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 Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “a to third spatial direction” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 6-9, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2023/0213680.
Regarding Claim 1, Ruf teaches a method for providing, using a three-dimensional (3D) magnetic field strength sensor, position information of an object with respect to an apparatus generating a magnetic stray field (see [0067] and figure 1, discussing a 3D Hall sensor), the method comprising:
providing B0 reference data of the magnetic stray field in a first spatial direction, the first spatial direction being orthogonal to a second spatial direction and a to third spatial direction, and the B0 reference data being provided in the first spatial direction at a predefined position in the second spatial direction and the third spatial direction (see [0067]-[0069] and figure 1, discussing a 3D Hall sensor that gathers static field reference data in three dimensions);
arranging the 3D magnetic field strength sensor at the predefined position (seen in figure 1);
providing a measured value of the 3D magnetic field strength sensor at the predefined position (see figure 1 and [0067]-[0072] in which a value of field strength for the 3D sensor is captured); and
providing the position information of the object in the first spatial direction based on the BO reference data and the measured value (see figure 1, [0062], and [0067]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the object comprises a patient couch configured to be height-adjustable in the first spatial direction, and wherein the magnetic stray field is generated via a magnetic resonance tomograph (see [0080]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the 3D magnetic field strength sensor is arranged at a corner region of the patient couch, and wherein the 3D magnetic field strength sensor is arranged on an upper edge of the patient couch (see figure 1 and [0067]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the BO reference data is provided in the first spatial directions only for a predefined area that corresponds to an area of height adjustability of the patient couch (see figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the B0 reference data is provided in the first spatial direction in grid points with a resolution between 0.1 and 10 mm (see figure 1 and [0077]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the B0 reference data is provided in the first spatial direction in grid points with a resolution between 0.5 and 2 mm (see figure 1 and [0077]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the B0 reference data is provided in the first spatial direction in grid points with a resolution between 0.7 and 1.5 mm (see figure 1 and [0077]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the B0 reference data is provided in the first spatial direction in grid points with a resolution of 1mm (see figure 1 and [0077]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the position information of the object is established in the first spatial direction by comparison of the measured value with the BO reference data, the position information in a first area is established by comparison of an amount of measured value components in the first, second, and third spatial directions with the B0 reference data (stated in [0022] and also [0067]-[0072] as local field gradient is compared with stray-field information); the position information in a second area is established by comparison of an amount of a measured value component in the third spatial direction (see [0022] and also [0067]-[0072]); and the position information in a third area is established by comparison of an amount of a measured value component in the first spatial direction with the BO reference data (see [0022] and also [0067]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the 3D magnetic field strength sensor is arranged on the object such that axes of the 3D magnetic field strength sensor are aligned collinearly to three respective X-Y-Z coordinate axes of the magnetic stray field (see figure 1 and [0067]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the object further comprises a memory means for storing the BO reference data in the first spatial direction (discussed in [0112]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the object further comprises a processing means for providing the position information of the object (discussed in [0096]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a magnetic resonance tomograph that generates the magnetic stray field, and further comprising: providing a correction factor based on a resonant frequency of the magnetic resonance tomograph; and adapting the BO reference data of the magnetic stray field in the first spatial direction based on the correction factor (see [0063], [0066], and [0080]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: providing control data for a movement facility, which is configured to move at least a part of the object, wherein the control data is based on the position information of the object in the first spatial direction (see [0084]-[0086]).
Regarding Claim 17, Ruf teaches a system for providing, using a three-dimensional (3D) magnetic field strength sensor, position information of an object with respect to an apparatus generating a magnetic stray field (see [0067] and figure 1, discussing a 3D Hall sensor), the system comprising:
a first interface configured to receive BO reference data of the magnetic stray field in a first spatial direction, the first spatial direction being orthogonal to a second spatial direction and a to third spatial direction, and the BO reference data being provided in the first spatial direction at a predefined position in the second spatial direction and the third spatial direction (see [0067]-[0069] and figure 1, discussing a 3D Hall sensor that gathers static field reference data in three dimensions);
a second interface configured to receive a measured value of the 3D magnetic field strength sensor at the predefined position; and processing circuitry coupled to the first and the second interface, the processing circuitry to provide the position information of the object in the first spatial direction based on the BO reference data and the measured value (see figure 1, [0062], and [0067]-[0072]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2023/0213680.
Regarding Claim 5, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, is silent in explicitly disclosing wherein the predefined area, in a Device Coordinate System (DCS), is aligned to a B0 field magnet and has a Y coordinate axis between - 700 and 0 mm. However, according to the [0016]-[0018] of the present application’s description, the Y-axis of claim 5 is of the vertical movement direction of the patient table. In implementing the example from paragraph [0077] of Ruf, it would be an obvious choice for a skilled person to determine the height of the patient bed based on stray field measurements with 80 values along the mentioned direction, within a height range that the table typically occupies, i.e., up to the highest position of the patient table (i.e., up to the greatest distance of the patient table from the floor), which would typically be in the range of 0–700 mm (see MPEP 2144.05 I in which results are similar to an expected range).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2023/0213680 in view of Wedan et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2013/0085378.
Regarding Claim 10, Ruf teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein stray field information is provided, but does not explicitly teach that it is provided between two neighboring grid points via linear interpolation or via spline interpolation. However, Wedan teaches that field information can be provided between two neighboring grid points via linear interpolation or via spline interpolation (as discussed in Wedan [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ruf with those of Wedan because parameter values will not exactly match and coordinate interpolation from a neighboring point is necessary to determine parameter values for coordinate locations (discussed in Wedan [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights