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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0041514 to Yang et al. “Yang” in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0169432 to Liu et al. “Liu”.
As for Claims 1, 18, and 19, Yang discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning system and method (Abstract; Fig. 5 and corresponding descriptions) comprising steps to acquire implant information of a subject to be scanned based on a patient information system in communication with or integrated with an MRI scanning system (Paragraphs [0038]-[0042]); automatically preconfiguring a plurality of scan parameters based on the implant information specific to the subject being scanned (Paragraphs [0007], [0009]-[0010], [0015], [0022], [0035] and [0042]) and executing a scan procedure using the one or more preconfigured (e.g. predetermined) plurality of scan configurations (280 in Fig. 2 and corresponding descriptions). Figs 3-4 depict a graphical user interface with a scan range specific to the subject in its broadest reasonable interpretation. While Yang’s system automatically preconfigures the MRI system’s parameters based on the type and location of implant for a scanning region (Fig. 3) and takes into account the location relative to the center of the scanner (Paragraphs [0035] and [0041]), Yang does not expressly disclose setting/displaying a plurality of different anatomical scan ranges each scan range with particular implant parameters.
Liu teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to diagnostic imaging systems and methods (Abstract) and particularly with respect to MRI systems and methods (Paragraphs [0013], [0046] and [0122]) where different anatomical scan ranges may be preconfigured with distinct imaging parameters (Paragraphs [0101]-[0106] and [0110]-[0114]). In one embodiment, Liu discloses where a first scan area (e.g. range) can be the head while the second area can be the abdomen and where each area includes its respective imaging parameters which are preconfigured and selected without user intervention (Paragraphs [0113]-[0114]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have duplicated Yang’s automated parameter determining means for displayed anatomical scanning ranges for additional anatomical scan ranges specific to the subject to be scanned as described by Liu in order to automatically customize a safe MRI scan for the patient. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for Claim 2, Examiner notes the modified MRI imaging technique described above for first and second areas would read on the sequential scanning step for each anatomical region where each scanning region has its own scanning parameters (e.g. scan configuration) in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claim 4, Yang depicts a graphical user interface showing the plurality of scan configurations (Figs. 3-4 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Yang explains where the system may also accept user input to configure the scan configurations (Paragraphs [0008] and [0058]). Furthermore, Liu explains the system may also accept user input (Paragraph [0114]).
As for Claim 6, Yang discloses wherein location (e.g. position) information of an implant in the subject is determined (Paragraphs [0021], [0035] and [0041]) and wherein a safety prompt (e.g. user menu) may be presented to the user to select an appropriate setting (Paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 6-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Liu as applied to claims 4, 6 and 19 above, and further in view of by U.S. Publication No. 2021/0068699 to Liu et al. “Liu 2”.
As for Claim 7, 9, 13 and 14, Yang and Liu disclose an MRI system and method for configuring a plurality of scan regions with distinct implant safe parameters as described above. Yang depicts a body model matching the subject to be scanned but does not appear to display an implant identifier on the body model.
Liu 2 teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods for imaging patients with implants where a pre-screen procedure is used to identify an implant within the patient and set “guidelines” for the MRI scan (Abstract; Fig. 6 and corresponding descriptions). Liu 2’s pre-screen system identifies the implant location (Paragraphs [0014], [0030]) and displays the implant on an image with respect to the patient’s model (Paragraphs [0040] and [0042]; Figs. 3 and 5 and corresponding descriptions) along with a safety prompt (Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions). Liu 2 makes it clear that the image of the body model may be 2D images used to create a 3D body model (Paragraph [0056]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the MRI system and method described by Yang and Liu to display an implant identifier on the body model as described by Liu 2 in order to visually depict the implant location with respect to the scan ranges.
Alternatively regarding Claim 6, Examiner notes the modified system and method of Yang, Liu and Liu 2 reads on the claimed steps of determining position information of the implant and displaying a safety prompt in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claims 8 and 10, Liu 2 explains the patient image may include two images at different angles using various cameras (Paragraph [0056]). Examiner notes the images would be matched to the displayed model of the patient in order to convey the spatial location of the implant in the patient’s body.
Regarding Claims 11-12, Liu 2’s Fig. 5 depicts a simulated image of the patient’s position through the scanner along with the implant location and a safety constraint region. Such depiction is considered to read on a simulation image and an implant safety constraint region as claimed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Alternatively regarding Claim 15, Examiner notes that any change of MRI parameters (Liu 2-Paragraph [0014]) based on the implant identification is considered an edit in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Liu 2’s system “matches” the implant to an implant database based on implant shape (Abstract; Paragraph [0041]) which is considered to read on the claimed limitation of linking the implant identifier with corresponding implant parameter information in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Moreover, as described above, Liu 2’s system displays the MRI parameters on the user interface for user adjustment (if necessary) (Paragraphs [0021]-[0022]). Furthermore, Yang explains where a card reader or barcode reader can obtain implant information which is considered to be an implant identifier in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 20, Liu ’s system may automatically identify the implant based on a registration technique (Paragraph [0061]) or the system may accept user input (Paragraph [0028] and [0061]). Moreover, Liu 2’s pre-screen system identifies the implant location (Paragraphs [0014], [0030]) and displays the implant on an image with respect to the patient’s model (Paragraphs [0040] and [0042]; Figs. 3 and 5 and corresponding descriptions) along with a safety prompt (Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions). Liu makes it clear that the image of the body model may be 2D images used to create a 3D body model (Paragraph [0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NPL “Guideline Use of MRI in Patients with Implants” Dutch Guideline which discloses examples MRI parameter ranges for MRI safe and MRI conditional implants (Pages 19-20) and “conservative” MRI approaches (Page 6).
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
Prosecution Insights