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
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) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanabe USPG Pub. No.: US 20060103383.
Regarding Claim 1, Tanabe teaches a magnetic resonance device (see figure 1, 1), comprising:
a retaining structure (see [0022] and figure 1, comprised of 2a and 2b); and
a field generator including a main magnet (figure 1, superconducting electromagnet coils 101, 102, and 103), a gradient system (figure 1, gradient coils 3), and a radiofrequency (RF) system (gradient coils 4), wherein the retaining structure is configured to mechanically support the main magnet (seen in figures 1-2), and
wherein the field generator comprises an outer circumference that is enclosed by a volume delimited by the retaining structure (seen in figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 2, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the field generator comprises a connecting element and/or a carrier structure comprising a respective outer circumference that is enclosed by the volume delimited by the retaining structure (see [0022] and figures 1-2, comprised of 5a, 5b, 21a, and 21b).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the RF system comprises a carrier structure configured to mechanically couple an RF coil of the RF system to the retaining structure, and wherein the carrier structure comprises an outer circumference that is enclosed by the volume delimited by the retaining structure (see [0022] and figures 1-2, comprised of 5a, 5b, 21a, and 21b).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 3, wherein: the retaining structure comprises an outer vacuum chamber comprising an outer circumference that encloses the main magnet, a wall of the outer vacuum chamber has an indentation, and a section of the carrier structure of the RF system is at least partly housed in the indentation of the outer vacuum chamber (see [0022], which discusses the vacuum chamber and figures 1-2 showing an indentation of the chamber and the RF systems relationship with said indentation).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the RF system comprises a provisional carrier structure configured to secure a RF coil of the RF system to (i) a gradient coil of the gradient system and/or (ii) the retaining structure, in a reversible manner (see [0022], and figures 1-2), the provisional carrier structure is configured to be reversibly removable and to secure the RF coil to the gradient coil and/or to the retaining structure (see [0022], and figures 1-2), and the provisional carrier structure comprises an outer circumference that is enclosed by the volume delimited by the retaining structure (see [0022], and figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 12, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a reversibly removable connecting plate configured to connect (i) a gradient coil of the gradient system, and/or (ii) a RF coil of the RF system, electrically and mechanically, to a power source (see 0032]-[0034], disclosing that the device is powered and thus is connected to a power source).
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.
Claim(s) 6-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe USPG Pub. No.: US 20060103383 in view of Yamamoto et al. US Patent No.: US 5,600,245.
Regarding Claim 6, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, but is silent in explicitly teaching wherein a RF coil of the RF system comprises a connecting element configured to connect the RF coil to (i) a power source, and/or (ii) an external cooling system, and wherein the connecting element of the RF coil comprises an outer circumference that is enclosed by the volume delimited by the retaining structure. However, Yamamoto wherein a RF coil of the RF system comprises a connecting element configured to connect the RF coil to (i) a power source, and/or (ii) an external cooling system, and wherein the connecting element of the RF coil comprises an outer circumference that is enclosed by the volume delimited by the retaining structure (see Yamamoto col.2, lns. 4-27, figure 3 for a general configuration, and figure 23B, showing wires within a retained structure with the generation members; wires are connected to external power and is movable with the generation members). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art to have modified the teachings of Tanabe with those of Yamamoto in order to optimize apparatus dimensions in an effort to reduce the eddy current (as discussed in Yamamoto col.1, lns.50-67).
Regarding Claims 7 and 9, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, but is silent in teaching wherein the field generator comprises a connecting element configured to connect (i) a RF coil of the RF system, and/or (ii) a gradient coil of the gradient system, to (i) an external power source, and/or (ii) an external cooling system, and wherein the connecting element comprises a flexible connecting element that is configured to be movable relative to the main magnet and to be stowed within the volume delimited by the retaining structure. However Yamamoto teaches wherein the field generator comprises a connecting element configured to connect (i) a RF coil of the RF system, and/or (ii) a gradient coil of the gradient system, to (i) an external power source, and/or (ii) an external cooling system, and wherein the connecting element comprises a flexible connecting element that is configured to be movable relative to the main magnet and to be stowed within the volume delimited by the retaining structure (see Yamamoto col.2, lns.4-27, figure 3 for a general configuration, and figure 23B, showing wires within a retained structure with the generation members; wires are connected to external power and is movable with the generation members). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art to have modified the teachings of Tanabe with those of Yamamoto in order to optimize apparatus dimensions in an effort to reduce the eddy current (as discussed in Yamamoto col.1, lns.50-67).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanabe and Yamamoto teach the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the connecting element projects into a volume enclosed by (i) the RF coil, and/or (ii) a patient receiving zone of the magnetic resonance device (see Yamamoto figures 2-3 and col.2, lns.4-27).
Regarding Claim 10, Tanabe and Yamamoto teach the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 9, wherein a RF coil of (i) the RF system, and/or (ii) the gradient coil, comprises a recess configured to house the connecting element (see Yamamoto figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 11, Tanabe and Yamamoto teach the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the connecting element is led through a recess in a RF coil of the RF system and projects into a volume enclosed by (i) the RF coil, and/or (ii) a patient receiving zone of the magnetic resonance device (see Yamamoto figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 13, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, but is silent in teaching further comprising: a retainer configured to hold the magnetic resonance device at a predetermined distance from a floor surface, wherein a part of the retainer that exceeds a dimension of the retaining structure in one spatial direction is reversibly removable. However, Yamamoto teaches further comprising: a retainer configured to hold the magnetic resonance device at a predetermined distance from a floor surface, wherein a part of the retainer that exceeds a dimension of the retaining structure in one spatial direction is reversibly removable (see Yamamoto col.2, lns.4-27, figures 2-3 showing attachable detachable retaining member 214). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art to have modified the teachings of Tanabe with those of Yamamoto in order to optimize apparatus dimensions in an effort to reduce the eddy current (as discussed in Yamamoto col.1, lns.50-67).
Regarding Claim 16, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: an outer casing, wherein a section of the outer casing encloses the main magnet along a section of a patient access direction, and wherein a dimension of the section of the outer casing along the patient access direction is less than a dimension of the retaining structure along the patient access direction. However, Yamamoto teaches further comprising: an outer casing, wherein a section of the outer casing encloses the main magnet along a section of a patient access direction, and wherein a dimension of the section of the outer casing along the patient access direction is less than a dimension of the retaining structure along the patient access direction (see Yamamoto col.2, lns.4-27, figures 2-3 showing attachable detachable retaining member 214). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art to have modified the teachings of Tanabe with those of Yamamoto in order to optimize apparatus dimensions in an effort to reduce the eddy current (as discussed in Yamamoto col.1, lns.50-67).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe USPG Pub. No.: US 20060103383 in view of Scarth et al. USPG Pub. No.: 2009/0306494.
Regarding Claim 14, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a retainer configured to hold the magnetic resonance device at a predetermined distance from a floor surface, wherein the retainer is rotatable and/or pivotable relative to the main magnet. However, Scarth teaches further comprising: a retainer configured to hold the magnetic resonance device at a predetermined distance from a floor surface, wherein the retainer is rotatable and/or pivotable relative to the main magnet (see Scarth [0179] and figures 2 and 11A-11B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art to have modified the teachings of Tanabe with those of Scarth in order to position the table relative to the imaging system (as discussed in Scarth [0179]).
Regarding Claim 15, Tanabe teaches the magnetic resonance device as claimed in claim 1, is silent in explicitly disclosing further comprising: an outer casing having a reversibly removable section, wherein user interface circuitry of the reversibly removable section is connected to a control unit of the magnetic resonance device via an electrical interface, and wherein an electrical connecting lead that connects the user interface circuitry to the electrical interface enables the reversibly removable section containing the user interface circuitry to be reversibly removed from the magnetic resonance device. However, Scarth teaches further comprising: an outer casing having a reversibly removable section, wherein user interface circuitry of the reversibly removable section is connected to a control unit of the magnetic resonance device via an electrical interface, and wherein an electrical connecting lead that connects the user interface circuitry to the electrical interface enables the reversibly removable section containing the user interface circuitry to be reversibly removed from the magnetic resonance device (see Scarth [0179] and figures 8A and 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art to have modified the teachings of Tanabe with those of Scarth in order to optimize apparatus dimensions in an effort to reduce the eddy current (as discussed in Scarth [0179]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights