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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on October 8, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-15 are withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both “cross” and something else. In particular, in Figure 3, there are two elements 11. One is pointing to the cross and the other is pointing to a circle. The description does not say what the circle is. Figure 4 also has two elements 11 where one is pointing to the cross and the other pointing to a circle. The corresponding description does not say what the circle is. See annotated Figures 3 and 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: n3. In particular, in par. 0063 there are three axes discussed (n1, n2, n3) but only n1, n2 are shown in Figure 7.
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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The description does not support the breadth of claims 5-10, since the only “geometric shape” described in the specification is a cylinder. The calculations to determine position of the object region rely on specific geometrical relationships to project the sensor positions onto a circular cross-section plane (as described in par. 0053); one of ordinary skill would not understand how to utilize shapes other than a cylinder (e.g. cube, prism, star, sphere) without additional details and additional formulas.
Further, Claim 7 requires “drawing a circle that runs through the center of the object region and corresponds to a cross-section of the geometric shape” while claim 5 requires “a defined geometric shape around the object region”. It is not understood how a circle can run through the center of the object region and also correspond to being around the object region. In the description for Figure 7, there is a circle drawn with respect to axes n1, n2, n3 which relies on positions of sensors A, B, and C on a cylinder, and then projecting the sensor positions of A and C onto the circle aligned with B, as defined by the cross-section (circle) of the cylinder (geometric shape) (as described in par. 0053). The circle does not “run through the center of the object region” as required by claim 7. In addition, many of the elements described in Figure 7 and par. 0053 are missing from claim 7 that serve to define the geometrical relationships between the object region position, circle, geometrical shape/cylinder, and sensors. The inventor is not in possession of claim 7 due to contradictory statements in the claim and also incongruence with the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-4, 6-10 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “drawing a conclusion as to the position of the object region based on the measured magnetic field” is confusing because a frame of reference for the position has not been defined. In contrast, in claim 1, the reference frame for the current position is relative to the starting position. In claim 3, there is no reference frame defined for the position of the object region (e.g. relative to the main magnet, relative to the starting position, etc).
Regarding Claim 6, “at least one central sensor” is confusing because it is unclear if it is the same or different from “the at least one motion sensor” defined in claim 1.
In Claim 7, “the at least one central sensor” and “sensor data from at least two further sensors” is confusing because it is unclear if they are the same or different from “the at least one motion sensor” in claim 1.
Further in Claim 7, the limitation “drawing a circle that runs through the center of the object region and corresponds to a cross-section of the geometric shape” is confusing in light of parent claim 5 limitation “a defined geometric shape around the object region”. It is not understood how a circle can run through the center of the object region and also correspond to being around the object region.
Further in Claim 7, many of the elements described in Figure 7 and par. 0053 are missing from claim 7 that serve to define the geometrical relationships between the object region position, circle, geometrical shape/cylinder, and sensors. For example, the position of the at least two further sensors on the cylinder is important, they cannot be located anywhere in space. Also important is the position of the central sensor on the cylinder and the circle being drawn through the position of the central sensor as shown in Figure 7. The missing definitions in the claim makes it confusing, even when read in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170248665 to Ludwig.
Regarding Claim 1, Ludwig teaches a method for tracking a movement of an object region in an examination tunnel of a magnetic resonance tomography system (Figure 1, par. 0074-0075), wherein the method comprises:
a) arranging a carrier unit around the object region, such that a position of the carrier unit is linked to the position of the object region, wherein at least one motion sensor is arranged on the carrier unit (Figures 1, 4; the local coil 50 is arranged around the patient and includes motion sensors 61, 62, 63 which are magnetic field strength sensors, par. 0065, and orientation sensor 54, par. 0066);
b) defining a starting position of the object region (reference z-coordinate ZREF in Figure 3, par. 0074);
c) monitoring the movement acquired by the at least one motion sensor in order to obtain movement data (data from the local coil 50 (which includes sensors 61, 62, 63, 54) is monitored, par. 0074-0075); and
d) determining a current position of the object region relative to the starting position based on the movement data acquired with the at least one motion sensor (par. 0075, the position is determined with respect to ZREF based on the magnetic sensor data).
Regarding Claim 3, Ludwig further teaches wherein the carrier unit additionally comprises at least one magnetic field sensor (motion sensors 61, 62, 63 which are magnetic field strength sensors, par. 0065), and wherein the defining the starting position comprises: arranging the object region with the carrier unit outside the examination tunnel (implicitly outside the examination tunnel to load the patient and start measuring at ZREF, in order to move into the position at the isocenter of the field magnet, as described in par. 0074-0076); when the main magnet of the magnetic resonance tomography system is switched on, measuring the magnetic field with the at least one magnetic field sensor (par. 0074); and drawing a conclusion as to the position of the object region based on the measured magnetic field (ZREF plus the predetermined distance, par. 0074-0075).
Regarding Claim 4, Ludwig further discloses wherein the defining the starting position further comprises: determining an orientation of the object region with at least one orientation sensor, wherein the at least one motion sensor comprises the at least one orientation sensor (orientation sensor 54, par. 0066).
Regarding Claim 5, Ludwig further teaches wherein the carrier unit is arranged according to a defined geometric shape around the object region (the carrier unit is a rectangular shape and at least partially conforms to the surface around the object/patient region, 50, Figure 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Ludwig further teaches wherein at least one central sensor viewed in a direction of an object axis of the geometric shape is arranged centrally on the object region (according to Figure 1, element 50 is arranged centrally on the object/patient with sensors 54, 60 basically corresponding to the surface of the object/patient in the central region and an axis can be arbitrarily defined).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170248665 to Ludwig in view of US 20180184940 to van Niekerk.
Regarding Claim 2, Ludwig does not teach wherein the at least one motion sensor is at least one acceleration sensor and the movement data is acceleration data, and wherein the current position of the object region is determined by integrating the acceleration data twice over time. Instead, Ludwig teaches the motion sensor includes magnetic field sensors (61, 62, 63, Figure 4, par. 0065) and also orientation sensor 54 (inertial sensor/MEMS or camera, par. 0066, Figure 4).
Van Niekerk teaches an orientation tracking device for use in MRI patient tracking. The device is attached to the patient in a similar way as in Ludwig and includes sensors to track patient position relative to the scanner. The sensors include magnetic field sensors, acceleration sensors, and orientation sensors (Abstract, Figure 2, sensors 14, 16, 18; par. 0061) for measuring position. Position is obtained by integrating the acceleration signals (par. 0065). The high measurement rate (temporal resolution) of the accelerometer is complementary to the other sensors for measuring movement (par. 0065).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to include an accelerometer for measuring position in the system of Ludwig, as taught by van Niekerk to be complementary to the other sensors for obtaining a high temporal resolution (par. 0065, Figure 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12144664 to Sukkau, US 20210290167 to Rinck, and US 20240197258 to Biber teach using accelerometers to measure position in MRI scanner. US 10674932 to van Niekerk teaches a plurality of sensor types (accelerometer, magnetometer, orientation sensor/gyroscope) to measure patient movements in an MRI scanner. US 10393829 to Ludwig teaches a plurality of sensor types (magnetic field sensor, orientation sensor) to measure patient movements in an MRI scanner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MARIE HOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00 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.
ANGELA M. HOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/Angela M Hoffa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799