DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig (US 20200146553 A1) in view of Chen (US 20200319275 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lustig teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) receiver coil device ([abst] Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) receiver coil devices)
a thin-film substrate layer ([0041] In certain embodiments, MRI coils are fabricated on a flexible substrate or thin film)
a coil array positioned around a circumference of an exterior surface of the thin-film substrate layer ([0009] MRI receive coil device typically includes a flexible substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and a pattern of conductive material formed on one or both of the first and second surfaces, the pattern including the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor)
a thin-film cover layer positioned over the exterior surface of the thin-film substrate layer such that the coil array is positioned between the thin-film cover layer and the thin- film substrate layer ([0009] the MRI receive coil device further includes at least one layer of material covering the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor)
and an end ring engaging the thin-film substrate layer and the thin-film cover layer such that a watertight seal is formed around the coil array between the thin-film substrate layer, the thin-film cover layer, and the end ring ([0009] the MRI receive coil device further includes at least one layer of hydrophobic material covering the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor).
Lustig fails to teach the substrate configured in a dome shape.
However, Chen teaches the substrate configured in a dome shape ([0021] FIG. 4B is a diagram of an example of a dome-shape tuHDC-RF human-head volume coil).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lustig and Chen are considered analogous because both disclose wearable MRI devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the coils on a dome shaped structure in order to optimize the permittivity of uHDC materials with a low dielectric loss (Chen [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Lustig teaches the dome shape conforms to a geometric profile of a head of a particular subject ([0008] device embodiments can be used in MRI guided HIFU of the head or body, specifically for the treatment of brain conditions; [0063] ack the heating of brain tissue inside the head transducer. A 3D printed ABS plastic skull that mimics bone and containing an ex-vivo bovine brain suspended in a gel was used as a skull phantom. FIG. 9D illustrates the positioning of the 4-channel array on the skull phantom while it was heated inside a head transducer. The temperature map obtained is overlaid on the anatomy scan of the bovine brain in FIG. 9E. The temperature map in FIG. 9E is similar to the heating profile shown in FIG. 8E, indicating there is not significant distortion or attenuation due to the array. Similar to the phantom scans, SNR in the heating region is twice as high as that given by the body coil. Additionally, a high-resolution scan of the brain phantom was taken inside the transducer, shown in FIG. 9F. This scan shows that the highest SNR is at the front of the brain near the coil and slowly drops off towards the back of the head where there is no array)
Regarding claim 3, Lustig teaches the dome shape conforms to a predetermined geometric profile ([0027] FIG. 8A illustrates the positioning of a printed array, according to an embodiment, wrapped around a gel phantom and submerged inside a head transducer to characterize the SNR)
Regarding claim 4, Lustig teaches the MRI receiver coil device further comprises a lining layer ([0042] Printing the conductive layers is accomplished in certain embodiments by printing, e.g., screen-printing a conductive ink, such as a silver microflake ink, onto the substrate followed by annealing, e.g., 125° C. anneal for 15 min. Thereafter, the substrate is overturned and the overturned substrate is loaded back into the screen printer to receive the same patterning on the back)
configured to conform to a geometric profile of a head of a particular subject ([0027] FIG. 8A illustrates the positioning of a printed array, according to an embodiment, wrapped around a gel phantom and submerged inside a head transducer to characterize the SNR)
Regarding claim 6, Lustig teaches the thin-film substrate layer having a thickness of no greater than 0.1 millimeters ([0009] a thickness of the MRI receive coil device is less than about 0.1 mm (e.g., between about 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm))
Regarding claim 7, Lustig teaches the coil array comprises a plurality of coil elements, each coil element comprising a loop of conductive trace material with at least one capacitive segment ([0046] surface coil arrays … A surface coil is a resonant loop of wire tuned to resonate at the Larmor frequency of the scanner using in-series capacitors. To fabricate these coils, solution processed conductors are selectively deposited in a loop on a flexible plastic substrate with tuning capacitors)
Regarding claim 8, Lustig teaches adjacent coil elements overlap at overlapping segments, wherein the coil array further comprises dielectric traces positioned within the overlapping segments to electrically isolate the adjacent coil elements ([0047] FIG. 5 shows an example of a flexible surface array according to an embodiment, highlighting how the conductive traces sandwich the plastic substrate to form very thin capacitors. The capacitance depends on the amount of overlap, substrate material, and substrate thickness)
Regarding claim 9, Lustig teaches a first layer of conductive material on the exterior surface of the thin-film substrate layer, the first layer of conductive material having a first pattern; a second layer of conductive material on the exterior surface of the thin-film substrate over the first layer of conductive material, the second layer of conductive material having a second pattern, wherein the first pattern and the second pattern overlap at the overlapping segments and the capacitive segments; and a layer of dielectric material positioned between the first layer of conductive material and the second layer of conductive material at the overlapping segments and the capacitive segments, wherein a portion of the overlapping segments form one or more capacitors ([0009] The MRI receive coil device typically includes a flexible substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and a pattern of conductive material formed on one or both of the first and second surfaces, the pattern including the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor; [0047] FIG. 5 shows an example of a flexible surface array according to an embodiment, highlighting how the conductive traces sandwich the plastic substrate to form very thin capacitors. The capacitance depends on the amount of overlap, substrate material, and substrate thickness)
PNG
media_image2.png
359
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lustig teaches the conductive material comprises a conductive ink, the conductive ink comprising one or more of the following: gold, copper, silver, graphene, and metal flakes ([claim 5] the conductive ink includes a metal material selected from the group consisting of gold, copper and silver)
Regarding claim 11, Lustig teaches a method of constructing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) receiver coil device ([abst] Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) receiver coil devices…methods for manufacturing the same)
fabricating a thin-film substrate layer ([0041] In certain embodiments, MRI coils are fabricated on a flexible substrate or thin film)
fabricating a coil array positioned around a circumference of an exterior surface of the thin-film substrate layer ([0009] MRI receive coil device typically includes a flexible substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and a pattern of conductive material formed on one or both of the first and second surfaces, the pattern including the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor)
fabricating a thin-film cover layer positioned over the exterior surface of the thin-film substrate layer such that the coil array is positioned between the thin-film cover layer and the thin- film substrate layer ([0009] the MRI receive coil device further includes at least one layer of material covering the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor)
and engaging an end ring engaging the thin-film substrate layer and the thin-film cover layer to form a watertight seal around the coil array between the thin-film substrate layer, the thin-film cover layer, and the end ring ([0009] the MRI receive coil device further includes at least one layer of hydrophobic material covering the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor).
Lustig fails to teach the substrate configured in a dome shape.
However, Chen teaches the substrate configured in a dome shape ([0021] FIG. 4B is a diagram of an example of a dome-shape tuHDC-RF human-head volume coil).
Lustig and Chen are considered analogous because both disclose wearable MRI devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the coils on a dome shaped structure in order to optimize the permittivity of uHDC materials with a low dielectric loss (Chen [0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Lustig teaches forming the dome shape conforms to a geometric profile of a head of a particular subject ([0008] device embodiments can be used in MRI guided HIFU of the head or body, specifically for the treatment of brain conditions; [0063] ack the heating of brain tissue inside the head transducer. A 3D printed ABS plastic skull that mimics bone and containing an ex-vivo bovine brain suspended in a gel was used as a skull phantom. FIG. 9D illustrates the positioning of the 4-channel array on the skull phantom while it was heated inside a head transducer. The temperature map obtained is overlaid on the anatomy scan of the bovine brain in FIG. 9E. The temperature map in FIG. 9E is similar to the heating profile shown in FIG. 8E, indicating there is not significant distortion or attenuation due to the array. Similar to the phantom scans, SNR in the heating region is twice as high as that given by the body coil. Additionally, a high-resolution scan of the brain phantom was taken inside the transducer, shown in FIG. 9F. This scan shows that the highest SNR is at the front of the brain near the coil and slowly drops off towards the back of the head where there is no array)
Regarding claim 13, Lustig teaches forming the dome shape conforms to a predetermined geometric profile ([0027] FIG. 8A illustrates the positioning of a printed array, according to an embodiment, wrapped around a gel phantom and submerged inside a head transducer to characterize the SNR)
Regarding claim 14, Lustig teaches the MRI receiver coil device further comprises a lining layer ([0042] Printing the conductive layers is accomplished in certain embodiments by printing, e.g., screen-printing a conductive ink, such as a silver microflake ink, onto the substrate followed by annealing, e.g., 125° C. anneal for 15 min. Thereafter, the substrate is overturned and the overturned substrate is loaded back into the screen printer to receive the same patterning on the back)
configured to conform to a geometric profile of a head of a particular subject ([0027] FIG. 8A illustrates the positioning of a printed array, according to an embodiment, wrapped around a gel phantom and submerged inside a head transducer to characterize the SNR)
Regarding claim 16, Lustig teaches fabricating the thin-film substrate layer having a thickness of no greater than 0.1 millimeters ([0009] a thickness of the MRI receive coil device is less than about 0.1 mm (e.g., between about 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm))
Regarding claim 17, Lustig teaches fabricating the coil array comprises a plurality of coil elements, each coil element comprising a loop of conductive trace material with at least one capacitive segment ([0046] surface coil arrays … A surface coil is a resonant loop of wire tuned to resonate at the Larmor frequency of the scanner using in-series capacitors. To fabricate these coils, solution processed conductors are selectively deposited in a loop on a flexible plastic substrate with tuning capacitors)
Regarding claim 18, Lustig teaches adjacent coil elements overlap at overlapping segments, wherein the coil array further comprises dielectric traces positioned within the overlapping segments to electrically isolate the adjacent coil elements ([0047] FIG. 5 shows an example of a flexible surface array according to an embodiment, highlighting how the conductive traces sandwich the plastic substrate to form very thin capacitors. The capacitance depends on the amount of overlap, substrate material, and substrate thickness)
Regarding claim 19, Lustig teaches a first layer of conductive material on the exterior surface of the thin-film substrate layer, the first layer of conductive material having a first pattern; a second layer of conductive material on the exterior surface of the thin-film substrate over the first layer of conductive material, the second layer of conductive material having a second pattern, wherein the first pattern and the second pattern overlap at the overlapping segments and the capacitive segments; and a layer of dielectric material positioned between the first layer of conductive material and the second layer of conductive material at the overlapping segments and the capacitive segments, wherein a portion of the overlapping segments form one or more capacitors ([0009] The MRI receive coil device typically includes a flexible substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and a pattern of conductive material formed on one or both of the first and second surfaces, the pattern including the at least one receive coil and the at least one capacitor; [0047] FIG. 5 shows an example of a flexible surface array according to an embodiment, highlighting how the conductive traces sandwich the plastic substrate to form very thin capacitors. The capacitance depends on the amount of overlap, substrate material, and substrate thickness)
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig and Chen as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Giancola (US 20230133077 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lustig fails to teach the thin-film substrate layer or the thin-film cover layer comprise thermoplastic polyurethane.
However, Giancola teaches thin-film substrate layer or the thin-film cover layer comprise thermoplastic polyurethane ([0110] Substrate layers 513 are fabricated from RF weldable material such as thermoplastics (e.g. polyvinylchloride and polyurethanes)).
Lustig and Giancola are considered analogous because both disclose coated RF coil apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to construct the thin film layer out of a thermoplastic polyurethane coating so that coupling formed by RF welding is secure (Giancola [0110]).
Regarding claim 15, Lustig fails to teach the thin-film substrate layer or the thin-film cover layer comprise thermoplastic polyurethane.
However, Giancola teaches thin-film substrate layer or the thin-film cover layer comprise thermoplastic polyurethane ([0110] Substrate layers 513 are fabricated from RF weldable material such as thermoplastics (e.g. polyvinylchloride and polyurethanes)).
Lustig and Giancola are considered analogous because both disclose coated RF coil apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to construct the thin film layer out of a thermoplastic polyurethane coating so that coupling formed by RF welding is secure (Giancola [0110]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First and foremost, applicant alleges that the primary Lustig reference fails to teach the end ring for the purposes of a hydrophobic seal as required by the claim. The office maintains that the hydrophobic layer disclosed in Lustig, while there is no reference number in Lustig’s figures to explicitly point to for this feature, performs the same function as the applicant’s end ring. Judging from the applicant’s figures, the end ring 800 performs the feature of waterproofing the device, the same function that the hydrophobic layer in Lustig performs. However, due to the shape in which Lustig’s invention is configured, this seal will not be a ‘ring’ as feature 800 in the applicant’s disclosure. If the hydrophobic in Lustig’s disclosure were to not form a watertight seal around analogous components as those listed in the claims, Lustig’s invention would be destroyed. Applicant is reminded that the dome shape comes from the secondary reference, thus, when the disclosure of Lustig is modified with the teachings of the secondary Chen reference, it would become obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the watertight seal in Lustig to be ring shaped. Thus, while the exact shape and configuration of Lustig’s hydrophobic layer is not explicitly disclosed, seeing as the same function is performed these features are considered analogous.
Applicant further argues against the combination of the primary Lustig reference with the Chen reference to address the dome shaped teachings. To back up this allegation, applicant lists perceived differences between the two references and appears to be attacking each reference on individual merits. the applicant is pointed to MPEP section 2145, IV which reads:
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The fact remains that there is nothing in the Lustig reference that requires a specific shape, so thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily configure an analogous device in a dome shape for any number of perceived benefits. As such, the invention as currently claimed is obviated by the cited prior art combination and as a result the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
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 GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-7065. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 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.
/GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights