DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation in part “marking on this display” in line 13. The claim should instead read, “marking on the display. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauts et al. (Pub. No.: WO 2022/223323) in view of Heismann et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0021034).
Consider claim 1, Nauts discloses a magnetic resonance imaging device (Fig.1, MRI device 100) for an interventional procedure (page 6, lines 7-18, biopsy, catheterization, (minimally) invasive surgery procedure wherein the patient is conscious during an MRI), the magnetic resonance imaging device comprising:
a field magnet with a patient tunnel for receiving a patient (page 6, lines 19-23, Fig. 1, a patient 20 on a patient support 102 is placed in the bore 101 of the MRI device 100, which uses strong magnetic fields, magnetic field gradients), and
a display arranged in the patient tunnel (page 6, line 24 to page 7, line 2, in-bore display).
Nauts does not specifically disclose wherein the patient tunnel has a recess within an inner wall of the patient tunnel, and wherein the recess extends at least partially along an inner circumference of the patient tunnel; and
a display arranged along a circumferential direction in the recess of the patient tunnel.
Heismann discloses wherein the patient tunnel has a recess within an inner wall of the patient tunnel (paragraphs [0026], [0027], Fig. 1, a display panel 4 is disposed in a lining 3), and wherein the recess extends at least partially along an inner circumference of the patient tunnel (claim 1, Fig. 1, the display panel disposed in the lining cladding the tunnel disposed on a bracket that can travel linearly along the lining and/or along a circumference of the lining); and
a display arranged along a circumferential direction in the recess of the patient tunnel (claim 1, Fig. 1, the display panel disposed in the lining cladding the tunnel disposed on a bracket that can travel linearly along the lining and/or along a circumference of the lining).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the display as disclosed by Nauts with the display as taught by Heismann to position of the display panel along the tunnel simply by moving it manually or automatically (Heismann, paragraph [0027]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nauts and Heismann in view of Ziarati et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0274152).
Consider claim 4, the combination of Nauts and Heismann does not specifically disclose wherein the display has electromagnetic shielding configured to reduce interference with magnetic resonance signals caused by emissions from the display, interference with the display caused by magnetic and/or electromagnetic fields during magnetic resonance mapping, or a combination thereof.
Ziarati discloses wherein the display (Fig. 2B, display structure 50) has electromagnetic shielding configured to reduce interference with magnetic resonance signals caused by emissions from the display, interference with the display caused by magnetic and/or electromagnetic fields during magnetic resonance mapping, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0032], Figs. 2B, 2C, display structure 50 includes the display layer 52 sandwiched between EMI shield layer 54 and EMI layer 56 to shield the MRI system from being affected by the display drive signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display as disclosed by the combination of Nauts and Heismann with the display including electromagnetic shielding as disclosed by Ziarati for blocking the display noise EMI from radiating outside to the MRI environment (Ziarati, paragraph [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 5-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the recess is arranged between the first section and the second section of the gradient coil.
Regarding claim 5, Yuen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0277324) discloses a magnetic resonance imaging device (paragraph [0032]), a display (paragraph [0035]), and a medical instrument capable of capturing images at its distal portion (paragraph [0035).
However, Yuen fails to disclose the display is positioned within the MRI and wherein the optical image capturing apparatus is configured to capture the display at least partially in a map.
Regarding the remaining claims, the claims are rejected due to dependency on objected claims.
Claims 9-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 9, Yuen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0277324) discloses a medical instrument for an interventional procedure, the medical instrument comprising: an elongate shape having a proximal end and a distal end; and an optical image capturing apparatus positioned at the distal end (paragraph [0035).
Heismann discloses wherein the display is arranged along a circumferential direction in a recess of a patient tunnel of the magnetic resonance imaging device (paragraphs [0026], [0027], Fig. 1, a display panel 4 is disposed in a lining 3).
The prior art of record fails disclose wherein the optical image capturing apparatus is configured to capture a display of a magnetic resonance imaging device at least partially in a map.
Regarding independent claim 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose identifying an entry point on the patient and an impact point on the display of the magnetic resonance imaging device, wherein the entry point and the impact point define a straight line through the trajectory in a position of the patient for the predetermined interventional procedure; positioning the medical instrument at the entry point by a user; marking the impact point by outputting a marking on this display; and aligning the distal end of the medical instrument with the marking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fischer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0265051) discloses an MRI-guide transperineal prostate biopsy.
Schellenberg et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0303483) discloses an MRI Breast Biopsy using a MR Safe Gamma Camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/Gerald Johnson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797