DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application. Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Claims 3, 5, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 § 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 2-11 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.
Claim 2 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 2 recites “is formed of one material or a combination of two or more materials selected from the group consisting of a non-magnetic metal, a resin, a closed-cell material, and rubber”. It is not clear if the group is modifying the “one material” and the “two or more materials”, or only the “two or more materials”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 3 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 4 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 5 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 6 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 7 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 8 recites “the passage forming member” in line 3. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 9 recites “a heat generation source connected to each of a plurality of the coil elements”. It is not clear if this means a single heat generation source is connected to each of the elements, or if there are multiple heat sources, and each element is connect to it a heat generation source. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the coil elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the coil element being one of a plurality of coil elements.
Claim 9 recites “the passage forming member” in line 3. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 9 recites “the heat generation sources” in line 4. It is not clear if this is referring to the “heat generation source” previously set forth, or if it is setting forth additional sources. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the heat generation source will be interpreted as being one of multiple heat generation sources, and the “the heat generation sources” will be interpreted as referring to the multiple heat generation sources.
Claim 10 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the “plurality of passage forming members” in claim 1, or if this is referring to only one of the plurality of passage forming members. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 11 recites “the outer side surface” in line 3. It is not clear if this is referring to the “outer side surface that comes in contact with the subject” in claim 1, or if this is referring to any of the outer side surfaces. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “a coil element that receives a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject”, “an outer side surface of the coil cover that comes into contact with the subject”, and “a second passage extending in a second direction different from the first direction between the subject and the coil cover”. The invention is positively reciting the subject (a human) as the coil element must receive the signal from the subject, the side surface must come into contact with the subject, and the second passage is defined based on the relative position of the coil cover and the subject. The Examiner recommends revising to claim to use “configured to” language and make it clear the subject is not a part of the invention.
Claim 15 recites “a coil element receiving a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject”, “an outer side surface of the coil cover that comes into contact with the subject”, and “a second passage extending in a second direction different from the first direction between the subject and the coil cover”. The invention is positively reciting the subject (a human) as the coil element must receive the signal from the subject, the side surface must come into contact with the subject, and the second passage is defined based on the relative position of the coil cover and the subject. The Examiner recommends revising to claim to use “configured to” language and make it clear the subject is not a part of the invention.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 101 are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (U.S PGPub 2013/0137969 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jones teaches a receive coil unit (Abstract) [0004] comprising:
a coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0055] that receives a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject [0004]+[0055]+[0057];
a flexible coil cover (Fig. 5A, 1B) that covers a periphery of the coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0072]; and
a plurality of passage forming members (Fig. 5A, 116) disposed on an outer side surface of the coil cover that comes into contact with the subject [0072] (grooves are in both layers, and would therefore be on the layer that would contact the patient), the plurality of passage forming members forming a first passage extending in a first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extend in x-direction) and a second passage extending in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extends in z-direction) between the subject and the coil cover (as the grooves are both sides of the cover, they would be present between the subject and the coil cover (the layer of the cover which makes up the groove) [0072].
Regarding Claim 2, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein the passage forming member is formed of one material or a combination of two or more materials selected from the group consisting of a non-magnetic metal, a resin, a closed-cell material, and rubber [0072] (passage forming member is made of one material (EVA foam) which is a closed-cell material).
Regarding Claim 4, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein the passage forming member is configured to be deformable (Fig. 5A, 116) [0072] (the EVA foam can bend, and be deformed).
Regarding Claim 6, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein the passage forming member has a shape in which a groove is formed on a subject side (Fig. 5B, the circular groove can be considered as defining a passage forming member, and the grooves inside the circular groove is a groove on the passage forming member) [0075].
Regarding Claim 7, Jones teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein the passage forming member has a hollow structure [0072] (non-grooved regions are hollowed out).
Regarding Claim 10, Jones teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein the passage forming member is formed of a heat insulating member [0072] (EVA foam can act as a heat insulating member, as it provide a level of heat resistance).
Regarding Claim 14, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches a medical image diagnostic system (Abstract) comprising: the receive coil unit according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above); and a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus that processes the nuclear magnetic resonance signal received by the receive coil unit [0065]+[0009].
Regarding Claim 15, Jones teaches a coil cover (Fig. 5A, 1B) that covers a periphery of a coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0055]+ [0072] receiving a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject [0004]+[0055]+[0057], the coil cover comprising:
a plurality of passage forming members (Fig. 5A, 116) disposed on an outer side surface of the coil cover that comes into contact with the subject [0072] (grooves are in both layers, and would therefore be on the layer that would contact the patient), the plurality of passage forming members forming a first passage extending in a first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extend in x-direction) and a second passage extending in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extends in z-direction) between the subject and the coil cover (as the grooves are both sides of the cover, they would be present between the subject and the coil cover (the layer of the cover which makes up the groove) [0072].
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Siemens (DE202023101763U1).
Regarding Claim 3, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein the passage forming member has a plate-like shape.
Siemens teaches a cover for a local coil [0001]. This coil cover has grooves which separate the cover into rectangular non-groove portions (Fig. 7, 21 separates the cover into rectangular non-groove portions) (which is a plate like shape, as a plate can be rectangular) [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the groove configuration of Jones with a grid-like structure, as taught by Siemens, as the substitution for one known groove configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a grid-like groove configuration are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein the passage forming member has a plate-like shape.
Siemens teaches a cover for a local coil [0001]. This coil cover has grooves which separate the cover into rectangular non-groove portions arranged as a lattice (Fig. 7, 21 separates the cover into rectangular non-groove portions) [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the groove configuration of Jones with a grid-like structure, as taught by Siemens, as the substitution for one known groove configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a grid-like groove configuration are reasonably predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Henderson et al. (U.S Patent 5,594,339).
Regarding Claim 5, Jones teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein the passage forming member is formed of two or more types of members having different shapes.
Henderson teaches a receiving coil for nuclear magnetic resonance (Abstract). This system has a cover (Fig. 3, 44) which has passage forming members (the indents in the cover) formed of two or more types of members having different shapes (the top of the indent is a member that is flat with a curved end, the side member is a rectangle) (Col 4-5, lines 59-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to have the passage forming member made of two types of members having different shapes, as taught by Jones, because this provides improved patient comfort while maintain adequate performance and reliability, as taught by Henderson (Col 2, lines 61-65).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Ishii et al. (U.S PGPub 2008/0100297 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches a circuit (Fig. 2, 22+30+40) connect to the coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0055]+[0058], wherein the passage forming member is disposed at a position corresponding to the circuit [0072] (the circuitry is located in the non-grooved regions).
Jones fails to explicitly teach the circuitry is a heat generation source.
Ishii teaches an magnetic resonance coil system (Abstract). This system recognizes the coil circuitry generates heat [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the circuitry of Ishii with circuitry which generates heat, as taught by Jones, as the substitution for one known circuitry with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of circuitry which generates heat are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches a circuit (Fig. 2, 22+30+40) connected to each of a plurality of the coil elements (Fig. 2, 21) [0055]+[0058], wherein the passage forming member is disposed at a position corresponding to a plurality of the circuits [0072] (the circuitry is located in the non-grooved regions).
Jones fails to explicitly teach the circuitry is a heat generation source.
Ishii teaches an magnetic resonance coil system (Abstract). This system recognizes the coil circuitry generates heat [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the circuitry of Ishii with circuitry which generates heat, as taught by Jones, as the substitution for one known circuitry with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of circuitry which generates heat are reasonably predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Feng et al. (U.S PGPub 2021/0055362 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach a spacer provided between the passage forming member and the outer side surface of the coil cover.
Feng teaches an coil unit (Abstract). This unit uses spacing members in the coil unit [0046] (The spacer would is between one side of the coil cover and the other, opposite side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Jones to use a spacer between the passage forming member and the outer side surface of the coil cover, as taught by Feng, because it increases patient comfort, as recognized by Feng [0046].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Iwasawa et al. (U.S PGPub 2019/0383891 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teaches wherein the coil cover has a bag shape.
Iwasawa teaches an array coil for imaging (Abstract). This system has a coil cover with a bag shape [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shape of the coil cover of Jones with a bag shape, as taught by Iwasawa, as the substitution for one known shape of the coil cover with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a bag-shaped coil cover are reasonably predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wagner et al. (U.S PGPub 2024/0382100 A1), which teaches a method of increasing airflow during an MRI procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798