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
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, 3, 5, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinkus (US 2018/0172789).
Regarding claim 1, Sinkus teaches a magnetic resonance system, comprising:
a scanner including a main magnet [Fig. 7, see MR bore 1 will be surrounded by MR main magnet. See also Fig. 6 and Fig. 18. See also rest of reference.];
a patient receiving region at least partially surrounded by the scanner [Fig. 7, see MR bore 1. See also Fig. 6 and Fig. 18. See also rest of reference.]; and
an elastography apparatus configured to excite regions of interest of a patient in the patient receiving region during a magnetic resonance elastography examination [Fig. 7, see MRE elements 4-8. See also rest of reference.], the elastography apparatus comprising:
a vibrator [¶0055. Fig. 5 and ¶0059-0060. Fig. 7, see MRE elements 4-8. See also rest of reference which teaches vibrations.];
a magnetic resonance-compatible driver comprising a magnetic resonance- compatible motor [¶0055, see motor 1808. Fig. 7, see MRE elements 4-8. See also rest of reference which teaches motor.]; and
a torque transmitter configured to transmit a drive torque generated by the magnetic resonance-compatible driver to the vibrator [See Fig. 7, metal-free flexible rod 6. See connection rod. See Fig. 5 and 18. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Sinkus further teaches wherein the main magnet includes a magnetic coil configured to generate a homogeneous main magnetic field, and wherein the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is arranged within the patient receiving region in a region covered by the magnetic coil [See Fig. 18, wherein the motor is inside the MRI, which has a magnetic coil. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Sinkus further teaches wherein the elastography apparatus comprises a holding apparatus on which the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is arranged during a magnetic resonance elastography examination [See Fig. 7 and 18, wherein the motor is located on the patient bed. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Sinkus further teaches wherein the vibrator comprises a vibration element, and wherein the drive torque generated by the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is transmitted to the vibration element [Fig. 5 and ¶0062. Fig. 9. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Sinkus further wherein the vibrator comprises an eccentric element, and wherein the drive torque generated by the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is transmitted to the eccentric element. [¶0024-0025, ¶0070, ¶0085-0091. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Sinkus further teaches wherein the elastography apparatus comprises a controller configured to synchronize the elastography apparatus with a measurement sequence of the magnetic resonance elastography examination [¶0011 and ¶0064. See also rest of reference.].
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Sinkus, in view of Hadley (US 2024/0097532).
Regarding claim 2, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Sinkus further teaches wherein the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is arranged within a homogeneous main magnetic field generated by the main magnet [¶0055, see motor 1808. Fig. 7, see MRE elements 4-8. See also rest of reference which teaches motor.].
However, Sinkus is silent in teaching comprises a stator comprising a dominant component of the homogeneous main magnetic field of the main magnet.
Hadley, which is also in the field of MRE, teaches wherein the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is arranged within a homogeneous main magnetic field generated by the main magnet, and comprises a stator comprising a dominant component of the homogeneous main magnetic field of the main magnet [¶0064 and ¶0069. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Hadley because both references are in the field of MRE and both teach magnetic resonance compatible motors. Further, Hadley teaches it is known in the art to try to use a motor that uses a stator that is powered by the MR magnetic field as a magnetic resonance compatible motor [Hadley - ¶0064 and ¶0069. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Sinkus is silent in teaching wherein the magnetic resonance-compatible motor includes a magnetic field sensor.
Hadley, which is also in the field of MRE, teaches wherein the magnetic resonance-compatible motor includes a magnetic field sensor [¶0091. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Hadley because both references are in the field of MRE and both teach magnetic resonance compatible motors and using an optical sensor for providing feedback. Hadley teaches it is known in the art to try to use magnetic sensors and/or optical sensors for providing feedback [Hadley - ¶0091. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Sinkus further teaches wherein the elastography apparatus comprises a motor driver [See driver mentioned throughout reference.].
However, Sinkus is silent in teaching a shield housing, and wherein the motor driver is arranged in the shield housing.
Hadley, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the elastography apparatus comprises a motor driver and a shield housing, and wherein the motor driver is arranged in the shield housing [Fig. 6 and ¶0086. See also rest of reference.].
t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Hadley because both references are in the field of MRE and both teach magnetic resonance compatible motors and because Hadley teaches it is known in the art to use shields because shields helps prevent RF noise generated by the motor controller, motor, and signals carried on the lead wires from being radiated into the MRI environment within the room [Hadley - Fig. 6 and ¶0086. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Sinkus, in view of Rossman (US 5,952,828).
Regarding claim 6, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Sinkus further teaches further comprising: a patient support having a patient table that is movable within the patient receiving region [See Fig. 7 and 18, wherein there is a patient support. See also rest of reference.].
However, Sinkus is silent in teaching wherein the holding apparatus is configured to be removably attached to the patient table.
Rossman, which is also in the field of MRE, teaches a patient support having a patient table that is movable within the patient receiving region [Fig. 6A, 570. See also rest of reference.], wherein the holding apparatus is configured to be removably attached to the patient table [Fig. 6A, wherein the flexible coupling 567 means that the housings 522/523 can move relative to each other, and therefore relative to the patient table 570. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Rossman because both references are in the field of MRE and because Rossman teaches it is known in the art to place the magnetic resonance compatible motor on the patient table [Rossman – Fig. 6A].
Regarding claim 7, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Sinkus is silent in teaching wherein: the holding apparatus comprises a convex holding arc with two end regions and a central attachment region, the two end regions are configured to be removably attached to a patient table [Fig. 6A, see 522-523 form a convex housing and wherein the flexible coupling 567 means that the housings 522/523 can move relative to each other, and therefore relative to the patient table 570. See also rest of reference.], and the central attachment region is configured to provide a location upon which the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is disposed [Fig. 6A, wherein 511-517 are located closer to the center and therefore, in a central region. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Rossman because both references are in the field of MRE and because Rossman teaches it is known in the art to place the magnetic resonance compatible motor on the patient table [Rossman – Fig. 6A].
Regarding claim 9, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Sinkus is silent in teaching wherein the torque transmitter has a variable-length drive shaft.
Rossman, which is also in the field of MRE, teaches herein the torque transmitter has a variable-length drive shaft [Fig. 3 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Rossman because both references are in the field of MRE and because Rossman teaches it is known in the art to adjust the length of the shaft to change the amount of movement [Rossman – Fig. 3].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Sinkus, in view of Yeung (“MR elastography of the head and neck: Driver design and initial results”).
Regarding claim 8, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Sinkus is silent in teaching further comprising: a positioning pad configured to position a patient, wherein the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is arranged within the positioning pad.
Yeung, which is also in the field of MRE, teaches further comprising: a positioning pad configured to position a patient, wherein the magnetic resonance-compatible motor is arranged within the positioning pad [See Fig. 1. See Page 625-626. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Yeung because both references are in the field of MRE and because Yeung teaches it is known in the art to include a positioning pad so that the patient’s body part can be placed in an appropriate position [Yeung - See Fig. 1. See Page 625-626. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Sinkus, in view of Gebhardt (US 2023/0258752).
Regarding claim 14, Sinkus teaches the limitations of claim 13, which this claim depends from.
Sinkus further teaches wherein the elastography apparatus comprises a motor driver, and wherein the elastography apparatus comprises an optical transmitter [See Fig. 16 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
However, Sinkus is silent in teaching an optical transmitter arranged between the motor driver and the controller.
Gebhardt, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches an optical transmitter arranged between the motor driver and the controller [¶0147. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sinkus and Gebhardt because both references are in the field of MRI and Gebhardt teaches it is known in the art to use optical connections for control lines to motors in magnetic resonance applications [Gebhardt - ¶0147. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0024922 also is in the field of MRE and is considered relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights