CTNF 19/238,015 CTNF 88101 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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. 07-30-05 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a length adjustment mechanism” in claims 1, 5-7, and 11. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification provides “stopper” as length adjustment mechanism ([0054]), and thus for a purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret “length adjustment mechanism” as a stopper and equivalent thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Baus et al.,” US 2025/0138115 (hereinafter Baus, filing date 10/25/2023) and “Konnerth et al.,” “ 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” Technical Innovations & patient support in radiation oncology 20 (2021) 35-40 (hereinafter Konnerth), and “Popescu,” US 2025/0127458 (hereinafter Popescu, foreign priority 10/20/2023 ) . Regarding to claim 1, Baus teaches a coil set (coil set Figure 4) comprising: a trunk part coil that has flexibility and in which a plurality of receiving coils that receive a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject are two-dimensionally arranged (a body coil in flexible enclosure [0046] Figure 2 and 12, blanket, NMR signals [0004]); two belts that are configured separately from the trunk part coil and that fix the trunk part coil to the subject (Figure 5); an adjustment mechanism (stopper [0052]-[0053]); wherein the trunk part coil includes a plurality of through-holes (hole of opening [0066] Figure 12) and Baus does not further teach limitations of the two belts are each passed through any of the plurality of through-holes. However, in the analogous field of flexible receiving coils for MR, Konnerth teaches anterior receiver coil placed on the patients with through-holes and fastener running through the through holes (Figure 4 shows anterior coil with through-holes, and visibly more than three fasteners running through the through holes to secure the coil to the patient, Description Cols 1-2 page 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify flexible local coil as taught by Baus to incorporate teaching of Konnerth, as both Baus and Konnerth are directed to securing flexible/deformable local coil to the patient’s body, and since fasteners running through the through-holes in the local/body coil was well known in the art as taught by Konnerth. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Baus with no change in their respective functions, configuring its local coil with existing through holes, and using fasteners going through the holes, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide novel modified patient immobilization device (Col. 2 Conclusion , page 38), and there was reasonable expectation of success. With respect to limitations of a length adjustment mechanism, Baus teaches a tension adjustment mechanism, not adjusting the lengths to arbitrary lengths as claimed. However, in the analogous field of endeavor in MRI imaging, Popescu teaches a local coil and a separate securing straps comprising adjustment device to adjust the belt length ([0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fasteners as taught by Baus and Konnerth to incorporate teaching of Popescu, since adjustment mechanism for fasteners was well known in the art as taught by Popescu. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Baus and Konnerth with no change in their respective functions, modifying its belt/fastener with adjustment mechanism, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide adjustable length for securing coil to the patient ([0037]), and there was reasonable expectation of success. Regarding to claims 3-4, Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Konnerth further teaches wherein the trunk part coil includes four through-holes and wherein the trunk part coil includes the through-holes at four corners of the trunk part coil in a plan view. (coil has at least four holes Figures 4-5). Regarding to claims 5-6, Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Popescu further teaches following limitations: Of claim 5, wherein the length adjustment mechanism is disposed on an opposite side of the subject, with the trunk part coil interposed therebetween (Figure 1 shows adjustment device 8 is located in opposite side of the subject while coil is interposed between). Of claim 6, wherein the length adjustment mechanism is fixed to a center of the trunk part coil in a plan view (adjustment device 8 is fixed to center of the coil, Figure 7). Of claim 8, wherein each of the two belts includes a first belt member that includes one of a pair of connecting members, and a second belt member that includes the other of the pair of connecting members (Figure 2 shows two members). Regarding to claim 7, Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Baus further teaches wherein the length adjustment mechanism (Figure 5 shows adjustment for tension of cables to secure coil to the patient) includes a relay connector to which a cable that outputs a nuclear magnetic resonance signal received by the plurality of receiving coil (interface circuitry 188 coupled to a connector and enables coil to be coupled to the MRI imaging system, a balun [0044] Figures 2 and 12). Regarding to claim 10, Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Popescu further teaches wherein the trunk part coil has a rectangular shape in a plan view, and is configured to fix the subject in any of an orientation in which a long side of the rectangular shape is aligned with an axis of an examination target part of the subject and an orientation in which a short side of the rectangular shape is aligned with the axis of the examination target part of the subject (blanket, rectangular shape [0046], blanket configuration will allow long side or short side of the rectangular shape to be aligned with axis of the examination target part of the subject as claimed). Regarding to claim 11, Baus teaches a trunk part coil that is fixed to a subject, the trunk part coil comprising: a plurality of receiving coils that receive a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of the subject (a body coil in flexible enclosure [0046]); a blanket that has flexibility and in which the plurality of receiving coils are two- dimensionally arranged (blanket [0046]); a plurality of through-holes that are disposed on the blanket (hole of opening [0066] Figure 12) and Baus does not further teach that through which two belts configured separately from the trunk part coil are passed; and a length adjustment mechanism that fixes the two belts passed through the plurality of through-holes at positions of arbitrary lengths. However, in the analogous field of flexible receiving coils for MR, Konnerth teaches anterior receiver coil placed on the patients with through-holes and fastener running through the through holes (Figure 4 shows anterior coil with through-holes, and visibly more than three fasteners running through the through holes to secure the coil to the patient, Description Cols 1-2 page 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify flexible local coil as taught by Baus to incorporate teaching of Konnerth, as both Baus and Konnerth are directed to securing flexible/deformable local coil to the patient’s body, and since fasteners running through the through-holes in the local/body coil was well known in the art as taught by Konnerth. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Baus with no change in their respective functions, configuring its local coil to have through holes existing in its blanket type local coil, and using fasteners going through the holes, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide novel modified patient immobilization device (Col. 2 Conclusion , page 38), and there was reasonable expectation of success. With respect to limitations of a length adjustment mechanism, Baus and Konnerth do not explicitly disclose a length adjustment mechanism. However, in the analogous field of endeavor in MRI imaging, Popescu teaches a local coil and a separate securing straps comprising adjustment device to adjust the belt length ([0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fasteners as taught by Baus and Konnerth to incorporate teaching of Popescu, since adjustment mechanism for fasteners was well known in the art as taught by Popescu. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Baus and Konnerth with no change in their respective functions, modifying its belt/fastener with adjustment mechanism, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide adjustable length for securing coil to the patient ([0037]), and there was reasonable expectation of success . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Davis, JR” US 2013/0180046 (hereinafter Davis, JR) Regarding to claim 2, Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Baus, Konnerth and Popescu do not further teach wherein the two belts intersect each other to fix the trunk part coil to the subject. However, in the analogous field of endeavor in securing patient for MRI scans, Davis, JR teaches using plurality of straps to secure patient, straps may be used in a horizontal or crisscross fashion ([0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fasteners as taught by Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fasteners as taught by Baus and Konnerth to incorporate teaching of Popescu, since crisscrossing straps was well known in the art as taught by Davis, JR. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Baus and Konnerth with no change in their respective functions, changing its parallel straps of Popescu to be crisscross fashion, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide secure a patient ([0068]), and there was reasonable expectation of success. to incorporate teaching of Popescu, since adjustment mechanism for fasteners was well known in the art as taught by Popescu. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Baus and Konnerth with no change in their respective functions, modifying its belt/fastener with adjustment mechanism, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide adjustable length for securing coil to the patient ([0037]), and there was reasonable expectation of success . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Ji,” US 2020/0018808 (hereinafter Ji) . Regarding to claim 9, Baus, Konnerth, and Popescu together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Popescu further teaches respiration movement can be determined in the sensor data ([0018]), but does not explicitly disclose a breathing synchronization sensor that is disposed between the trunk part coil and the subject and that detects breathing of the subject. However, in the analogous field of endeavor in coil assembly for MRI, Ji teaches MRI imaging coil unit include sensors detecting respiratory signal ([0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fasteners as taught by Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fasteners as taught by Baus and Konnerth to incorporate teaching of Popescu, since crisscrossing straps was well known in the art as taught by Davis, JR. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Baus and Konnerth with no change in their respective functions, changing its parallel straps of Popescu to be crisscross fashion, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide secure a patient ([0068]), and there was reasonable expectation of success . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Biber et al.,” US 2013/01190607 (hereinafter Biber) teaches MRI body coil that can be bent to confirm to body of the subject, and secured using belts ([0031]-[0033]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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. /PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 2 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 3 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 4 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 5 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 6 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 7 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 8 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 9 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 10 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 11 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 12 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 13 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/238,015 Page 14 Art Unit: 3798
Prosecution Insights