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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous double patenting rejections have been withdrawn because an approved TD was filed.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
The indicated allowability of claim 21 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Kim (US 2017/0205481), in view of Biber (US 2015/0022208). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 21-22, 41-42, and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2017/0205481), in view of Biber (US 2015/0022208).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches a control system comprising:
a tuning/detuning system including a first voltage source [See Fig. 9B, see Vin and ¶0135. See also rest of reference.], and a plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers [Fig. 9B, see Bias circuit 120, which can include one or more PIN diodes, see ¶0120. See also rest of reference.], the tuning/detuning system is configured to control local coil in an MRI system to be in a tuning state or in a detuning state [¶0118-0120. See also rest of reference.]; and
a diagnosis system including a first current sampling circuit and a processor, wherein:
the first current sampling circuit includes a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) [See ¶0182 an analog signal output by the voltage comparator may be converted to a digital signal. See also rest of reference.], a first operational amplifier [Fig. 9B, see difference amplifier 132b. See also rest of reference.], and a first sampling resistor [Fig. 9B, see resistor. See also rest of reference.], wherein one end of the first sampling resistor is electrically connected to a first output end of the first voltage source and the other end of the first sampling resistor is electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers [See Fig. 9B, wherein the resistor has one end connected to Vin and the other end is connected to bias circuit 120. See also rest of reference.],
the processor is configured to diagnose the tuning/detuning system [¶0183-0185. See also rest of reference.].
However, Kim is silent in teaching a second voltage source and local coils.
Biber, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches a second voltage source and local coils [See Claim 23, where voltage source and the current source using an external supply. See Fig. 2 and corresponding description. See local coils 106 in ¶0041. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Biber because both references are in the field of tune/detuning coils in MRI and because Biber teaches it is known in the art to have a voltage source and the current source using an external supply to bias the tune/detune circuits [Biber - Claim 23], which is similar to Kim [Kim - ¶0135].
Regarding claim 22, Kim and Biber teaches the limitations of claim 21, which this claim depends from.
Kim further teaches wherein: the first ADC is electrically connected to the first operational amplifier [See ¶0182 an analog signal output by the voltage comparator may be converted to a digital signal. See also rest of reference.], the first operational amplifier is electrically connected to the first sampling resistor [Fig. 9B, see difference amplifier 132b and resistor. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 41, Kim and Biber teaches the limitations of claim 21, which this claim depends from.
Kim further teaches wherein: the first ADC is electrically connected to the first operational amplifier in series and operatively connected to the processor [¶0182 and Fig. 9B. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 42, Kim and Biber teaches the limitations of claim 21, which this claim depends from.
Kim further teaches wherein: the first operational amplifier is electrically connected to the first sampling resistor in parallel [Fig. 9B, see difference amplifier 132b and resistor. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 44, Kim and Biber teaches the limitations of claim 21, which this claim depends from.
Kim further teaches when the first voltage source is selected as an input type of a voltage source of the plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers, and the plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers are configured to output a constant current [See Fig. 9B, see Vin and ¶0135. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 45, Kim and Biber teaches the limitations of claim 21, which this claim depends from.
Kim further teaches when the voltage source is selected as an input type of a voltage source of the plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers, and the plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers are configured to output a constant negative voltage [See Fig. 9B, see Vin and ¶0135. See also rest of reference.].
Kim is silent in teaching the second voltage source.
Biber further teaches when the second voltage source is selected as an input type of a voltage source of the plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers, and the plurality of tuning/detuning circuit drivers are configured to output a constant negative voltage [See Claim 23, where voltage source and the current source using an external supply. See Fig. 2 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Biber because both references are in the field of tune/detuning coils in MRI and because Biber teaches it is known in the art to have a voltage source and the current source using an external supply to bias the tune/detune circuits [Biber - Claim 23], which is similar to Kim [Kim - ¶0135].
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously Kim, in view of previously cited Biber, and in further view of Misic (US 2008/0290870).
Regarding claim 47, Kim and Biber teaches the limitations of claim 21, which this claim depends from.
However, Kim and Biber are silent in teaching wherein the processor is further configured to adjust an output voltage of the first voltage source based on types of the local coils.
Misic further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to adjust an output voltage of the first voltage source based on types of the local coils [¶0038. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Biber with the teachings of Misic because Kim and Biber teach bias voltages/currents and Misic teaches it is known in the art to use different bias voltages/currents depending on the specific coil [Misic - ¶0038. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights