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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Release system in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“Release system”- the specification discloses in paragraphs [0068]-[0070] that “The release system, for example, includes a force sensor… The release system may undo or sever a connection between the feed unit and the medical instrument” . However, those of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the specification to clearly disclose any corresponding structure the claim devices comprises to perform the function of “wherein the release system is configured to detach the medical instrument from the feed unit when a force acting on the medical instrument exceeds a limit value”. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose or clearly link the corresponding structure to the claimed release system.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-12 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 1 recites “A magnetic resonance tomograph comprising…” this claim is indefinite as it is unclear how a magnetic resonance tomograph, which is known in the art to be an a device used for magnetic resonance imaging contains a patient table, biopsy needle, etc. as recited in claim 1 and the dependent claims. Examiner suggests amending claims to recite “A magnetic resonance tomograph system comprising…” to overcome this rejection.
Claims 2-12 recite “The magnetic resonance tomograph of claim…” this claim is indefinite as it is unclear how a magnetic resonance tomograph, which is known in the art to be an a device used for magnetic resonance imaging contains a patient table, biopsy needle, etc.”. Examiner suggests amending claims to recite “The magnetic resonance tomograph system of claim…” to overcome this rejection.
Claim limitation “release system” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses in paragraphs [0068]-[0070] that “The release system, for example, includes a force sensor… The release system may undo or sever a connection between the feed unit and the medical instrument” but does not disclose any corresponding structure.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method for planning a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph, the method being computer-implemented is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “determining at least one table parameter of a table movement of a patient table as a function of the trajectory; determining at least one rail parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory, wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could mentally plan how to move the table such that the medical instrument follows a particular trajectory.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “receiving a trajectory, wherein the trajectory specifies how the medical instrument is to be guided relative to a patient”, and “providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system”.
Receiving a trajectory a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Providing a table parameter a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method for planning a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph, the method being computer-implemented is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “determining at least one respiratory parameter of table movement, wherein the at least one respiratory parameter is configured to move the patient table in order to compensate for a respiratory movement of the patient”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could use a breathing rate to adjust the table movement.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “providing the at least one respiratory parameter of the table movement” is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method for planning a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph, the method being computer-implemented is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “determining at least one feed parameter as a function of the trajectory, wherein a feed unit of the magnetic resonance tomograph is configured to guide the medical instrument along the trajectory using the at least one feed parameter in combination with the table movement of the patient table and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. One of ordinary skill in the art could use mentally/using pen and paper, adjust the feed parameter of the magnetic resonance tomograph to adjust the trajectory of the medical instrument.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper or on a generic computer. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “providing the at least one feed parameter”.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- “A planning system for planning a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph” is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 13.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “provide the at least one table parameter of table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system”. Providing the table parameter is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “an interface” and “a computing unit”, and a “magnetic resonance tomograph” however, these components are well-known generic components that are used for image processing.
Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 17,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by a planning system to plan a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph” is disclosed, therefore a device is disclosed.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 13.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “providing the at least one table parameter of table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system”. Providing the table parameter is a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrielink et al. (US 20240252274 A1, hereinafter "Oude") in view of Giulianotti (US 20160135905 A1, hereinafter "Giu").
Regarding claim 1, Oude teaches a magnetic resonance tomograph comprising (apparatus 100 comprises an MRI apparatus [0083]):
a patient table (a support 104, such as a patient table [0061])
a patient receiving region (bore 102 [0061]);
a feed unit (positioning system [0064]) that is configured to guide a medical instrument (FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a positioning system for positioning a movable object inside the bore 102 of the apparatus 100 [0064]); and
a rail system (track 201 [0064]) for guiding the feed unit, the rail system running extensively on an interior side along an inner side of the patient receiving region (the track can be moved tangentially along the inner wall of the bore [0021]),
wherein the patient table is configured to position a patient in the patient receiving region (a support 104, such as a patient table, is provided on which an object to be imaged can rest inside the bore 102 [0061]), and
wherein the patient table is further configured to be movable ([0061] discloses that the table can be movable) such that the medical instrument is guideable along a trajectory in the patient …. (The end-effector may comprise a transceiver or a medical device, such as a biopsy instrument, a surgical instrument, or an applicator for applying a substance [0029]; The at least one track may be linear and oriented in a longitudinal direction parallel to a central axis of the bore. This allows to easily move the movable object through the length of the bore [0011]; The bore may comprise a support member for supporting an object to be subjected to the operation of the apparatus on one side of the support member, and the at least one track may be located on the same side of the support member as a space for the object to be subjected to the operation. This provides a favorable configuration in which the movable object may be moved towards or away from the object on the support member [0014])
Oude, however, does not teach [wherein the patient table is further configured to be movable such that the medical instrument is guideable along a trajectory in the patient] with the assistance of a movement of the patient table.
Giu is considered analogous to the instant application as “Robotic surgical station” is disclosed (title). Giu teaches:
wherein the patient table is further configured to be movable such that the medical instrument is guideable along a trajectory (the robotic arms may be assembled on the ring-shaped structure at different locations so as to allow a surgeon to arrange them based on the requirements of a specific surgical intervention [0012]) in the patient with the assistance of a movement of the patient table (the patient's bed is made up of individually movable portions allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out [0062]; The patient table may be inclined relative to the ground in order to achieve by gravity positions of the internal organs of a patient that may be desirable for certain surgery procedures [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Oude to include wherein the patient table is further configured to be movable such that the medical instrument is guideable along a trajectory in the patient with the assistance of a movement of the patient table, as taught by Giu. Doing so would allow for allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out, as suggested by Giu ([0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Oude teaches the The magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above.
Oude, however does not teach: wherein the patient table comprises at least three axes, wherein the at least three axes are configured such that the medical instrument is movable along the trajectory by a movement of the patient table, and wherein the movement of the patient table is produced by a linear combination of movements along the at least three axes, a rotation about at least one of the at least three axes, or the linear combination of movements and the rotation.
Giu, however, teaches:
wherein the patient table comprises at least three axes (patient's bed 700 and the robotic arms 600 may simultaneously be rotated about two horizontal axes, namely the roll axis R and the pitch axis P, while maintaining their initial mutual positioning setup [0042]; patient's bed is made up of individually movable portions allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out. As shown in FIG. 1, the bed 700 e.g. comprises individually movable arms and leg portions that can be pivoted relative to the bed frame about respective horizontal axes parallel to the bed frame and to vertical axes perpendicular thereto [0062]; This is a default configuration of the robotic surgical station, wherein the patient bed 700 is substantially parallel to the ground.[0032]; the bed rotates along two axes, as well as move up and down, i.e. three axes),
wherein the at least three axes are configured such that the medical instrument is movable (According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the robotic arms may be assembled on the ring-shaped structure at different locations so as to allow a surgeon to arrange them based on the requirements of a specific surgical intervention [0012]) along the trajectory by a movement of the patient table (The patient table may be inclined relative to the ground in order to achieve by gravity positions of the internal organs of a patient that may be desirable for certain surgery procedures [0006]), and
wherein the movement of the patient table is produced by a linear combination of movements along the at least three axes, a rotation about at least one of the at least three axes (patient's bed 700 and the robotic arms 600 may simultaneously be rotated about two horizontal axes, namely the roll axis R and the pitch axis P, while maintaining their initial mutual positioning setup [0042], or the linear combination of movements and the rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Oude to include wherein the patient table comprises at least three axes, wherein the at least three axes are configured such that the medical instrument is movable along the trajectory by a movement of the patient table, and wherein the movement of the patient table is produced by a linear combination of movements along the at least three axes, a rotation about at least one of the at least three axes, or the linear combination of movements and the rotation, as taught by Giu. Doing so would allow for allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out, as suggested by Giu ([0062]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, Oude, however, does not teach, wherein the at least three axes are oriented such that the at least three axes define a three-dimensional space
Gui, however, teaches wherein the at least three axes are oriented such that the at least three axes define a three-dimensional space (patient's bed 700 and the robotic arms 600 may simultaneously be rotated about two horizontal axes, namely the roll axis R and the pitch axis P, while maintaining their initial mutual positioning setup [0042]; patient's bed is made up of individually movable portions allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out. As shown in FIG. 1, the bed 700 e.g. comprises individually movable arms and leg portions that can be pivoted relative to the bed frame about respective horizontal axes parallel to the bed frame and to vertical axes perpendicular thereto [0062]; This is a default configuration of the robotic surgical station, wherein the patient bed 700 is substantially parallel to the ground.[0032]; the bed rotates along two axes, as well as move up and down, i.e. three axes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Oude to include wherein the at least three axes are oriented such that the at least three axes define a three-dimensional space, as taught by Giu. Doing so would allow for allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out, as suggested by Giu ([0062]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above. Oude, further teaches wherein the medical instrument is a medical needle (biopsy instrument [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 4, as discussed above. Oude, further teaches wherein the medical needle is a biopsy needle (biopsy instrument [0029]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above. Oude, further teaches wherein the rail system extends along a circular arc (rail system extends along bore/circular arc, as shown in fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Oude reproduced above
Regarding claim 7, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above. Oude, however, further teaches wherein the rail system is of annular configuration (the tracks may be arc shaped, arranged tangentially along the inner wall [0069]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above. Oude further teaches:
wherein the magnetic resonance tomograph further comprises:
a magnet unit, wherein the patient receiving region is enclosed by the magnet unit (the apparatus 100 comprises an MRI apparatus [0083])
wherein the magnet unit forms an inner circumferential gap (support 104, such as a patient table, is provided on which an object to be imaged can rest inside the bore 102 [0061]), and
wherein the rail system is arranged in the inner circumferential gap (FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a positioning system for positioning a movable object inside the bore 102 of the apparatus 100. The positioning system comprises a track 201, a slider 202 configured to slide along the track, and a member 203 fixed on one end to the slider 202, wherein the movable object (not illustrated) can be attached to the other end 204 of the member 203 [0064]; the rail is within the bore/arranged within a gap of the bore as shown in figs 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
387
219
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs 1 and 2 of Oude
Regarding claim 9, Regarding claim 8, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above. Oude further teaches: wherein the feed unit is configured to move the medical instrument perpendicularly to the rail system (the track 201 may be arranged on, in, or close to the inner wall 103 of the apparatus 100. The illustrated configuration allows moving the movable object in the longitudinal direction [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above. Oude further teaches: wherein the feed unit is configured to rotate, pivot, or rotate and pivot the medical instrument ([0064], [0067] discloses rotation of the medical instrument).
Regarding claim 12, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 1, as discussed above. Oude, further teaches wherein the feed unit comprises a release system wherein the release system is configured to [stop] the medical instrument from the feed unit when a force acting on the medical instrument exceeds a limit value ( the positioning system 1900 further comprises one or more sensors 1905. The sensors 1905 may, for example, comprise a force sensor 1801 configured to detect a force exerted to an articulated member 506. In case a force is detected, the control unit 1901 may be configured to generate an alarm signal and/or stop the actuators 1904. [0104]).
While Oude is silent regarding wherein the release system is configured to detach the medical instrument from the feed unit [when a force acting on the medical instrument exceeds a limit value], it is noted that the Applicant’s specification does not impute any significance and/or criticality to the claimed detachable medical instrument. Accordingly, it is herein asserted that the claimed detachable medical instrument is neither significant nor critical, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to change the medical instrument such that it can be detachable from the feed unit, in order to serve as a safety mechanism for the medical instrument. See MPEP 2144.04.V.C. Making Separable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrielink et al. (US 20240252274 A1, hereinafter "Oude") in view of Giulianotti (US 20160135905 A1, hereinafter "Giu") and Simi et al. (US 20240382278 A1, hereinafter “Simi”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Oude teaches the magnetic resonance tomograph of claim 8, as discussed above. Oude, however does not teach wherein the feed unit comprises at least one piezo motor that is configured to move the medical instrument.
Simi is considered analogous to the instant application as a robotic surgical assembly is disclosed (abstract).
Simi teaches wherein the feed unit comprises at least one piezo motor that is configured to move the medical instrument (as slides and piezoelectric actuators, to control the tensile load of the tendons, as well as to release and pull exact lengths of tendon, allowing to move at least a portion of said medical instrument by a desired amount, for example around a movement axis [0862]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Oude to include wherein the feed unit comprises at least one piezo motor that is configured to move the medical instrument, as taught by Simi. Doing so would facilitate precise positioning of the medical device.
Claim 13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velusamy et al. (US 20080091101 A1) in view of Vrielink et al. (US 20240252274 A1, hereinafter "Oude") and Giulianotti (US 20160135905 A1, hereinafter "Giu").
Regarding claim 13, Velusamy teaches a method for planning a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph, the method being computer-implemented and comprising:
receiving a trajectory, wherein the trajectory specifies how the medical instrument is to be guided relative to a patient (A first set of co-ordinates are communicated to position the guide manipulator 302 at a predefined height and to point a laser light to make an incision on the patient's body 108 at the needle entry point… controller 306 allows the practitioner to visualize the needle trajectory in the images [0067])
determining at least one table parameter of a table movement of a patient table as a function of the trajectory ([0045] discloses determining the movement of the needle with respect to the movement of the movable cradle 106/patient table as the z-axis);
Velusamy, however, does not teach
determining at least one rail parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory, wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system; and
providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
Oude is considered analogous to the instant application as “In-bore positioning system” is disclosed (title). Oude teaches:
determining at least one rail (track 201 [0064]) parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory (FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a positioning system for positioning a movable object inside the bore 102 of the apparatus 100 [0064]), wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system(The end-effector may comprise a transceiver or a medical device, such as a biopsy instrument, a surgical instrument, or an applicator for applying a substance [0029]; The system may comprise a control unit configured to automatically control the at least one of the sliders via the at least one actuator based on a desired position or desired orientation of the movable object [0026]The at least one track may be linear and oriented in a longitudinal direction parallel to a central axis of the bore. This allows to easily move the movable object through the length of the bore [0011]; The bore may comprise a support member for supporting an object to be subjected to the operation of the apparatus on one side of the support member, and the at least one track may be located on the same side of the support member as a space for the object to be subjected to the operation. This provides a favorable configuration in which the movable object may be moved towards or away from the object on the support member [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Oude to include determining at least one rail parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory, wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system, as taught by Oude. Doing so facilitates automation of the positioning system, as suggested by Oude ([0026]).
The combined invention, still does not teach providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
Giu is considered analogous to the instant application as “Robotic surgical station” is disclosed (title). Giu teaches: providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement (According to a preferred embodiment of the present disclosure, the patient's bed is made up of individually movable portions allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out [0062]; The patient table may be inclined relative to the ground in order to achieve by gravity positions of the internal organs of a patient that may be desirable for certain surgery procedures [0006]) and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system (According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the robotic arms may be assembled on the ring-shaped structure at different locations so as to allow a surgeon to arrange them based on the requirements of a specific surgical intervention [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Velusamy to include providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system, as taught by Giu. Doing so would allow for allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out, as suggested by Giu ([0062]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Velusamy teaches method of claim 13, as discussed above. Velusamy, however, does not teach determining at least one feed parameter as a function of the trajectory, wherein a feed unit of the magnetic resonance tomograph is configured to guide the medical instrument along the trajectory using the at least one feed parameter in combination with the table movement of the patient table and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system; and providing the at least one feed parameter.
Giu, however, teaches teach determining at least one feed parameter as a function of the trajectory, wherein a feed unit of the magnetic resonance tomograph is configured to guide the medical instrument along the trajectory using the at least one feed parameter (the robotic arms may be assembled on the ring-shaped structure at different locations so as to allow a surgeon to arrange them based on the requirements of a specific surgical intervention [0012]) in combination with the table movement of the patient table and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system (the patient's bed is made up of individually movable portions allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out [0062]; The patient table may be inclined relative to the ground in order to achieve by gravity positions of the internal organs of a patient that may be desirable for certain surgery procedures [0006]); and providing the at least one feed parameter (The robotic surgical station further comprises a remote control unit 800 that may be used by a surgeon to carry out a surgical intervention on a patient [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Vellusamy to include determining at least one feed parameter as a function of the trajectory, wherein a feed unit of the magnetic resonance tomograph is configured to guide the medical instrument along the trajectory using the at least one feed parameter in combination with the table movement of the patient table and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system; and providing the at least one feed parameter, as taught by Giu. Doing so would allow for allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out, as suggested by Giu ([0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Velusamy teaches a planning system for planning a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph, the planning system comprising:
an interface (User Interface (UI) 702 [0044]); and
a computing unit (a processing machine. … include a computer, a programmed microprocessor [0071]) ,
wherein the interface and the computing unit are configured to (The set of instructions may include various commands that instruct the processing machine to perform specific tasks such as the steps that constitute the method of the present invention [0073]):
receive a trajectory, wherein the trajectory specifies how the medical instrument is to be guided relative to a patient (A first set of co-ordinates are communicated to position the guide manipulator 302 at a predefined height and to point a laser light to make an incision on the patient's body 108 at the needle entry point… controller 306 allows the practitioner to visualize the needle trajectory in the images [0067]);
determine at least one table parameter of a table movement of a patient table of the magnetic resonance tomograph ([0045] discloses determining the movement of the needle with respect to the movement of the movable cradle 106/patient table as the z-axis).
Velusamy, however, does not teach:
determine at least one rail parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph, wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system; and
provide the at least one table parameter of table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
Oude is considered analogous to the instant application as “In-bore positioning system” is disclosed (title). Oude teaches:
determine at least one rail (track 201 [0064]) parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory (FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a positioning system for positioning a movable object inside the bore 102 of the apparatus 100 [0064]), wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system(The end-effector may comprise a transceiver or a medical device, such as a biopsy instrument, a surgical instrument, or an applicator for applying a substance [0029]; The system may comprise a control unit configured to automatically control the at least one of the sliders via the at least one actuator based on a desired position or desired orientation of the movable object [0026]The at least one track may be linear and oriented in a longitudinal direction parallel to a central axis of the bore. This allows to easily move the movable object through the length of the bore [0011]; The bore may comprise a support member for supporting an object to be subjected to the operation of the apparatus on one side of the support member, and the at least one track may be located on the same side of the support member as a space for the object to be subjected to the operation. This provides a favorable configuration in which the movable object may be moved towards or away from the object on the support member [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Oude to include determine at least one rail parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory, wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system, as taught by Oude. Doing so facilitates automation of the positioning system, as suggested by Oude ([0026]).
The combined invention, still does not teach providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
Giu is considered analogous to the instant application as “Robotic surgical station” is disclosed (title). Giu teaches: providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
provide the at least one table parameter of the table movement (According to a preferred embodiment of the present disclosure, the patient's bed is made up of individually movable portions allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out [0062]; The patient table may be inclined relative to the ground in order to achieve by gravity positions of the internal organs of a patient that may be desirable for certain surgery procedures [0006]) and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system (According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the robotic arms may be assembled on the ring-shaped structure at different locations so as to allow a surgeon to arrange them based on the requirements of a specific surgical intervention [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Velusamy to include provide the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system, as taught by Giu. Doing so would allow for allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out, as suggested by Giu ([0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Velusamy teaches in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by a planning system (The processing machine executes a set of instructions that are stored in one or more storage elements, in order to process input data. The storage elements may also hold data or other information as desired. The storage element may be in the form of an information destination or a physical memory element present in the processing machine [0072]) to plan a movement of a medical instrument along a trajectory in a patient receiving region of a magnetic resonance tomograph, the instructions comprising:
receiving a trajectory, wherein the trajectory specifies how the medical instrument is to be guided relative to a patient (A first set of co-ordinates are communicated to position the guide manipulator 302 at a predefined height and to point a laser light to make an incision on the patient's body 108 at the needle entry point… controller 306 allows the practitioner to visualize the needle trajectory in the images [0067])
determining at least one table parameter of a table movement of a patient table as a function of the trajectory ([0045] discloses determining the movement of the needle with respect to the movement of the movable cradle 106/patient table as the z-axis);
Velusamy, however, does not teach
determining at least one rail parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory, wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system; and
providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
Oude is considered analogous to the instant application as “In-bore positioning system” is disclosed (title). Oude teaches:
determining at least one rail (track 201 [0064]) parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory (FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a positioning system for positioning a movable object inside the bore 102 of the apparatus 100 [0064]), wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system (The end-effector may comprise a transceiver or a medical device, such as a biopsy instrument, a surgical instrument, or an applicator for applying a substance [0029]; The system may comprise a control unit configured to automatically control the at least one of the sliders via the at least one actuator based on a desired position or desired orientation of the movable object [0026]The at least one track may be linear and oriented in a longitudinal direction parallel to a central axis of the bore. This allows to easily move the movable object through the length of the bore [0011]; The bore may comprise a support member for supporting an object to be subjected to the operation of the apparatus on one side of the support member, and the at least one track may be located on the same side of the support member as a space for the object to be subjected to the operation. This provides a favorable configuration in which the movable object may be moved towards or away from the object on the support member [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Oude to include determining at least one rail parameter of a movement of the medical instrument along a rail system of the magnetic resonance tomograph as a function of the trajectory, wherein the at least one table parameter and the at least one rail parameter are configured such that the medical instrument is guideable along the trajectory in a patient placed on the patient table by the table movement and the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system, as taught by Oude. Doing so facilitates automation of the positioning system, as suggested by Oude ([0026]).
The combined invention, still does not teach providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
Giu is considered analogous to the instant application as “Robotic surgical station” is disclosed (title). Giu teaches: providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system.
providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement (According to a preferred embodiment of the present disclosure, the patient's bed is made up of individually movable portions allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out [0062]; The patient table may be inclined relative to the ground in order to achieve by gravity positions of the internal organs of a patient that may be desirable for certain surgery procedures [0006]) and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system (According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the robotic arms may be assembled on the ring-shaped structure at different locations so as to allow a surgeon to arrange them based on the requirements of a specific surgical intervention [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Velusamy to include providing the at least one table parameter of the table movement and the at least one rail parameter of the movement of the medical instrument along the rail system, as taught by Giu. Doing so would allow for allowing to arrange a patient in the most suitable position required by the surgical intervention that has to be carried out, as suggested by Giu ([0062]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velusamy (US 20080091101 A1) in view of Vrielink et al. (US 20240252274 A1, hereinafter "Oude") and Giulianotti (US 20160135905 A1, hereinafter "Giu") and Yu (US 20160073962 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Velusamy teaches the method of claim 13, as discussed above. Velusamy, however, does not teach determining at least one respiratory parameter of table movement, wherein the at least one respiratory parameter is configured to move the patient table in order to compensate for a respiratory movement of the patient; and providing the at least one respiratory parameter of the table movement.
Yu is considered analogous to the instant application as “Systems, devices, and methods for tracking and compensating for patient motion during a medical imaging scan” is disclosed (title).
Yu teaches determining at least one respiratory parameter of table movement (Patient movement can include respiration, twitches or any other voluntary or involuntary movements of the patient [0096]; [0095] discloses tracking of patient movement; [0100] discloses tracking of table 114) wherein the at least one respiratory parameter is configured to move the patient table in order to compensate for a respiratory movement of the patient ([0104] discloses correction of scanner/patient table based off of patient motion, i.e. respiration); and
providing the at least one respiratory parameter of the table movement [0095] discloses tracking of patient movement; [0100] discloses tracking of table 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Velusamy to include determining at least one respiratory parameter of table movement, wherein the at least one respiratory parameter is configured to move the patient table in order to compensate for a respiratory movement of the patient; and providing the at least one respiratory parameter of the table movement, as taught by Yu. Doing so would allow for the MRI scanner can adjust the focus and position of the scanner in order to produce a clear MRI image of the patient, as suggested by Yu ([0095]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NESHAT BASET whose telephone number is (571)272-5478. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-17:30 CST.
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, PASCAL M. BUI-PHO can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights