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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, 11 and 15 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled. New Claims 16 and 17 have been added. Claims 1-13 and 15-17 remain pending.
The previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for Claims 9-15 are withdrawn because the issues have been properly corrected.
Response to Arguments
On Page 8 of Remarks, Applicant argues that “the elevator in Damadian is not part of the magnet housing”; specifically, “the elevator is an optional component and is regarded as a type of patient positioner, not part of the magnetic housing”, and therefore the disclosed “locking mechanism 237” does not mechanically connect to “a housing portion of a magnetic resonance device”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Damadian discloses in Column 4, Line 65 - Column 5, Line 2: “FIG. 3 illustrates a portion 200 of an MRI scanner … portion 200 similarly includes elevator 110 and another type of removable patient positioner 230 …”, which suggests that the disclosed elevator 110 is a part of “an MR scanner”. Second, Damadian discloses in Column 5, Lines 17-20: “The perpendicular notches 260 prevent the removable patient positioner 230 from inadvertently rolling when removable patient positioner 230 is positioned within magnet 150.” This disclosure indicates that the disclosed perpendicular notches 260 are also included in the floor (as a part of housing) of the disclosed magnet 150, similar to the grooves 146 in floor 113 of magnet 150 in Fig. 2A. Therefore, the lower part of the disclosed locking mechanism of Damadian is mechanically connected to a housing portion of an MRI scanner.
On Pages 8-9 of Remarks, Applicant argues that “Damadian does not disclose a reversible mechanical connection between two separable parts”, which is now required by the amended Claim 1; specifically, the disclosed locking mechanism 237 of Damadian is “an internal adjustment mechanism within the patient positioner itself, not a reversible connection between two separate parts where one part is connected to the patient seat and the other part is connected to the MRI housing”, and in Damadian, “the second part remains mechanically engaged with the first part.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the cited Fig. 3, the first part and the second part are connected with each other by some pin (e.g. pop-pins used widely in exercise bench) that goes through the first part and then engages into one of the multiple grooves or holes of the second part for locking the two parts. Without showing any stopping or locking at the lower end of the second part in Fig. 3, the first part and the second part can be separated when the pin is not engaged with any groove or hole of the second part. Another example of reversible connection is between support member 139 and stop member 140 in Fig. 2A
On Page 10 of Remarks, Applicant argues that “the teachings of Pourrahimi, Abkai, and Damadian are not compatible”; specifically, Damadian pertains to a magnet accommodating a patient within a gap between vertical pole surfaces, while Pourrahimi and Abkai disclose cylindrical bore arrangements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific bore arrangements as disclosed in the cited references can be different, but all of them share the same principle of MRI, e.g. generating a homogeneous B0 field for establishing magnetization M0, and multiple gradient fields for spatial localization. All the cited references and the application focus on method and device for more precise and/or convenient positioning of a patient inside such magnetic field. For example, Pourrahimi discloses “there may be a most suitable position of a patient for obtaining a best diagnosis” (Para 0008). Abkai discloses “to provide an MRI machine which allows convenient and simple positioning of the patient relative to the MRI machine” (Para 0007). Damadian discloses “Patient positioning is critical in order for medical personnel to properly treat and/or diagnose patients.” (Column 1, Lines 22-23).
On Page 11 of Remarks, Applicant argues that new Claims 16-17 are patentable over the cited prior art; specifically, Pourrahimi does not disclose a connecting element that is configured to maintain a relative position during movement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 16, Lines 18-20 recites “a relative position of a head of a patient … and a portion of the patient seat remains substantially unchanged”, and Claim 17, Lines 2-3 recites “a relative position of a back portion of a patient … and the backrest remains substantially unchanged”. Pourrahimi, Para 0026 discloses “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the back and front parts of chair 206 are adjustable”. According to the cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi, no matter how the back and front parts of chair 206 are adjusted, patient remain seated in the chair, so relative position of head of patient and backrest of the chair remains substantially unchanged, and relative position of back of patient and backrest of the chair remains substantially unchanged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“the connecting element … is configured to enable a variable relative movement …” in Claims 1 and 11, and “the connecting element is configured to move the first portion variably …” in Claim 6.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “the connecting element” can comprise “a joint, a guide element, a gear, and/or an elastic element or be designed as a joint, a guide element, a gear, and/or an elastic element”, and can comprise “a mechanical spring, an angle joint, a ball joint, a radial bearing, a thrust bearing, a coupling gear, a straight guide, an axle, and/or a shaft” (Para 0012).
“the drive unit is configured to move the patient seat …” in Claims 1, 9 and 11, and “the drive unit is configured to position the patient seat variably …” in Claim 3, “the drive unit … configured to automatically position a diagnostically relevant body region …” in Claims 12 and 13.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “drive unit” can comprise “any kind of drive, for example, an electric or pneumatic drive, in particular, a hydraulic drive”, and can comprise “a guide element, such as, for example, a gear, a bearing, a rail, a guide rod, an axle, a shaft, and/or a linear guide” (Para 0022).
“a positioning unit … is configured to automatically position …” in Claims 2, and 11-13.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “positioning unit” has “a drive … designed as an electric drive, a pneumatic drive, or a hydraulic drive”, and can comprise “a mechanical spring or a gas pressure spring” (Para 0029).
“the further connecting element is configured to position the headrest …” in Claim 4, “the further connecting element is configured to enable variable positioning of the headrest …” in Claim 5.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “further connecting element” can comprise “a coupling gear or a plurality of guide elements, for example, a joint and a plain bearing, a plurality of joints, or one or more joints and bearings” (Para 0058).
“the guide element is configured to move the at least antenna element …” in Claim 7.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “guide element” can be “a gear, a bearing, a rail, a guide rod, an axle, a shaft, and/or a linear guide” (Para 0022), and can comprise “pivot bearings, a plain bearing, a joint, a hinge and/or a folding element” (Para 0063).
“a pivoting mechanism … is configured to pivot the at least one antenna element …” in Claim 8.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “pivoting mechanism” can have “at least one pivot bearing, in particular a thrust bearing, or a hinge” (Para 0070).
“a securing element … is configured to limit an extent …” in Claim 10.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “securing element” can comprise “a pin, a bolt, a latching mechanism, a screw, a stop element, a damping element, or the like” (Para 0095).
“a sensor … is configured to determine information about a spatial arrangement …” in Claim 13.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “sensor” can be “an optical sensor, in particular, a distance sensor or a camera” (Para 0108).
“a drive … is configured to affect an engagement …” in Claim 15.
A review of the Specification discloses that the corresponding structure for the “drive” can have “a mechanical, hydraulic, or pneumatic positioning unit” (Para 0132), such as “a piston” (Para 0189).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourrahimi (US 20180011153 A1; hereafter Pourrahimi), in view of Abkai et al (US 20180199853 A1; hereafter Abkai) and Damadian et al (US 6934574 B1; hereafter Damadian).
With regard to Claim 1, Pourrahimi discloses a patient seat (a diagnostic arrangement 200, excluding magnet and gradient coils in MRI scanner 202) for supporting a patient during a magnetic resonance examination (Pourrahimi, Para 0026; “… a diagnostic arrangement 200 includes an MRI scanner 202 having a scanning bore 204 to accommodate an extremity, such as the head, or spine of a patient sitting on chair 206.”), comprising:
a first portion (the part annotated as “seat” in cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi);
a second portion (the part annotated as “back rest” in cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi);
a connecting element (the part annotated as “connection 1” in cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi);
a radio-frequency unit with at least one antenna element (MRI scanner 202 inherently contains radio-frequency unit with at least one antenna element, as disclosed in Para 0010; “When an RF coil transmits a magnetic pulse (wave) the precession of the protons are disturbed accordingly. … The more the number of RF transmit and RF receive coils the more information about the local hydrogen protons.”); and
wherein the first portion and the second portion form parts of a receiving surface for the patient (Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi cited below shows that the two parts (blue and red) forms a receiving surface for a patient),
wherein the connecting element mechanically connects the first portion to the second portion and is configured to enable a variable relative movement between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi cited below shows that the connecting part (green) connects the blue and red parts. Fig. 3 shows that the connecting part can be adjusted so as to make the chair fully flat), and
wherein the at least one antenna element of the radio- frequency unit is configured to receive signals in a power and frequency range of a magnetic resonance examination (Pourrahimi, Para 0010; “To produce signals from protons one or more additional coils are used to transmit and receive radio frequency electromagnetic waves pulses.”).
Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi
PNG
media_image1.png
812
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pourrahimi does not clearly and explicitly disclose
comprising a drive unit, and
a locking mechanism with a first part and a second part;
wherein the drive unit is configured to move the patient seat variably along a spatial direction,
wherein the first part and the second part of the locking mechanism are designed to be complementary to one another and are configured to mechanically engage with one another,
wherein the first part and the second part of the locking mechanism are connected to one another by means of a reversible mechanical connection;
wherein the second part is mechanically connected to the patient seat,
wherein the first part is arranged within a patient receiving region and mechanically connected to a housing portion of a magnetic resonance device, and
wherein the locking mechanism is configured to limit a movement of a portion of the patient seat along a spatial direction.
Abkai in the same field of endeavor discloses comprising a drive unit (drive means 11), wherein the drive unit is configured to move the patient seat variably along a spatial direction (Abkai, Para 0047; “The drive means 11 is controlled by means of a control unit 12 to move the patient seat 7 in the patient opening 6 along a travel curve 13 (shown as an arrow) to an imaging position 14”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, as suggested by Abkai, in order to use a drive means to move the patient seat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved safety and efficiency of loading patient into a scanner by using such drive means for controlled movements.
Pourrahimi and Abkai do not clearly and explicitly disclose
comprising a locking mechanism with a first part and a second part;
wherein the first part and the second part of the locking mechanism are designed to be complementary to one another and are configured to mechanically engage with one another,
wherein the first part and the second part of the locking mechanism are connected to one another by means of a reversible mechanical connection,
wherein the second part is mechanically connected to the patient seat,
wherein the first part is arranged within a patient receiving region and mechanically connected to a housing portion of a magnetic resonance device, and
wherein the locking mechanism is configured to limit a movement of a portion of the patient seat along a spatial direction.
Damadian in the same field of endeavor discloses
comprising a locking mechanism (locking mechanism 237) with a first part and a second part (Damadian, Column 5, Lines 24-27; “A locking mechanism 237 allows back rest portion 232 to be set at a variety of angles such that a patient may be positioned in a stand-up or a lie-down (recumbent) position, or any angle in between.”. In the cited Fig. 3 below, the two parts of the locking mechanism are highlighted by annotations “the first part” and “the second part”);
wherein the first part and the second part of the locking mechanism are designed to be complementary to one another and are configured to mechanically engage with one another (As demonstrated in the cited Fig. 3 below, the two parts of the locking mechanism are complementary to each other, and can be mechanically engaged with each other so that the back rest portion 232 can be set at a fixed angle),
wherein the first part and the second part of the locking mechanism are connected to one another by means of a reversible mechanical connection (As shown in the cited Fig. 3, the first part and the second part are connected with each other by some pin (e.g. pop-pins used widely in exercise bench) that goes through the first part and then engages into one of the multiple grooves or holes of the second part for locking the two parts. Without showing any stopping or locking at the lower end of the second part in Fig. 3, the first part and the second part can be separated when the pin is not engaged with any groove or hole of the second part. Another example of reversible connection is between support member 139 and stop member 140 in Fig. 2A),
wherein the second part is mechanically connected to the patient seat (As demonstrated in the cited Fig. 3, the part annotated as “the second part” has its upper end connected to the back rest portion 232),
wherein the first part is arranged within a patient receiving region and mechanically connected to a housing portion of a magnetic resonance device (As demonstrated in the cited Fig. 3, the part annotated as “the first part” is inside of magnet 150. In the figure, the part is connected to base 231, further to wheels 235, 236, which are fixed by perpendicular notches 260 inside the magnet 150, as disclosed in Column 5, Lines 16-21; “… perpendicular notches 260 that are adapted to receive wheels 235, 236. The perpendicular notches 260 prevent the removable patient positioner 230 from inadvertently rolling when removable patient positioner 230 is positioned within magnet 150.”. Hence, the lower part of the locking mechanism can be regarded as being mechanically connected to a housing portion of the magnet), and
wherein the locking mechanism is configured to limit a movement of a portion of the patient seat along a spatial direction (Damadian, Column 5, Lines 24-27; “A locking mechanism 237 allows back rest portion 232 to be set at a variety of angles such that a patient may be positioned in a stand-up or a lie-down (recumbent) position, or any angle in between.”. With the disclosed locking mechanism, the back rest portion’s movement is limited).
Fig. 3 of Damadian
PNG
media_image2.png
576
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi and Abkai, as suggested by Damadian, in order to use reversible connection and locking mechanism to limit the movement of the patient seat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefits of improved safety for patient by avoiding collision of patient’s head to the magnet, improved imaging quality by maintaining patient to a desired position inside the magnet, and easy assembly and replacement.
With regard to Claim 3, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 1. Pourrahimi further discloses wherein the patient seat is moveable along a first spatial direction and a second spatial direction, which is aligned orthogonally to the first spatial direction (Pourrahimi, Para 0026; “the height-adjustable support 208 may use other known mechanisms to adjust the height of its seat”. According to the cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi, the base 210 has wheels so can move the seat horizontally. Hence, the seat can be positioned variably along 2 orthogonal directions).
Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian as discussed above do not explicitly and clearly disclose using the drive unit to position the patient seat variably along a spatial direction.
Abkai further discloses using the drive unit to position the patient seat variably along a spatial direction (Abkai, Para 0036; “… a patient seat is attached to the MRI machine, wherein the patient seat has adjusting means driven by at least one drive means controlled by means of a control unit in order to move the patient seat into the patient opening along a travel curve as far as an imaging position … the position of the adjustable element is used to determine a length of the travel curve of the patient seat for the control of the control unit.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, as further suggested by Abkai, in order to include a drive or control unit to position the patient seat variably along a spatial direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of increasing imaging quality by precisely positioning the patient in imaging volume in an automatic manner (Abkai, Para 0038; “An advantage of this method is that the patient is automatically moved into the imaging position in a convenient and precise manner. As a result, compared to the manual positioning of the patient, positioning errors are prevented.”).
With regard to Claim 6, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 1. Pourrahimi further discloses wherein the connecting element is configured to move the first portion variably relative to the second portion such that a relative position of a head of a patient positioned on the patient seat appropriately for an application and a portion of the patient seat remains substantially unchanged (Pourrahimi, Para 0032; “FIG. 3 shows an example adjustable bore-orientation MRI scanner adjusted for a patient lying down.”. When compared to the lying-down position in Fig. 3 or conventional bed in Fig. 1, the seating position in Fig. 2 (cited above) has a different position for the back rest relative to the seat part, but the relative position between the head rest and the back rest remains unchanged).
With regard to Claim 7, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 1. Pourrahimi further discloses wherein the radio-frequency unit has a guide element, and wherein the guide element (the height-adjustable supporting frame 212) is configured to move the at least one antenna element variably relative to a portion of the patient seat (Pourrahimi, Para 0029; “… the height-adjustable supporting frame 212 may use other known mechanisms to adjust the height of the MRI scanner 202.” The disclosed MRI scanner 202 contains RF unit).
With regard to Claim 8, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 1. Pourrahimi further discloses wherein the radio-frequency unit has a pivoting mechanism, which is configured to pivot the at least one antenna element about an axis aligned substantially parallel to a medial direction of the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient seat appropriately for an application (Pourrahimi, Para 0029; “… the MRI scanner 202 that is configured to controllably and/or adjustably rotate around A-A′ axis.”. Here the disclosed “A-A’ axis” is parallel to a medial direction of a patient).
With regard to Claim 9, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose a patient seat as claimed in Claim 1 (a diagnostic arrangement 200, excluding magnet and gradient coils in MRI scanner 202), wherein the drive unit (drive means 11) is configured to move the patient seat variably relative to the patient receiving region of the magnetic resonance device at least along a spatial direction (Abkai, Para 0047; “The drive means 11 is controlled by means of a control unit 12 to move the patient seat 7 in the patient opening 6 along a travel curve 13 (shown as an arrow) to an imaging position 14”). Pourrahimi further discloses a magnetic resonance device (Pourrahimi, Para 0026; “… a diagnostic arrangement 200 includes an MRI scanner 202 having a scanning bore 204 to accommodate an extremity, such as the head, or spine of a patient sitting on chair 206.”) for performing a magnetic resonance examination on a patient arranged in a patient receiving region (scanning bore 204) of the magnetic resonance device.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, in view of Vartiainen et al (US 20190328600 A1; hereafter Vartiainen).
With regard to Claim 2, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 1, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose comprising a positioning unit, which is configured to automatically position the first portion variably relative to the second portion.
Vartiainen in the same field of endeavor discloses comprising a positioning unit, which is configured to automatically position the first portion variably relative to the second portion (Vartiainen, Para 0020; “With reference to FIG. 5, the chair 14 includes a locking system 46 to lock a position of the back rest 22 relative to the seat portion 18”; Para 0021; “… a controller 62 detects (via information provided by a presence sensor) when the patient's head contacts the head rest 42 …”. These disclosures show that a position of the back rest relative to the seat portion is automatically determined by detecting when a patient’s head contacts the head rest). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, as suggested by Vartiainen, in order to automatically position the back rest variably relative to the seat portion of the chair. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of increased level of comfort for patients by setting the chair to a reclined state suitable for each individual patient.
With regard to Claim 15, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the magnetic resonance device as claimed in Claim 9, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose wherein the locking mechanism has a drive, which is configured to affect an engagement of the first part and the second part in dependence on an activation signal when the patient seat is located in an application-appropriate position relative to the patient receiving region for performing the magnetic resonance examination.
Vartiainen in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the locking mechanism has a drive (a controller 62), which is configured to affect an engagement of the first part and the second part (Vartiainen, Para 0021; “… a controller 62 … sends a signal to the locking system 46 to move the pin or other locking member to lock the position of the back rest 22.”) in dependence on an activation signal when the patient seat is located in an application-appropriate position relative to the patient receiving region for performing the magnetic resonance examination (Vartiainen, Para 0021; “… a presence sensor … that detects the presence of the patient's head on the head rest 42, and sends a signal to the controller 62 when the patient's head hits the head rest 42”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, as suggested by Vartiainen, in order to activate the locking mechanism in response to a signal that the patient seat is properly located for imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of making the patient positioning easier and more consistent and therefor obtaining images of high quality (Vartiainen, Para 0035; “the apparatus 10 makes patient positioning easier, and helps ensure that the patient's head is located at the same location.”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, in view of Iwasawa et al (US 20200256937 A1; hereafter Iwasawa).
With regard to Claim 4, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 1. Pourrahimi further discloses comprising a headrest (the part annotated as “head rest” in the cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi) and a further connecting element (the part annotated as “connection 2” in the cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi). Pourrahimi and Abkai as discussed above do not explicitly and clearly disclose wherein the further connecting element is configured to position the headrest variably relative to the first portion and/or the second portion, and wherein the radio-frequency unit is arranged on the headrest.
Abkai further discloses wherein the further connecting element is configured to position the headrest variably relative to the first portion and/or the second portion (Abkai, Para 0048; “FIG. 2 shows the adjustment of the headrest 16 relative to the patient seat 7, beginning at a starting position 30 to an end position 31 …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, as further suggested by Abkai, in order to make the headrest’s position relative to the seat to be adjustable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved comfort level of patient and improved imaging quality by properly setting the position of head rest relative to the seat.
Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian as discussed above do not explicitly and clearly disclose wherein the radio-frequency unit is arranged on the headrest.
Iwasawa in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the radio-frequency unit is arranged on the headrest (Iwasawa, Para 0049; “… the coil unit 410B is fixed to the fixture 500.”. As demonstrated in the cited Fig. 5, the fixture 500 acts as a head rest, and the coil unit 410 B (contains RF coils) is fixed to the fixture 500). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, as suggested by Iwasawa, in order to arrange the RF coil on the headrest. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of increased image quality by minimizing possible gap between the patient’s head and RF coils (Iwasawa, Para 0060; “since the flexible coil units 410A and 410B can cover the head without the gap regardless of the size of the head of the subject, it is possible to prevent sensitivity of the coil from decreasing due to the gap.”).
Fig. 5 of Iwasawa
PNG
media_image3.png
620
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 5, Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian and Iwasawa disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 4, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose wherein the further connecting element is configured to enable variable positioning of the headrest substantially parallel to an anterior-posterior direction and/or a superior-inferior direction of an upper body of a patient positioned on the patient seat appropriately for an application.
Abkai further discloses wherein the further connecting element is configured to enable variable positioning of the headrest substantially parallel to an anterior-posterior direction and/or a superior-inferior direction of an upper body of a patient positioned on the patient seat appropriately for an application (Abkai, Para 0048; “FIG. 2 shows the adjustment of the headrest 16 relative to the patient seat 7, beginning at a starting position 30 to an end position 31 …”. The disclosed adjustment is along a superior-inferior direction of the patient’s upper body). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian and Iwasawa, as further suggested by Abkai, in order to enable variable positioning of the headrest along a superior-inferior direction of the patient’s upper body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved comfort level of patient and improved imaging quality for patients of different height.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, in view of Amano (US 20120324648 A1; hereafter Amano).
With regard to Claim 10, Pourrahimi and Abkai disclose the magnetic resonance device as claimed in Claim 9, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose comprising a securing element, which is configured to limit an extent of an alignment of the first portion relative to the second portion in order to avoid a collision of the patient seat and/or a patient positioned on the patient seat appropriately for an application with a housing portion of the magnetic resonance device.
Amano in the same field of endeavor discloses comprising a securing element (the chair moving mechanism 7), which is configured to limit an extent of an alignment of the first portion relative to the second portion in order to avoid a collision of the patient seat and/or a patient positioned on the patient seat appropriately for an application with a housing portion of the magnetic resonance device (Amano, Para 0096; “… the chair 5 has the backrest 5b and seat 5c connected together to be rotatable about a pivot shaft 59. … The seat 5c is supported by the support block 15 through the chair moving mechanism 7.” Further demonstrated in Fig. 11, an extent of the backrest 5b relative to seat 5c is limited by the chair moving mechanism 7, with the range of reclining denoted by arrows (highlighted by circle)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, as suggested by Amano, in order to include a member for limiting an alignment between the back rest and the seat portion of the patient seat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of ensuring the safety of patient by avoiding collision of patient’s head to other part of the device and reducing the risk of sudden falling.
Fig. 11 of Amano
PNG
media_image4.png
542
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, further in view of Vartiainen and Laine (US 20200107978 A1; hereafter Laine).
With regard to Claim 11, Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian disclose the magnetic resonance device as claimed in Claim 9, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose:
comprising a positioning unit, which is configured to automatically position the first portion variably relative to the second portion, and
wherein the drive unit and the positioning unit are configured to feed the patient seat along the spatial direction to the patient receiving region of the magnetic resonance device and to simultaneously move the first portion variably relative to the second portion.
Vartiainen in the same field of endeavor discloses comprising a positioning unit, which is configured to automatically position the first portion variably relative to the second portion (Vartiainen, Para 0020; “With reference to FIG. 5, the chair 14 includes a locking system 46 to lock a position of the back rest 22 relative to the seat portion 18”; Para 0021; “… a controller 62 detects (via information provided by a presence sensor) when the patient's head contacts the head rest 42 …”. These disclosures show that a position of the back rest relative to the seat portion is automatically determined by detecting when a patient’s head contacts the head rest). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai and Damadian, as suggested by Vartiainen, in order to automatically position the back rest variably relative to the seat portion of the chair. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of increased level of comfort for patients by setting the chair to a reclined state suitable for each individual patient.
Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian and Vartiainen do not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the drive unit and the positioning unit are configured to feed the patient seat along the spatial direction to the patient receiving region of the magnetic resonance device and to simultaneously move the first portion variably relative to the second portion.
Laine in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the drive unit and the positioning unit are configured to feed the patient seat along the spatial direction to the patient receiving region of the magnetic resonance device and to simultaneously move the first portion variably relative to the second portion (Laine, Para 0027; “… the chair is rotated more (comparing to FIGS. 1 and 2) counterclockwise, still around the axis A, and the chair 3 is even more inclined. … the seat portion comprises wheels 11, which are arranged into the first guiderail 8 so that the seat portion 3 may move linearly along the first guiderail 8.”. In this disclosure and also in Figs. 1-3, when the chair becomes more inclined (i.e. the angle between its seat portion 3 and back portion 4 increases), the seat portion 3 simultaneously moves along the guiderail 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian and Vartiainen, as suggested by Laine, in order to simultaneously adjust position and extension of a patient chair. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of saving examination time by implementing all needed movements simultaneously.
With regard to Claim 12, Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian, Vartiainen and Laine disclose the magnetic resonance device as claimed in Claim 11. Pourrahimi further discloses wherein a diagnostically relevant body region of a patient positioned on the patient seat is moveable at least along a first spatial direction and a second spatial direction, which is aligned orthogonally to the first spatial direction in an imaging volume of the magnetic resonance device (Pourrahimi, Para 0032; “… chair 306 may further include a height-adjustable support 308 and/or a moveable base 310. This example embodiment is configured to allow the patient's head to be in close proximity to the opening 304, shown on the front side of the scanner, to position the patient's head or the patient's entire upper body within the MRI magnet to start the scanning process.”. Fig. 3 further demonstrates that the support 308 and the base 310 can position a patient along 2 orthogonal directions in a scanning bore or opening 304).
Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian, Vartiainen and Laine as discussed above do not explicitly and clearly disclose automatically positioning a body region of patient in an imaging volume.
Abkai further discloses automatically positioning a body region of patient in an imaging volume (Abkai, Para 0036; “… the patient seat has adjusting means driven by at least one drive means controlled by means of a control unit in order to move the patient seat into the patient opening along a travel curve as far as an imaging position at which the head of the patient is at least partially arranged in an imaging area of the MRI machine … The position of the adjustable element relative to the primary magnetic field unit and/or relative to the patient seat is automatically determined …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian, Vartiainen and Laine, as further suggested by Abkai, in order to automatically position the patient seat in the scanning bore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of increasing imaging quality by precisely positioning the patient in imaging volume in an automatic manner (Abkai, Para 0038; “An advantage of this method is that the patient is automatically moved into the imaging position in a convenient and precise manner. As a result, compared to the manual positioning of the patient, positioning errors are prevented.”).
With regard to Claim 13, Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian, Vartiainen and Laine disclose the magnetic resonance device as claimed in Claim 12, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose comprising:
a sensor, which is configured to determine information about a spatial arrangement of the at least one antenna element relative to a portion of the patient seat,
wherein the drive unit and/or the positioning unit of the patient seat are configured to position the diagnostically relevant body region of the patient in the imaging volume in dependence on the information about the spatial arrangement of the at least one antenna element relative to the portion.
Abkai further discloses comprising:
a sensor (Abkai, Para 0047; “… a detector apparatus 18, which is designed in the present case as a laser apparatus and has a laser 19, a reflector 20 and a sensor 21”), which is configured to determine information about a spatial arrangement of the at least one antenna element (high-frequency coil) relative to a portion of the patient seat (Abkai, Para 0047; “The reflector 20 is attached to the adjustable element, such as the head rest 16 and/or on the high-frequency coil, so that the position of the adjustable element relative to the laser 19 and thus relative to the patient seat 7 and/or relative to the primary field unit 5 may be determined.”),
wherein the drive unit and/or the positioning unit (control unit 12) of the patient seat are configured to position the diagnostically relevant body region of the patient in the imaging volume (imaging area 15) (Abkai, Para 0047; “The drive means 11 is controlled by means of a control unit 12 to move the patient seat 7 in the patient opening 6 along a travel curve 13 (shown as an arrow) to an imaging position 14, in which the portion 2 of the head 3 is arranged in an imaging area 15 of the MRI machine.”) in dependence on the information about the spatial arrangement of the at least one antenna element relative to the portion (Abkai, Para 0049; “FIG. 3 shows a sketch to illustrate the adjustment of the high-frequency coil 17 relative to the patient seat 7, starting from a starting position 40 to an end position 41, as indicated by the arrow 42.” Further demonstrated in Fig. 3, the movement of the seat would take into consideration of the distance between 40 and 41, so that the portion 2 to be imaged is moved to the imaging position 14 at the imaging area 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, Abkai, Damadian, Vartiainen and Laine, as further suggested by Abkai, in order to use a sensor to determine a location of RF coil so as to guide the positioning of a patient in the imaging area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved imaging quality by precisely positioning the portion to be imaged in the imaging area (Abkai, Para 0020; “… positioning errors are prevented by determining the position prior to entry, or upon entry, and by automatically positioning the patient instead of manual positioning of the patient.”; Para 0029; “A precise determination of the position of the adjustable element is made possible by use of the laser apparatus.”).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourrahimi, in view of Abkai.
With regard to Claim 16, Pourrahimi discloses a patient seat (a diagnostic arrangement 200, excluding magnet and gradient coils in MRI scanner 202) for supporting a patient during a magnetic resonance examination (Pourrahimi, Para 0026; “… a diagnostic arrangement 200 includes an MRI scanner 202 having a scanning bore 204 to accommodate an extremity, such as the head, or spine of a patient sitting on chair 206.”), comprising:
a first portion (the part annotated as “seat” in cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi);
a second portion (the part annotated as “back rest” in cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi);
a connecting element (the part annotated as “connection 1” in cited Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi); and
a radio-frequency unit with at least one antenna element (MRI scanner 202 inherently contains radio-frequency unit with at least one antenna element, as disclosed in Para 0010; “When an RF coil transmits a magnetic pulse (wave) the precession of the protons are disturbed accordingly. … The more the number of RF transmit and RF receive coils the more information about the local hydrogen protons.”);
wherein the first portion and the second portion form parts of a receiving surface for the patient (Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi cited below shows that the two parts (blue and red) forms a receiving surface for a patient),
wherein the connecting element mechanically connects the first portion to the second portion and is configured to enable a variable relative movement between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 2 of Pourrahimi cited below shows that the connecting part (green) connects the blue and red parts. Fig. 3 shows that the connecting part can be adjusted so as to make the chair fully flat),
wherein the at least one antenna element of the radio-frequency unit is configured to receive signals in a power and frequency range of a magnetic resonance examination (Pourrahimi, Para 0010; “To produce signals from protons one or more additional coils are used to transmit and receive radio frequency electromagnetic waves pulses.”), and
wherein the connecting element is configured to move the first portion variably relative to the second portion such that a relative position of a head of a patient positioned on the patient seat appropriately for an application and a portion of the patient seat remains substantially unchanged (Pourrahimi, Para 0026; “FIG. 2 shows an example adjustable bore-orientation MRI scanner, adjusted to scan the head or upper body of a patient sitting down …. the back and front parts of chair 206 are adjustable”. With patient sitting down in the chair 206, the adjustment of the back and front parts does not substantially change relative position of the head of the patient and backrest of chair 206).
Pourrahimi does not clearly and explicitly disclose a drive unit, wherein the drive unit is configured to move the patient seat variably along a spatial direction.
Abkai in the same field of endeavor discloses a drive unit (drive means 11), wherein the drive unit is configured to move the patient seat variably along a spatial direction (Abkai, Para 0047; “The drive means 11 is controlled by means of a control unit 12 to move the patient seat 7 in the patient opening 6 along a travel curve 13 (shown as an arrow) to an imaging position 14”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pourrahimi, as suggested by Abkai, in order to use a drive means to move the patient seat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved safety and efficiency of loading patient into a scanner by using such drive means for controlled movements.
With regard to Claim 17, Pourrahimi and Abkai disclose the patient seat as claimed in Claim 16. Pourrahimi further discloses wherein the connecting element is configured to move a backrest relative to a seat surface of the patient seat (Pourrahimi, Para 0026; “… the back and front parts of chair 206 are adjustable”) such that a relative position between a back portion of a patient who is leaning back on the patient seat appropriately for the application and the backrest remains substantially unchanged (Pourrahimi, Para 0026; “FIG. 2 shows an example adjustable bore-orientation MRI scanner, adjusted to scan the head or upper body of a patient sitting down …. the back and front parts of chair 206 are adjustable”. With patient sitting down in the chair 206, the adjustment of the back parts does not substantially change relative position of the back of the patient and backrest of chair 206).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm E.T..
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.
/L.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights