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 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, 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(s) 22, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rearick et al. (US 2016/0169993 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rearick, in view of Saha (US 2008/0315879 A1). With reference to claim 22, Rearick teaches an electromagnetic interference (EMI) mitigation system, comprising: a plurality of EMI detectors arranged in a spaced relationship sufficient to allow for positioning of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system therebetween (¶0062-¶0064).
However, Rearick is silent with regards to at least some of the EMI detectors in the plurality of EMI detectors comprise coils with orthogonal directionality.
Saha teaches at least some of the EMI detectors in the plurality of EMI detectors comprise coils with orthogonal directionality (Fig. 3, ¶0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Saha with the system of Rearick so as to accurately detect electromagnetic noise from any direction (Saha, ¶0016).
With reference to claim 23, Rearick as combined above further teaches the plurality of EMI detectors comprises a combination of external coils, electrodes, and surface coils (¶0064).
With reference to claim 25, Rearick as combined above further teaches the plurality of EMI detectors is coupled to a stand (¶0065, coupling the sensors to a shield would be considered “a stand”).
With reference to claim 26, Rearick as combined above further teaches the stand is coupled to a cart (¶0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “plurality of EMI detectors comprises external coils arranged in the spaced relationship, wherein the spaced relationship comprises a 360 degree distribution about a central point configured for placement of an MRI system at the central point" in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biber et al. (US 2021/0325494 A1) teach a device and method for patient specific interference suppression.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY H CURRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/GREGORY H CURRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights