Hugon further wherein the permanent magnets vary in height with distance from the centerpoint of the support member (Col. 14, Lines 14-33; Col. 20, Lines 3-22; Fig. 5A, 5B).
Regarding Claim 16, Hugon discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system (Abstract) comprising: a first support member (Fig. 5C is exploded view of Fig. 5B, Col. 15, Lines 6-9; Fig. 5C, a first sheet 530; Fig. 10A, 1030 upper); first permanent magnets positioned within the first support member (Fig. 5C, 510, 512; Fig. 10A, 1010 upper; Col. 18, Lines 49-65), wherein the first permanent magnets vary in size (Fig. 5A, 5C, magnetic segments 512 to 510 increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of substrate 530; Col. 19, Lines 39-43); a second support member facing the first support member (Fig. 5C, a second sheet 530; Col. 14, Lines 58-61; Fig. 10A, 1010 lower), wherein the first support member and the second support member each include a non-magnetic, low conductivity material (Fig. 5B,5C, 530; Col. 14, Lines 58-67; Col. 20, Lines 54-60); and second permanent magnets (Fig. 5C, 510, 512; Fig. 10A, 1010 lower) positioned within the second support member, wherein the second permanent magnets vary in size (Fig. 5A, 5C, magnetic segments 512 to 510 increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of substrate 530; Col. 19, Lines 39-43).
Hugon fails to explicitly disclose the magnets are arranged in first concentric rings extending continuously about the first support member and in second concentric rings extending continuously about the second support member.
Kruip teaches a MRI system comprising permanent magnets arranged in concentric rings extending continuously about a support member (Fig. 8 and 9; Col. 4, Lines 63-65; base plate) for the benefit of providing the optimum degree of compensation for non-homogeneity in the primary magnetic field (Col. 5, Lines 4-12 and 24-35).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the permanent magnets arranged in concentric rings extending continuously about the support member for the benefit of providing the optimum degree of compensation for non-homogeneity in the primary magnetic field as taught by Kruip in Figs. 8 and 9 and Col. 5, Lines 4-12 and 24-35.
Regarding Claim 17, Hugon further discloses wherein the first support member and the second support member are generally identical in configuration, and wherein the first permanent magnets and the second permanent magnets are generally identical in configuration (Fig. 5A and 5B with cross section of cylindrical shape).
Regarding Claim 18, Hugon further discloses wherein the first permanent magnets increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from a centerpoint of the first support member, and the second permanent magnets increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of the second support member (Fig. 5A, 5C, magnetic segments 512 to 510 increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of substrate 530).
Regarding Claim 19, Hugon further discloses wherein the first permanent magnets increase in height with distance from a centerpoint of the first support member, and the second permanent magnets increase in height with distance from a centerpoint of the second support member (Col. 14, Lines 14-33; Col. 20, Lines 3-22; Fig. 5A, 5B).
Regarding Claim 20, Hugon further discloses a first gradient panel secured to the first support member; and a second gradient panel secured to the second support member, wherein the first gradient panel and the second gradient panel each include at least one coil configured to support magnetic field generation (Col. 18, Lines 52-60).
Regarding Claim 22, Hugon fails to explicitly disclose wherein the permanent magnets increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of the support member.
Kruip wherein the permanent magnets increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of the support member (Figs. 8 and 9; Col. 5, lines 4-12 varying the diameter of the rods in each cluster higher order improvement in the homogeneity of the primary magnetic field can be achieve) for the benefit of improving the homogeneity of the primary magnetic field.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the permanent magnets arranged to increase in transverse cross-sectional dimension with distance from the centerpoint of the support member for the benefit of improving the homogeneity of the primary magnetic field as taught by Kruip in Figs. 8 and 9; Col. 5, lines 4-12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights