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 9-10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 4, “a respective camera unit” should read “the respective camera unit”.
In claim 10, line 3, “in arranged” should read “arranged”.
In claim 15, line 2, “a cable unit of the data transceiver” should read “a cable unit, of the at least one cable unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites "the data transmitter” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not the Applicant is referring to the data transceiver in claim 1. For examination purposes, Examiner of record takes this to be “the data transceiver”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bollenbeck (US 20230022887), hereinafter Bollenbeck.
Regarding claim 1, Bollenbeck teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus (10) comprising:
a scanner (11);
a patient receiving area (12) surrounded at least partly by the scanner (“Shown schematically in FIG. 1 is a magnetic resonance apparatus 10. The magnetic resonance apparatus 10 comprises a scanner unit 11 formed by a magnet unit. Moreover the magnetic resonance apparatus 10 has a patient receiving area 12 for imaging a patient 13.” [0026]);
a monitoring user interface (22-23) configured to perform, by a user, monitoring and/or control of a magnetic resonance examination (“The system control unit 22 centrally controls the magnetic resonance apparatus, such as for example the carrying out of a prespecified imaging gradient echo sequence. Moreover the system control unit 22 comprises an evaluation unit, not shown in any greater detail, for evaluation of medical image data that is acquired during the magnetic resonance examination.” [0028]; “Furthermore the magnetic resonance apparatus 10 comprises a user interface 23, which is connected to the system control unit 22. Control information such as for example imaging parameters, as well as reconstructed magnetic resonance images, can be displayed on a display unit 24, for example on at least one monitor, of the user interface 23 for a medical operator. [0029]; Fig. 1);
a patient interface (33-34) arranged within the scanner (“The communication unit 28 furthermore has a second communication element on the patient side, which is embodied as output element 33. The output element 33 is embodied as a patient display unit 34. The patient display unit 34 comprises a reflective display 35, which is embodied as an E-paper display.” [0032]; Fig. 1); and
a data transceiver (39) configured to transmit data between the patient interface and the monitoring user interface (“a data transmission unit 39, wherein the data transmission unit 39 is embodied for a data transmission of communication data,” [0036]), the data transceiver including at least one cable unit (“wired” [0017]), wherein, within the scanner, the at least one cable unit comprises optical fibers (“optical fibers” [0017]) (“In an advantageous development of the disclosed magnetic resonance apparatus, there can be provision for the magnetic resonance apparatus to have a data transmission unit, which is embodied for data transmission to the reflective display. The data transmission unit in this case can comprise a wired data transmission and/or a data transmission by means of optical fibers” [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, Bollenbeck teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the patient interface comprises at least two different interface units (32) (33-34) (“the communication unit 28 on the patient side has a first communication element, which is embodied as an input element 32. By means of the input element 32 the patient 13 can inform the operator, in particular the medical operating personnel, about a feeling, such as for example of not feeling well, during the magnetic resonance examination. In the present exemplary aspect the input element 32 is embodied as a patient call ball. Basically however further input elements 32 appearing sensible to the person skilled in the art, such as for example a microphone etc. are possible in a further aspect of the communication unit 28. The communication unit 28 furthermore has a second communication element on the patient side, which is embodied as output element 33. The output element 33 is embodied as a patient display unit 34. The patient display unit 34 comprises a reflective display 35, which is embodied as an E-paper display.” [0032]) and the data transceiver comprises at least two cable units with optical fibers (“optical fibers” [0017]), wherein each of the at least two interface units with one of the at least two cable units is connected to the monitoring user interface and configured for data transmission (“In an advantageous development of the disclosed magnetic resonance apparatus, there can be provision for the magnetic resonance apparatus to have a data transmission unit, which is embodied for data transmission to the reflective display. The data transmission unit in this case can comprise a wired data transmission and/or a data transmission by means of optical fibers” [0017]. “By means of the input element 32 the patient 13 can inform the operator” [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Bollenbeck teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the patient interface comprises an interface unit (33) with a visual output unit (34) configured to output information to the patient (“The communication unit 28 furthermore has a second communication element on the patient side, which is embodied as output element 33. The output element 33 is embodied as a patient display unit 34. The patient display unit 34 comprises a reflective display 35, which is embodied as an E-paper display.” [0032]; Fig. 1);, wherein a cable unit of the data transceiver is assigned to the visual output unit (“In an advantageous development of the disclosed magnetic resonance apparatus, there can be provision for the magnetic resonance apparatus to have a data transmission unit, which is embodied for data transmission to the reflective display. The data transmission unit in this case can comprise a wired data transmission and/or a data transmission by means of optical fibers” [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Bollenbeck teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the visual output unit comprises a projection unit with a projection surface (“a mirror system” [0004]) and an optical projection element (“In order to make visual information available in the patient receiving area for the patient, it has previously been known for information to be projected on a wall and be projected via a mirror system into the patient receiving area for display for the patient.” [0004]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollenbeck as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hete et al (US 20100113902), hereinafter, Hete.
Regarding claim 3, Bollenbeck teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bollenbeck does not teach that the data transmitter comprises at least one signal converter configured to convert optical signals into electronic signals and/or from electronic signals into optical signals.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging devices field of endeavor, Hete discloses small bore magnetic resonance imaging photoplethysmographic sensor, which is analogous art. Hete teaches that the data transmitter comprises at least one signal converter (32, 40) configured to convert optical signals into electronic signals and/or from electronic signals into optical signals (“A conventional electronic coupling 26 with standard plugs 28 and 30 extends from the processor 18 to an opto-electronic converter 40. As shown in FIG. 2 the converter 32 houses an LED emitter 44 connected to the coupling 26 through connection 42. The converter 32 houses an optical receiver 50 connected to the coupling 26 through connection 48.” [0045]; “a fiber optic cable 56… an electronic coupling 26 extending from the opto-electric converter 40 and configured to be coupled to the emitter 44 and the receiver 50, wherein the electronic coupling 26 is configured to extend outside of the MRI chamber 14; and a processor 18 coupled to the electronic coupling 26.” [0069]; Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, based on Hete’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ the data transmitter that comprises at least one signal converter configured to convert optical signals into electronic signals and/or from electronic signals into optical signals, as taught by Hete, in order to facilitate data transmission in and out of MRI apparatus by eliminating magnetic field interference.
Regarding claim 4, Bollenbeck teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bollenbeck does not teach that the data transceiver comprises a shared signal converter configured to convert optical signals into electronic signals for the at least one cable unit of the data transceiver.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging devices field of endeavor, Hete discloses small bore magnetic resonance imaging photoplethysmographic sensor, which is analogous art. Hete teaches that the data transmitter comprises a shared signal converter (32, 40) configured to convert optical signals into electronic signals for the at least one cable unit (26, 56) of the data transceiver (“A conventional electronic coupling 26 with standard plugs 28 and 30 extends from the processor 18 to an opto-electronic converter 40. As shown in FIG. 2 the converter 32 houses an LED emitter 44 connected to the coupling 26 through connection 42. The converter 32 houses an optical receiver 50 connected to the coupling 26 through connection 48.” [0045]; “a fiber optic cable 56… an electronic coupling 26 extending from the opto-electric converter 40 and configured to be coupled to the emitter 44 and the receiver 50, wherein the electronic coupling 26 is configured to extend outside of the MRI chamber 14; and a processor 18 coupled to the electronic coupling 26.” [0069]; Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, based on Hete’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ the data transceiver that comprises a shared signal converter configured to convert optical signals into electronic signals for the at least one cable unit of the data transceiver, as taught by Hete, in order to facilitate data transmission in and out of MRI apparatus by eliminating magnetic field interference.
Claims 5-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollenbeck as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zeller et al (US 20210059558), hereinafter, Zeller.
Regarding claim 5, Bollenbeck teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bollenbeck does not teach that the patient interface comprises an interface unit including a camera system configured to monitor a patient with two or more camera units, wherein a cable unit, of the at least one cable unit, is assigned to the camera system.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging systems field of endeavor, Zeller discloses a method for positioning a patient couch in a patient receiving area of a magnetic resonance device for a magnetic resonance examination, which is analogous art. Zeller teaches that the patient interface comprises an interface unit including a camera system (“a sensor system” [0053]) configured to monitor a patient with two or more camera units (28), wherein a cable unit, of the at least one cable unit (“The data transfer unit can comprise data transfer cables for the transfer and/or exchange of data.” [0019]), is assigned to the camera system (“The magnetic resonance device 10 further includes at least one sensor unit 28 (e.g. a sensor system or one or more individual sensor components) for acquiring monitoring data...the magnetic resonance device 10 includes four sensor units 28. The individual sensor units 28 are in each case formed by a camera, e.g. a 3D camera and/or an HD camera.” [0053]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, based on Zeller’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ the patient interface comprises an interface unit including a camera system configured to monitor a patient with two or more camera units, wherein a cable unit, of the at least one cable unit, is assigned to the camera system, as taught by Zeller, in order to facilitate patient monitoring during MRI examination.
Regarding claim 6, Bollenbeck modified by Zeller teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 5.
Bollenbeck does not teach that the two or more camera units are arranged, spaced apart from each other, in a longitudinal direction of the patient receiving area.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging systems field of endeavor, Zeller discloses a method for positioning a patient couch in a patient receiving area of a magnetic resonance device for a magnetic resonance examination, which is analogous art. Zeller teaches that the two or more camera units (28) are arranged, spaced apart from each other, in a longitudinal direction of the patient receiving area (“The magnetic resonance device 10 further includes at least one sensor unit 28 (e.g. a sensor system or one or more individual sensor components) for acquiring monitoring data...the magnetic resonance device 10 includes four sensor units 28. The individual sensor units 28 are in each case formed by a camera, e.g. a 3D camera and/or an HD camera.” [0053]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, based on Zeller’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ the two or more camera units that are arranged, spaced apart from each other, in a longitudinal direction of the patient receiving area, as taught by Zeller, in order to facilitate patient monitoring during MRI examination.
Regarding claim 7, Bollenbeck modified by Zeller teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 5.
Bollenbeck does not teach that the camera system comprises at least three camera units, wherein each two neighboring camera units of the at least three camera units are arranged at an equal distance in relation to each other in the longitudinal direction of the patient receiving area.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging systems field of endeavor, Zeller discloses a method for positioning a patient couch in a patient receiving area of a magnetic resonance device for a magnetic resonance examination, which is analogous art. Zeller teaches that that the camera system comprises at least three camera units (28), wherein each two neighboring camera units (28) of the at least three camera units are arranged at an equal distance in relation to each other in the longitudinal direction of the patient receiving area (“The magnetic resonance device 10 further includes at least one sensor unit 28 (e.g. a sensor system or one or more individual sensor components) for acquiring monitoring data...the magnetic resonance device 10 includes four sensor units 28. The individual sensor units 28 are in each case formed by a camera, e.g. a 3D camera and/or an HD camera.” [0053]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, based on Zeller’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ the camera system that comprises at least three camera units, wherein each two neighboring camera units of the at least three camera units are arranged at an equal distance in relation to each other in the longitudinal direction of the patient receiving area, as taught by Zeller, in order to facilitate patient monitoring during MRI examination.
Regarding claim 8, Bollenbeck modified by Zeller teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 5.
Bollenbeck does not teach that each of the two or more camera units comprises a three-dimensional (3D) camera or at least two two-dimensional (2D) cameras.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging systems field of endeavor, Zeller discloses a method for positioning a patient couch in a patient receiving area of a magnetic resonance device for a magnetic resonance examination, which is analogous art. Zeller teaches that each of the two or more camera units (28) comprises a three-dimensional (3D) camera or at least two two-dimensional (2D) cameras (“The magnetic resonance device 10 further includes at least one sensor unit 28 (e.g. a sensor system or one or more individual sensor components) for acquiring monitoring data...the magnetic resonance device 10 includes four sensor units 28. The individual sensor units 28 are in each case formed by a camera, e.g. a 3D camera and/or an HD camera.” [0053]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, based on Zeller’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ each of the two or more camera units that comprises a three-dimensional (3D) camera or at least two two-dimensional (2D) cameras, as taught by Zeller, in order to facilitate patient monitoring during MRI examination.
Regarding claim 13, Bollenbeck modified by Zeller teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 8.
Bollenbeck does not teach a processor configured to:
establish a 3D image based on two-dimensional images of the 2D cameras of a camera unit, and/or
establish a 3D overall image and/or patient model from 3D images from at least two camera units.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging systems field of endeavor, Zeller discloses a method for positioning a patient couch in a patient receiving area of a magnetic resonance device for a magnetic resonance examination, which is analogous art. Zeller teaches that a processor (24) (“The control software and/or control programs are executed by means of a processor of the system control unit 24” [0050]; Fig. 1) configured to:
establish a 3D overall image and/or patient model from 3D images from at least two camera units (“The at least one sensor unit may be arranged within the patient receiving area. Particularly advantageously, the magnetic resonance device comprises a plurality of sensor units thus enabling redundant acquisition of the monitoring data and/or the acquisition of monitoring data from different acquisition directions.” [0016]) (“The magnetic resonance device 10 further includes at least one sensor unit 28 (e.g. a sensor system or one or more individual sensor components) for acquiring monitoring data...the magnetic resonance device 10 includes four sensor units 28. The individual sensor units 28 are in each case formed by a camera, e.g. a 3D camera and/or an HD camera.” [0053]; Fig. 1. A 3D overall image is established by 3D cameras, “from different acquisition directions” [0016]).
Therefore, based on Zeller’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ a processor configured to: establish a 3D image based on two-dimensional images of the 2D cameras of a camera unit, and/or establish a 3D overall image and/or patient model from 3D images from at least two camera units, as taught by Zeller, in order to facilitate patient monitoring during MRI examination.
Regarding claim 14, Bollenbeck modified by Zeller teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 8.
Bollenbeck does not teach that the individual 3D cameras or the 2D cameras of the respective camera unit comprise a fixed field of view (FOV), wherein FOVs of directly neighboring camera units at least partly overlap.
However, in the magnetic resonance imaging systems field of endeavor, Zeller discloses a method for positioning a patient couch in a patient receiving area of a magnetic resonance device for a magnetic resonance examination, which is analogous art. Zeller teaches that the individual 3D cameras or the 2D cameras of the respective camera unit comprise a fixed field of view (FOV) (29)(“predetermined acquisition areas 29” [0054]; Fig. 1), wherein FOVs of directly neighboring camera units at least partly overlap (“The at least one sensor unit may be arranged within the patient receiving area. Particularly advantageously, the magnetic resonance device comprises a plurality of sensor units thus enabling redundant acquisition of the monitoring data and/or the acquisition of monitoring data from different acquisition directions.” [0016]. “The individual sensor units 28, e.g. the individual cameras in each case comprise an acquisition area 29, which is directed at a FOV and/or an isocenter of the patient receiving area 12 and/or the magnetic resonance device 10. Herein, the individual acquisition areas 29 of the respective sensor unit 28, in particular the respective camera, include predetermined acquisition areas 29. The individual sensor units 28, e.g. the individual cameras, acquire monitoring data that includes camera data.” [0054]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, based on Zeller’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ the individual 3D cameras or the 2D cameras of the respective camera unit that comprise a fixed field of view (FOV), wherein FOVs of directly neighboring camera units at least partly overlap, as taught by Zeller, in order to facilitate patient monitoring during MRI examination.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollenbeck as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hatakenaka (US 20230190130), hereinafter, Hatakenaka.
Regarding claim 15, Bollenbeck teaches the magnetic resonance apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Bollenbeck does not teach that the patient interface comprises an interface unit with at least one illumination element, wherein a cable unit of the data transceiver is assigned to the at least one illumination element.
However, in the magnetic resonance devices imaging field of endeavor, Hatakenaka discloses magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and illumination control method, which is analogous art. Hatakenaka teaches that the patient interface comprises an interface unit (1336) with at least one illumination element (1023), wherein a cable unit of the data transceiver is assigned to the at least one illumination element (“FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of the lit-up state of the first illuminating unit 1023 before the subject P is inserted inside the hollow bore 1021 (for example, till the examination region of the subject P is carried to the center of the magnetic field). Before the table-top 1051 is inserted inside the hollow bore 1021 of the gantry 102, the subject P is prone to anxiety about darkness inside the hollow bore 1021. As illustrated in FIG. 3, before the subject P is inserted inside the hollow bore 1021, the illumination control function 1336 activates the first illuminating unit 1023.” [0051]).
Therefore, based on Hatakenaka’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bollenbeck to employ the patient interface that comprises an interface unit with at least one illumination element, wherein a cable unit of the data transceiver is assigned to the at least one illumination element, as taught by Hatakenaka, in order to improve patient’s experience during MRI examinations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights