DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitation(s):
A detection member that detects (claim 5)
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses/they use generic placeholder(s):
member
coupled with functional language:
detects
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder(s) is/are not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim(s) %% has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“laser light emitted from the light emitting element”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 9, and 15, “string-like” is indefinite because it is unclear as to what attribute(s) of a string is being referred to.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Novel modified patient immobilization device with an integrated coil support system for MR-guided online adaptive radiotherapy in the management of brain and head-and-neck tumours” by D. Konnerth et al. Tech Innov Pat Supp Radi Onco. 20 (2021) 35-40 (Konnerth) in view of Zink (US 2022/0057460, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Konnerth discloses a coil unit that is fixed to a subject by a string-like member, the coil unit comprising: a receive coil unit that receive a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of the subject; and a coil cover that has flexibility and on which the receive coil unit is two-dimensionally arranged, wherein the coil cover has a plurality of through-holes penetrating from one surface to the other surface, the through-holes being disposed at positions corresponding to a size of the subject, into which the string-like members are inserted (Figs. 4 and 5: “Anterior coil” has through holes that receive fastener straps). Konnerth does not explicitly disclose that the coil unit comprises a plurality of receive coils. However, Zink teaches an MR receiver coil that comprises a plurality of coils (Figs. 2-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the plurality of coils as taught by Zink to the coil unit of Konnerth, as to provide robust sensing of an MR signal.
Regarding claim 2, Konnerth does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of through-holes are two-dimensionally arranged (although the apertures appear to be arranged two-dimensionally as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) to correspond to positions of the plurality of receive coils. However, Zink teaches a two-dimensional arrangement of through holes in an MR receive unit ([0068]…[0070]: “apertures 108”, Figs. 2-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the aperture arrangement of Zink to the receive coil of Konnerth, as to provide an ordered arrangement.
Regarding claim 3, Konnerth discloses that the coil unit is fixed to the subject by the string-like member inserted into at least four through-holes (Figs. 4 and 5 show that the fasteners are inserted through four apertures, two on opposite sides of the patient).
Regarding claim 4, Konnerth discloses that the coil unit is fixed to the subject by the two string-like members (Figs. 4 and 5: “fasteners”).
Regarding claim 7, Konnerth discloses that the coil cover is made of a transparent material (Figs. 4 and 5 show that coils are covered by a material transparent to NMR signals).
Regarding claim 8, Konnerth discloses a magnetic resonance imaging system comprising: a string-like member; the coil unit according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a table on which a subject is placed, wherein the table includes an engaging member with which the string-like member is engaged, and the subject is fixed to the table by the string-like member engaged with the engaging member (Figs. 4 and 5: “Novel coil support system” is connected to and engaged between the fasteners and the table on which the patient lies).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793