DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second homogeneity areas with different limit values must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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:
Claim 12:
A quality unit configured to retrieve
A homogeneity unit configured to specify
A position unit configured to determine
An output unit configured to output
Claim 13:
A geometry unit configured to receive
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.
Claim 12:
A quality unit configured to retrieve has been interpreted to be a processor as set forth on Page 21 of the specification.
A homogeneity unit configured to specify has been interpreted to be a processor as set forth on Page 21 of the specification.
A position unit configured to determine has been interpreted to be a processor as set forth on Page 21 of the specification.
An output unit configured to output is considered to be a display as described in paragraph [0098] of the PG-Publication.
Claim 13:
A geometry unit configured to receive has been interpreted to be a processor as set forth on Page 21 of the specification.
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 § 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) 1-5, 7-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0266760 to Beckmannn et al. “Beckmannn”.
As for Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 17-19 , Beckmann discloses a system and method for planning a medical imaging examination (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging, MRI) (Abstract; Paragraph [0052]) including steps to determine geometric information about an examination area where a camera acquires a graphical representation of the examination subject to create a planning environment and enable at least one imaging parameter to be specified directly on the graphical representation of the subject (Paragraph [0014]). Beckmann further discloses where the at least one imaging parameter can include, for example, a positioning and/or geometry and/or a size of a field of view for the medical imaging examination (Paragraphs [0017], [0021] and [0031]). Beckmann discloses determining quality information including information corresponding to a homogeneity of a main magnetic field where an imaging parameter may be a position of the patient relative to an isocenter of the scanner (Paragraph [0028]). Beckmann explains ideal conditions are found in the isocenter so the patient’s region for examination should be arranged in the isocenter region (e.g. homogeneity region) (Paragraph [0028]). Beckmann’s system and method allows the user to specify a number of homogeneity areas (e.g. imaging examination regions) based on whether values of the quality information lie in a specified range where a valid parameter range for the position of the examination subject in relation to the isocenter region (Paragraph [0029]). Beckmann also explains the specified imaging parameters have an upper and lower limit (Paragraphs [0025]-[0027]). Examiner notes the aforementioned steps to set the examination region with a valid range in the isocenter region reads on the claimed step to determine position data based on location and shape of the number of homogeneity areas and of the examination area in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, such data displayed on the user interface would be output from a data file in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Beckmann makes it clear the system and method can include computer readable data storage medium for implementing the method (Paragraphs [0002] and [0043]).
Regarding Claim 2, Beckmann discloses wherein the examination area selection may include a position of a local coil (e.g. knee or head coil) (Paragraph [0030]) and using a touchscreen to indicate desired positioning (Paragraphs [0007], [0012] and [0058]).
As for Claims 3 and 13, Beckmann discloses wherein a camera may acquire 2D or 3D images of the subject for examination (Paragraph [0034]) and used to set the aforementioned examination areas with respect to homogeneity areas.
With respect to Claim 4, Examiner notes that the aforementioned selections on 3D data would provide a 3D homogeneity area in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, the limits on the size of the examination area and the feedback to selectively change the exanimation region relative to the isocenter region would provide a comparison for a number of homogeneity areas in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claims 5 and 15, while Beckmann’s exemplary embodiments depict one homogeneity area, Beckmann makes it clear that the user sets “at least one” imaging parameter (Paragraph [0028]). Thus, Beckmann’s system and method is configured to set multiple homogeneity areas, each area with limits as previously explained above. Alternatively, Beckmann’s feedback to adjust the size of the examination area with respect to limits (Paragraph [0032]) would read on specifying first and second homogeneity areas and determining whether the areas exceed thresholds in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claim 7, Beckmann discloses where the user is requested to change the imaging parameter when it exceeds an allowable range (Paragraphs [0025]-[0027]) to quickly address errors (Paragraphs [0021], [0029] and [0032]). Such a request is considered to be a warning as claimed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Beckmann discloses where if the desired field of view exceeds the maximum size the system may change the imaging mode to a multi-stage measurement (Paragraph [0032]) which is considered to read on an adjusted protocol with a sub-divided examination areas in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckmann in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0041409 to Beck et al. “Beck” or U.S. Publication No. 2022/0015710 to Lewis et al. “Lewis” or U.S. Publication No. 2019/0274582 to Zeller.
As for Claim 6, Beckmann discloses an MRI system and method as described above allowing a user to specify an examination region with various colors (Paragraph [0029]) However, the desired examination region is not projected on the patient as claimed.
Beck teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to planning an MRI exam (Abstract) where a camera is configured to acquire position data of a patent table and/or the object (e.g. patient) positioned on the table (Paragraphs [0015] and [0017]) and wherein the camera includes integrated optics to project a marking onto the patient in addition to a superimposed marking (Paragraph [0034]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the camera described by Beckmann to include integrated optics to project a marking onto the patient as described by Beck in order provide a visual cue to an operator to enable simple and rapid positioning (Beck-Paragraph [0022]). Such a modification merely involves combing prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Alternatively, Lewis teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to properly positioning a patient for imaging (Abstract) where a camera can project a position indicator onto the table so the patient can get into proper position (Paragraphs [0006], [0024], [0044] and [0049]).
Alternatively, Zeller teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI set up (Abstract) where optics are configured to project a target position onto a patient for an imaging accessory (Paragraph [0076]; Fig. 3). Examiner notes the target position is for a local coil and would relate to an examination region in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the camera described by Beckmann to include integrated optics to project a marking onto the patient as described by Lewis or Zeller in order provide a visual cue to properly set up an imaging parameter. Such a modification merely involves combing prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckmann in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0121066 to Rheineck et al. “Rheineck”.
As for Claim 9, Beckmann discloses an MRI system and method as described above allowing a user to specify an examination region. However, Beckmann does not expressly disclose interventional MRI. Rheineck teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to preparing a patient for an MRI wherein the MRI procedure may include an intervention (Paragraphs [0005], [0011] and [0013]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have implemented Beckmann’s set up technique on other types of MRI procedures including interventional MRI as described by Rheineck in order to correctly position the patient for optimal imaging. Such a modification merely involves combing prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckmann in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0082361 to Jattke et al. “Jattke” or alternatively, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0317168 to Popescu.
As for Claim 20, Beckmann discloses an MRI system and method as described above allowing a user to specify an examination region. However, while Beckmann discloses a multi-stage measurement, it is not clear if each FOV stage has different limits for quality as now claimed.
Jattke teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to controlling imaging examination settings where fields of view (e.g. first and second FOV) are determined with respect to a first and second isocenter (Abstract). Jattke teaches wherein the table position for the FOV are determined to maximize image quality (Paragraphs [0015], [0033] and [0039]). Examiner notes the FOV with respect to the isocenter would have different quality limits in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Beckmann’s multi-stage measurement with different quality limits for each FOV as described by Jattke in order to customize patient scanning parameters. Such a modification merely involves combing prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Alternatively, Popescu teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI imaging examinations (Abstract) where data from first and second homogeneity volumes are acquired and combined to form combination image data to extend an imaging region (Abstract). Examiner notes the second homogeneity area would have a different quality limit than the first homogeneity area in its broadest reasonable interpretation given its distance from the isocenter.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Beckmann’s multi-stage measurement with different quality limits for each FOV as described by Popescu in order to extend the imaging coverage region. Such a modification merely involves combing prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections in the 02/26/2026 office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. New prior art rejections necessitated by amendments. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations updated based upon Applicant’s arguments that the units disclosed are a processor (REMARKS, Page 8). 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) rejections relating to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments that claim limitations (e.g. quality unit, ) do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because one skilled in the art would understand they have definite structure is not persuasive. Quality, homogeneity, position, output, geometry, etc. do not convey any particular structure. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations are maintained.
Returning to the prior art arguments, Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites, among other things, ‘determining quality information including information corresponding to a homogeneity of a main magnetic field and/or gradient fields in the examination area”…The claimed invention recites determining quality information which is fundamentally different from simply knowing field homogeneity characteristics of the iso center” (REMARKS, Page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the step of determining quality information is broad. Beckmannn explains “the best conditions” for imaging are when the patient’s examination zone coincides with the isocenter (Paragraph [0028]). Thus, “best quality” FOV’s coincide with the isocenter while “lower quality” FOVs would be displaced from the isocenter in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant also argues “Claim 1 further recites ‘specifying a number of homogeneity areas in the examination area based on a determination of whether the values of the quality information lie in a specified value range’…Beckmann’s ‘valid parameter range’ merely checks whether the user-specified parameters fall within acceptable ranges. This is fundamentally different from specifying distinct spatial regions (homogeneity areas) within the examination area based on threshold values” (REMARKS, Page 11). Examiner respectfully notes Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim fails to disclose a step of specifying distinct spatial regions within the examination area based on a threshold values of quality information. In addition, Examiner notes the FOV described by Beckmannn is considered to include areas of homogeneity in the examination area in its broadest reasonable interpretation and the modification to adjust the FOV to align with the isocenter specifies a number of homogeneity areas in the examination region based on quality values (e.g. best quality, lower quality) in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant also argues “Since Beckmann does not disclose specifying distinct homogeneity areas as discussed above, Beckmann also does not disclose determining position data based on the location and shape of such homogeneity areas in relation to the examination area” (REMARKS, Page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the claims fail to disclose “distinct areas”. Beckmannn’s size and shape of the FOV and its position is based upon the determined quality information and number of homogeneity area near the isocenter which is within a specified value range in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
Examiner notes new Claim 20 is not commensurate with Applicant’s remarks that Claim 20 finds support at page 7 which describes an output of control data that can be used to move the patient couch automatically to another position.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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