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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to parent Application No. JP2023-195258, filed on 16 November 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 “horizontal-direction end part of the support member,” “part of a vertical-direction lower surface of the support member,” and “gap” 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MRI IMAGING SYSTEM WITH EXAMINATION TABLE APPARATUS HAVING INDEPENDENTLY SLIDABLE COIL CONNECTORS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10 & 15 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.
In particular, Claim 10 recites “wherein, in a case in which the subject in a state in which the coil is attached is placed on the top plate”; however, it is unclear what the coil is attached to how the coil is attached before being placed on the top plate considering that the connectors are moved into the overlapping range in response to said attachment.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “, in a case in which the subject in a state in which the coil is attached to themselves.” It should be noted that such an interpretation has not been evaluated for compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
With regards to Claim 15, the claim recites “wherein coils for imaging different parts of the subject are connected to one connector and the other connector among the plurality of connectors”; however, it unclear what is connected to the “one connector” and what is connected to the “other connector.” More specifically, as the claim reads all of the plurality of coils is connected to said “one connector,” but it is unclear if any coil is connect to the “other connector.”
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein each of a plurality of coils are connected to a unique connector among the plurality of connectors, each coil for imaging different parts of the subject.” It should be noted that such an interpretation has not been evaluated for compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 12-17 of copending Application No. 18/946,838 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to Claim 2,
18/946,835
Claim 2
18/946,8358
Claim 12
wherein a plurality of openings or a plurality of grooves are formed on both sides of the top plate in the lateral direction, in a part of the top plate in the longitudinal direction
wherein the top plate has an opening or a groove that is formed in the longitudinal direction of the top plate, and
the plurality of connectors are slidable in the plurality of openings or the plurality of grooves
the connector is slidable in the opening or the groove.
With regards to Claim 3,
18/946,835
Claim 3
18/946,8358
Claim 13
a plurality of support members that support the plurality of connectors
a support member that supports the connector; and
a plurality of holding members that hold the plurality of support members, that are disposed on both sides of the top plate in the lateral direction and projected in the longitudinal direction, and that are fixed to the top plate
a holding member that holds the support member, that is disposed in a lateral direction of the top plate and projected in the longitudinal direction, and that is fixed to the top plate,
With regards to Claim 6,
18/946,835
Claim 6
18/946,8358
Claim 14
wherein a gap between the plurality of connectors and the plurality of openings or the plurality of grooves is shielded by at least one of the support member or the holding member
wherein a gap between the connector and the opening or the groove is shielded by at least one of the support member or the holding member.
With regards to Claim 8,
18/946,835
Claim 8
18/946,8358
Claim 1
acquire an imaging condition of a medical image for the subject as the information on the subject
acquire an imaging condition of the subject
With regards to Claim 9,
18/946,835
Claim 9
18/946,8358
Claim 2
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a sliding target connector among the plurality of connectors and a sliding position of the sliding target connector; and
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a connector that is caused to perform the first sliding among the connectors and a first sliding position that is a target position of the first sliding, based on the imaging condition; and
slide the sliding target connector to the sliding position
slide the determined connector to the determined first sliding position.
With regards to Claim 10,
18/946,835
Claim 10
18/946,8358
Claim 15
wherein, in a case in which the subject in a state in which the coil is attached is placed on the top plate, the plurality of connectors are movable to a position overlapping a range in which the coil is present in the longitudinal direction of the top plate
in a case in which the subject in a state in which the coil is attached is placed on the top plate, slide the connector to a position overlapping a range in which the coil is present in the longitudinal direction of the top plate.
With regards to Claim 13,
18/946,835
Claim 13
18/946,8358
Claim 16
wherein the medical imaging apparatus is a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus
wherein the medical imaging apparatus is a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus.
With regards to Claim 14,
18/946,835
Claim 14
18/946,8358
Claim 17
the examination table apparatus according to claim 1; and
the examination table apparatus according to claim 1; and
the medical imaging apparatus.
the medical imaging apparatus.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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) 1-2, 7-14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leussler et al. (US PGPUB 20210030306; hereinafter "Leussler") .
With regards to Claim 1, an examination table apparatus used in a medical imaging apparatus (subject support for use in MRI system 102), the examination table apparatus comprising:
a top plate on which a subject is placed (subject support 120; see Leussler FIG. 14); and
a plurality of connectors that are provided on the top plate and that connect a coil for capturing an image of the subject (plurality of sliding connectors 126 provided on rail systems disposed in lateral sides of subject support 120; see Leussler FIG. 14 and ¶ [0114]),
wherein the plurality of connectors are provided on both sides of the top plate in a lateral direction, with one or more connectors on each side (FIG. 14 of Leussler clearly illustrates two rails), and
are slidable with respect to the top plate in a part of the top plate in a longitudinal direction (sliding connector 124 slides in a longitudinal direction 126; see Leussler FIG. 14 & Abstract).
With regards to Claim 21, wherein a plurality of openings or a plurality of grooves are formed on both sides of the top plate in the lateral direction, in a part of the top plate in the longitudinal direction (FIGS. 4-6 & 9-12 clearly illustrate that the rail system is integrated {i.e. flush} into patient support 120, it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a flush mounted rail system disposed within patient support 120 as illustrated in FIGS. 7-8 would require channel or groove for the rail system to reside within), and
the plurality of connectors are slidable in the plurality of openings or the plurality of grooves (actuator 122 for remotely controlling the slidable connector 124; see Leussler ¶ [0075]).
With regards to Claim 71, further comprising:
a processor (processor 144 for controlling actuator 122; see Leussler ¶ [0078]); and
a sliding mechanism that moves the plurality of connectors in the longitudinal direction (actuator 122 for translating the connector 124; see Leussler ¶ [0075]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information on the subject (camera system 400; see Leussler FIGS. 4-5; it should be appreciated that Leussler incorrectly labels elements insomuch that imaging system of FIG. 4 is also numbered 400); and
slide the plurality of connectors by controlling the sliding mechanism based on the acquired information (processor 144 for controlling actuator 122 according to a subject imaged via camera image in order to place the connector for correct positioning of the antenna/coil; see Leussler ¶ [0013]).
With regards to Claim 87, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire an imaging condition of a medical image for the subject as the information on the subject (processor 144 for controlling actuator 122 according to a subject imaged via camera image in order to place the connector for correct positioning of the antenna/coil; see Leussler ¶ [0013]).
With regards to Claim 97, Leussler discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a sliding target connector among the plurality of connectors and a sliding position of the sliding target connector (automatically receiving connector position 154; see Leussler ¶ [0083 & 0113]), based on the acquired information (processor 144 for controlling actuator 122 according to a subject imaged via camera image in order to place the connector for correct positioning of the antenna/coil; see Leussler ¶ [0013]), and
slide the sliding target connector to the sliding position (processor 144 for controlling actuator 122 according to a subject imaged via camera image in order to place the connector for correct positioning of the antenna/coil; see Leussler ¶ [0013]),
With regards to Claim 101, wherein, in a case in which the subject in a state in which the coil is attached is placed on the top plate, the plurality of connectors are movable to a position overlapping a range in which the coil is present in the longitudinal direction of the top plate (FIG. 14 of Leussler clearly illustrates that the connectors are moveable within an overlapping range of the coil; it should be appreciated that the claimed subject state is a conditional limitation to which the Leussler system be capable of achieving).
With regards to Claim 111, wherein the plurality of connectors are slidable independently of each other (FIG. 14 of Leussler clearly illustrates that the connectors are in varying positions indicating independent control).
With regards to Claim 121, wherein one connector among the plurality of connectors and the other connector among the plurality of connectors are slidable in conjunction with each other (processor control via the user interface 146 renders the user capable to set both connectors to the same position simultaneously; see Leussler ¶ [0113]).
With regards to Claim 131, wherein the medical imaging apparatus is a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (MRI system 102).
With regards to Claim 141, a medical imaging system comprising:
the examination table apparatus according to claim 1 (see Claim 1 citations); and
the medical imaging apparatus (MRI system 102).
With regards to Claim 1614, wherein a coil for imaging a specific part of the subject is connectable to one connector provided on one side of the top plate in the lateral direction of the top plate among the plurality of connectors (FIG. 14 of Leussler clearly illustrates a chest coil 114 connected at least one connector 124), and
the other connector provided on the other side of the top plate in the lateral direction of the top plate among the plurality of connectors (FIG. 14 of Leussler clearly illustrates other connectors).
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.
Claim 3-6 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leussler.
With regards to Claim 32, while Leussler discloses a rail system (see Leussler ¶ [0113]); it appears that Leussler may be silent to support members and holding members. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the illustrated rail system as disclosed by Leussler is typically identified as a linear rail system which comprises a rail {i.e. holding member} and a carriage {i.e. support member} as illustrated1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
660
1207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Leussler teaches of further comprising:
a plurality of support members that support the plurality of connectors (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a linear rail system as disclosed by Leussler typically comprises a carriage {i.e. support member} which supports the payload {i.e. connector 124}); and
a plurality of holding members that hold the plurality of support members, that are disposed on both sides of the top plate in the lateral direction and projected in the longitudinal direction, and that are fixed to the top plate (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a linear rail system as disclosed by Leussler typically comprise a rail {i.e. holding member} which supports the carriage {i.e. support member}, wherein the rail is secured to the device {i.e. subject support 120}),
wherein the plurality of support members are slid with respect to the plurality of holding members to slide the plurality of connectors with respect to the top plate (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a carriage of a linear rail system slides with respect to the corresponding rail).
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 Leussler to provide at least carriage and rail commensurate with a linear rail system. Doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, i.e. linear rails and their construction are notoriously well known in the art to have a stationary rail which supports a linearly translating carriage for translation of a payload.
With regards to Claim 43, modified Leussler teaches of wherein the holding member holds a horizontal-direction end part of the support member (the Leussler linear rail system comprises a carriage which is secured to a rail system along a horizontal edge to permit translation in the same direction, said rail, as illustrated above, has a longitudinal projections upon which the carriage’s mating protrusions {i.e. horizontal-direction end part} translates along).
With regards to Claim 53, wherein the holding member holds at least a part of a vertical-direction lower surface of the support member (Leussler’s linear rail system, as illustrated above, includes rails having previously mentioned protrusions; said protrusions are well-known to limit vertical movement while permitting horizontal translation).
With regards to Claim 63, wherein a gap between the plurality of connectors and the plurality of openings or the plurality of grooves is shielded by at least one of the support member or the holding member (as illustrated in FIG. 14, the two rails are disposed in either side of the patient support 120, therefore the connectors 124 are isolated from one another as the patient resting area is therebetween).
With regards to Claim 1514, while Leussler teaches of “connecting a head coil or other coil dedicated to a particular anatomical region” and chest coils as illustrated in FIG. 14 (see Leussler ¶ [0035]), that of improving safety by avoiding long cables with improved cable management (see Leussler ¶ [0005, 0106, 108, 0112]), and reducing the chance that a magnetic resonance imaging antenna is used incorrectly (see Leussler ¶ [0005]), it appears that Leussler may be silent to wherein coils for imaging different parts of the subject are connected to one connector and the other connector among the plurality of connectors. However, 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 Leussler to provide at least one connector 124 for a head coil {i.e. one connector} and at least one connector for a body coil 124 {i.e. other connector} as illustrated in FIG. 14 for imaging different parts of the subject. Doing so would aid in improving safety by avoiding long cables with improved cable management (see Leussler ¶ [0005, 0106, 108, 0112]) and reducing the chance that a magnetic resonance imaging antenna is used incorrectly (see Leussler ¶ [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Spring et al. (US PGPUB 20230301597) – FIG. 4D illustrating multiple sliding coil connectors.
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 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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
1 https://web.archive.org/web/20231005162654/https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/linear-slides/linear-rails.html (published 5 October 2023).