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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the patient table” should be amended to “the movable patient table”. 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benner (US 2018/0317862), in view of Darrow (US 2013/0165767).
Regarding claim 1, Benner teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus, comprising:
a scanner [¶0078 and ¶0115, see MR tomography apparatus. See also rest of reference.];
a patient receiving area at least partially surrounded by the scanner [Fig. 1, see imaging tunnel 22. See also rest of reference.]; and
a patient support comprising a movable patient table that is configured to be inserted into the patient receiving area [Fig. 1, see patient couch 14. See also rest of reference.]; and
a position-determiner configured to determine a position of the patient with respect to the scanner [¶0003, ¶0076, ¶0100. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the position-determiner comprises a laser marker and a calibration assembly configured to calibrate the laser marker [See marking laser and adjustment unit. See also rest of reference.].
However, Benner is silent in teaching a position-determiner configured to determine a position of the patient table with respect to the scanner (emphasis added).
Darrow, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches a position-determiner configured to determine a position of the patient table with respect to the scanner [¶0021, The positioning unit 114, on detecting the marker 120, configures one or more position encoders (not shown) associated with the table unit 104 to sense, for example, a longitudinal position of the cradle 112 within the magnet 106. 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 Benner and Darrow because both references are in the field of landmarking in MRI and because Benner cites Darrow in the background section, therefore Benner teaches that Darrow is known in the art. Further, Darrow teaches it is known in the art to determine a position of a patient table related to the MRI [Darrow - ¶0021].
Regarding claim 2, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches wherein the calibration assembly comprises a reflector [¶0138. See also rest of reference.].
Benner is silent in teaching a reflector arranged in a front region of the movable patient table.
Darrow further teaches a reflector arranged in a front region of the movable patient table [¶0020 and Fig. 1, wherein the reflective tape 120 is in a front portion of the patient cradle 112. 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 Benner and Darrow because both references are in the field of landmarking in MRI and because Benner cites Darrow in the background section, therefore Benner teaches that Darrow is known in the art. Further, Darrow teaches it is known in the art to determine a position of a patient table related to the MRI [Darrow - ¶0021].
Regarding claim 3, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches wherein the calibration assembly comprises a sensor that is configured to receive a laser beam [see photodiode. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches wherein the sensor comprises a photodiode [see photodiode. See also rest of reference.] including a threshold value circuit [¶0099, ¶0127, ¶0147. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches herein the calibration assembly comprises a calibration controller coupled to the sensor to perform a data exchange, and wherein the calibration controller is configured to output data based upon an output signal of the threshold value circuit [¶0099, ¶0127, ¶0147. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Benner is silent in teaching wherein: the scanner comprises a housing, the housing comprises a housing portion having a receiving area configured to receive the laser marker, and the laser marker is arranged with the sensor in the receiving area of the housing portion.
Darrow further teaches wherein: the scanner comprises a housing, the housing comprises a housing portion having a receiving area configured to receive the laser marker, and the laser marker is arranged with the sensor in the receiving area of the housing portion [¶0018, wherein To that end, the emitter-detector assembly 121, for example, may be mounted on a front surface or within the bore 110 of the magnet 106. 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 Benner and Darrow because both references are in the field of landmarking in MRI and because Benner cites Darrow in the background section, therefore Benner teaches that Darrow is known in the art. Further, Darrow teaches it is known in the art to determine a position of a patient table related to the MRI [Darrow - ¶0021].
Regarding claim 8, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches wherein the calibration assembly comprises an adjustor configured to adjust a position of the laser marker in one or more directions [See actuator or a servo motor. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 8, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches wherein the adjustor comprises an adjusting wheel configured to adjust the position of the laser marker [The servo motor will include gears. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 8, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches wherein the adjustor is arranged on the laser marker [See actuator or a servo motor. Figs. 2, see adjustment unit 36. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Benner, in view of previously cited Darrow, in further view of Abkai (US 2018/0199853).
Regarding claim 6, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Benner and Darrow are silent in teaching wherein the sensor is arranged on the laser marker.
Abkai, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the sensor is arranged on the laser marker [Fig. 1, wherein sensor 21 is arranged on laser 19. 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 Benner and Darrow with the teachings of Abkai because all references are in the field of laser markers using in MRI scanners and because Abkai teaches it is known in the art that a sensor for the laser marker can be positioned on the laser marker [Abkai - Fig. 1, wherein sensor 21 is arranged on laser 19. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Benner, in view of previously cited Darrow, in further view of Vij (US 2021/0282866).
Regarding claim 10, Benner and Darrow teach the limitations of claim 8, which this claim depends from.
Benner further teaches wherein the adjustor is configured to adjust the position of the laser marker in the one or more directions [See actuator or a servo motor. Figs. 2, see adjustment unit 36. See also rest of reference.] .
However, Benner and Darrow are silent in teaching by a maximum of ±1mm per respective direction.
Vij, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches adjustment units that that adjust by a maximum of ±1mm per respective direction [¶0157. 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 Benner and Darrow with the teachings of Vij because all references are in the field of MRI and because Benner teaches the use of actuators for changing positions and Vij teaches it is known in the art that actuators can cause position changes with a resolution of 0.1 mm [Vij - ¶0157. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0041409 also teaches a laser marker for MRI.
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