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:
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 no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
A homogeneity unit configured to specify has no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.
A position unit configured to determine has no corresponding structure disclosed in 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 no corresponding structure disclosed in 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 12 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, fails to support limitations (e.g. quality unit, homogeneity unit, position unit, geometry unit) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 and 12-17 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 2 is rejected because “the patient couch” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 3 is rejected because “the spatial location” and “the volume” lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 12 is rejected because it is unclear what structures correspond to the claim limitations (e.g. quality unit, homogeneity unit, position unit, geometry unit) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above.
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 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0266760 to Beckman et al. “Beckman”.
As for Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18 , Beckman 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]). Beckman 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]). Beckman 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]). Beckman 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]). Beckman’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]). Beckman 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. Beckman 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, Beckman 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, Beckman discloses wherein a camera may acquired 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 Beckman’s exemplary embodiments depict one homogeneity area, Beckman makes it clear that the user sets “at least one” imaging parameter (Paragraph [0028]). Thus, Beckman’s system and method is configured to set multiple homogeneity areas, each area with limits as previously explained above. Alternatively, Beckman’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, Beckman 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, Beckman 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 Beckman 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, Beckman 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 Beckman 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 Beckman 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 Beckman in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0121066 to Rheineck et al. “Rheineck”.
As for Claim 9, Beckman discloses an MRI system and method as described above allowing a user to specify an examination region. However, Beckman 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 Beckman’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).
Conclusion
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