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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 18 December 2025.
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of the amendment thereto filed on 18 December 2025.
Claims 8-10 are cancelled, Claims 20-21 are new, with Claims 1-7, 11-21 remain pending.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 12, 16-18, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US PGPUB 20200241091) in further view of Biber et al. (US PGPUB 20130241547; hereinafter "Biber1").
With regards to Claim 1, Ji discloses patient support apparatus (couch 118; see Ji FIG. 1 & ¶ [0051]) comprising:
a patient table for a magnetic resonance apparatus (table 240; see Ji FIG. 2 & ¶ [0051]),
wherein the patient table has a table surface for positioning a patient (FIG. 2 of Ji clearly illustrates a patient support by the table 240),
wherein the patient table has at least one table-side contact field for contacting at least one local coil (data transmitting module 220 includes a second portion 220-2 disposed within the surface of the patient table, the couch side module 220-2 is a contactless receiver configured to receive data from first portion 220-1 data transmitting module of local coil 210; see Ji ¶ [0064] & FIG. 3), and
wherein the at least one table-side contact field is integrated in a flush manner into the table surface of the patient table (FIG. 3 of Ji clearly illustrates the couch side module 220-2 flush with the surface of table 240),
While Ji discloses various type of body coils for use with the MR system (see Ji ¶ [0050 & 0081]), it appears that Ji may be silent to the struck-through limitations directly above. However, Biber teaches of a receive coil arrangement for MR imaging (see Biber1 Abstract). In particular, Biber teaches of:
wherein the patient table further comprises at least one detector configured to detect a local coil disposed on the table surface (control device for identifying the coil in response to a wireless query signal; see Biber1 ¶ [0025]),
wherein the patient support apparatus is configured to switch a table-side contact field of the at least one table-side contact field from an inactive state into an active state upon detection of the local coil disposed on the table surface by the at least one detector (a control device for wirelessly transmitting a coil specific identification signal in response to a query signals, in response to said identification, dynamically controlling transmission channels associated with the coil to selective activate/deactivate the receive coil; see Biber1 ¶ [0025]),
wherein, in the inactive state, the at least one table-side contact field is disconnected from a power supply (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selectively activating/deactivating the receive coil entails selective connection/disconnection from the corresponding signal amplifier; see Biber1 ¶ [0043]), and
wherein, in the active state, the at least one table-side contact field is connected to the power supply (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selectively activating/deactivating the receive coil entails selective connection/disconnection from the corresponding signal amplifier; see Biber1 ¶ [0043]).
Biber also teaches of receive-coil-specific digital address (see Biber1 ¶ [0025]).
Ji and Biber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI local coils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ji to incorporate the above teachings of Biber to provide at least the struck-through limitations above. Doing so would aid in determining whether and which receive coils are available (see Biber1 ¶ [0025]).
Claim 19 recites similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 31, modified Ji teaches of wherein the at least one table-side contact field comprises at least one galvanic contact and/or at least one optical interface (wirelessly transmitting signals between the coil side module 220-1 and the couch side module 220-1 via an optical field, an electrical field, or a magnetic field therebetween; see Ji ¶ [0064]; Ji also discloses a metallic guide pillar for electrically connecting the RF coil; see Ji ¶ [0082]).
With regards to Claim 41, modified Ji teaches of wherein the at least one table-side contact field comprises a circuit board (FIGS. 4A-4B of Ji illustrate an electric circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand said circuit in disposed on a board as part of a printed circuit board).
With regards to Claim 54, modified Ji teaches of wherein the circuit board is a printed circuit board (FIGS. 4A-4B of Ji illustrate an electric circuit, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand said circuit in disposed on a board as part of a printed circuit board).
With regards to Claim 61, modified Ji teaches of wherein the at least one table-side contact field is freely accessible (FIG. 3 of Ji clearly illustrates that the couch-side module is freely accessible, otherwise the optical connection would be rendered inoperable).
With regards to Claim 71, modified Ji teaches of wherein the patient table further comprises at least one guide element for guiding or positioning the at least one local coil (FIGS. 5A-5E of Ji illustrated various structural elements 510-1 – 510-10 for securing/guiding the RF coil onto the table 240; see Ji ¶ [0082]).
With regards to Claim 121, modified Ji teaches of wherein the at least one detector comprises at least one optical detector (wirelessly transmitting signals between the coil side module 220-1 and the couch side module 220-1 via an optical field, an electrical field, or a magnetic field therebetween; see Ji ¶ [0064]; Ji also discloses a metallic guide pillar for electrically connecting the RF coil; see Ji ¶ [0082]).
With regards to Claim 16, modified Ji teaches of a system (MRI system 100; see Ji ¶ [0045]) comprising:
at least one local coil (FIGS. 5A-5E illustrate a local spine coil 210 & guide structures to align the coil 210 into patient table 240; see Ji ¶ [0082]); and
a patient support apparatus comprising a patient table for a magnetic resonance apparatus, wherein the patient table has a table surface for positioning a patient (FIGS. 5A-5E illustrate a local spine coil 210 & guide structures to align the coil 210 into patient table 240; see Ji ¶ [0082]),
wherein the patient table has at least one table-side contact field for contacting the at least one local coil (the guide pillar may be a metallic guide pillar for electrically connected to the couch to provide power thereto; see Ji ¶ [0082]),
wherein the at least one table-side contact field is integrated in a flush manner into the table surface of the patient table (the guide pillar may be a metallic guide pillar for electrically connected to the couch to provide power thereto; see Ji ¶ [0082]; reception end of the guide pillar is clearly integrated in a flush manner into patient table 240 as illustrated in FIG. 5A),
wherein the at least one local coil comprises at least one coil-side contact field corresponding to a respective table-side contact field of the at least one table-side contact field (the guide pillar may be a metallic guide pillar for electrically connected to the couch to provide power thereto; see Ji ¶ [0082]; the metallic connection is made between the table 240 and the coil 210 to supply power therebetween. The electrical connection indicates a corresponding respective mating therebetween),
wherein the patient table further comprises at least one detector configured to detect a local coil disposed on the table surface (control device for identifying the coil in response to a wireless query signal; see Biber1 ¶ [0025]),
wherein the patient support apparatus is configured to switch a table-side contact field of the at least one table-side contact field from an inactive state into an active state upon detection of the local coil disposed on the table surface by the at least one detector (a control device for wirelessly transmitting a coil specific identification signal in response to a query signals, in response to said identification, dynamically controlling transmission channels associated with the coil to selective activate/deactivate the receive coil; see Biber1 ¶ [0025]),
wherein, in the inactive state, the at least one table-side contact field is disconnected from a power supply (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selectively activating/deactivating the receive coil entails selective connection/disconnection from the corresponding signal amplifier; see Biber1 ¶ [0043]), and
wherein, in the active state, the at least one table-side contact field is connected to the power supply (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selectively activating/deactivating the receive coil entails selective connection/disconnection from the corresponding signal amplifier; see Biber1 ¶ [0043]).
With regards to Claim 1716, modified Ji teaches of wherein the at least one local coil comprises a head coil, a spine coil, or a combination thereof (Ji discloses that the coil is a spine coil; see ¶ [0082]).
With regards to Claim 1816, modified Ji teaches of wherein the at least one coil-side contact field and/or the at least one table-side contact field comprise at least one spring contact and/or at least one sliding contact (FIG. 5A of Ji illustrates a sliding contact).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Biber, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Kundner et al. (US PGPUB 20180088192; hereinafter "Kundner").
With regards to Claim 21, while modified Ji discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that modified Ji may be silent to wherein the at least one table-side contact field is integrated in a watertight manner into the table surface.
However, Kundner teaches of a liquid-proof MR-compatible plug having first and second connecting parts (see Kundner ¶ [0011-0012]). It should be appreciated that Kundner also incorporates by reference parent European Patent Application No. EP 16190403.2 which teaches of a patient table including the seconding connecting part of the liquid proof MR-compatible plug (see Kundner ¶ [0001]).
Modified Ji and Kundner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MR local coil connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ji to incorporate the above teachings of Kundner to provide at least a watertight table-side contact field. Doing so would aid in cleaning the plug connector (see Kundner ¶ [0011]) and also prevent corrosion from liquid ingress (see Kundner ¶ [0008]).
Claims 11, 13-15, & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Biber1, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Biber et al. (US PGPUB 20140055127; hereinafter "Biber2").
With regards to Claim 111, while modified Ji teaches of wireless transmitting the identification signals (see Biber1 ¶ [0025]), it appears that modified Ji may be silent to wherein the at least one detector comprises at least one capacitive detector. However, Biber2 teaches of a system and method of identifying a local coil (see Biber2 Abstract & FIG. 2). In particular, Biber2 teaches of a reading antenna 2b for wirelessly reading out the identification number 21 from labels 2a {e.g. RFID} of a local coil 106 mounted to a patient couch of a patient table 104 (see Biber ¶ [0021]); wherein the ID number includes information such as coil type, serial number, coil features, and label position; see Biber ¶ [0020]; wherein the wherein the reading antenna 2b and/or reading unit 2c is disposed within the stationary part of the patient couch 104 {i.e. underneath the table surface} (see Biber ¶ [0030]). It should be appreciated that it is well known in the art that RFID labels rely on an LC circuit to tune the resonant frequency of the antenna, i.e. capacitive and inductive detector.
Modified Ji and Biber2 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI local coils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ji to incorporate the above teachings of Biber2 to provide at least one capacitive detector. Doing so would aid in comparing local coil position to prescribed coil positions (see Biber ¶ [0020]).
Claims 20-21 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 11.
With regards to Claim 131, modified Ji teaches of wherein the at least one detector is configured to identify properties of coil elements of the local coil when the local coil is disposed on the table surface (wherein the ID number includes information such as coil type, serial number, coil features {i.e. properties of the coil elements}, and label position; see Biber ¶ [0020]).
With regards to Claim 1413, wherein the properties comprise resonance properties of the coil elements of the local coil (wherein the ID number includes information such as coil type {i.e. resonances property of the coil}, serial number, coil features, and label position; see Biber ¶ [0020]).
With regards to Claim 151, wherein the at least one detector is arranged underneath the table surface (wherein the wherein the reading antenna 2b and/or reading unit 2c is disposed within the stationary part of the patient couch 104 {i.e. underneath the table surface}; see Biber ¶ [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, Applicant contends that newly amended claims distinguish over the cited combination of Ji, Biber, and Possanzini. More specifically, Applicant argues that neither Ji, Biber, or Possanzini, alone or in combination, teach of “a patient support apparatus configured to switch a table-side contact field of the at least one table-side contact field from an inactive state into an active state upon detection of the local coil disposed on the table surface by the at least one detector.” The Office agrees. However, the Office has introduced another Biber reference as cited above. In particular, newly cited Biber1 teaches of, in response to identification of a receive coil, for selectively activating/deactivating the receive coil based on the said identification (see Biber1 ¶ [0025]). It should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize activation/deactivation of a receive coil would entail connecting/disconnecting to a corresponding power supply {i.e. amplifier as taught by Biber1 in ¶ [0043]}.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm (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, Keith M. Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights