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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 remain withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 8, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 6-10 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.
Claim 6 appears to include new matter that is unsupported in the original specification. The specification says in par. 0049, “one of the magnetic field sensors 5 is a central magnetic field sensor 51”. Further, in par. 0052, “The position of the object region may be determined using the position of three sensors, which are arranged and fastened on the carrier unit 1. The three sensors may, for example, be magnetic field sensors 5. The magnetic field sensors 5 may each be linked with an acceleration sensor 3 in order, on the one hand, to determine more precisely the orientation of the magnetic field sensors 5 outside the examination tunnel 6 and, on the other hand, to be able also to track the movement of the magnetic field sensors 5 within the examination tunnel 6.” The original disclosure indicates that there are two sets of sensors – magnetic field sensors 5 and acceleration sensors 3 – used together, not in the alternative, wherein the central sensor is represented from the centrally located sensor of set 5, thereby making it a magnetic field sensor. Also shown in Figures 3 and 4 by element 5, 51.
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 the breadth of claim 7 due to omission of these critical relationships.
Further regarding Claim 7, similar to Claim 6 above, the sensors that are projected onto the plane of the circle seem to be disclosed as being the magnetic field sensor set 5, as in Figures 3-4 and par. 0052. The original disclosure does not provide for projecting the acceleration sensor data onto the plane of the circle. As such, Claim 7 contains new matter since it says the motion sensors are projected onto the plane of the circle.
Claims 8-10 are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected claim.
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 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 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. Should Claim 6 read “further comprising at least one central sensor…” to show that it is an additional sensor from that of claim 1? Even reading the specification, it is not clear. See par. 0051-0053. Is the central sensor an accelerometer (one of sensors 3) or magnetic field sensor (one of sensors 5)? In par. 0049, “one of the magnetic field sensors 5 is a central magnetic field sensor 51”. However, the claim specifies it is one or more of a central magnetic field sensor and a central motion sensor. Examiner cannot determine the intended meaning sought by the claim.
In Claim 7, “sensor data from at least two further magnetic field sensors or motion sensors” is confusing because it is unclear if they are the same or different from “the at least one motion sensor” in claim 1. These sensors have not yet been defined in the claim, they are only claimed functionally. It would help to define them structurally, e.g. the carrier unit further comprising a second motion and a third motion sensor.
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 § 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 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).
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).
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 relative to the examination tunnel 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). However, Ludwig does not teach a cylindrical shape as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the shape of the housing of the carrier to be a matter of design choice, since it lacks any criticality or unexpected result. For example, cylindrical shape is chosen for its improved ergonomic shape to package the sensors.
Regarding Claim 6, Ludwig further teaches wherein at least one central sensor comprises at least one of a central magnetic field sensor and a central motion sensor, wherein the 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 through the carrier element 50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive. Applicant provides new drawings and it is agreed they overcome the previous objection. Regarding the rejection under USC 112(a), examiner withdraws the rejection for claim 5 in view of the amendments but maintains for claim 7-10 for the reasons above and introduces new rejections for claims 6-10 for new matter. Several of the previously raised rejections under USC 112(b) are withdrawn but some remain for the reasons above.
Regarding the prior art, it is agreed Ludwig does not anticipate the claim in light of the amendments. Van Niekerk is used to teach accelerometers for position tracking and combined with Ludwig to arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant argues Van Niekerk’s accelerometer is primarily used for orientation tracking, not position determination. This is not found persuasive because Van Niekerk’s specifically says the acceleration signals can yield position estimates when integrated and be combined with lower temporal resolution translation estimates, as cited by Applicant. Applicant argues that the reference does not use double integration, i.e. the current position is determined by integrating the acceleration data twice over time. However, it is implicit when an acceleration signal is integrated twice, it arrives at a position signal, which is taught by the reference “integrating of the acceleration signals can yield a velocity/position estimates”. One of ordinary skill would understand a single integration arrives at velocity while a double integration arrives at position. Examiner notes that claim 7 avoids the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights