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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 11-13 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.
Claim 11 recites that “the positioning plate comprises a U-shaped coil support structure bent upward on a periphery of the positioning plate” and the specification in paragraph [0054] states that “the U-shaped positioning plate 10 may be a U-shaped coil support structure bent upward on a periphery of the positioning plate.” Figs. 1 and 5, reproduced below, show the “U-shaped positioning plate 10.”
PNG
media_image1.png
260
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen from the figures, the frame portion is a closed loop, more akin to an “O” shape or a “D” shape than the open “U” shape. If Applicant considers the shape of the device shown in Figs. 1 and 5 to be “U-shaped” it is unclear from the record what the metes and bounds of “U-shaped” would be, or how one having ordinary skill in the art would be apprised whether or not their frame is reasonably “U-shaped” as called for in the claim. Claim 11 is therefore indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the protrusion component.” However, claim 12 is dependent on claims 1, 2, and 8, and the protrusion component is first recited in claim 5, upon which claim 12 does not depend. There is therefore insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the protrusion component” in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, claim 12 will be interpreted as depending from claim 5.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, and it rejected for substantially the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stack et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0154775 A1; hereafter Stack).
Regarding claim 1, Stack discloses an object positioning device, comprising at least one coil and a positioning plate, wherein at least a part of the at least one coil is configured to be embedded in the positioning plate (see Stack Figs. 4 and 5, items 420 and 411).
Regarding claim 2, Stack discloses the object positioning device according to claim 1, wherein a groove is provided on or in the positioning plate, and the at least a part of the at least one coil is fixed in the groove (see Stack Fig. 5, items 411 and 500).
Regarding claim 3, Stack discloses the object positioning device according to claim 2, wherein a depth of the groove is less than or equal to a height of the positioning plate, and a height of the at least one coil is less than or equal to the depth of the groove (see Stack Fig. 5, items 420, 411, and 500).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stack.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Stack discloses the object positioning device according to claim 2, and also discloses an embodiment with a groove (see Stack Fig. 17, unlabeled groove in which item 1504 is recessed) wherein the positioning plate further comprises at least one protrusion component disposed in the groove, and the at least a part of the at least one coil is arranged to surround the at least one protrusion component; [claim 6] wherein the positioning plate comprises a plurality of protrusion components, and the plurality of protrusion components are disposed in the groove in an array (see Stack Fig. 19, while not labeled, it appears clearly depicted that there are projections in the device of 1504 which correspond to the recesses in the groove shown in Figs. 17 and 18, such that when assembled, the projections fit in the recesses and the coils are arranged around the protrusions. Examiner therefore finds that Stack reasonably anticipates the claimed limitations of claims 5 and 6. However, since it is not explicitly stated in the specification of Stack, should it be deemed not anticipatory, it still would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, looking at the figures of Stack, that there can be protrusions and associated recesses about which the coils wind, so that the plate, when assembled, lies flat without uncomfortable lumps and bulges for the patient.).
Regarding claim 10, Stack discloses the object positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one coil comprises a radio frequency receiving coil (see Stack paragraph [0082] “first RF coil 411”).
Regarding claim 11, Stack discloses the object positioning device according to claim 1, wherein the positioning plate comprises a U-shaped coil support structure bent upward on a periphery of the positioning plate (see Stack Fig. 15, which shows an embodiment with an upturned U-shaped structure).
Regarding claim 14, Stack discloses a bed, comprising an object positioning device (see Stack Fig. 16, item 1526), an isolation pad (see Stack Fig. 16, item 1530) and a bed body (see Stack Fig. 16, item 1528), the object positioning device being arranged on the bed body (see Stack Fig. 16, items 1526 and 1528), the isolation pad being arranged on the object positioning device (see Stack Fig. 16, items 1526 and 1530), wherein the object positioning device comprises at least one coil and a positioning plate, and at least a part of the at least one coil is configured to be embedded in the positioning plate (see Stack Figs. 17 and 19, items 1504).
Regarding claim 15, Stack discloses the bed according to claim 14, wherein the bed further comprises at least one support pad, the at least one support pad and the object positioning device are arranged substantially in a same plane, the at least one support pad is arranged on the bed body, and the isolation pad is arranged on the object positioning device and the at least one support pad (see Stack Fig. 22, item 1650).
Regarding claim 16, Stack discloses the bed according to claim 14, wherein the bed further comprises a bed board, the object positioning device is embedded in the bed board (see Stack Figs. 18 and 19, the portion surrounding the coil array 1504 can be construed as the bed board), the bed board is arranged on the bed body, and the isolation pad is arranged on the bed board (see Stack Fig. 14, items 1526, which in this interpretation is both the bed board and coil as shown in Figs. 18 and 19, and is arranged between the bed body 1528 and the isolation pad 1530).
Regarding claim 17, Stack discloses the bed according to claim 16, wherein the bed board has a concave, and the object positioning device is embedded within the concave (see Stack Fig. 18, depression in which item 1504 is placed).
Regarding claim 18, Stack discloses the bed according to claim 14, wherein the bed further comprises a bed board (see Stack Fig. 18, the portion surrounding the coil array 1504 can be construed as the bed board), the bed board is arranged on the bed body (see Stack Fig. 16, item 1526 is both the bed board and the coil and is on bed body 1528), the object positioning device is arranged on the bed board (see Stack Figs. 18 and 19, which show the bed board and coil fitting together), and the isolation pad is arranged on the object positioning device (see Stack Fig. 16, items 1526 and 1530).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stack.
Regarding claim 19, Stack discloses the bed according to claim 14, wherein a groove is provided on or in the positioning plate, the at least a part of the at least one coil is fixed in the groove ; and wherein the positioning plate further comprises at least one protrusion component disposed in the groove, and the at least a part of the at least one coil is arranged to surround the at least one protrusion component (see Stack Figs. 18 and 19, item 1504. See also arguments regarding obviousness if not anticipated made with respect to claims 5 and 6, above).
Regarding claim 20, Stack discloses a magnetic resonance scanning method, comprising: placing an object on a bed, the bed comprising an object positioning device, an isolation pad and a bed body, the object positioning device being arranged on the bed body, and the isolation pad being arranged on the object positioning device, the object positioning device comprising at least one coil and a positioning plate, and at least a part of the at least one coil being configured to be embedded in the positioning plate; and performing a magnetic resonance scan on the object (see Stack Fig. 21, which shows placing a patient on the bed body for scanning).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (U.S. Patent No. 5,490,508; hereafter Kato).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses an object positioning device, comprising at least one coil (see Kato Fig. 2, item 5) and a positioning plate (see Kato Fig. 2, item 1), wherein at least a part of the at least one coil is configured to be embedded in the positioning plate (see Kato Fig. 2, when the coil is inserted in slot 9, it is embedded in the positioning plate).
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses the object positioning device according to claim 1, wherein a slot is provided on or in the positioning plate (see Kato Fig. 2, item 9), and the at least a part of the at least one coil is slidably arranged in the positioning plate through the slot (see Kato col. 3, ll. 18-21 “operator inserts the tray 7 into the opening portion 9 and moves the tray 7 in either right or left direction so that the surface coil 5 can be placed at a desired position.” The inserting and repositioning are sliding actions.).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wald et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0323852 A1; hereafter Wald).
Regarding claim 1, Wald discloses an object positioning device, comprising at least one coil and a positioning plate, wherein at least a part of the at least one coil is configured to be embedded in the positioning plate (see Wald Fig. 6, the coil 222 is embedded in plate 224).
Regarding claim 2, Wald discloses the object positioning device according to claim 1, wherein a groove is provided on or in the positioning plate, and the at least a part of the at least one coil is fixed in the groove (see Wald Fig. 6, jig 240 portion of the coil is fixed to the plate 224 via the protrusions 226).
Regarding claim 5, Wald discloses the object positioning device according to claim 2, wherein the positioning plate further comprises at least one protrusion component disposed in the groove, and the at least a part of the at least one coil is arranged to surround the at least one protrusion component (see Wald Fig. 6, items 226, 230, and 222).
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.
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(s) 2, 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Krol (U.S. Patent No. 4,791,371; hereafter Krol).
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses the object positioning device according to claim 1, wherein a groove is provided on or in the positioning plate (see Kato Fig. 2, item 9), but does not specifically disclose that the at least a part of the at least one coil is fixed in the groove; [claim 8] wherein the at least a part of the at least one coil is detachably fixed in the groove.
Krol discloses locking mechanisms so that the coil can be removably fixed in the groove at select positions (see Krol Fig. 6, items 3 and 12); [claim 8] wherein the at least a part of the at least one coil is detachably fixed in the groove (see Krol Fig. 6, item 12, which discloses that the locking mechanisms are temporary and detachable so that the coil can be fixed for measuring, but then repositioned.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide locking members like that in Krol in the device of Kato in order to fix the coil and prevent unwanted motion of the coil while measurements are being conducted, as taught by Krol (see Krol col. 3, ll. 8-10 which discloses that the locking members are so that “displacement as a result of, e.g., vibrations, cannot occur.”)
Regarding claim 3, Kato as modified discloses the object positioning device according to claim 2, wherein a depth of the groove is less than or equal to a height of the positioning plate, and a height of the at least one coil is less than or equal to the depth of the groove (see Kato Fig. 2, items 5 and 9, the coil must fit inside the groove, and therefore cannot be larger than it.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Krol as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bis et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,808,468; hereafter Bis).
Regarding claim 9, Kato in vie of Krol discloses the object positioning device according to claim 2, but does not specifically disclose that the positioning plate further comprises sliding components, the sliding components are provided on any two opposite sides of the groove, and the sliding components on both sides are connected to two ends of the at least one coil, respectively.
Bis discloses that the positioning plate further comprises sliding components, the sliding components are provided on any two opposite sides of the groove, and the sliding components on both sides are connected to two ends of the at least one coil, respectively (see Bis Fig. 5, item 34. See also col. 4, ll. 10-12 “the rollers 34 may also be provided on the bottom of the examination table 40 while the first and second platform portions would then be provided with a track for receiving the rollers. It should be understood that other known track devices can be utilized for slidably supporting the examination table on the base platform.” Emphasis added.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Kato in view of Krol with sliding elements as suggested by Bis in order to enable the user to move the coil without having to support the entire weight of the device on their arms, as well as to ensure that the device is properly positioned vertically in the groove.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wald.
Regarding claim 7, Wald discloses the object positioning device according to claim 5, wherein the at least a part of the at least one coil is arranged to detachably surround the at least one protrusion component (see Wald Fig. 6, items 222 and 226. While Wald does not specifically disclose that the coils are detachable, Wald does not disclose permanently fixing the coils to the plate, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to detachably mount the coils so as to be able to reuse both the coils and the plate for other measurements. ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights