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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 07/29/2025, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 07/29/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections, except for claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections, except for claim 4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: missing colon after preamble. A colon should be placed after the term “comprising” to separate the preamble from the body of the claim limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “a turn of the coil” should be amended to “a turn of the two or more turns of the RF coil” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “a turn” should be amended to “a turn of the two or more turns” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “a turn of the coil” should be amended to “a turn of the two or more turns of the RF coil” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “identical” should be amended to “substantially identical” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “adjacent points on adjacent turns” is still considered indefinite. It is not clear if the “adjacent points” refer to two adjacent points on a first turn and two adjacent points on second turn, or if the a first point on a first turn and a corresponding second point on the second turn at identical geometric positions.
Regarding claim 5, the term “coil segment” is unclear. There is no context on what the coil segments refer to and therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, it is not clear if “one coil turn” is part of or different from the “two or more turns” disclosed in claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Regarding claim 6, it is not clear if “one coil turn” is part of or different from the “two or more turns” disclosed in claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein each one specific point along a turn of the coil has a corresponding point at a corresponding geometric position in the multi-turn coil” is unclear. The examiner believes there should be a corresponding geometric position “on the adjacent turn” not in the multi-turn coil. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “adjacent points” is still indefinite. It is not clear if the “adjacent points” refer to two adjacent points on a first turn and two adjacent points on second turn, or if the a first point on a first turn and a corresponding second point on the second turn at identical geometric positions.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boskamp (US 4,839,595).
Regarding claim 1, Boskamp teaches a multi-turn magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiofrequency (RF) coil comprising two or more turns, wherein the RF coil has an overall geometry such that each respective turn is substantially mirrored by an adjacent turn, such that the overall geometry is substantially identical between the each respective coil turn [Fig. 2a, wherein the coil has two windings 50/52 that are mirrored along axes 54/56. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Boskamp further teaches wherein each one specific point along a turn of the coil has a substantially corresponding point at an identical geometric position of the adjacent turn [Fig. 2a, wherein the coil has two windings 50/52 that are mirrored along axes 54/56. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Boskamp further teaches wherein potential at each one specific point along a turn is substantially identical to potential at each corresponding specific point on the adjacent turn [Fig. 2a, wherein the coil has two windings 50/52 that are mirrored along axes 54/56. Col. 2, lines 51-68 discloses that the current in each loop is equal and opposite so that the flux that is generated in one turn is compensated by the flux generated in the adjacent turn. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Boskamp further teaches wherein each respective one coil segment mirrors each respective other coil segment such that the overall geometry is identical between a respective one coil turn of a first coil segment and a corresponding respective one coil turn of a second coil segment [Fig. 2a, wherein each segment of winding 50 has a mirrored segment of winding 52. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Boskamp further teaches wherein potential at each one specific point along a respective one coil turn of a first coil segment is substantially identical to potential at a corresponding one specific point along a corresponding respective one coil turn of a second coil segment [Fig. 2a, wherein the coil has two windings 50/52 that are mirrored along axes 54/56. Col. 2, lines 51-68 discloses that the current in each loop is equal and opposite so that the flux that is generated in one turn is compensated by the flux generated in the adjacent turn. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Boskamp further teaches wherein each one specific point along a turn of the coil has a corresponding point at a corresponding geometric position in the multi-turn coil [Fig. 2a, wherein each segment of winding 50 has a mirrored segment of winding 52. See also rest of reference.].
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Boskamp, in view of Sambandamurthy (US 2014/0167758).
Regarding claim 4, Boskamp teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Boskamp further teaches wherein the substantially identical potential between adjacent points on adjacent turns is achieved by using capacitors of substantially equal value and/or using substantially equal lengths of trace between breaks [Fig. 2a and Col. 2, lines 51-68, wherein equal lengths of trace are used so that the current in each winding 50/52 is equal and opposite. See also rest reference.].
Boskamp is silent in teaching copper trace.
Sambandamurthy, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches copper trace [¶0022]. Sambandamurthy also teaches wherein the substantially identical potential between adjacent points on adjacent turns is achieved by using capacitors of substantially equal value [Fig. 3 and ¶0022, wherein capacitors 18 and 20 have equal values and capacitors 22 and 24 have equal values. See also rest of reference.] and/or using substantially equal lengths of copper trace between breaks [Fig. 3 and ¶0022, wherein the copper trace in outer loops 12 are equal in length. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Boskamp and Sambandamurthy because both references are in the field of RF coils in MRI and because Sambandamurthy teaches it is known in the art to use copper as the material for forming traces of RF coils [Sambandamurthy - ¶0022].
Regarding claim 8, Boskamp teaches the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Boskamp further teaches wherein the identical potential between adjacent points is achieved by using capacitors of equal value within 5% tolerance and/or using lengths of conductor trace within a few millimeters of conductor length tolerance between breaks [Fig. 2a and Col. 2, lines 51-68, wherein equal lengths of trace are used so that the current in each winding 50/52 is equal and opposite. See also rest reference.].
Boskamp is silent in teaching copper trace.
Sambandamurthy, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches copper trace [¶0022]. Sambandamurthy also teaches wherein the identical potential between adjacent points is achieved by using capacitors of equal value within 5% tolerance [Fig. 3 and ¶0022, wherein capacitors 18 and 20 have equal values and capacitors 22 and 24 have equal values. See also rest of reference.] and/or using lengths of copper trace within a few millimeters of copper length tolerance between breaks [Fig. 3 and ¶0022, wherein the copper trace in outer loops 12 are equal in length. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Boskamp and Sambandamurthy because both references are in the field of RF coils in MRI and because Sambandamurthy teaches it is known in the art to use copper as the material for forming traces of RF coils [Sambandamurthy - ¶0022].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896