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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym SAR lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The scope of claim 2 is unclear. Claim 2 recites a negative condition in which contradicts Claim 1. Since Claim 1 sets forth a hook member on the receive coil, the negative condition would never be met.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites a negative condition which fails to further limit the receive coil. The claim fails to set forth further structure elements or further limit the receive coil unit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims recite improper dependent form to claim 1. The claims fail to set forth further structural elements or further limit the receive coil unit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites improper dependent form to claim 1. The claim fails to set forth further structural elements or further limit the receive coil unit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ochi et al. (US 2025/0143598).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Ochi et al. discloses a receive coil unit (50) comprising: a band member (54); a first connecting tool and a second connecting tool that are provided at both ends of the band member and connect the band member to a table (70; [0075]; [0077]); a receive coil (52) that includes a plurality of coil elements (56) receiving a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject; and a hook member (62; 72) that is disposed on the receive coil and holds the band member so that the receive coil is slidable along the band member (Figs. 4A and 4B).
With respect to claim 3, Ochi et al. discloses a plurality of plate-shaped members (66).
With respect to claim 4, Ochi et al. discloses a flexible coil cover (54).
With respect to claim 5, Ochi et al. discloses a rigid body portion (66; Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 6, Ochi et al. discloses a length adjustment mechanism and a tightening-up mechanism (Figs. 4A and 4B).
With respect to claim 8, Ochi et al. further discloses a table including a movable top plate on which the subject is placed (30); and a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus including a processor that processes a nuclear magnetic resonance signal received by the receive coil unit (20).
With respect to claim 9, Ochi et al. discloses wherein the movable top plate includes a movement rail along a longitudinal direction to which the second connecting too is slidably connected (134).
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.
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 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ochi et al. (US 2025/0143598) in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0081081).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Ochi et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the table includes a retracting rail for retracting the receive coil unit and a coil connector. However, Yang et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor the table comprises retracting the receive coil (Figs. 6 and 7; [0027]) and coil connectors (316; 416; [0027]) such that the receive coil can be retracted into its stored position ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ochi et al. with retractable rails and coil connectors as taught by Yang et al. in order for the receive coils to be retracted into its stored position ([0027]).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed combination of subject matter of a receive coil unit comprising: a band member, a first connecting tool and a second connecting tool that are provided at both ends of the band member and connect the band member to a table; a receive coil that includes a plurality of coil elements receiving a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject; and a hook member that is disposed on the receive coil and holds the band member so that the receive coil is slidable along the band member; particularly wherein the first connecting tool includes a length measurement sensor for measuring a length of the band member and/or a connection confirmation sensor for confirming presence or absence of connection of the first connecting tool, and a transmission line that transmits a detection signal from the length measurement sensor and/or the connection confirmation sensor to the receive coil.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (US 2020/0081081) discloses an integrated MRI coil comprising a band and flexible coil (310; 410; 510; 610; 630; 710; 730); and a first connecting tool and a second connecting tool that are provided at both ends of the band member and connect the band member to a table ([0028]). Zink et al. (US 2021/0389398) discloses a receive coil secured to the patient via an elastic band or strap having corresponding hooks ([0158]). Neither Yang et al. or Zink et al. disclose a hook member that is disposed on the receive coil and holds the band member so that the receive coil is slidable along the band member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights