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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026 and 03/30/2023 are considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Claims 1, 2, and 4-9, in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3 and 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected Species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Biber et al. (US 20130241557), hereinafter ‘Biber’.
Regarding Claim 1, Biber discloses an array coil comprising: a first substrate (Fig. 1 support 2) on which at least one coil element is formed (Fig. 1, coil conductor 3 on support 2); and a second substrate different from the first substrate on which at least one coil element is formed (Para [0035] disclosing coil conductors on both sides of support 2, coil conductors 3 that are fitted on a rear face are shown in dashed lines; Fig. 1, dashed line of coil 3 under substrate 2, thus on different substrate), and is laminated on the first substrate (Para [0040]), wherein a first coil element formed on the first substrate intersects with a second coil element formed on the second substrate in plan view from a laminating direction from the second substrate laminated on the first substrate toward the first substrate (Fig. 1, showing overlap area 5 of array of coil elements comprised of solid line conductor 3 and dashed line conductor 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Biber further discloses wherein a plurality of coil elements are formed on at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate, and the coil elements do not intersect with each other on the substrate on which the coil elements are formed (Fig. 1, two solid line conductors 3 shown not intersecting with each other).
Regarding Claim 6, Biber further discloses wherein the first substrate and the second substrate have different thicknesses (Para [0046]; Claims 6-9).
Regarding Claim 7, Biber further discloses a plurality of substrates including the first substrate and the second substrate on each of which a plurality of coil elements are formed, wherein each of the substrates is laminated on at least the other one of the substrates (Figs. 1 and 3, substrates 8-10, having plurality of coil elements (Para [0035] disclosing coil conductors on both sides of support 2, coil conductors 3 that are fitted on a rear face are shown in dashed lines; Fig. 1, dashed line of coil 3 under substrate 2, thus on different substrate; Para [0040] laminated).
Regarding Claim 8, Biber further discloses wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate is a flexible substrate having flexibility (Para [0019] layers with desired flexibility; Para [0035] flexible support includes plurality of layers 8-10).
Regarding Claim 9, Biber further discloses wherein the array coil is a planar array coil (Fig. 1 shows a plan view of coil conductors; Para [0041] rea in the plane of the coil elements 4 (e.g., the layer plane)).
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber et al. (US 20130241557), hereinafter ‘Biber’.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Biber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first substrate and the second substrate have the same arrangement of the coil elements and Claim 4 and wherein the first substrate and the second substrate have different arrangement of the coil elements of Claim 5.
However it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to arrange the coil elements the same on the first and second substrate or arrange the coil elements differently on the first and second substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 8 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights