Detailed Action
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1-9 of U.S. Application 18/938,252 filed on November 05, 2024 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaki et al (USPGPub 20170257496) in view of Amthor et al (US Pat No 11574728).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Nagasaki
Regarding claim 1, Nagasaki discloses an operation terminal (shown in figs 1- 14B) for an apparatus, the operation terminal comprising: a processor (506); and a non-transitory tangible recording medium (503a), wherein identification information of a user of the operation terminal (pars 26-28 discloses user storing information and instruction), information indicating a type of job of the user divided into a plurality of levels, and information indicating an operation executable by the user belonging to each type of job are recorded in the recording medium in association with one another (shown in fig 12A as identifying different jobs), and the processor is configured to: determine the type of job of the user with reference to the recording medium (par 56 discloses types of job and pars 99-101 discloses job execution); receive an operation executable by the user of the determined type of job (par 27 discloses execution of the job); and instruct the apparatus to execute the received operation (par 77 discloses operation to execute the job). Nagasaki does not fully disclose a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus.
However, Amthor discloses a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (abstract discloses using a processor to control parameters of imaging protocols for and col 3 lines 37-50 discloses MRI system with machine learning databases).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagasaki in view of Amthor in order to control the functionality of the MRI devices based on needs to examine the patient.
Regarding claim 7, Nagasaki discloses a method for operating an operation terminal (shown in figs 1- 14B) for an apparatus, the operation terminal including a processor (506) and a non-transitory tangible recording medium (503a), identification information of a user of the operation terminal (pars 26-28 discloses user storing information and instruction), information indicating a type of job of the user divided into a plurality of levels, and information indicating an operation executable by the user belonging to each type of job being recorded in the recording medium in association with one another (shown in fig 12A as identifying different jobs), the method comprising: causing the processor to: determine the type of job of the user with reference to the recording medium (par 56 discloses types of job and pars 99-101 discloses job execution); receive an operation executable by the user of the determined type of job (par 27 discloses execution of the job); and instruct the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus to execute the received operation (par 77 discloses operation to execute the job). Nagasaki does not fully disclose a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus.
However, Amthor discloses a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (abstract discloses using a processor to control parameters of imaging protocols for and col 3 lines 37-50 discloses MRI system with machine learning databases).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagasaki in view of Amthor in order to control the functionality of the MRI devices based on needs to examine the patient.
Regarding claim 8, Nagasaki discloses: the operation terminal according to claim 1 (shown in figs 1-5). Nagasaki does not fully disclose a magnetic resonance imaging system comprising and the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus.
However, Amthor discloses a magnetic resonance imaging system comprising and the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus. (abstract discloses using a processor to control parameters of imaging protocols for and col 3 lines 37-50 discloses MRI system with machine learning databases).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagasaki in view of Amthor in order to control the functionality of the MRI devices based on needs to examine the patient.
Regarding claim 9, Nagasaki
does not fully disclose wherein the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus includes a superconducting magnet for generating a static magnetic field.
However, Amthor discloses wherein the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus includes a superconducting magnet for generating a static magnetic field (col 11 lines 46-68 discloses a superconducting magnet which is known to create a magnetic field). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagasaki in view of Amthor known in the art to use as a way to create an image of the patient.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasaki et al (USPGPub 20170257496) in view of Amthor et al (US Pat No 11574728) in further view of Shimizu et al (USPGPub 20060149403).
Regarding claim 5, Nagasaki in view of Amthor does not fully disclose wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the user tries to execute a specific operation that the user does not have an authority to execute, execute at least one of an operation of outputting, to a first terminal apparatus used by the user, information prompting an upper-level user, who belongs to a level higher than a level of the user and has the authority to execute the specific operation, to execute the specific operation or an operation of outputting, to a second terminal apparatus used by the upper-level user, information prompting the upper-level user to execute the specific operation.
However, Shimizu discloses wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the user tries to execute a specific operation that the user does not have an authority to execute, execute at least one of an operation of outputting, to a first terminal apparatus used by the user, information prompting an upper-level user, who belongs to a level higher than a level of the user and has the authority to execute the specific operation (par 176 discloses restriction based on the job level and may require another user for authentication. Therefore, would need another level of authentication based on the processor algorithm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagasaki in view of Amthor in further view of Shimizu in order for the correct personal to properly control the MRI device.
Regarding claim 6, Nagasaki discloses wherein the processor is configured to: receive the specific operation performed on the first terminal apparatus by the upper-level user and the specific operation performed on the second terminal apparatus by the upper-level user; and instruct the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus to execute the received specific operation (par 27 discloses transmit user instruction for a job and par 77-80 discloses execution of a job. Therefore, instructing to execute the specific operation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest an operation terminal for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, the operation terminal comprising: wherein specific operation information indicating that a user belonging to a first level has an authority to execute a safety check operation of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and an authority to execute an operation of starting excitation of a magnet provided in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, a user belonging to a second level lower than the first level does not have the authority to execute the excitation start operation and has the authority to execute the safety check operation, and a user belonging to a third level lower than the second level does not have the authority to execute the safety check operation and the authority to execute the excitation start operation is recorded in the recording medium in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 3 and 4 are also objected to as they depend on claim 2.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US Pat No. 12131824): discloses medical device with terminal mode.
Maeda et al (USPGPub 20220092533): discloses upper-level apparatus process with user authentication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights