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 .
Note: all citations with respect to the specification of present application are citing the paragraph numbers in the Pre-Grant Publication US 2006/0096741 A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1, limitation “an intraoperative MRI” should read “an intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”.
Claim 1 line 8, limitation “an SNR map” should read “a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) map”.
Claim 8 line 1, limitation “an intraoperative MRI” should read “an intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)”.
Claim 8 line 6, limitation “a simulated SNR map” should read “a simulated signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) map”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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:
Limitation “detection system” in claim 1 and 8;
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.
Regarding limitation “detection system” in claim 1 and 8, the corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Tracking system 112 may therefore include a camera (e.g. a stereo camera) and a computing device (either the same device as mentioned above or a separate device) configured to locate the fiducial markers in the images captured by the camera, and determine the spatial positions of those markers within the operating theatre” in [0019]; “In other examples, marker recognition in tracking system 112 may be based on radio frequency (RF) radiation, visible light emitted from devices such as pulsed or un-pulsed LEDs, electromagnetic radiation other than IR or visible light, and the like. For RF and EM-based tracking, each object can be fitted with markers having signatures unique to that object, and tracking system 112 can include antennae rather than the above-mentioned camera. Combinations of the above may also be employed” in [0020]; “An example of tracking system 112 is the “Polaris” system available from Northern Digital Inc.” in [0021]; “that can be located with a detection system 212 such as the tracking system 112 presented above” in [0023].
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 § 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 1 – 7 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites limitation “wherein the computing device updates the SNR map on the display in real-time as the receiver coil is placed”. The above limitation is language as a method step of using the claimed apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to use the system to update the SNR map, or when the user actually uses the system to update the SNR map.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as the computing device is configured (designed) to perform the updating function.
Claim 4 recites limitation “wherein the feedback component comprises at least one of a visual, an auditory and a haptic feedback”.
First, limitation “the feedback component” is lack of antecedent basis. Limitation “assessment and feedback component” is claimed as an component in claim 3. It is unclear the above “feedback component” is a newly introduced sub-component or not.
Second, limitation “the feedback component” is claimed as a structural element, but the “at least one of a visual, an auditory and a haptic feedback” is in the category of sensory modalities. It is unclear how a structural element contains non-structural element, by using term “comprises”.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable component to provide the claimed feedback.
Therefore, claim 1, 4 and all corresponding dependent claim 2, 3, 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 – 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Biber (US 2013/0181715 A1; published on 07/18/2013) and Zhai et al. (US 2026/0009873 A1; filed on 07/10/2003) (hereinafter "Zhai") are cited as most relevant prior arts to the claimed invention.
The claimed invention requires to locate the receiver coil with attached marker first. An SNR map is calculated based on the tracked coil position, and then is superimposed on the navigation image.
Prior art Biber teaches a system and method to detect local coil position based on attached RFID. However, Biber does not simulate the SNR with the located coil. Neither does Biber teach the SNR map superimposed on navigation image.
Prior art Zhai teaches a system and method to simulate SNR profile for receive coil. However, the position of the receive coil is arbitrarily set at several predetermined location. Zhai also does not teach the overlapping of SNR profile on navigation image.
Thus, the cited prior arts in combination fails to teach or suggest the invention as claimed.
Regarding independent claim 1, Biber, Zhai and other search results collectively neither teach nor fairly well suggest a coil placement system, comprising: “a computing device communicating with the detection system, for calculating:” “a coil geometry relative to a patient and an MRI magnetic field; and an SNR map from the coil geometry; and” “wherein the computing device updates the SNR map on the display in real-time as the receiver coil is placed”, in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 – 7 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherently include the allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Regarding independent claim 8, Biber, Zhai and other search results collectively neither teach nor fairly well suggest a method for placing a receiver coil, comprising: “calculating a coil position and a coil geometry relative to the patient and an MRI magnetic field with a computing device; calculating a simulated SNR map from the coil geometry with the computing device; and superimposing the SNR map onto a surgical navigation image on a display”, in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 8.
Claim 9 – 14 are dependent on claim 8 and therefore inherently include the allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Riffe et al. (Device localization and dynamic scan plane selection using a wireless magnetic resonance imaging detector array; published on 07/30/2013) teach a system and method to localize receiver coil by mounted fiducial markers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 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, Anne M. Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/CHAO SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights