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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 10/14/2025 have been entered. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stormfront et al., (US20190277926A1) in view of Nevo (WO2000013586A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stormont teaches a method for determining a location of an apparatus inside an imaging volume of a magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) system (Abstract MRI system), wherein the imaging volume is surrounded by a field magnet for creating a static basic magnetic field along a longitudinal axis and by a gradient coil of the MRT system (fig. 1 the subject 16 is surrounded by magnetic unit 12 that creates a static magnetic field along the subject 16 [0023]), and wherein the apparatus comprises at least one first conductor loop that runs within a first loop plane (fig. 2 loop portion 201 [0040]; fig. 6 loop plane 610 [0069]), the method comprising:
creating a magnetic alternating field in the imaging volume using the gradient coil ([0003] MRI systems comprise gradient coils that produce spatially-varying magnetic fields);
detecting a magnetic resonance (MR) signal from an object to be examined in the imaging volume by the at least one first conductor loop (fig. 4 loop portion of RF coil 401 allows the RF coil to transmit and/or receive RF signals [0059]; [0060] the loop may be conductor wires); and
creating an MR image as a function of the MR signal ([0036] the display unit displays an image based on the signals received).
However, Stormfront fails to explicitly disclose determining at least one first measured value that depends on a first induction voltage using the at least one first conductor loop, the first induction voltage being induced by a first component of the magnetic alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one first conductor loop, determining a location of the apparatus inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of at least one first measured value and a predetermined magnetic field model for the gradient coil.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches determining at least one first measured value that depends on a first induction voltage using the at least one first conductor loop (pg. 10 line 14-16“The induced voltages in the three orthogonal coils (Figure 4) enable the calculation of the magnetic fields of the gradient coils at the location of the sensor without knowing the orientation of the sensor.”),
the first induction voltage being induced by a first component of the magnetic alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one first conductor loop(pg. 10 line 6-12 “The measured magnitudes of the induced voltages at the three coils and the known magnetic field G(t,x,y,z) as function of time at each point in the operating field (as calculated by summing the individual magnetic fields of all gradient coils which are active at a specific time) enable the estimation of the object location and direction by the following sequence of steps.”; the magnetic field in the y and z directions would be orthogonal to the longitudinal x axis),
determining a location of the apparatus inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of at least one first measured value (pg. 10 line 14-16 the induced voltages enable the calculation of the gradient coils at the location of the sensor) and a predetermined magnetic field model for the gradient coil (pg. 13 line 26-pg. 14 line 3 “By knowing the 3 -dimensional distributions of the magnetic fields of the XN and Z gradients (or a combination of 2 or 3 gradient fields), the instantaneous location of the device can be estimated. A search algorithm finds a specific location which, during the activation of the gradients, has magnetic fields with similar magnitudes as those calculated from the measured coil voltages. A typical search algorithm minimizes a cost function which is based on the level of similarity between the estimated fields and the reference known fields at the assumed location, for example a least squares cost function is the sum of the squares of the differences between each of the estimated magnetic fields and the corresponding reference fields at the current estimated location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 2, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding the MR signal is suppressed.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches the MR signal is suppressed (pg. 19 lines 23-25 high pass filtering can be applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Stormfront to add signal suppression, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 3, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Stormfront further teaches wherein the apparatus is positioned in the imaging volume such that the first loop plane is at least approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis (fig. 1 coil unit 14 runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the patient, and fig. 6 describes the loop plane).
Regarding claim 4, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 1, but is fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one second conductor loop that runs within a second loop plane, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one second conductor loop, at least one second measured value that depends on a second induction voltage that is induced by a second component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one second conductor loop; and determining the location of the apparatus at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value, the at least one second measured value, and the magnetic field model for the gradient coil.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one second conductor loop that runs within a second loop plane (fig. 4A three orthogonal coils 22, 24, and 26 are all on separate planes pg. 7 line 19-23), and wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one second conductor loop, at least one second measured value that depends on a second induction voltage that is induced by a second component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one second conductor loop (fig. 4A schematic configuration of three orthogonal coils (22, 24, 26) in the sensor and the induced voltages in each coil pg. 7 line 19-23); and determining the location of the apparatus at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value, the at least one second measured value, and the magnetic field model for the gradient coil (pg. 13 line 26-pg. 14 line 3 “By knowing the 3 -dimensional distributions of the magnetic fields of the XN and Z gradients (or a combination of 2 or 3 gradient fields), the instantaneous location of the device can be estimated. A search algorithm finds a specific location which, during the activation of the gradients, has magnetic fields with similar magnitudes as those calculated from the measured coil voltages. A typical search algorithm minimizes a cost function which is based on the level of similarity between the estimated fields and the reference known fields at the assumed location, for example a least squares cost function is the sum of the squares of the differences between each of the estimated magnetic fields and the corresponding reference fields at the current estimated location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method with the alternating magnetic field of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 6, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 4, but is fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus has at least one third conductor loop that runs within a third loop plane, wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one third conductor loop, at least one third measured value that depends on a third induction voltage that is induced by a third component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one third conductor loop; determining a first location of the at least one first conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value and the magnetic field model; determining a third location of the at least one third conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one third measured value and the magnetic field model; and determining a relative location of the at least one third conductor loop with regard to the at least one first conductor loop as a function of the first location and the third location.
However in the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches wherein the apparatus has at least one third conductor loop that runs within a third loop plane (fig. 4A three orthogonal coils 22, 24, and 26 are all on separate planes pg. 7 line 19-23), wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one third conductor loop, at least one third measured value that depends on a third induction voltage that is induced by a third component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one third conductor loop (fig. 4A shows the schematic configuration of three orthogonal coils (22, 24, 26) in the sensor and the induced voltages in each coil pg. 7 line 19-23); determining a first location of the at least one first conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value and the magnetic field model(pg. 13 line 26-pg. 14 line 3 “By knowing the 3 -dimensional distributions of the magnetic fields of the XN and Z gradients (or a combination of 2 or 3 gradient fields), the instantaneous location of the device can be estimated. A search algorithm finds a specific location which, during the activation of the gradients, has magnetic fields with similar magnitudes as those calculated from the measured coil voltages. A typical search algorithm minimizes a cost function which is based on the level of similarity between the estimated fields and the reference known fields at the assumed location, for example a least squares cost function is the sum of the squares of the differences between each of the estimated magnetic fields and the corresponding reference fields at the current estimated location.”); determining a third location of the at least one third conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one third measured value and the magnetic field model (pg. 12 line 1-12 the known magnetic field and activation sequence of specific gradient can be used to calculate the location of each of the coils)and determining a relative location of the at least one third conductor loop with regard to the at least one first conductor loop as a function of the first location and the third location (pg. 19 “Since the exact distance between the two coils of each pair is accurately known, the estimation process still aims to find 6 unknowns, for example the location and orientation of a set of three orthogonal coils, while the location and orientation of the second set of the three orthogonal coils can be defined with respect to the location and orientation of the first set”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method with the alternating magnetic field of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 7, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Stormfront further teaches wherein the apparatus is positioned in the imaging volume such that the first loop plane is at least approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis (fig. 1 coil unit 14 runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the patient, and fig. 6 describes the loop plane).
Regarding claim 8, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 7, but is fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one second conductor loop that runs within a second loop plane, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one second conductor loop, at least one second measured value that depends on a second induction voltage that is induced by a second component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one second conductor loop; and determining the location of the apparatus at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value, the at least one second measured value, and the magnetic field model for the gradient coil.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises at least one second conductor loop that runs within a second loop plane (fig. 4A three orthogonal coils 22, 24, and 26 are all on separate planes pg. 7 line 19-23), and wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one second conductor loop, at least one second measured value that depends on a second induction voltage that is induced by a second component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one second conductor loop (fig. 4A schematic configuration of three orthogonal coils (22, 24, 26) in the sensor and the induced voltages in each coil pg. 7 line 19-23); and determining the location of the apparatus at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value, the at least one second measured value, and the magnetic field model for the gradient coil (pg. 13 line 26-pg. 14 line 3 “By knowing the 3 -dimensional distributions of the magnetic fields of the XN and Z gradients (or a combination of 2 or 3 gradient fields), the instantaneous location of the device can be estimated. A search algorithm finds a specific location which, during the activation of the gradients, has magnetic fields with similar magnitudes as those calculated from the measured coil voltages. A typical search algorithm minimizes a cost function which is based on the level of similarity between the estimated fields and the reference known fields at the assumed location, for example a least squares cost function is the sum of the squares of the differences between each of the estimated magnetic fields and the corresponding reference fields at the current estimated location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method with the alternating magnetic field of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 10, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 8, but is fails to explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus has at least one third conductor loop that runs within a third loop plane, wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one third conductor loop, at least one third measured value that depends on a third induction voltage that is induced by a third component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one third conductor loop; determining a first location of the at least one first conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value and the magnetic field model; determining a third location of the at least one third conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one third measured value and the magnetic field model; and determining a relative location of the at least one third conductor loop with regard to the at least one first conductor loop as a function of the first location and the third location.
However in the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches wherein the apparatus has at least one third conductor loop that runs within a third loop plane (fig. 4A three orthogonal coils 22, 24, and 26 are all on separate planes pg. 7 line 19-23), wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one third conductor loop, at least one third measured value that depends on a third induction voltage that is induced by a third component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one third conductor loop (fig. 4A shows the schematic configuration of three orthogonal coils (22, 24, 26) in the sensor and the induced voltages in each coil pg. 7 line 19-23); determining a first location of the at least one first conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one first measured value and the magnetic field model(pg. 13 line 26-pg. 14 line 3 “By knowing the 3 -dimensional distributions of the magnetic fields of the XN and Z gradients (or a combination of 2 or 3 gradient fields), the instantaneous location of the device can be estimated. A search algorithm finds a specific location which, during the activation of the gradients, has magnetic fields with similar magnitudes as those calculated from the measured coil voltages. A typical search algorithm minimizes a cost function which is based on the level of similarity between the estimated fields and the reference known fields at the assumed location, for example a least squares cost function is the sum of the squares of the differences between each of the estimated magnetic fields and the corresponding reference fields at the current estimated location.”); determining a third location of the at least one third conductor loop inside the imaging volume at least partly as a function of the at least one third measured value and the magnetic field model (pg. 12 line 1-12 the known magnetic field and activation sequence of specific gradient can be used to calculate the location of each of the coils)and determining a relative location of the at least one third conductor loop with regard to the at least one first conductor loop as a function of the first location and the third location (pg. 19 “Since the exact distance between the two coils of each pair is accurately known, the estimation process still aims to find 6 unknowns, for example the location and orientation of a set of three orthogonal coils, while the location and orientation of the second set of the three orthogonal coils can be defined with respect to the location and orientation of the first set”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method with the alternating magnetic field of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 20, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding detecting, by the at least one first conductor loop, the magnetic alternating field, wherein determining the at least one first measured value comprises determining the at least one first measured value based on the detected magnetic alternating field; and frequency filtering the detected magnetic alternating field and the detected MR signal, such that the detected magnetic alternating field and the detected MR signal are separated from one another.
In the same MR field of endeavor, Nevo teaches detecting, by the at least one first conductor loop, the magnetic alternating field (pg. 10 lines 14-16 each coil has induced voltages that enable the calculation of magnetic fields of the gradient coils), wherein determining the at least one first measured value comprises determining the at least one first measured value based on the detected magnetic alternating field (pg. 10 lines 14-22 the time varying magnetic field induces three voltages in the three coils, and the induced voltages in two parallel coils of each pair are averaged and the results are analyzed)and frequency filtering the detected magnetic alternating field and the detected MR signal, such that the detected magnetic alternating field and the detected MR signal are separated from one another (pg. 9 lines 7-10 “Additional magnetic fields, which are generated by the RF (radio frequency) coils of the MRI, are not being used by the current invention. These fields, which alternate in the range of mega-hertz, induce high-frequency electrical potentials in the sensing coils which can be removed by low-pass filtration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stormfront in view of Nevo as applied to claims 4 and 8, respectively, above, and further in view of Driesel et al., (US20140197832A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 4, but is silent regarding wherein the apparatus is positioned in the imaging volume such that the second loop plane is at least approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Driesel teaches wherein the apparatus is positioned in the imaging volume such that the second loop plane is at least approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis (fig. 12 the second antenna 101 is on a separate plane than antenna 100 and is oriented to be parallel to the longitudinal axis (see fig. 15) [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Stormfront with the second antenna of Driesel, as this would improve the MR device by enabling a more robust operation of the device (see Driesel [0022]). This results in improving the SNR of the device (see Driesel [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Stormfront teaches the method of claim 8, but is silent regarding wherein the apparatus is positioned in the imaging volume such that the second loop plane is at least approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Driesel teaches wherein the apparatus is positioned in the imaging volume such that the second loop plane is at least approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis (fig. 12 the second antenna 101 is on a separate plane than antenna 100 and is oriented to be parallel to the longitudinal axis (see fig. 15) [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Stormfront with the second antenna of Driesel, as this would improve the MR device by enabling a more robust operation of the device (see Driesel [0022]). This results in improving the SNR of the device (see Driesel [0052]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stormfront in view of Nevo and Watkins et al., (US5715822A).
Regarding claim 11, Stormfront teaches: A magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) system comprising ([0019] MRI system):
a field magnet operable to create a static basic magnetic field along a longitudinal axis (fig. 1 magnet unit 12 [0023]), and a gradient coil (fig. 1 gradient coil unit 13 [0023]), wherein the field magnet and the gradient coil surround an imaging volume of the MRT system (fig. 1 the subject 16 is surrounded by magnetic unit 12 and gradient coil 13 that creates a static magnetic field along the subject 16 [0023]);
an apparatus with at least one first conductor loop that runs within a first loop plane(fig. 2 loop portion 201 [0040]; fig. 6 loop plane 610 [0069]);
a control unit that is configured to activate the gradient coil, such that a magnetic alternating field is created in the imaging volume(fig. 1 driver unit 23 drives the gradient coil unit 13 [0023]; [0003] MRI systems comprise gradient coils that produce spatially-varying magnetic fields););
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured, depending on a magnetic resonance (MR) signal from an object to be examined in the imaging volume, to create an MR image ([0036] the display unit displays an image based on the signals received).
However, Stormfront fails to teach a measurement unit that is connected to the at least one first conductor loop and is configured, as a function of a first induction voltage that is induced by a component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one first conductor loop, to determine at least one first measured value; and at least one evaluation unit that is configured to determine a location of the apparatus inside an imaging volume at least partly as a function of at least one first measured value and a predetermined magnetic field model for the gradient coil
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches a measurement unit that is connected to the at least one first conductor loop and is configured, as a function of a first induction voltage(pg. 10 line 14-16“The induced voltages in the three orthogonal coils (Figure 4) enable the calculation of the magnetic fields of the gradient coils at the location of the sensor without knowing the orientation of the sensor.) that is induced by a component of the alternating field at right angles to the longitudinal axis in the at least one first conductor loop, to determine at least one first measured value pg. 10 line 6-12 “The measured magnitudes of the induced voltages at the three coils and the known magnetic field G(t,x,y,z) as function of time at each point in the operating field (as calculated by summing the individual magnetic fields of all gradient coils which are active at a specific time) enable the estimation of the object location and direction by the following sequence of steps.”; the magnetic field in the y and z directions would be orthogonal to the longitudinal x axis); and at least one evaluation unit that is configured to determine a location of the apparatus inside an imaging volume(pg. 10 line 14-16 the induced voltages enable the calculation of the gradient coils at the location of the sensor) at least partly as a function of at least one first measured value and a predetermined magnetic field model for the gradient coil(pg. 13 line 26-pg. 14 line 3 “By knowing the 3 -dimensional distributions of the magnetic fields of the XN and Z gradients (or a combination of 2 or 3 gradient fields), the instantaneous location of the device can be estimated. A search algorithm finds a specific location which, during the activation of the gradients, has magnetic fields with similar magnitudes as those calculated from the measured coil voltages. A typical search algorithm minimizes a cost function which is based on the level of similarity between the estimated fields and the reference known fields at the assumed location, for example a least squares cost function is the sum of the squares of the differences between each of the estimated magnetic fields and the corresponding reference fields at the current estimated location.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
However the combination of references are silent regarding wherein the measurement unit is further configured, as a function of a second induction voltage that is induced in the at least one first conductor loop, to detect a magnetic resonance (MR) signal from an object to be examined in the imaging volume.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Watkins teaches wherein the measurement unit is further configured, as a function of a second induction voltage that is induced in the at least one first conductor loop (col. 1 line 60 - col. 2 line 4 a resonance MR response signal induces current(such induced current necessarily results from an induced voltage) in the RF coil attached to the invasive device for tracking), to detect a magnetic resonance (MR) signal from an object to be examined in the imaging volume (col. 1 line 60 - col. 2 line 4 a resonance MR response signal induces current in the RF coil attached to the invasive device for tracking; col. 5 lines 28-40 the MR signals are sent to calculation means 950 where it is processed for tracking to arrive at the position of the coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the known technique of using an induction voltage that’s induced in a loop to detect a magnetic resonance signal from an invasive device as taught by Watkins to the base system of modified Stormfront, as both inventions relate to MR tracking systems would yield the predictable result of a MR tracking system that detects an MR signal from an object to be examined in the imaging volume to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of modified Stormfront implementing another induction voltage to detect a MR signal from the invasive device are reasonably predictable. This would improve the ability of the system to obtain MR image information and further assist users in creating an MR image.
Regarding claim 12, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 11, wherein Stormfront further teaches a local MR receive coil arrangement that contains the apparatus (fig. 1 surface receive coil 14 [0023]; fig. 2 RF coil 202 is an example of RF coil unit 14 [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 12, where Stormfront further teaches wherein the local MR receive coil arrangement is configured as a flexible surface coil array (RF coil unit 14 is a flexible array [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 11, but is silent regarding a device for medical treatment of a patient, wherein the at least one first conductor loop and the device have a predetermined spatial location in relation to one another.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Nevo teaches a device for medical treatment of a patient (pg. 24 The sensor can be used with tools for minimally invasive surgeries), wherein the at least one first conductor loop and the device (pg. 4 line 24-26 sensor coils having axes of known orientation) have a predetermined spatial location in relation to one another (pg. 5 line 1-2 “known relative orientation of the sensor coils in the coil assembly, to compute the instantaneous location and orientation of the object within the space.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Stormfront with the measurements of Nevo, as this would improve tracking the location and orientation of the device/object (see Nevo pg. lines 28-29).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stormfront in view of Nevo and Watkins as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Darnell et al., (US 20160116556 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises: a tuning capacitance that is arranged between a first terminal of the at least one first conductor loop and a second terminal of the at least one first conductor loop; and an inductive component that is arranged electrically in parallel to the tuning capacitance.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Darnell teaches wherein the apparatus comprises: a tuning capacitance that is arranged between a first terminal of the at least one first conductor loop and a second terminal of the at least one first conductor loop (fig. 1 RF coil 10 includes capacitor 22 that is between the pair of terminals 31 and 32 [0118]; [0154] the capacitor in coil 10 may be a tuning capacitor ); and an inductive component that is arranged electrically in parallel to the tuning capacitance (fig 1 capacitor 22 is in parallel with inductor 20 [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified Stormfront, as this would lead to a reduction of power consumption (see Darnell [0131]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises: a tuning capacitance that is arranged between a first terminal of the at least one first conductor loop and a second terminal of the at least one first conductor loop; and an inductive component that is arranged electrically in parallel to the tuning capacitance.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Darnell teaches wherein the apparatus comprises: a tuning capacitance that is arranged between a first terminal of the at least one first conductor loop and a second terminal of the at least one first conductor loop (fig. 1 RF coil 10 includes capacitor 22 that is between the pair of terminals 31 and 32 [0118]; [0154] the capacitor in coil 10 may be a tuning capacitor ); and an inductive component that is arranged electrically in parallel to the tuning capacitance (fig 1 capacitor 22 is in parallel with inductor 20 [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified Stormfront, as this would lead to a reduction of power consumption (see Darnell [0131]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the apparatus comprises: a tuning capacitance that is arranged between a first terminal of the at least one first conductor loop and a second terminal of the at least one first conductor loop; and an inductive component that is arranged electrically in parallel to the tuning capacitance.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Darnell teaches wherein the apparatus comprises: a tuning capacitance that is arranged between a first terminal of the at least one first conductor loop and a second terminal of the at least one first conductor loop (fig. 1 RF coil 10 includes capacitor 22 that is between the pair of terminals 31 and 32 [0118]; [0154] the capacitor in coil 10 may be a tuning capacitor ); and an inductive component that is arranged electrically in parallel to the tuning capacitance (fig 1 capacitor 22 is in parallel with inductor 20 [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified Stormfront, as this would lead to a reduction of power consumption (see Darnell [0131]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 15, but wherein Stormfront further teaches wherein the measurement unit comprises an amplifier that is connected to the first terminal and the second terminal (fig. 2 pre-amplifier 208 amplifiers the MR signals from the corresponding RF coil 202 [0042]; the pre amplifier would be directly or indirectly connected to the terminal of the loop 201 since the amplifier 208 receives signals from the loop), and wherein the measurement unit is configured to provide the at least one measured value at an output of the amplifier, which is connected to the at least one evaluation unit (fig. 2 coil-interfacing cable connects the RF coil array to the processing system).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stormfront in view of Nevo, Watkins, and Darnell as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Ohishi et al., (US20220301705A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Stormfront teaches the system of claim 18, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement unit comprises a filter circuit that is arranged between the first terminal and a first input of the amplifier, and between the second terminal and a second input of the amplifier, and wherein the filter circuit is configured to suppress an MR signal acquired by the at least one first conductor loop.
In the same MRI field of endeavor, Ohishi teaches wherein the measurement unit comprises a filter circuit that is arranged between the first terminal and a first input of the amplifier, and between the second terminal and a second input of the amplifier (fig. 6 the reception antenna 11 sends the signal to the bandpass-filter, which is then sent to the noise amplifier 52 [0047]; therefore the bandpass filter would be arranged between the terminals and the inputs of the amplifier), and wherein the filter circuit is configured to suppress an MR signal acquired by the at least one first conductor loop (fig. 6 the bandpass filter would suppress any MR signals outside its passband [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified Stormfront with the orientation of the circuitry of Ohishi, as this would all for biological information to be stably and reliably detected without a burden to the subject (see Ohishi [0171]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Stormfront and Nevo, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest that the same conductor loop both (i) determines a measure value based on an induction voltage induced by a magnetic alternating field and (ii) detects a magnetic resonance signal, as recited in claim 1.
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection does not rely on Stormfront or Nevo individually disclosing all claimed limitations, but rather the combination of the two to teach the claimed limitations. One of ordinary skill would find the combination obvious as there would be motivation to combine Stormfront with Nevo, as improve tracking the location and orientation of the object (see Nevo).
The remaining claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL Y FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0952. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00pm.
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 at 5712722714. 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.
/MICHAEL YIMING FANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798