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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mechanical connection of the first and second elements and the retainer with the flexible holding element configured to enclose the jaw and shape the second element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 5-10, 13, 17-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, fails to support the dental coil having a flexible holding element now claimed in Claim 1 (e.g. Fig. 8) and where the second element is configured to be positioned independently of the first element. Examiner notes Fig. 8 depicts the flexible holding element 46 on top of the first and second elements and any adjustment to one element would appear to adjust the other. Claim 5 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, fails to disclose the combined embodiment of Claim 1 (e.g. Fig. 8) with a flexible holding element and a retainer mechanically connected to the first and second elements. Claims 6-10 inherent this same issue and Claims 13 and 17-20 appear to have the same issue and/or inherent the written description rejection. Claim 23 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, fails to disclose the combined embodiment of a dental coil with a retainer mechanically connected to the first element or second element and a flexible holding element as now claimed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5-10, 18-20 and 23 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. Claim 3 is rejected because it is unclear if “an adjustment mechanism” to adjust the shape of the first flexible element is the flexible holding element as now claimed. Claim 16 appears to have the same issue. Claim 5 is rejected because it is unclear how the retainer is also connected to first element or the second element in addition to the flexible holding element. Claims 17-20 and 23 appear to have the same issue and Claims 6-10 inherent Claim 5’s rejection.
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3489704 to Wundrak et al. “Wundrak” (translation provided by Examiner).
As for Claim 21, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0256937 to Iwasawa et al. “Iwasawa”.
As for Claims 1-2 and 15, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, Wundrak does not expressly disclose a flexible holding element as now claimed.
Iwasawa teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI flexible coil units (Abstract) where a belt (e.g. 520 in Figs. 3A, 5 and corresponding descriptions) is used to bring the coils in close contact with the head shape by deformation (Paragraph [0059]). Examiner notes that the belt configured to be tightened and fixed is considered to read on a flexible holding element as claimed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wundrak’s dental coil to include Iwasawa’s flexible holding element in order to better conform the coil to the user’s individual head/face contours and thus, enhance imaging. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 3, 11, 13-14, 16 Examiner notes that the belt means would include an adjustment mechanism in its broadest reasonable interpretation with a fixing element and safety element in order to fasten (fix) and unfasten (open position) in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 12, Wundrak’s Fig. 2 above depicts a third coil for use on the other side of the patient’s head.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak and Iwasawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0292641 to Greiser.
As for Claim 4, Wundrak and Iwasawa discloses a flexible dental coil for MRI imaging as described above but does not specify that the phased array coil includes a smart material as claimed.
Greiser teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI body coils (Abstract) where the coil includes a smart material configured to adjust the stiffness of the coil via an excitation signal (Abstract; Paragraphs [0016] and [0019]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motived to have modified the wings of the phased array coil described by Wundrak and Iwasawa to include a smart material as described by Greiser in order to customize the stiffness of the dental coil to conform to a variety of patients. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5-10, 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak and Iwasawa as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of NPL “Optimized 14+1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures” to Sedlacik et al. “Sedlacik” evidenced by NPL “Mandibula 15-Channel Dental Coil”, hereinafter “NORAS” (Cited by Applicant).
As for Claim 5-8 and 17-20, Wundrak and Iwasawa discloses a flexible dental coil for MRI imaging as described above but do not disclose a retainer to also hold the jaw coils.
Sedlacik teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dental coil systems and methods where a dental coil optimized for 3D dental and maxillomandibular MRI with high patient comfort (Abstract) comprising a 14 element phased array coil mounted between two pillars (e.g. “retainer”, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions). Sedlacik discloses where the retainer includes fasteners to facilitate head-foot positioning and anterioposterior positioning (e.g. guide mechanisms “Materials and Methods”; Page 2). Sedlacik depicts where the “retainer” is mechanically connected to the dental coils and configured to hold the coils onto the appropriate region of the patient with a position unit and guide configured to tilt toward the patient as evidenced by NORAS.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used a retainer to hold the dental coil described by Wundrak and Iwasawa in order to prevent the coil from shifting during use. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 9, Sedlacik’s coil depicts a “swan neck mechanism” and joint hose in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Sedlacik’s coil depicts fastener (e.g. damping elements) which can control the pivot range of motion in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Alternatively regarding Claim 13, Sedlacik’s coil assembly includes a head rest which is considered to fix the head of the patient in place in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak and NPL “Optimized 14+1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures” to Sedlacik et al. “Sedlacik” evidenced by NPL “Mandibula 15-Channel Dental Coil”, hereinafter “NORAS” (Cited by Applicant).
As for Claim 22, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, Wundrak does not disclose a retainer to hold the jaw coils.
Sedlacik teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dental coil systems and methods where a dental coil optimized for 3D dental and maxillomandibular MRI with high patient comfort (Abstract) comprising a 14 element phased array coil mounted between two pillars (e.g. “retainer”, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions). Sedlacik depicts where the “retainer” is mechanically connected to the dental coils and configured to hold the coils onto the appropriate region of the patient with a position unit and guide configured to tilt toward the patient as evidenced by NORAS. Examiner notes Sedlacik’s coil depicts a “swan neck mechanism” which is embodied to maintain a curved shape in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used a retainer to hold the dental coil described by Wundrak order to prevent the coil from shifting during use. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak, Iwasawa and NPL “Optimized 14+1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures” to Sedlacik et al. “Sedlacik” evidenced by NPL “Mandibula 15-Channel Dental Coil”, hereinafter “NORAS” (Cited by Applicant).
As for Claim 23, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, Wundrak does not expressly disclose a flexible holding element as claimed.
Iwasawa teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI flexible coil units (Abstract) where a belt (e.g. 520 in Figs. 3A, 5 and corresponding descriptions) is used to bring the coils in close contact with the head shape by deformation (Paragraph [0059]). Examiner notes that the belt configured to be tightened and fixed is considered to read on a flexible holding element as claimed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wundrak’s dental coil to include Iwasawa’s flexible holding element in order to better conform the coil to the user’s individual head/face contours and thus, enhance imaging. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results.
However, Wundrak and Iwasawa does not disclose a retainer to hold the jaw coils.
Sedlacik teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dental coil systems and methods where a dental coil optimized for 3D dental and maxillomandibular MRI with high patient comfort (Abstract) comprising a 14 element phased array coil mounted between two pillars (e.g. “retainer”, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions). Sedlacik discloses where the retainer includes fasteners to facilitate head-foot positioning and anterioposterior positioning (e.g. guide mechanisms “Materials and Methods”; Page 2).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used a retainer to hold the dental coil described by Wundrak order to prevent the coil from shifting during use. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. New 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Publication No. 2013/0190608 to Schmidt which depicts jaw coil with various layers (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
360
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797