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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stickle (US 2024/0272254).
Regarding claim 1, Stickle teaches a spine coil for examination of a patient to be positioned on a patient table of a magnetic resonance apparatus, the spine coil comprising: multiple parts that are arrangeable separately from one another on the patient table of the magnetic resonance apparatus [See Figs. 8A-D, see modules 1302. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Stickle further teaches wherein the multiple parts have at least one module interface that is configured to connect the multiple parts to one another [¶0056. ¶0109-0110. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Stickle further teaches wherein at least one of the multiple parts has a coil-side system interface that is configured to convey signals from the spine coil to the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0098 and ¶0105. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Stickle further teaches wherein the coil-side system interface is configured to convey the signals from the spine coil to the patient table, a head coil, or the patient table and the had coil [¶0098, wherein strip line 804 is part of the patient table as seen in Figs. 8A-D. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Stickle further teaches wherein at least two of the multiple parts of the spine coil are identical as regards geometry, interfaces, antenna arrangement, or any combination thereof [Figs. 8A-D, which show at least two modules 1302 or 808 that are the same geometry, interface, and/or arrangement. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Stickle further teaches wherein each of the multiple parts comprises at least one receiving antenna for receiving magnetic resonance signals [¶0099. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Stickle teaches a system comprising:
a patient table [See Figs. 8A-D, wherein a patient table is shown. See also rest of reference.]; and
a spine coil for examination of a patient to be positioned on the patient table [See Figs. 8A-D, wherein modules 1302 are on the patient table. See also rest of reference.], the spine coil comprising:
multiple parts that are arrangeable separately from one another on the patient table [Figs. 8A-D, wherein modules 1302 are modular. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the patient table has a receptacle for receiving the spine coil [See Figs. 8A-D, wherein there is a recessed portion for receiving the modules 1302. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Stickle teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a spine coil for examination of a patient to be positioned on a patient table [See Figs. 8A-D, wherein modules 1302 are on the patient table. See also rest of reference.], the spine coil comprising:
multiple parts that are arrangeable separately from one another on the patient table [Figs. 8A-D, wherein modules 1302 are modular. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Stickle further teaches further comprising: a patient table has a receptacle for receiving the spine coil [See Figs. 8A-D, wherein there is a recessed portion for receiving the modules 1302. See also rest of reference.].
Supplemental 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.
At least independent claims 1, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey (EP 3 663 784 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harvey teaches a spine coil for examination of a patient to be positioned on a patient table of a magnetic resonance apparatus, the spine coil comprising: multiple parts that are arrangeable separately from one another on the patient table of the magnetic resonance apparatus [See Figs. 12-13. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Stickle teaches a system comprising:
a patient table [See subject support. See also rest of reference.]; and
a spine coil for examination of a patient to be positioned on the patient table [See Figs. 12-13. See also rest of reference.], the spine coil comprising:
multiple parts that are arrangeable separately from one another on the patient table [See Figs. 12-13. See also rest of reference.]
wherein the patient table has a receptacle for receiving the spine coil [See Fig 12, wherein there is a recessed portion for receiving the coils. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Stickle teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a spine coil for examination of a patient to be positioned on a patient table [See Figs. 12-13. See also rest of reference.], the spine coil comprising:
multiple parts that are arrangeable separately from one another on the patient table [See Figs. 12-13. 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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stickle, in view of Paul (US 2014/0320128).
Regarding claim 5, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Stickle is silent in teaching further comprising an overall number N of receiving antennas for receiving magnetic resonance signals, wherein the coil-side system interface comprises a switching matrix, wherein each of the N receiving antennas is electrically connected to an input of the switching matrix in each case, and wherein the switching matrix is configured to switch the N inputs to M outputs of the switching matrix, M being less than N.
Paul, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising an overall number N of receiving antennas for receiving magnetic resonance signals, wherein the coil-side system interface comprises a switching matrix, wherein each of the N receiving antennas is electrically connected to an input of the switching matrix in each case, and wherein the switching matrix is configured to switch the N inputs to M outputs of the switching matrix, M being less than N [Abstract and ¶0022, wherein only selected RF coils are used to acquire signals from the detection 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 Stickle and Paul because both references are in the field of local coils in MRI and because Paul teaches it is known in the art to only selected coil elements based on the detected region to maintain a desired signal-to-noise ratio [Paul - ¶0022].
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stickle, in view of Rothard (US 2013/0123612).
Regarding claim 6, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Stickle further teaches wherein the multiple parts of the spine coil comprise two parts [Fig. 8B, wherein only two modules 1302 are used to cover the spine of the patient (where 808 is used for the head and the bottom 1302 is used for legs/feet, not spine). See also rest of reference.].
Stickle is silent in teaching each with a length of between 30 and 100 cm.
Rothard further teaches wherein the spine coil array is suitable for imaging the entire spine of an examination subject, is at least 180 cm, or a combination thereof. Rothard also teaches wherein the spine coil array is at least 190 cm [Claims 15 and 22.].
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 Stickle and Rothard to try using two modules of Stickle that are between 30 and 100 cm to form a spine coil array that is at least 180 cm. Therefore, each module would be around 90 cm in length.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stickle, in view of Hardie (US 9,733,322).
Regarding claim 8, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Stickle is silent in teaching wherein at least one of the multiple parts has a seal for sealing joints to other parts, to the patient table, or to the other parts and the patient table.
Hardie further teaches wherein at least one of the multiple parts has a seal for sealing joints to other parts, to the patient table, or to the other parts and the patient table [Col. 2, lines 22-42, wherein RF connectors are attached to the patient table. See Fig. 2-3. 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 Stickle and Hardie because both references are in the field of local coils for MRI and because Hardie teaches it is known in the art that radio-frequency connectors are additionally constructed such that they are protected against contamination from various liquids, as may occur during clinical operation, by way of suitable mechanical seals.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stickle, in view of Harvey (EP 3 663 784 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Stickle is silent in teaching wherein at least one of the multiple parts does not comprise a receiving antenna for receiving magnetic resonance signals and is configured to form, together with other parts, a uniform overall bearing surface for supporting the patient.
Harvey, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein at least one of the multiple parts does not comprise a receiving antenna for receiving magnetic resonance signals and is configured to form, together with other parts, a uniform overall bearing surface for supporting the patient [See a platform as in feature 1 including a series of empty/dummy tiles (800) used to fill the parts of the tabletop when a coil tile, or other functional tile, is not used. See also spacers.].
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 Stickle and Harvey because both references are in the field of local coils for MRI and because Harvey also teaches a modular coil system and teaches it is known to use spacers to fill in the open space of the table top 108.
Claims 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stickle, in view of Baumgartl (US 2011/0221441).
Regarding claim 12, Stickle teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Stickle further teaches wherein at both ends of the patient table, the patient table has a table-side system interface in each case, and wherein each table-side system interface is configured to be connected to a coil-side system interface of the spine coil [See strip line 804/704. See also rest of reference.].
However, Stickle is silent in teaching two separate table-side system interfaces.
Baumgartl further teaches wherein at both ends of the patient table, the patient table has a table-side system interface in each case, and two table-side system interfaces [See plug in connectors 7].
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 Stickle and Baumgartl because both references are in the field of local coils for MRI and because Baumgartl teaches it is known in the art to provide multiple plug in connectors when multiple coils are used [Baumgartl – See Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 12 also apply to this claim.
‘Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0154775 teaches a multi-piece posterior coil unit [See Fig. 4A].
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