DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/20/2026 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 1/20/2026. Claims 23-44 are pending. Claims 23, 27-29, 36-38, 40, and 44 were amended.
The previous objections to the abstract, specification, and drawings are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The previous objections to claims 27, 28, and 40 are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The previous rejections of claims 36-44 under 35 USC 112(b) and claims 27 and 28 under 35 USC 112(d) are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claims 27-28 and 39-42 are objected to for allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
In the present Office Action, the Examiner has failed to map several of the claim limitations to any corresponding disclosure in Horch, nor has the Examiner provided any explanation as to how the cited reference allegedly discloses or inherently teaches such limitations. Conclusory statements without a factual evidentiary basis do not satisfy the requirements for a§102 rejection.
Specifically, the Office Action fails to identify disclosure corresponding to at least the following limitations: "Wherein one or more of the 3D printed hollow elements comprises a wall made of a UV-curable electrically non-conducting material forming one or more channels the one or more channels comprising at least two material plugs of at least two different immiscible materials selected from the group consisting of a dielectric material, an electrically conductive material, and a material with high electrical resistance." (Emphasis added by Applicant).
The Examiner's citation to Horch does not describe these elements, either expressly or inherently. Absent a clear identification of where each element is disclosed, the rejection is improper.
It is unclear to the Examiner as to which features the Applicant alleges are not disclosed by the prior art, as all features are disclosed in the “Methods” section of Horch. The pending rejection provides further clarification.
The methods section states in its entirety:
“Stereographic 3D printing utilizes liquid polymer resins that are photo-crosslinked in a layer-by-layer manner. With a 3D Systems iPro 9000XL Printer using Somos 11122 Watershed material (DSM Desotech), probeheads were formed with an in-layer resolution of 40 µm and a through-layer resolution of 150 µm. Probeheads were printed with a number of non-connecting hollow channels, defining RF circuitry, hydraulic control lines for variable capacitors, or NMR sample loading pathways. After printing, the RF circuit channels were selectively metallized by injecting PELCO Silver Paint (Ted Pella Co.) to form ≈10µm silver coatings for electrically conductive pathways. In this way, RF-resonant solenoids were constructed and tuned/matched using parallel-plate variable capacitor networks included in the probehead. These capacitors contained a partially hollowed dielectric (Figure 1), which was filled with a variable amount of Fomblin fluorocarbon oil (Solvay Solexis) or D2O (99.9%, Sigma Aldrich). Since Fomblin and D2O are immiscible and have dielectric constants that differ by 40-fold, a moveable liquid interface between the two was placed within the capacitor’s dielectric gap to provide hydraulic control of net capacitance.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “resins that are photo-crosslinked” to be equivalent to a “UV-curable electrically non-conducting material”, the PELCO silver paint as equivalent to the “electrically conductive material”, Fomblin oil and D2O are immiscible and known “dielectric material” and/or materials with high electrical resistance to provide a variable dielectric to the capacitor.
Further, the Applicant amended the application to specify, “wherein the electrically conductive material has an electrical conductivity above about 102 S/m at 20 oC.” While Horch does not explicitly recite this amended limitation, Horch specifies that the conductor is PELCO silver paint and the limitation as claimed would be an inherent physical property as supported by Pelco’s technical notes. According to PELCO’s technical notes (see attached PDF provided at https://www.tedpella.com/technote_html/16062_TN.pdf and attached PDF), Pelco silver paint has a Volume Resistivity = 0.0002 Ω∙cm of. It is well-understood in the art that the conductivity=1/resistivity and the conductivity corresponds to 5x104 S/m. See screenshot from page 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, the volume resistivity measurements are performed in accordance to MIL-STD-883H (see page 1 and “Volume Resistivity” at the top of the table on page 2. As best understood by the examiner, the Method 5011.5 in MIL-STD-883H corresponds to a measurement at 25 oC. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand a silver paint having a conductivity of 5x104 S/m at 25 oC would reasonably have a conductivity exceeding 102 S/m at 20 oC.
Furthermore, an electrical conductivity of 102 S/m at 20 oC corresponds to relatively weak conductor with the conductivity of most metals and metal alloys having conductivities on the order of 106 – 107 S/m at 20 oC. For example, copper (a material commonly used in NMR coils) is known to have a conductivity of 5.96x107 S/M at 20 oC with semiconductors having a conductivity of 103 S/m or less. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably employ a conductor having an electrical conductivity of 102 S/m at 20 oC without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected result.
Therefore, although not explicitly recited in Horch, the PELCO silver paint inherently reads on the limitation of “wherein the electrically conductive material has an electrical conductivity above about 102 S/m at 20 oC.”
After further consideration, claims 27-28 and 39-42 are objected to for allowable subject matter as outlined below.
Therefore, claims 23-26, 29-38, and 43-44 stand rejected as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23-24, 26, 29-33, 35-38, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORCHE, et al., "3D-printed RF Probeheads for Low-cost, High-throughput NMR", Vanderbilt, pages 1-3, 2016 (herein as “Horch” which was cited in the IDS filed 9/20/2023).
Regarding claim 23, Horch teaches a configuration for MRI or NMR measurements (see Fig. 1), the configuration comprising one or more 3D-printed hollow elements (parallel-plate variable capacitor of Fig. 1 is formed by two 3D-printed matrix layers (dM) and a hollow hydraulic filled layer; see Fig. 1 and description of Fig. 1), adapted to the shape of an object to be measured (the capacitors are configured for NMR measurements and would reasonably be adapted to the shape of an object to be measured in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation; see Methods section), wherein one or more of the 3D-printed hollow elements comprises a wall made of a UV-curable electrically non-conducting material forming one or more channels the one or more channels comprising at least two material plugs of at least two different immiscible materials selected from the group consisting of a dielectric material, an electrically conductive material, and a material with high electrical resistance (“Stereographic 3D printing utilizes liquid polymer resins that are photo-crosslinked in a layer-by-layer manner. With a 3D Systems iPro 9000XL Printer using Somos 11122 Watershed material (DSM Desotech), probeheads were formed with an in-layer resolution of 40 µm and a through-layer resolution of 150 µm. Probeheads were printed with a number of non-connecting hollow channels, defining RF circuitry, hydraulic control lines for variable capacitors, or NMR sample loading pathways. After printing, the RF circuit channels were selectively metallized by injecting PELCO Silver Paint (Ted Pella Co.) to form ≈10µm silver coatings for electrically conductive pathways. In this way, RF-resonant solenoids were constructed and tuned/matched using parallel-plate variable capacitor networks included in the probehead. These capacitors contained a partially hollowed dielectric (Figure 1), which was filled with a variable amount of Fomblin fluorocarbon oil (Solvay Solexis) or D2O (99.9%, Sigma Aldrich). Since Fomblin and D2O are immiscible and have dielectric constants that differ by 40-fold, a moveable liquid interface between the two was placed within the capacitor’s dielectric gap to provide hydraulic control of net capacitance.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “resins that are photo-crosslinked” to be equivalent to a “UV-curable electrically non-conducting material”, the PELCO silver paint as equivalent to the “electrically conductive material”, Fomblin oil is a known “dielectric material”, and D2O is a known insulator with high electrical resistance. See Methods section).
While Horch fails to explicitly teach wherein the electrically conductive material has an electrical conductivity above about 102 S/m at 20 oC, Horch specifies that the conductor is PELCO silver paint. According to PELCO’s technical notes (see attached PDF provided at https://www.tedpella.com/technote_html/16062_TN.pdf and the corresponding PDF provide as supporting evidence of the technical features of Pelco Silver Paint), Pelco silver paint has a Volume Resistivity = 0.0002 Ω∙cm of. It is well-understood in the art that the conductivity=1/resistivity and the conductivity corresponds to 5x104 S/m. See screenshot from page 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, the volume resistivity measurements are performed in accordance to MIL-STD-883H (see page 1 and “Volume Resistivity” at the top of the table on page 2. As best understood by the examiner, the Method 5011.5 in MIL-STD-883H corresponds to a measurement at 25 oC. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand a silver paint having a conductivity of 5x104 S/m at 25 oC would reasonably have a conductivity exceeding 102 S/m at 20 oC.
Furthermore, an electrical conductivity of 102 S/m at 20 oC corresponds to a relatively weak conductor with the conductivity of most metals and metal alloys having conductivities on the order of 106 – 107 S/m at 20 oC. For example, copper (a material commonly used in NMR coils) is known to have a conductivity of 5.96x107 S/M at 20 oC with semiconductors having a conductivity of 103 S/m or less. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably employ a conductor having an electrical conductivity of 102 S/m at 20 oC without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected result.
Therefore, although not explicitly recited in Horch, the Pelco silver paint has a conductivity of 5x104 S/m at 25 oC and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the PELCO silver paint would reasonably have a conductivity above 102 S/m at 20 oC without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 24, Horch teaches wherein the material plugs form an electric circuit or parts of an electric circuit (the channels are filled with silver coatings for electrically conductive pathways and constructed with Fomblin and D2O to form variable capacitor networks in the probehead; see Fig. 1; see Methods section).
Regarding claim 26, Horch teaches wherein the 3D-printed hollow elements form loops (“Probeheads were successfully printed with 0.75mm-diameter hollow channels to define RF coils, each consisting of a 5mm-diameter/5-turn solenoid and three parallel-plate capacitors for tuning/matching (Figure 2).” See Fig. 2 and Results section.).
Regarding claim 29, Horch teaches wherein in all of the one or more 3D-printed hollow elements, the wall is made of the UV-curable electrically non-conducting material forming the one or more channels (See rejection of claim 1. See Figs. 1, 2 and Methods and Results sections.).
Regarding claim 30, Horch teaches wherein the wall of the 3D-printed hollow element made of the UV curable material forms a single channel (a wall includes a single channel for a solenoid coil shown in yellow in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 32, Horch teaches wherein the 3D printed hollow elements are manufactured by VAT polymerization or by direct material melt printing (Probeheads are formed by Stereographic 3D printing which is a type of VAT polymerization; see Methods section).
Regarding claim 33, Horch teaches wherein the 3D printed hollow elements are flexible (Horch teaches a probehead formed in an equivalent manner as claimed, which would reasonably result in 3D printed hollow elements which are flexible in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2114 I. and 2182).
Regarding claim 35, Horch teaches the device configured to transmit RF signals, receive RF signals, or homogenize magnetic fields (RF probeheads for NMR which are known in the art to transmit and receive RF signals; see whole document).
Regarding claim 36, Horch teaches a method for producing a configuration according to claim 23 (see Methods section; see Fig. 2), the method comprising:
(a) providing geometrical data of an object to be measured (Fig. 2 shows a geometrical configuration for a sample holder which holds a sample to be measured; see blue portion of Fig. 2);
(b) defining an external shape of a loop or element configuration to adapt to a shape of the object by electromagnetic simulations and/or design computing and/or generative modeling, resulting in a CAD design of the configuration (coil section shown in yellow corresponds to an external shape of a solenoid coil to adapted to a shape of the object which, as best understood by the examiner, would correspond to “design computing”; see Fig. 2);
(c) calculating volumes and delivery sequences of the dielectric material, the electrically conductive material, or the material with high electrical resistance to provide at least two material plugs to form an electric circuit or a part of an electric circuit (the volume of the coil was determined and knowledge of the delivery sequence would inherently be required in the form of instructions in order for the 3D printer to print the probehead; see Results section and Fig.2);
(d) 3D printing the loop configuration or element thereof in accordance with calculations from (b) and (c), wherein walls of the loop configuration or element thereof form one or more channels and are made of a UV curable electrically non-conducting material (“Stereographic 3D printing utilizes liquid polymer resins that are photo-crosslinked in a layer-by-layer manner. With a 3D Systems iPro 9000XL Printer using Somos 11122 Watershed material (DSM Desotech), probeheads were formed with an in-layer resolution of 40 µm and a through-layer resolution of 150 µm. Probeheads were printed with a number of non-connecting hollow channels, defining RF circuitry, hydraulic control lines for variable capacitors, or NMR sample loading pathways.” See Methods section); and
(e) filling at least one of the channels or a designated part of at least one of the channels in the loop configuration or element thereof prepared in (d) with the at least two material plugs of at least two different immiscible materials selected from the group consisting of the dielectric material, the electrically conductive material, and the material with high electrical resistance in accordance with the volumes and delivery sequences calculated in (c) (“After printing, the RF circuit channels were selectively metallized by injecting PELCO Silver Paint (Ted Pella Co.) to form ≈10µm silver coatings for electrically conductive pathways. In this way, RF-resonant solenoids were constructed and tuned/matched using parallel-plate variable capacitor networks included in the probehead.” See Methods section).
While Horch does not explicitly teach wherein the electrically conductive material has an electrical conductivity above about 102 S/m at 20 oC, the PELCO silver paint has a conductivity of 5x104 S/m at 25 oC and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand a conductor would have a conductivity above 102 S/m at 20 oC without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results. See rejection of claim 23 above
Regarding claim 37, Horch teaches wherein the loop configuration or element thereof are printed as loops (the probehead is printed with loops of a solenoid; see yellow portion of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 38, Horch teaches wherein filling the channel or the designated part of the channel comprises by either filling the channel or the designated part of the channel with a conductive material or electroplating either an inner wall or an outer wall of a designated part of the loop configuration or element thereof with a conductive layer (“After printing, the RF circuit channels were selectively metallized by injecting PELCO Silver Paint (Ted Pella Co.) to form ≈10µm silver coatings for electrically conductive pathways. In this way, RF-resonant solenoids were constructed and tuned/matched using parallel-plate variable capacitor networks included in the probehead.” See Methods section).
Regarding claim 44, Horch teaches wherein the configuration comprises a plurality of connected loop configurations or element thereof, and wherein a plurality of channels are filled with a single sequence of the material plugs (the solenoid, shown as yellow in Fig. 2, comprises multiple loops filled with a single sequence of electrically conductive path ways; see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORCHE, et al., "3D-printed RF Probeheads for Low-cost, High-throughput NMR", Vanderbilt, pages 1-3, 2016 (herein as “Horch” which was cited in the IDS filed 9/20/2023).
Regarding claim 25, Horch further teaches comprising one or more of the electric circuits, thereby allowing control of matching, tuning, detuning, and decoupling of the individual elements (the probeheads incorporate RF coils for tuning/matching; see whole document).
Horch further teaches comprising one or more of the electric circuits connected with one or more electronic circuit boards, however, it would be well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the probehead to external circuitry formed on circuit boards (e.g. a computer) to digitally control the operation of controlling matching, tuning, detuning, and decoupling circuitry automatically by means of a computer.
Claim(s) 31 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORCHE, et al., "3D-printed RF Probeheads for Low-cost, High-throughput NMR", Vanderbilt, pages 1-3, 2016 (herein as “Horch” which was cited in the IDS filed 9/20/2023) in view of US 2016/0334479 (Poole).
Regarding claim 31, Horch fails to teach adapted to an anatomy of a body or a body part of an animal or human subject.
Poole teaches adapted to an anatomy of a body or a body part of an animal or human subject (a radio-frequency head coil 300 is adapted to fit the head of a human subject; see Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Poole into Horch in order to gain the advantage of forming a 3D printed RF head coil as taught in Poole in accordance to the 3D printed RF coil in Horch in order to perform an MRI measurement of a head instead of a measurement in an NMR sample holder.
Regarding claim 43, Horch fails to teach further comprising designing with electromagnetic simulation software an electronic circuit that meets performance requirements based on experimental requirements.
Poole teaches further comprising designing with electromagnetic simulation software an electronic circuit that meets performance requirements based on experimental requirements (suitable models allow for magnetic field synthesis to be performed by allowing the operation of the modeled RF coil co be simulated to synthesize the magnetic fields generated within a region of interest upon simulation to determine a configuration which is optimal; see [0093]-[00107]; see Figs 4A,B and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Poole into Horch in order to gain the advantage of modeling the operation of the coil using mathematical principles to determine an optimized characteristic without needing to construct and test multiple prototypes.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORCHE, et al., "3D-printed RF Probeheads for Low-cost, High-throughput NMR", Vanderbilt, pages 1-3, 2016 (herein as “Horch” which was cited in the IDS filed 9/20/2023), in view of US 2017/0219668 (Thiagarajan).
Regarding claim 34, Horch fails to teach further comprising additional channels with a material to control the temperature of the 3D printed hollow elements.
Thiagarajan teaches further comprising additional channels with a material to control the temperature of the 3D printed hollow elements (a 3D printed RF coil structure include cooling channels 90 to coil the coil; see Fig. 8; see [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Poole into Horch in order to gain the advantage of forming a 3D printed RF head coil as taught in Thiagarajan in accordance to the 3D printed RF coil in Horch in order to cool the RF coil which may heat up during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-28 and 39-42 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.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein each of the one or more channels comprises the dielectric material, the electrically conductive material, and the material with high electrical resistance, which materials are different and immiscible, in combination with all limitations of claim 23. Horch teaches wherein the conductive material is in different channels as the dielectric and resistive materials. For example, conductive cavities 1-3 of Fig. 2 (shown as red, purple, and yellow) comprise an electrically conductive material whereas the hydraulic lines shown as green comprises the Fomblin and D2O. There is no motivation in the prior art to provide all three materials in a single channel.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein each of the one or more channels comprise the electrically conductive material and the dielectric material; or each of the one or more channels comprises the electrically conductive material and the material with high electrical resistance, in combination with all limitations of claim 23. For example, conductive cavities 1-3 of Fig. 2 (shown as red, purple, and yellow) comprise an electrically conductive material whereas the hydraulic lines shown as green comprises the Fomblin and D2O. There is no motivation in the prior art to provide the electrically conductive material in the same channel as the dielectric material or material with high electrical resistance.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art of record fails to teach further comprising manufacturing capacitive components of an equivalent RLC circuit by manipulating length, shape, and sequence of the material plugs inside a section of the channel designated to the capacitive components, in combination with all other limitations of parent claims 23, 36, and 37. After further consideration, the prior art of record teaches only an LC circuit having a coil and capacitor and does not teach manipulating the sequence of the material plugs inside a section of the channel designated to the capacitive components. Horch teaches wherein the capacitive components are varies by moving the interface of Fomblin and D2O, but this does not amount to changing a sequence of material plugs as recited in the claim.
Claim 40 is objected to through a dependence on claim 39.
Regarding claim 41, the prior art of record fails to teach further comprising manufacturing inductive components of an equivalent RLC circuit by manipulating length, shape, and sequence of the material plugs inside a section of the channel designated to the inductive components, in combination with all other limitations of parent claims 23, 36, and 37. After further consideration, Horch teaches only an LC circuit having a coil and capacitor. As best understood by the examiner, the inductive component comprises only the conductive material, and therefore, does not manipulate length, shape, and sequence of the material plugs inside a section of the channel designated to the inductive components as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 42, the prior art of record fails to teach further comprising manufacturing resistive components of an equivalent RLC circuit by manipulating length, shape, and sequence of the material plugs inside a section of the channel designated to the resistive components, in combination with all other limitations of parent claims 23, 36, and 37. After further consideration, Horch teaches only an LC circuit having a coil and capacitor. As best understood by the examiner, the Horch does not teach a resistive component formed by manipulating length, shape, and sequence of the material plugs inside a section of the channel designated to the resistive components as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858