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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on July 31, 2024 has been entered and made of record.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “unit” (processing unit and haptic feedback unit) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-9 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves 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: page 7 of the specification describes the processing unit 14 as a workstation (computer); and page 8 of the specification describes inertial sensor and/or touch sensor as the haptic feedback unit.
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 the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see M.P.E.P. § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 10-12 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claims 13-14 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each of these claims is an article of manufacture claim.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, it recites “a computer-readable medium” which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter); and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). The examiner suggests an amendment to the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” to limit the scope to only the statutory media in order to meet 35 U.S.C. 101 requirements. Any amendment to claim and/or specification should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim recites “a computer-readable medium having stored thereon the program element of claim 13”. It suggests that claim does not include the executing part by processing unit of claim 13. Thus, there is no functional relationship between program element and the processing unit. Claim as a whole is nothing more than a memory stick or CD-ROM storing recorded music. See MPEP 2111.05(III).
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, and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rinck et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0116518A1, Art of record IDS filed on July 31, 2024, referred as Rinck hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Rinck teaches an imaging accessory positioning system for medical imaging, the system comprising:
an imaging accessory configured to be positioned relative to a reference position (see fig. 1, item 35 (local coil per paras. [0088] – [0091], for example); this is consistent with instant specification which defines such image accessory is a coil, see page 2 line 36 to page 3 line 2, for example); paras. [0037] (suitable position; isocenter), [0056] (reference surface) and [0112] (desired position)),
a position sensor (time-of-flight camera 36) configured to measure a position of the imaging accessory, and provide a position signal being indicative of the position of the imaging accessory (see fig. 1, item 36 (time-of-flight camera for acquiring deep map (position) of coil 35 per paras. [0091] & [0108]); paras. [0106]-[0107]),
a processing unit configured to perform at least one of receive, store or determine the reference position (see fig. 1, computer 24; paras. paras. [0037] (suitable position; isocenter), [0056] (reference surface), [0112] (desired position) and [0132] (desired position)), derive the position of the imaging accessory from the position signal (see paras. [0132] – [0133] (current position 1101 and desired position 1102)), compare the position of the imaging accessory to the reference position (see para. [0133] (comparison between position 1101 and desired position 1102)), and compute a feedback signal based on the deviation between the position of the imaging accessory and the reference position (see paras. [0134] (suitable suggestion positions 1104, 1104 for positioning local coil 35), [0064] (suggestion for repositioning the coil based on a result of the comparison), [0065] (suggestion for repositioning is presented as an output on the display screen; output options for suggestion for repositioning the local coil via haptic unit) and [0066] (comparison result; move instructions for repositioning the coil), and
a haptic feedback unit configured to provide haptic feedback to a user in response to the feedback signal, and wherein the haptic feedback is configured to assist the user with positioning of the imaging accessory relative to the reference position (see paras. [0065] (suggestion for repositioning is presented as an output on the display screen; output options for suggestion for repositioning the local coil via haptic unit) and [0066] (move instructions for repositioning the coil).
Regarding claim 6, while Rinck does no specifically teach claim limitation “wherein a characteristic of the haptic feedback is automatically adapted to a stage of an imaging workflow”, Rinck does teach “output options for the suggestion for repositioning of the local coil, for example via a haptic unit” (para. [0065]). Thus, claim limitation is inherently to terminate the repositioning after user successful repositioned the coil.
Regarding claim 7, Rinck further teaches wherein the position sensor is a LIDAR or RADAR or 3D camera sensor, and the position sensor is configured to generate at least one image of the imaging accessory and a patient (see paras. [0091] and [0095]).
Regarding claim 8, Rinck further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to process at least one image from the position sensor and automatically determine a reference position relative to the patient (see paras. [0108], [0112], [0132] and [0133]).
Regarding claim 9, Rinck further teaches a medical imaging system comprising the imaging accessory positioning system as claimed in claim 1 (see fig. 1 and para. [0087]: magnetic resonance apparatus 11).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that claim is a method claim and recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Rinck further teaches wherein the processed position signal includes an image of the imaging accessory and a patient (see para. [0014] (coil and object (patient)).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the reference position is automatically determined relative to the position of the patient (see para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Rinck further teaches a computer program element comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium, which, when being executed by at least one processing unit is adapted to cause the processing unit to perform the method according to claim 10 (see rejection applied to claim 10 above; paras. [0001] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Rinck further teaches a computer readable medium having stored thereon the program element of claim 13 (see rejection applied to claim 13 above; paras. [0001] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 15, Rinck further teaches an imaging accessory configured to be used in an imaging accessory positioning system for medical imaging according to claim 2, wherein the imaging accessory comprises a haptic feedback unit configured to receive a feedback signal and configured to provide haptic feedback to a user in response to the feedback signal, wherein the haptic feedback is configured to assist the user with positioning of the imaging accessory (it is interpreted as an intended of use claim limitations; as to an image accessory, the local coil in Rinck as pointed out in the rejection of claim 1 above; for compact prosecution, Rinck teaches these claim limitations in para. [0065]).
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) 2-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinck in view of Shoudy et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0214667A1, Art of record IDS filed on July 31, 2024, and referred as Shoudy hereinafter).
The advanced statements with regard to Rinck in the preceding paragraph are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 2, Rinck is silent in further teaching wherein the haptic feedback unit is located on or integrated with the imaging accessory. However, it is well known in the art as evidenced by Shoudy.
Shoudy, in the field of endeavor that of image processing, teaches haptic feedback unit (vibration actuators 40 as illustrated in figures 2-11 and described in para. [0039], for example) is located on or integrated with the imaging accessory (haptic feedback device 14 as illustrated in figures 2-11 and described in para. [0026]).
The motivation for doing so is to simply the design and usage, save cost and energy.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations as taught by Shoudy in combination with Rinck for that reasons.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rinck and Shoudy further teaches wherein the haptic feedback unit comprises an inertial sensor configured to detect movement of the haptic feedback unit (see Shoudy, para. [0023] (inertial measurement unit) and [0025] (haptic feedback device includes one or more inertial measuring units).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rinck and Shoudy further teaches wherein the haptic feedback unit comprises a touch sensor configured to detect touching of the haptic feedback unit (see Shoudy, paras. [0039] and [0044] (grip style of the operator)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rinck and Shoudy further teaches wherein the haptic feedback unit is configured to provide haptic feedback via haptic actuators configured to interact with a user touching the haptic feedback unit, and wherein the haptic feedback unit is configured to detect a position where the user touches the haptic feedback unit and provide haptic feedback at that position (see Shoudy, paras. [0039] and [0044] (grip style of the operator)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rinck and Shoudy further teaches wherein a characteristic of the haptic feedback is automatically adapted to a stage of an imaging workflow (see Shoudy, paras. [0040], [0042] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Rinck and Shoudy further teaches an imaging accessory configured to be used in an imaging accessory positioning system for medical imaging according to claim 2 (see rejection applied to claim 2 above; Shoudy, para. [0026]), wherein the imaging accessory comprises a haptic feedback unit configured to receive a feedback signal and configured to provide haptic feedback to a user in response to the feedback signal, wherein the haptic feedback is configured to assist the user with positioning of the imaging accessory (see Shoudy, paras. [0026], [0039], [0040], [0042] and [0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Urquhart et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0049486 Al) teaches a method and apparatus for performing surgery (fig. 1) comprising movable coils (para. [0009), and feedback system (para. [0075]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
6/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights