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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2023, 11/16/2023 and 11/13/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 03/28/2023 is noted by the Examiner.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tropp et al. US 2010/0301862 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Tropp).
Regarding claim 1, Tropp teaches a receiving coil (Fig. 11; [0052]; The RF coil array shown in Fig. 11 can be identified with the “coil” defined in the claim. From [0052], it can be inferred that the RF coil array in Fig. 11 could be used as a receive coil) comprising at least one coil element that can simultaneously receive a magnetic resonance (MR) signal having a plurality of different frequencies (Fig. 11; [0049-0050]; each coil element 82 of the RF coil array shown in Fig. 11 comprised an inner loop coil 84 and an outer loop coil 86 which, according to [0050] were tuned to the Larmor frequency of different nuclei.),
wherein a resonance structure for the plurality of different frequencies is provided in a single plane in the at least one coil element (Fig. 11; for each coil element 82, the inner loop coil 84 and the outer loop coil 86 were “disposed in a single plane as defined in the claim).
Regarding claim 2, Tropp further teaches the receiving coil according to claim 1, wherein, the receiving coil is configured as an array coil in which a plurality of the coil elements are arranged in the single plane (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Tropp further teaches The receiving coil according to claim 1, wherein, the coil element is configured as a plurality of loop coils that are arranged in the single plane (Fig. 11), the plurality of loop coils are different in diameter, and are supplied with power from the respective different feeding points (Fig. 11), and each of the plurality of loop coils resonates at each of the plurality of different frequencies (Fig. 11; RF coil array, wherein coil element 82 can identified with one of the “loop coils” defined in the claim).
Regarding claim 5, Tropp further teaches the receiving coil according to claim 4, wherein, the coil element may include: a first loop coil (Fig. 11) having a first diameter (Fig. 11) and resonating at a first frequency (Fig. 11); and a second loop coil (Fig. 11) having a second diameter (Fig. 11) and resonating at a second frequency higher than the first frequency (Fig. 11), and the second loop coil is disposed in the same plane as the first loop coil (Fig. 11), and entirety or at least a part of the second loop coil is disposed inside a circle formed by the first loop coil (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Tropp further teaches the receiving coil according to claim 5, wherein, a first feeding point of the first loop coil (Fig. 11) and a second feeding point of the second loop coil (Fig. 11) is provided in the same plane at positions spatially separated from each other by 90 degrees (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 20, Tropp teaches an MRI apparatus (Fig. 2; MRI system, 40) comprises the receiving coil according to claim 1 (See Rejection of Claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tropp in view of Gomes WO 2020/198396 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Gomes).
Regarding claim 3, Tropp teaches the receiving coil according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein, the MR signal received by the coil element is emitted from an object in response to an excitation pulse applied to the object, the object being placed in a static magnetic field having non-uniform static magnetic field distribution; and the MR signal has the plurality of different frequencies depending on a position of the object in the static magnetic field.
However, Gomes does teach wherein, the MR signal received by the coil element is emitted from an object in response to an excitation pulse applied to the object (Fig. 6A; [0110]), the object being placed in a static magnetic field having non-uniform static magnetic field distribution; and the MR signal has the plurality of different frequencies depending on a position of the object in the static magnetic field (Fig. 6A; [0110]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual-frequency coil array for a MRI system of Tropp by implementing the teachings of Gomes regarding wherein, the MR signal received by the coil element is emitted from an object in response to an excitation pulse applied to the object, the object being placed in a static magnetic field having non-uniform static magnetic field distribution; and the MR signal has the plurality of different frequencies depending on a position of the object in the static magnetic field; for the purpose of “effectively collecting nuclear magnetic resonance spectra and magnetic resonance images in inhomogeneous fields” (See Gomes; [0001]).
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tropp in view of Wang et al. US 2012/0286921 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 7, Tropp teaches the receiving coil according to claim 4, but not specifically wherein, the coil element includes one first loop coil having a first diameter and resonating at a first frequency, and two second loop coils, each of which has a second diameter and resonates at a second frequency higher than the first frequency, and the two second loop coils are arranged inside a circle formed by the first loop coil and in the same plane as the first loop coil, in such a manner that the two second loop coils partially overlap each other.
However, Wang does teach wherein, the coil element includes one first loop coil having a first diameter and resonating at a first frequency, and two second loop coils, each of which has a second diameter and resonates at a second frequency higher than the first frequency (Figs. 1, 2), and the two second loop coils are arranged inside a circle formed by the first loop coil and in the same plane as the first loop coil, in such a manner that the two second loop coils partially overlap each other (Figs. 1, 2; wherein the outer loop 2 can be identified as the “first loop” and the partial inner loops (20, 22) can be identified as the “two second loop coils, the partial inner loops “partially overlapping” by the common conductor 24).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual-frequency coil array for a MRI system of Tropp by implementing the teachings of Wang regarding wherein, the coil element includes one first loop coil having a first diameter and resonating at a first frequency, and two second loop coils, each of which has a second diameter and resonates at a second frequency higher than the first frequency, and the two second loop coils are arranged inside a circle formed by the first loop coil and in the same plane as the first loop coil, in such a manner that the two second loop coils partially overlap each other; in order to “ensure quadrature phase operation, thus improving signal to noise ratio (SNR), transmit field duty cycle and field of view of the assembly, and hence improving performance of the assembly.” (See Wang; Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Tropp teaches the receiving coil according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein, the coil element is configured as a plurality of loop coils that are arranged in the single plane, the plurality of loop coils are different in diameter, and are supplied with power from a single feeding point in common, and each of the plurality of loop coils resonates at each of the plurality of different frequencies.
However, Wang does teach wherein, the coil element is configured as a plurality of loop coils that are arranged in the single plane, the plurality of loop coils are different in diameter (Fig. 3), and are supplied with power from a single feeding point in common, and each of the plurality of loop coils resonates at each of the plurality of different frequencies (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual-frequency coil array for a MRI system of Tropp by implementing the teachings of Wang regarding wherein, the coil element is configured as a plurality of loop coils that are arranged in the single plane, the plurality of loop coils are different in diameter, and are supplied with power from a single feeding point in common, and each of the plurality of loop coils resonates at each of the plurality of different frequencies; in order to “ensure quadrature phase operation, thus improving signal to noise ratio (SNR), transmit field duty cycle and field of view of the assembly, and hence improving performance of the assembly.” (See Wang; Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tropp and Wang teaches the receiving coil according to claim 8, wherein Wang further teaches wherein, the coil element includes an annular first loop coil having a first diameter and resonating at a first frequency (Fig. 3), and an annular second loop coil having a second diameter and resonating at a second frequency higher than the first frequency (Fig. 3), and the annular second loop coil is disposed in the same plane as the annular first loop coil in such a manner that the annular second loop coil contacts a circle formed by the annular first loop coil from the inside at the single feeding point (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tropp and Wang teaches the receiving coil according to claim 8, wherein Wang further teaches wherein, the coil element includes a rectangular first loop coil resonating at a first frequency (Fig. 3), and a rectangular second loop coil being disposed in the same plane as the first loop coil and resonating at a second frequency higher than the first frequency (Fig. 3), the second loop coil is disposed inside a rectangle formed by the first loop coil (Fig. 3), the receiving coil is configured as an array coil in which a plurality of the coil elements are arranged in the single plane (Fig. 3), and the plurality of the coil elements are densely arranged in the array coil so as to be close to each other but without overlapping (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tropp in view of Wang in further view of Hayakawa et al. US 2016/0109541 (Hereinafter Hayakawa).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tropp and Wang teaches the receiving coil according to claim 8, but not specifically further comprising: a filter configured to separate each of the plurality of different frequencies, and a cable that is connected to the feeding point at one end and is connected to the filter at the other end.
However, Hayakawa does teach a filter (Fig. 4; filter, 132) configured to separate each of the plurality of different frequencies (Fig. 4; filter, 132), and a cable (Abstract, [0134], claim 1; wire) that is connected to the feeding point at one end and is connected to the filter at the other end (Abstract, [0134], claim 1; wire).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tropp and Wang by implementing the teachings of Hayakawa regarding further comprising: a filter configured to separate each of the plurality of different frequencies, and a cable that is connected to the feeding point at one end and is connected to the filter at the other end; in order to “synchronize the reference clock generated by the clock generation circuit with the reference clock transmitted from the reference receiving coil” (See Hayakawa; Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1,
“…wherein, the coil element is configured as a broadband coil that is made of a conductor plate of a predetermined shape having an opening of a predetermined shape, a lower limit frequency of bandwidth of the broadband coil is determined by an outer circumferential length of the conductor plate, and an upper limit frequency of the bandwidth of the broad band coil is determined by an inner circumferential length of the conductor plate.”
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are also allowed as they further limit objected claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1,
“…wherein, the coil element is configured as a pair of sub-coil elements that have the same diameter and are disposed in the single plane with a predetermined distance so as not to overlap each other, and each of the pair of sub-coil elements are separately provided with a feeding point and resonates at a first resonance frequency and a second resonance frequency higher than the first resonance frequency.”
Claims 17-19 are also allowed as they further limit objected claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al. US 2015/0168511 - Disclosed are an RF receiving coil, which is retained in an interior receiving space of a patient table and is extractable from the patient table, and an MRI apparatus including the same.
Shiodera et al. US 2017/0097399 - According to one of embodiments, an MRI apparatus includes at least one receiving coil configured to receive magnetic resonance signals from an object; and processing circuitry configured to generate an image based on the magnetic resonance signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858