DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 3/3/2026. Claims 16-17, 19-22, and 24-33 are pending. No claims were amended or added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 – 17, 19-22, and 24-33 have been considered but are not persuasive.
US 7,106,058 (Wilker) teaches all elements of claim 1 except, “wherein the receiver coils in the receiver coil array each have a coil radius of 500 μm or less.” Wilker is silent as to the radius of the coil but states in col. 4, lines 46-50:
The distance from a coil within which NQR frequencies can be detected depends upon the size of the sample, the properties of the coil used, such as coil size, Q and the like, and the related equipment and circuitry used for processing the detected NQR signals. (Emphasis by the examiner).
The applicant argues on page 7/15 of the arguments filed 3/3/2026:
Notably, Wilker teaches that the distance from a coil within which NQR frequencies can be detected depends upon the size of the sample, the properties of the coil used, such as coil size, Q and the like, and the related equipment and circuitry used for processing the detected NQR signals, such that a change in coil diameter is not shown to be an independent parameter. Also, the "coil size" mentioned in Wilker is not defined as merely a radius or diameter, so that one skilled in the art would recognize whether the size refers to the diameter, thickness, length/turns, or turn spacing.
As such, based on the teachings of Wilker, one skilled in the art would not understand simple substitution of a radius of 500 pm or less as leading directly to detecting a magnetic resonance signal within a distance of 1 mm from the coil.
Regarding the argument, “such that a change in coil diameter is not shown to be an independent parameter”, it is unclear to the examiner how this argument is relevant to the determination of patentability. Further, the argument that Wilker mentions “coil size” but “the ‘coil size’ mentioned in Wilker is not defined as merely a radius or diameter, so that one skilled in the art would recognize whether the size refers to the diameter, thickness, length/turns, or turn spacing” is misleading and ignores what would be well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the “coil size” do mean diameter as the distance of sensitivity is a well-known relationship with the magnetic field generated by a flat RF coil proportional to r2/(r2+d2)3/2, with r being the radius of the coil and d being the axial distance from the center of the coil. The following references are being provided as supporting evidence:
US 5,656,530 starting at line 36, “The plurality of turns forming the solenoidal coil of the invention, which in this example is two turns, provides increased SNR characteristics. In general, the signal intensity as a function of the distance from a single turn circular surface coil may be defined as: signal(z)=d2/(d2 +z2)3/2 where z is the perpendicular distance from the plane of the coil, and d is the diameter of the coil. Applying this equation to small surface coils indicates that increasing the coil diameter produces only incremental improvements in SNR near the coil. Conversely, decreasing the coil diameter greatly diminishes the signal obtained from regions farther from the coil. Additionally, as the coil diameter increases, noise from outside the region of interest decreases the SNR.
US 2005/0225322 teaches measuring magnetic data of a security document (see abstract) and teaches in [0032] wherein the security document is “sheet-like item 7 carrying magnetic material M” and “The magnetic security material M may, if necessary, be disposed at a distance of up to half the magnetizing coil's inner diameter away from the magnetic sensor, given that the magnetic field H.sub.3 in the relevant measurement zone still fulfills the stated homogeneity condition, i.e. that it does not deviate more than 15%, preferably 10% from its value H.sub.1 within the coil 3.”
US 5,416,414 paragraph starting at col. 2, line 54.
US 5,126,674 teaches in col. 6, lines 45-51, “The basic design of the new probe will be discussed before explaining the specific probe circuitry. It is well-known that a flat circular loop of wire such as those used as surface coils for NMR imaging produce an inhomogeneous B.sub.1 field which varies by about a factor of 10 over a distance of one coil radius perpendicular to the plane of the coil.”
US 2005/0040823 paragraph [0007] teaches “If the excitation fields are generated for example by flat radio frequency coils, which are arranged in a plane, the radius of a conductor loop of the radio frequency coil is important for the penetration depth of the excitation field and the distance between adjacently operated radio frequency coils is important for the sensitivity. The penetration depth decreases with decreasing radius, the sensitivity increases with decreasing distance.”
US 4,636,730 teaches in col. 4, lines 60-65, “Referring now to FIG. 1d, the spatial sensitivity of a surface coil, utilized for both excitation signal transmission and response signal reception, is shown to be roughly confined in area to the surface coil circumference and to about one surface coil radius in depth (along the surface coil center line).”
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonable understand “coil size” as recited in Wilker would reasonably correspond to the radius/diameter of the coil. While Wilkeris silent as to a specific radius/diameter/size of the coil, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that detecting objects which are only a small distance from the coil may be achieved by using smaller coils. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a coil to have a smaller radius when detecting objects closer to the coil.
Further, while MPEP 2144.04IV.A. teaches changes in size/proportion would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner identified US 2010/0201357 (Ogawa) as an example of magnetic resonance measurements performed with coils having the specific dimensions as claimed, wherein [0287] teaches wherein the diameter of the coil is 1 mm or less.
Since Wilker teaches all elements as claimed except for a coil having the specific radius, and Ogawa teaches a magnetic resonance system comprising a coil of the claimed radius, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination as a whole to modify the coils of Wilker to have “have a coil radius of 500 µm or less.”
The applicant arguments on pages 7/15-12/15 rely on a piecemeal analysis of Ogawa identifying a number of deficiencies when measuring the mobility of a protic solvent in a sample using small RF coils and/or relies on features which are not present in the claim.
As stated in MPEP 2131.05, a reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. It is understood by Wilker that it is well-understood in the art that a magnetic resonance signal is related to the distance of a sample from the coil and diameter of the coil, with supporting references demonstrating the known relationship r2/(r2+d2)3/2, with r being the radius of the coil and d being the axial distance from the center of the coil. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a coil having a diameter of 1 mm for detecting objects within half a millimeter of the coil. The fact that Ogawa identifies magnetic resonance measurements with a 1 mm coil is less than optimal, does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.
Further, Ogawa appears to define a small-sized RF coil in terms of the size of the coil relative to the sample. Paragraph [0025] recites “[0025] a small-sized RF coil smaller in size than the sample,” with similar language used throughout the specification, not specifically coils which are smaller than “a coil radius of 500 µm or less.” The pending claims do not specify the size of a sample relative to the coil.
The applicant states on page 8/15:
Investigations into the influences by the present inventors made clear that the measured values obtained by using the small-sized RF coil may be converted into exact values by using a predetermined constant. The conversion includes embodiments of multiplying a predetermined constant, or of adding a predetermined constant, either of which may be selected depending, for example, on the properties of the sample. Exact measured values free from influences of the size may be obtained by preliminarily determining such constant, by preliminary experiment using the target sample to be measured. (Emphasis provided by applicant).
And on page 9/15,
In contrast, the current disclosure is directed to a device for checking the authenticity of an areal data carrier, for example using a feature that takes up an entire area of a banknote, or that can also be present only in a certain feature region (paras. [001] and [041]). While Wilker is directed to maximizing a depth of detection in an object, the current application is directed to checking the authenticity of areal data carriers and offers a range of particular advantages for this distinct objective (para. [046]). (Emphasis provided by applicant).
The above arguments are based on features not disclosed in the claims. For example, the claims do not recite features such as “The conversion includes embodiments of multiplying a predetermined constant, or of adding a predetermined constant, either of which may be selected depending, for example, on the properties of the sample” as stated in the applicant’s arguments. Likewise, while “checking the authenticity of an areal data carrier” is recited in the preamble as an intended use of the device, nothing in the body of the claims limits the device to an “areal data carrier”, nor do the claims or disclosure establish a specific definition for “areal data carrier”.
Therefore, the examiner maintains Wilker teaches all the elements as claimed except for the specific radius of the coil. While Wilker is silent on a specific radius of the coil, Wilker discloses wherein the distance from a coil within which NQR frequencies can be detected depends upon the size of the sample and coil size. As identified in the supporting references, it is well-known in the art that the distance from the center of a planar coil in which a magnetic resonance signal can be detected is dependent on the radius of the coil. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “coil size” as recited in Wilker would reasonably correspond to the coil radius/diameter which may be modified as desired. Ogawa teaches wherein magnetic resonance is performed using coils having a diameter of 1 mm as claimed. While Ogawa teaches deficiencies for a small-sized RF coil smaller in size than the sample, the claim is silent as to the size of the sample. Therefore, the examiner maintains it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to modify the coil of Wilker to have a radius of 500 µm or less without requiring any undue experimentation of providing any unexpected results in view of the limitations as claimed.
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 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.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19, 24, 28-29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,106,058 (Wilker) in view of US 2010/0201357 (Ogawa).
Regarding claim 16, Wilker teaches a device for checking the authenticity of an areal data carrier having a zero-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) feature (The detection system of Figs. 3A and 3B is configured to measure NQR signals (i.e. NMR signals arising in zero field) and has all the structural limitations as claimed, and would reasonably be configured to perform the intended use of “checking the authenticity of an areal data carrier” as recited in the preamble. While Wilker fails to explicitly teach “checking the authenticity of an areal data carrier having a zero-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) feature”, this limitation amounts to an intended use does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art as outlined in MPEP 2111.02 II. Further, “an areal data carrier having a zero-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) feature” is a property of the material or article worked upon and does not limit the apparatus claim. See MPEP 2115.), having
one or more excitation coils for producing excitation pulses for the zero-field NMR feature (shielded loop-resonator coil 16E excites the NQR frequencies; see Fig. 3B; see col. 5, lines 12-32),
an array of multiple receiver coils that are independent of the excitation coils and are at least partially arranged adjacent to each other for the spatially resolved detection of the signal response of the zero-field NMR feature (receiver coils 16D; see Fig. 3A; see col. 1, lines 40-56),
the number of receiver coils in the array of multiple receiver coils being greater than the number of excitation coils (there are two receiver coils 16D for each excitation coil 16E; see Fig. 3B), and
wherein an excitation area defined as a smallest square area in which all conductor paths of the one or more excitation coils are included overlaps a receiver area defined as a smallest square area in which all conductor paths of the receiver coils in the array of multiple receiver coils are included, wherein the excitation area is larger than the receiver area (for each coil 16, a smallest square formed around two coils 16D is smaller than the smallest square formed around coil 16E; see Fig. 3B below with squares added to indicate the smallest square areas around receiving coils 16D and excitation coils 16E.).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wilker fails to disclose the receiver coils in the receiver coil array each have a coil radius of 500 μm or less.
Ogawa teaches wherein the receiver coils in the receiver coil array each have a coil radius of 500 μm or less (receive coils have a diameter of 1 mm which is equivalent to a radius of 500 μm; see [0287]-[0288]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a receiver coil having a radius of 500 μm (i.e. a diameter of 1 mm) as taught by Ogawa into the system of Wilker in order to detect a magnetic resonance signal within a distance on the order of 1 mm from the coil.
Regarding claim 17, Wilker further teaches wherein the receiver coils in the receiver coil array are formed by surface coils (the receiver coils are surface coils; see col. 3, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 19, Wilker teaches wherein the receiver coil array forms a one-dimensional or two-dimensional array (coils 16D form a 1D array; see Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 24, Wilker further teaches wherein the area covered by the receiver coils is coordinated with the size of the zero-field NMR feature to be checked, such that the covered area covers the entire width or even the entire area of the zero-field NMR feature (Preferably, when the detection system is to be used to scan larger objects, a sufficient number of appropriately placed coils are used to enable the complete scanning of the entire surface region of the object placed near to the outer side of the detection panel. The number and placement of the coils will be dictated by the size of the detection panel and the size of coils. The size of the detection panel will be dictated by the size of the object to be examined. See col. 3, lines 24-40).
Regarding claim 28, Wilker further teaches wherein the device defines a check area for the areal data carrier to be checked, and the excitation coils and the receiver coils in the receiver coil array are arranged on the same side of the check area (an area between panels 14 form an area of container 12 to be checked and the receiver coils are formed on the same side of panel 14; see Figs. 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 29, Wilker further teaches wherein the device defines a check area for the areal data carrier to be checked, and the excitation coils and the receiver coils in the receiver coil array are arranged at a distance on opposite sides of the check area (receiver coils 16D and excitation coils 16E are arranged in both panels 14 and are, therefore, separated by a slight distance; see Figs. 3A,B).
Regarding claim 31, Wilker further teaches wherein the excitation area completely overlaps the receiver area (see Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 32, Wilker further teaches wherein the receiver coils in the receiver coil array are formed by surface coils in the form of conductor loops or spiral coils (the receiver coils are surface coils formed by conductor loops; see col. 3, lines 64-67; see Fig. 3B).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over US 7,106,058 (Wilker) in view of US 2010/0201357 (Ogawa), and in further view of US 2010/0301862 (Tropp).
Regarding claims 21-22, Wilker teaches wherein the receiver coil array includes two or more sub-arrays whose receiver coils are each configured for a fixed receive frequency (two or more arrays 16 are configured and tuned to a resonance frequency; see col. 4, lines 26-35).
Wilker fails to teach one receiver coil of each of the two or more sub-arrays arranged concentrically with each other; and wherein the receive frequencies of the sub-arrays are different.
Tropp teaches one receiver coil of each of the two or more sub-arrays arranged concentrically with each other; and wherein the receive frequencies of the sub-arrays are different (dual-frequency RF coils include concentric coil elements that are tuned to resonate at different frequencies and include decoupling devices such as T-R switch 68; see [0020], [0029], [0036]; see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Tropp into Wilker in order to gain the advantage of a dual-frequency RF coil capable of detecting magnetic resonance signals from two different nuclei and a switch to decouple the receiver coils from each other and from the transmitter coils.
Claim(s) 25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over US 7,106,058 (Wilker) in view of US 2010/0201357 (Ogawa), and in further view of US 2020/0293730 (Bhunia).
Regarding claim 25, Wilker fails to teach wherein the receiver coils in the receive circuit and/or the excitation coils in the transmit circuit of the device are each furnished with a directional coupler.
Bhunia teaches wherein the receiver coils in the receive circuit and/or the excitation coils in the transmit circuit of the device are each furnished with a directional coupler (see [0081]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the nuclear magnetic resonance for authenticated comprising a directional coupler, as taught by Bhunia et al. into the system of Peshkovsky because applying zero-field NMR for authentication would be desirable to provide high resolution without the need for a large, expensive magnet and because using directional coupler is typical in RF instead of induction/capacitive coupler as taught by Peshkovsky et al.
Regarding claim 30, Wilker fails to teach wherein the device is configured and adapted for checking the authenticity of a nuclear quadrupole resonance feature or an NMR feature in ferromagnetic materials.
Buhnia teaches wherein the device is configured and adapted for checking the authenticity of a nuclear quadrupole resonance feature or an NMR feature in ferromagnetic materials (see [0026]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the nuclear magnetic resonance for authenticated, as taught by Bhunia into the system of Wilker because applying zero-field NMR for authentication would be desirable to provide high resolution without the need for a large, expensive magnet.
Claim(s) 20 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,106,058 (Wilker) in view of US 2010/0201357 (Ogawa), and in further view of US 5,471,142 (Wang).
Regarding claim 20, Wilker fails to teach wherein the receiver coils in the receiver coil array are arranged at least partially overlapping each other.
Wang teaches wherein the receiver coils in the receiver coil array are arranged at least partially overlapping each other (see Fig. 8; see abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the nuclear magnetic resonance for authenticated, as taught by Wang into the system of Wilker in order to provide the benefit of geometrically decoupling neighboring coils.
Regarding claim 27, Wilker further teaches wherein the device includes two or more sub-arrangements of excitation coils and receiver coils, each sub-arrangement including a single excitation coil and an associated array composed of multiple receiver coils that are independent of the respective excitation coil, and in the sub-arrangements, the area covered by the excitation coil being greater than the area covered by the receiver coils of the associated receiver coil array (See Fig. 3B).
Wilker fails to teach overlapping array composed of multiple receiver coils that are independent of the respective excitation coil.
Wang teaches overlapping array composed of multiple receiver coils that are independent of the respective excitation coil (see Fig. 8; see abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the nuclear magnetic resonance for authenticated, as taught by Wang into the system of Wilker in order to provide the benefit of geometrically decoupling neighboring coils.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,106,058 (Wilker) in view of US 2010/0201357 (Ogawa), and in further view of US 5,471,142 (Wang) and US 3,287,629 (Varian).
Regarding claim 26, Wilker fails to teach wherein the device includes an additional, single calibration coil having a reference sample that is arranged at least partially overlapping with an excitation field of the one or more excitation coils.
Varian teaches wherein the device includes an additional, single calibration coil having a reference sample that is arranged with an excitation field of the one or more excitation coils (measurements are performed using a known reference material 25 having a detection coil 27 and an unknown sample 29 having a detection coil 31 are subject to an RF excitation; see col. 4, line 30 – col. 6, line 44).
Wang teaches wherein coils are at least partially overlapping (see Fig. 8; see abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the nuclear magnetic resonance for authenticated, as taught by Varian and Wang into the system of Wilker in order to provide the benefit of comparing a reference sample to an unknown sample and wherein the coils are at least partially overlapping to provide the benefit of geometrically decoupling neighboring coils.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,106,058 (Wilker) in view of US 2010/0201357 (Ogawa), and in further view of US 2020/0408861 (Park).
Regarding claim 33, Wilker fails to teach wherein the one or more excitation coils comprise a first excitation coil and a second excitation coil, the second excitation coil arranged within an areal region defined by the first excitation coil.
Park teaches wherein the one or more excitation coils comprise a first excitation coil and a second excitation coil, the second excitation coil arranged within an areal region defined by the first excitation coil (a dual frequency RF magnetic system comprises a first primary transmit antenna 760 and a second primary transmit antenna 761 arranged, wherein transmit antenna 761 is in an areal region defined by transmit antenna 760 and arranged on a common axis; see Fig. 7; see [0004], [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Tropp into Wilker in order to gain the advantage of two transmitter coils in an areal region capable of generating to different RF frequencies in order to perform 19F and 1H measurements on a sample in the areal region, if desired, since it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that two transmitter coils may be placed in a planar and coaxial arrangement in order to perform dual-frequency magnetic resonance measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights