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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herlihy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,361,765), hereinafter “Herlihy.”
Regarding claim 1, Herlihy discloses a coil unit (quadrature local coil, Abstract) comprising:
a receive coil that receives a magnetic resonance signal of an examination target (quadrature local coil receives a magnetic resonance signal of a patient, Col. 1, lines 6-8; claims 1 and 5);
a belt member with one end side fixed to the receive coil and the other end side being a free end (a strap with one end fixed to the local coil and the other end side being a free end, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Fig. 4); and
a locking member that is fixed to the receive coil and fixes the belt member at a position of any length from the one end side of the belt member (a buckle that is fixed to the local coil and fixes the strap at a position of any length from the one end side of the strap, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Herlihy discloses the belt member includes a first belt member of which one end side is fixed to the receive coil and the other end side is a free end (a first strap with one end fixed to the local coil and the other end side being a free end, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Fig. 4), and a second belt member of which one end side is fixed to the receive coil and the other end side is a free end (a second strap with one end fixed to the local coil and the other end side being a free end, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Fig. 4), and
the locking member includes a first locking member that fixes the first belt member (a first buckle that is fixed to the local coil and fixes the strap at a position of any length from the one end side of the strap, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6) and a second locking member that fixes the second belt member (a second buckle that is fixed to the local coil and fixes the strap at a position of any length from the one end side of the strap, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Herlihy discloses the receive coil has a structure that encircles around a trunk of a patient (local coil has a structure that encircles the pelvic region of the trunk of the patient, Col.4, lines 30-34; Col. 7, line 46 – Col.8, line 60; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Herlihy discloses the locking member is fixed to a center of the receive coil (the buckle is fixed to a center of the receive coil, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biber et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0127469), hereinafter “Biber.”
Regarding claim 2, while Herlihy discloses a restriction member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the belt member (rails are fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the strap, Col.8, lines 51-60, Figs. 4 and 9), Herlihy does not appear to disclose the restriction member is a loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches a loop member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the belt member (a belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
Regarding claim 3, while Herlihy discloses the one end side of the belt member, the locking member, and the restriction member are disposed in a straight line (the one end side of the strap, the buckle, and the rails are disposed in a straight line, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4, 6, and 9), Herlihy does not appear to disclose the restriction member is a loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches the restriction member is a loop member (a belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Biber.
Regarding claim 5, Herlihy discloses a first restriction member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the first belt member (a first pair of rails are fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of a first strap, Col.8, lines 51-60, Figs. 4 and 9); and
a second restriction member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the second belt member (a second pair of rails are fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of a second strap, Col.8, lines 51-60, Figs. 4 and 9).
However, Herlihy does not appear to disclose the first restriction member is a first loop member and the second restriction member is a second loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches a first loop member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the first belt member (a first belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the first belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10); and
a second loop member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the second belt member (a second belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the second belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy in further view of Biber as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vincent et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0334202), hereinafter “Vincent.”
Regarding claim 6, Herlihy discloses a straight line connecting the one end side of the first belt member and the first restriction member (a straight line connecting the one end side of the first strap and the first pair of rails, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4, 6, and 9) and a straight line connecting the one end side of the second belt member and the second restriction member (a straight line connecting the one end side of the second strap and the second pair of rails, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4, 6, and 9)
However, Herlihy does not appear to disclose the first restriction member is a first loop member and the second restriction member is a second loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches the first restriction member is a first loop member (a first belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the first belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10) and the second restriction member is a second loop member (a second belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the second belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
However, Herlihy in further view of Biber does not appear to teach an intersection between the straight lines.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Vincent teaches a straight line connecting the one end side of the first belt member and the opposite end of the first belt member intersects with a straight line connecting the one end side of the second belt member and the opposite end of the second belt member (RF coil assembly has a pair of straps that loop around the subject wherein a straight line connecting the shoulder portion end side of the first strap and the opposite end of the first strap intersects diagonally with the straight line connecting the shoulder portion end side of the second strap and the opposite end of the second strap, [0096], Fig. 6E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Vincent’s known technique of providing diagonally opposed straps to an RF coil assembly to Herlihy in further view of Biber’s known local coil apparatus having a first and second straight strap between the end of the strap, locking mechanism, and loop member to achieve the predictable result that this allows for reduction of the setup time with the RF coil assembly by providing for adjustment of the fit to the subject. See, e.g., Vincent, [0096].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bollenbeck et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0287775), hereinafter “Bollenbeck.”
Regarding claim 8, Herlihy does not appear to disclose a pipe member into which the belt member is inserted.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Bollenbeck teaches a pipe member into which the belt member is inserted (connection cable is employed as a fastening strap and placed within a tube shaped strap, [0013], [0017], [0026]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique of disposing a connecting cable employed as a fastening strap to fasten a local coil to the patient within a tube shaped strap to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus including straps to fasten the local coil to the patient to achieve the predictable result that this improves the handling of the local coil by removing the need for dealing with a separate connection cable. See, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0014].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bollenbeck.
Regarding claim 10, Herlihy does not disclose the belt member is a cable that outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the receive coil.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Bollenbeck teaches the belt member is a cable that outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the receive coil (connection cable is employed as a fastening strap and outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the local coil, [0013], [0017], [0019], [0021], [0026]-[0028], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique of disposing a connecting cable employed as a fastening strap to fasten a local coil to the patient within a tube shaped strap to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus including straps to fasten the local coil to the patient to achieve the predictable result that this improves the handling of the local coil by removing the need for dealing with a separate connection cable. See, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0014].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy in further view of Bollenbeck as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (2012/0153954), hereinafter “Ota.”
Regarding claim 11, Herlihy in further view of Bollenbeck does not appear to teach the belt member is a flat cable in which a plurality of cables are bundled in a planar shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Ota teaches the belt member is a flat cable in which a plurality of cables are bundled in a planar shape (the belt member is a flat collection of coil elements that are wires/cables bundled in a planar shape with the cable free end of which outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the loop coil elements, [0366]-[0367], Figs. 48-49; see also cable output of the received magnetic resonance signal via a plurality of individual connections to the bundle of cable/coil elements, [0147], [0151], [0158], [0194]-[0197], [0269], [0344]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Ota’s known technique of using a planar belt element to communicate the received magnetic resonance signal from a local coil in communication with the belt element via a free end of the belt to Herlihy in further view of Bollenbeck’s known local RF coil having a strap comprising a connection cable to achieve the predictable result that providing the coil elements and wires/cables within the flexible belt member allows the patient to easily move even when the RF coil device is mounted onto the patient. See, e.g., Ota, [0379].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnathan Maynard whose telephone number is (571)272-7977. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM.
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 at 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.
/J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798