DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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(s) 1-9, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Robustness of MR Elastography in the Healthy Brain: Repeatability, Reliability and Effect of Different Reconstruction Methods” to Svensson et al. “Svensson” in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0141803 to Tramm et al. “Tramm”.
As for Claims 1 and 14-15, Svensson discloses an elastography apparatus configured to assist in magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of a head of an examination subject (Abstract; Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) comprising a first support element configured to be positioned within a RF receiving coil assembly (e.g. head coil) and a vibration generator configured to generate mechanical waves (Page 1511, “Materials and Methods”) wherein the first support element comprises a recess for receiving the patient’s head and the vibration generator (Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions).
However, it is not clear if the support element includes a separate recess (e.g. first recess) for the vibration generator.
Tramm teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods (Abstract) where a head coil base includes a plurality of recesses (Fig. 8A and 9 and corresponding descriptions).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the head support element in Svensson’s MRE system and method with a plurality of recesses in order to accommodate auxiliary devices used in the scan. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143). Examiner notes in the modified device the first recess would accommodate the vibration generator such that the first recess is shaped to at least partially enclose the vibration generator and wherein the vibration generator is arranged, at least partially within the first recess in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 2, Examiner notes the vibration generator is removably positioned within the first recess in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claims 3 and 11, Svensson depicts the vibration generator (Fig. 1) and discloses the transducer set up has been described by Runge (Fig. 1 description). Examiner notes the vibration generator described by Svensson is a gravitational transducer and NPL “A novel magnetic resonance elastography transducer concept based on a rotational eccentric mass: preliminary experiences with the gravitational transducer” to Runge et al. “Runge” is cited herein as evidence. For example, Runge explains the vibration transducer is a “gravitational transducer” with a stepper motor, rotating shaft, eccentric mass, drive shaft and belt (Fig. 2 and corresponding descriptions). Examiner notes that Runge’s Fig. 2 depicts the same vibration generator of Applicant’s Fig. 2. Accordingly, a drive plan may be drawn between the annotated axes below.
PNG
media_image2.png
452
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 4 and 7, the modified head base (first support element) comprises a first plane below and the vibration generator may be positioned within the slot within the claim angle limitations in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 5, the modified system described above allows the vibration generator to be positioned sideways within the slot such that the drive axis is closer to the plane than the rotational axis in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 6, the vibration generator depicted by both Svensson (Fig. 1) and Runge (Fig. 2) has a housing assembly comprising a flat surface. Furthermore, as explained above, the modified head base (first support element) comprises a first plane below and the vibration generator’s flat surface may be positioned within the slot within the claim angle limitations in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 8, the vibration generator depicted by both Svensson (Fig. 1) and Runge (Fig. 2) has a flexible rotating lead to connect the rotatable shaft to a step motor or to transfer motion from the step motor to the rotatable shaft in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claim 9, given that both Svensson (Fig. 1) and Runge (Fig. 2) depict Applicant’s vibration generator, the modified system and method includes the claimed orientation of elements in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 13, Svensson discloses where cushions (e.g. extra padding) may be used to stabilize the head as needed (Fig. 1 description). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have positioned cushions between the recesses in order to enhance patient comfort.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson and Tramm applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0022839 to Sivadas.
Regarding Claim 10, Svensson Tramm disclose an elastography apparatus for use in MRI as described above but fail to specify using a “bayonet fastener” in the vibration generator as claimed.
Initially, Examiner notes the vibration generator described by Svensson and evidenced by Runge includes fasteners. For example, Runge explains that a locknut is used to fasten elements together (“Design of the gravitational transducer”) which is considered to be a suitable equivalent given Applicant’s specification which states,
“An embodiment variant of the elastography apparatus provides for the flexible rotating lead to comprise a connection to the rotatable shaft and for said connection to comprise a bayonet fastener. Alternatively or additionally, the connection can comprise a locking nut. A bayonet fastener can typically be detached in a reversible manner, and therefore allows a resilient and flexible connection between the vibration generator and step motor” (Paragraph [0031] of PG-Publication”).
Nonetheless, Sivadas teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to medical systems and methods were a bayonet mount or locknut may be used to fasten system components together (Paragraph [0050]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use a bayonet fastener for components in Svensson’s vibration generator as such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson and Tramm applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0350091 to Deng et al. “Deng”.
Regarding Claim 12, Svensson and Tramm disclose an elastography apparatus for use in MRI as described above but fail to specify the MRI support includes a third recess to accommodate at least part of the flexible rotating lead.
Deng teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods where a patient support includes a cable duct alongside the patient support (Abstract).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have motivated to have modified the patient support described by Svensson and Tramm to include third recess (e.g. duct) for wires/cables as described by Deng in order to promote patient comfort (Deng-Abstract). Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797