DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claim 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-18, & 20 have been amended. Presently, Claims 1-20 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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
Previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 10/30/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Stormont’s coating is taught only as protection from contact and not for purpose of acoustic impedance. This argument does not address the actual basis of the rejection. The combination does not rely on Stormont for teachings regarding acoustic impedance. Stormont is relied upon for the teaching that it is known in the art to deposit a material layer over the first and second conductive patterns (i.e., RF coil structures).
The selection of coating material having certain impedance properties is addressed by Zhang, not Stormont. The Applicant’s mischaracterization that Stormont does not teach acoustic matching does not rebut the actual rational applied, because the rejection does not attribute that teaching to Stormont.
The Applicant also suggest that variation in thickness of a coating could alter acoustic behavior. However, claim 1 does not require any particular thickness range. This argument is based on features not recited in the claim thereby cannot overcome an obviousness rejection. Furthermore, modifying the thickness of a coating amounts to nothing more than routine optimization.
The Applicant further asserts that Stormont teaches away because it presents FIG. 6 and 7, as exclusive alternatives, and because Stormont states that coating may be used in one embodiment but not required in another. The cited passages of Stormont does not criticize, disparage, or discourage coating, it merely describes multiple options. A reference does not teach away merely because it presents different approaches. Nothing in Stormont suggest that coating should not be used with the configurations of modified Corea’s flexible coil. Because Stormont presents coating as a viable and routine modification for RF coil loop elements, the motivation to incorporate that known protective layer over another RF coil fabrication methods remains sound.
The Applicant asserts that no cited reference matches acoustic impedance. As previously mentioned, the rejection does not rely on Stormont for this teaching. Zhang expressly provides the relevant acoustic impedance data. The combination therefore remains proper. These recitations directed to the acoustic impedance are merely desirable and predictable in the context of matching, particular given the Applicant’s own admission at specification ¶0053: “DuPont 5064 H silver ink has an acoustic impedance of 15.6±3.8 MRayls. This value is closer to that of water at 1.5 MRayls”, that acoustic impedance values of candidate materials were known.
The Applicant asserts that Corea teaches PET material only in traditional prior art constructions and teaches PEEK only in the improved double-sided printed coil structure. This characterization is not supported by the reference. Corea describes both PET and PEEK as suitable flexible substrates for screen printed MRI coils. Nothing in Corea limits PET to “traditional” structures or prohibits double-sided printing, nor is Corea characterized as non-conforming to the invention. Corea simply demonstrates that different printing approaches may be used and that different substrates may serve those approaches. Furthermore, the Applicant imports interpretations that are not reflected in the Office Action, relying on an optional teaching to demonstrate that Corea teaches away, Page 11 characterizes an optional case by highlighting FIG. 2 of Corea, this is not persuasive. The correct interpretation relied upon is depicted below
FIG. 2(C) of Corea, description, “(c) Coil printing process flow showing two optional possible processes: printed dielectric or using the substrate as a dielectric.”
PNG
media_image1.png
734
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant further argues the Corea teaches the use of PEEK only in the context of double sided printing approach and thus the recitation of PEEK was removed from claim 2. The Examiner disagrees, Corea does not support this asserted separation. Corea identifies both PET and PPEK as flexible substrates suitable for printed coils.
It is for these reasons above the rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 20, line 2, “the layer of material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the material is PTFE, consistent with the language provided at line 11 of claim 15, “a layer of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 20: line 2, “the first and second conductor patterns”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corea, J. R. et al. Screen-printed flexible magnetic resonance imaging receive coils. Nat. Commun. 7:10839 doi: 10.1038/ncomms10839 (2016), hereafter “Corea”, Joseph Corea of the instant application (filed on 04/20/2017) is a named author of the applied prior art and that the Corea reference is subject matter disclosed prior to the one year effective filing date of the instant application), in view of Stormont et al (US 2019/0310327 A1) in view of Yi Zhang “Measuring Acoustic Attenuation of Polymer Materials Using Drop Ball Test”, herein Zhang).
Claim 1: Corea discloses, A method of making a flexible magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) receive coil device, the method comprising:
-Corea discloses, ([( FIG. 1-4 )] [(Results/section Printer MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: ‘The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B)’; [Title]: “Screen-printed flexible MRI receive coil”; Abstract: “Magnetic resonance imaging…we report a new approach that uses printing for fabricating receive coils. Our approach enables highly flexible, extremely lightweight conforming devices”; [Page 4/left col./para 2], ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’ see also FIG. 2 | Fabrication method and characterization of printed receive coils.)
a) providing a flexible substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface;
-Corea discloses, the coils are screen-printed onto lightweight flexible substrates, ¶Abstract, “Our approach enables highly flexible, extremely lightweight conforming devices.”.
Note: Corea discloses a coil fabrication, [METHODS pg. 5] for either PET or PEEK.
-The specific material includes, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [Methods left col pg. 5] “For coils with a printed dielectric, the first metal layer of the conductive coil was screen-printed, using an ASYS APM101 screen printer, onto a 75-μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film using a silver micro-flake ink”
-Another specific material used is low-loss substrate polyether ether ketone (PEEK), [Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners, pg. 4 left col], ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK),’
-FIG. 2, the flexible substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, see FIG. 2 highlighted below: Note; FIG. 2(C) description, “(c) Coil printing process flow showing two optional possible processes: printed dielectric or using the substrate as a dielectric.”
PNG
media_image1.png
734
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) forming a first conductor pattern on the first surface and a second conductor pattern on the second surface using a conductive material,
-Corea specifically, describes such a process where silver ink is printed on both side of the substrate, FIG. 2 above-circled region, [Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners, pg. 4 left col], ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK),’.
-In contrast, coils fabrication with the substrate involves printing the first layer of conductive silver ink onto the substrate, and then printing a dielectric layer and a top electrode metal layer (silver ink) to complete the device, FIG. 2 above.
-Further, see also: ([Title]: “Screen-printed flexible MRI receive coil”, [FIG. 1-4], [Results]: ‘Fabricating MRI coils using screen-printing on flexible substrates Printing can be tailored by using different inks, substrates and techniques enabling custom pattern design... Inkjet printing has previously been used to deposit metal layers for a single-element receive coil designed for a high-frequency small animal system’; [Results/Section Fabricating MRI coils using screen-printing on flexible substrate]: ‘We use screen-printing because coils require thick, low resistance conductive traces over a large area (that is, body size) at a high throughput, something not easily achieved with inkjet printing.’; [Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: ‘The schematic representation of a typical MRI coil is shown in Fig. 2a. We use octagonal coils with a diameter of 8.7 cm (ref. 32), with a conductor width of 0.5 cm and four capacitors evenly spaced throughout the loop as shown in Fig. 2b. To fabricate the coils, we print the coils layer by layer from solution, illustrated in Fig. 2c. The first layer of conductive ink is printed onto a thin flexible substrate, typically polyethylene terephthalate, forming the metal loop of the coil. The coil is completed with matching and tuning capacitors by printing a dielectric layer and the top electrode metal layer. The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B). The insulating dielectric ink is a mixture of barium titanate (Conductive Compounds BT-101) and an ultraviolet-curable resin-based ink (Creative Materials 116-20). When tuning a coil, it is desirable to control the capacitance to reach the Larmor frequencies used in MRI systems, ∼64 MHz (1.5 T) and 127 MHz (3.0 T)... To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’; [FIG. 2]: Fabrication method and characterization of printed receive coils: “(a) Schematic of a printed coil showing tuning, Ct, and matching, Cm, capacitors.”)
each of the first and second conductor patterns including an array of two or more surface coil structures,
-Note; the required claim recitation does not further limit how each of the first and second conductor patterns include an array of two or more surface coil structures.
-Accordingly, Corea discloses, FIG. 4 demonstrates such an arrangement under the broadest reasonable interpretation, ([FIG. 4a]-In vivio imaging with flexible coil array at 3T, [Fabrication and characterization], ‘The four-channel array was fabricated by printing neighbouring coils on alternating sides of the substrate.’).
wherein a portion of the first conductor pattern on the first surface overlaps with a portion of the second conductor pattern on the second surface of the flexible substrate therebetween to form at least one capacitor; and
-Corea discloses, (FIG. 2, ‘(a) Schematic of a printed coil showing tuning, Ct, and matching, Cm, capacitors. (b) Photograph of a printed coil. Inset highlights top-down view of printed capacitor. (c) Coil printing process flow showing two optional possible processes: printed dielectric or using the substrate as a dielectric. (d) Dependence of capacitance with top electrode area, dielectric thickness and ink composition. (e) Relative dielectric constant, measured at 127 MHz, as the volume of barium titanate in the ink is increased. High dielectric constant is achieved with barium titanate ink, while low dielectric constant is achieved with ultraviolet-curable ink. Error bars show standard deviation.’; [Results: Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: ‘In the simplest sense, receive coils are formed by loops of wire integrated with capacitors.’)
-Corea discloses Screen-Printing [printing with a pre-pattern mask (mask)] a silver ink pattern [first conductor pattern] onto the first of the two major surfaces; and flipping the substrate and screen-printing a second silver ink pattern [second conductor pattern] onto the second of the two major surfaces; wherein the receive coils are formed by loops of wire integrated with capacitors (and thus to form at least one capacitor). As shown in FIG. 2c, the silver ink pattern overlap one another across the PET substrate. Furthermore, Corea discloses, (Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners: ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’.
Corea fails to disclose:
c) depositing a layer of material over each of the first and second conductor patterns,
However, Stormont in the context of RF coil arrays discloses: depositing a layer of material over each of the first and second conductor patterns,
-Stormont confirms, that Teflon, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is used as a coating for the RF coil loop elements (i.e., first and second conductor patterns). (¶0081, ‘the RF coil loop elements with miniaturized coupling electronics units may be coated with Teflon or another suitable material to keep them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment’)
-Merriam-Webster defines “depositing” as an act of laying or putting something down. -Merriam Webster defines coating as a layer of one substance covering another. The Applicant’s specification does not define what further constitutes the term “depositing”. Accordingly, the term “coating” correctly describes the term “depositing”, as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabricating method of Corea receive coil to include depositing a layer of material over the first and second conductor patterns as taught by Stormont. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as providing advantages including keeping them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment, as explicitly suggested by ¶0081 of Stormont.
The modified combination above discloses depositing a layer of material over each of the first and second conductor patterns because the coating techniques taught by Stormont applied to the fabricated coil of Corea that includes the first and second conductor patterns would also be coated with Teflon. Thus, the deposited layer of material is over the conductor patterns, as required by the claim.
Corea in view of Stormont fails to explicitly disclose: c) … the layer of material having an acoustic impedance value between an acoustic impedance value of water and an acoustic impedance value of the conductive material.
However, Zhang, in an analogous field of acoustic impedance of materials teaches the acoustic impedance of Teflon. Specifically, Zhang discloses, Teflon having an acoustic impedance of 3 MRayl, see Table 1 Page 21.
As such, Corea in view of Stormont discloses depositing a layer of material over the conductor patterns, wherein the layer of material is Teflon (PTFE).
Zhang teaches at Table 1 page 21 Teflon (PTFE) has an acoustic impedance of 3 MRayl. Upon review of Table 1, Teflon has an acoustic impedance that is between an acoustic impedance value of water and an acoustic impedance value of the conductive material.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Corera in view of Stormont teachings of depositing of the layer of material in view of the teachings of Zhang, which discloses an acoustic impedance 3.0 MRayl for Teflon (PTFE), because it is conventionally available that the acoustic impedance of Teflon (PTFE) is 3.0 MRayl. In addition, Applicant’s specification states admits at paragraph ¶0053: “DuPont 5064 H silver ink has an acoustic impedance of 15.6±3.8 MRayls. This value is closer to that of water at 1.5 MRayls”. Therefore, the suitable material of Teflon has an acoustic impedance of 3.0 MRayls, which is between the acoustic impedance of water, 1.5 MRayls, and the acoustic impedance of the conductive ink, 15.6±3.8 MRayls. The motivation to combine these teachings yield predictable results such as having a low dielectric constant similar to water to minimize the field distortion in high field MRI scanners. Accordingly, the modified combination discloses, the layer of material having an acoustic impedance value between an acoustic impedance value of water and an acoustic impedance value of the conductive material.
Claim 2: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea further discloses, wherein the flexible substrate comprises a dielectric plastic material selected from a group consisting of a polyimide (PI) film, a polyethylene (PE) film, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film ([Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: ‘The first layer of conductive ink is printed onto a thin flexible substrate, typically polyethylene terephthalate, forming the metal loop of the coil.‘) , a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film, a polyetherimide (PEI) film, a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) film, a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) film.
-Corea discloses, the coils are screen-printed onto lightweight flexible substrates, ¶Abstract, “Our approach enables highly flexible, extremely lightweight conforming devices.”. The specific material includes, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [Methods left col. pg 5], “For coils with a printed dielectric, the first metal layer of the conductive coil was screen-printed, using an ASYS APM101 screen printer, onto a 75-μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film using a silver micro-flake ink”
Claim 3: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea fails to disclose, further comprising: d) coating the receive coil device with a hydrophobic material.
However, Stormont is relied upon above discloses: further comprising: d) coating the receive coil device with a hydrophobic material. (¶0081, ‘the RF coil loop elements with miniaturized coupling electronics units may be coated with Teflon or another suitable material to keep them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment’)
-The Examiner goes on Official Notice stating Teflon (i.e. PTFE) exhibits high hydrophobicity due to its low surface energy. Accordingly, PTFE commonly known as Teflon has many unique properties, one of which is its hydrophobicity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabricating method of modified Corea receive coil to include coating the coil device with a hydrophobic material as taught by Stormont. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as providing advantages including keeping them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment, ¶0081 of Stormont.
Claim 4: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea further discloses, wherein the forming the first and second conductor patterns includes: printing a first layer of the conductive material on the first surface using a printing mask having a pattern; and printing a second layer of the conductive material on the second surface using said printing mask,
-Corea discloses Screen-Printing [printing with a pre-pattern mask (mask)] a silver ink pattern [first conductor pattern] onto the first of the two major surfaces; and flipping the substrate and screen-printing a second silver ink pattern [second conductor pattern] onto the second of the two major surfaces. As shown in FIG. 2c, the silver ink pattern overlap one another across the PET substrate. Furthermore, Corea discloses, (Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners: ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’).
Claim 5: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 4, Corea further discloses, wherein the printing of the first and second layers includes screen printing. ([Title]: “Screen-printed flexible MRI receive coil”)
-Corea discloses Screen-Printing [printing with a pre-pattern mask (mask)] a silver ink pattern [first conductor pattern] onto the first of the two major surfaces; and flipping the substrate and screen-printing a second silver ink pattern [second conductor pattern] onto the second of the two major surfaces. As shown in FIG. 2c, the silver ink pattern overlap one another across the PET substrate. Furthermore, Corea discloses, (Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners: ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’).
Claim 6: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea further discloses, wherein the conductive material comprises a conductive ink. ([Methods/Section Coil Fabrication]: “For coils with a printed dielectric, the first metal layer of the conductive coil was screen-printed, using an ASYS APM101 screen printer, onto a 75-μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film using a silver micro-flake ink, with flake size of 7 μm, purchased from Creative Materials (118-19A/B))”)
Claim 7: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 6, Corea further discloses, wherein the conductive ink includes a metal material selected from a group consisting of gold, copper and silver ([pg. 3/left col], ‘The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B)’).
Claim 8: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Corea further discloses, wherein the selected metal material comprises metallic flakes ([pg. 3/left col], ‘The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B)’).
Claim 9: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea further discloses, wherein the conductive material includes a metal material and a polymer-based binder. ([Results/Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: “The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B)” and Section Methods Coil Fabrication: “For coils with the substrate as the dielectric, the two metal layers on opposite sides of a 75-μm-thick PEEK film were printed using a silver micro-flake ink, purchased from Dupont (5064H)”)
Claim 11: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea further discloses, wherein the array of the two more surface coil structures are transparent to ultrasound frequencies. (([FIG. 4a]-In vivio imaging with flexible coil array at 3T, [Fabrication and characterization], ‘The four-channel array was fabricated by printing neighbouring coils on alternating sides of the substrate.’); [Results/Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: “receive coils are formed by loops of wire integrated with capacitors…The size of the loop is typically predetermined, fixing the inductance. Therefore, tuning capacitors, Ct, are added to the loop to tune the desired resonant frequency. To minimize cable losses a matching capacitor, Cm…We use octagonal coils with a diameter of 8.7 cm (ref. 32), with a conductor width of 0.5 cm and four capacitors evenly spaced throughout the loop as shown in Fig. 2b”. Note; the metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B).
As noted in the applicant’s specification paragraph 0054 “the acoustic properties of the commercially available silver ink make it well suited for use in the acoustically transparent coils.” -Therefore, the array of the two more surface coil structures are transparent to ultrasound frequencies.
Claim 12: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea fails to disclose, wherein the layer of material includes polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
However, Stormont is relied upon above disclose: wherein the layer of material includes polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). (¶0081, ‘the RF coil loop elements with miniaturized coupling electronics units may be coated with Teflon or another suitable material to keep them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment’)
- polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is Teflon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabricating method of Corea receive coil to include depositing a layer of material over the conductor pattern as taught by Stormont. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as providing advantages including keeping them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment, ¶0081 of Stormont.
Claim 13: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 12, Corea further discloses, wherein the layer of material has a thickness of between about 75 micrometers (µm) and about 500 µm.
-Corea discloses, (Page 4, Col left, Section Methods Coil Fabrication: “For coils with a printed dielectric, the first metal layer of the conductive coil was screen-printed, using an ASYS APM101 screen printer, onto a 75-μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film using a silver micro-flake ink, with flake size of 7 μm, purchased from Creative Materials (118-19A/B)) [...] For coils with the substrate as the dielectric, the two metal layers on opposite sides of a 75-μm-thick PEEK film were printed using a silver micro-flake ink, purchased from Dupont (5064H). These layers were annealed at 140 °C for 15 min.”)
Claim 14: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea further discloses, wherein the conductor material includes a combination of a printed conductor material (A printed conductor is equated to the silver ink taught by Corea, which is printed onto the think flexible substrate, see Fig. 2a-2b. A silver ink is patterned/printed onto the first of the two surfaces of the substrate, and flipping the substrate and screen printing a second silver ink pattern/printed onto the second of the two surfaces, refer to Fig. 2c) and a non-printed conductor material (A non-printed conductor is equated to the substrate (polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyether ether ketone (PEEK)). Furthermore, refer to Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners: “The first layer of conductive ink is printed onto a thin flexible substrate”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corea, J. R. et al. Screen-printed flexible magnetic resonance imaging receive coils. Nat. Commun. 7:10839 doi: 10.1038/ncomms10839 (2016), hereafter “Corea”, Joseph Corea of the instant application (filed on 04/20/2017) is a named author of the applied prior art and that the Corea reference is subject matter disclosed prior to the one year effective filing date of the instant application), in view of Stormont et al (US 2019/0310327 A1) in view of Yi Zhang “Measuring Acoustic Attenuation of Polymer Materials Using Drop Ball Test”, herein Zhang), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ginefri et al, (Implanted, inductively-coupled, radiofrequency coils fabricated on flexible polymeric material: application to in vivo rat brain MRI at 7 T. J Magn Reson. 2012 Nov;224:61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jmr.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Sep 20).
Claim 10: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Corea fails to disclose,
wherein the depositing includes laminating the layer of material over the first conductor patten on the first surface and the second conductor pattern on the second surface.
However, Ginefri in the context of fabricated flexible radiofrequency coils discloses, wherein the depositing includes laminating the layer of material over the first conductor patten on the first surface and the second conductor pattern on the second surface. (FIG. 3 - [pg 63/right col], ‘A plasma treatment of He/O2 (50/50; %v) was performed for 50 s in a home-made reactor to improve the PDMS adhesion on Teflon and copper surface. The PDMS was deposited on both sides of the sample using spin-coating (1000 rpm for 60 s corresponding to a thickness of 65 μm) and cured at 95 °C for 30 min.’)
-The plasma treatment provides adhesion. Spin-coating applies the layer. The curing step functions as bonding/fixation. Merriam-webster defines “laminating” as to unite (layers of material) by an adhesion or other means. Accordingly, Ginefri discloses laminating the material over the conductor pattern on both the first and second surface, as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depositing of modified Corea in the view of the teachings of Ginefri for the advantage of improving adhesion to the sample as suggested by Ginefri [pg 63/right col]. The modified combination would disclose: wherein the depositing includes laminating the layer of material over the conductor patten on both of the first and second surfaces.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corea, J. R. et al. Screen-printed flexible magnetic resonance imaging receive coils. Nat. Commun. 7:10839 doi: 10.1038/ncomms10839 (2016), hereafter “Corea”, Joseph Corea of the instant application (filed on 04/20/2017) is a named author of the applied prior art and that the Corea reference is subject matter disclosed prior to the one year effective filing date of the instant application), in view of Stormont et al (US 2019/0310327 A1)
Claim 15: Corea discloses, A method of making a flexible magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) receive coil device, the method comprising:
-Corea discloses, ([( FIG. 1-4 )] [(Results/section Printer MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: ‘The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B)’; [Title]: “Screen-printed flexible MRI receive coil”; Abstract: “Magnetic resonance imaging…we report a new approach that uses printing for fabricating receive coils. Our approach enables highly flexible, extremely lightweight conforming devices”; [Page 4/left col./para 2], ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’ see also FIG. 2 | Fabrication method and characterization of printed receive coils.)
a) providing a flexible substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, the flexible substrate comprising a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) film;
-Corea discloses, the coils are screen-printed onto lightweight flexible substrates, ¶Abstract, “Our approach enables highly flexible, extremely lightweight conforming devices.”.
Note: Corea discloses a coil fabrication, [METHODS pg. 5] for either PET or PEEK.
-The specific material includes, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [Methods left col pg. 5] “For coils with a printed dielectric, the first metal layer of the conductive coil was screen-printed, using an ASYS APM101 screen printer, onto a 75-μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film using a silver micro-flake ink”
-Another specific material used is low-loss substrate polyether ether ketone (PEEK), [Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners, pg. 4 left col], ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK),’
-FIG. 2, the flexible substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, see FIG. 2 highlighted below: Note; FIG. 2(C) description, “(c) Coil printing process flow showing two optional possible processes: printed dielectric or using the substrate as a dielectric.”
PNG
media_image1.png
734
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b) forming a first conductor pattern on the first surface and a second conductor pattern on the second surface using a conductive material,
-Corea specifically, describes such a process where silver ink is printed on both side of the substrate, FIG. 2 above-circled region, [Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners, pg. 4 left col], ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK),’.
-In contrast, coils fabrication with the substrate involves printing the first layer of conductive silver ink onto the substrate, and then printing a dielectric layer and a top electrode metal layer (silver ink) to complete the device, FIG. 2 above.
-Further, see also: ([Title]: “Screen-printed flexible MRI receive coil”, [FIG. 1-4], [Results]: ‘Fabricating MRI coils using screen-printing on flexible substrates Printing can be tailored by using different inks, substrates and techniques enabling custom pattern design... Inkjet printing has previously been used to deposit metal layers for a single-element receive coil designed for a high-frequency small animal system’; [Results/Section Fabricating MRI coils using screen-printing on flexible substrate]: ‘We use screen-printing because coils require thick, low resistance conductive traces over a large area (that is, body size) at a high throughput, something not easily achieved with inkjet printing.’; [Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: ‘The schematic representation of a typical MRI coil is shown in Fig. 2a. We use octagonal coils with a diameter of 8.7 cm (ref. 32), with a conductor width of 0.5 cm and four capacitors evenly spaced throughout the loop as shown in Fig. 2b. To fabricate the coils, we print the coils layer by layer from solution, illustrated in Fig. 2c. The first layer of conductive ink is printed onto a thin flexible substrate, typically polyethylene terephthalate, forming the metal loop of the coil. The coil is completed with matching and tuning capacitors by printing a dielectric layer and the top electrode metal layer. The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B). The insulating dielectric ink is a mixture of barium titanate (Conductive Compounds BT-101) and an ultraviolet-curable resin-based ink (Creative Materials 116-20). When tuning a coil, it is desirable to control the capacitance to reach the Larmor frequencies used in MRI systems, ∼64 MHz (1.5 T) and 127 MHz (3.0 T)... To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’; [FIG. 2]: Fabrication method and characterization of printed receive coils: “(a) Schematic of a printed coil showing tuning, Ct, and matching, Cm, capacitors.”)
each of the first and second conductor patterns including an array of two or more surface coil structures,
-Note; the required claim recitation does not further limit how each of the first and second conductor patterns include an array of two or more surface coil structures.
-Accordingly, Corea discloses, FIG. 4 demonstrates such an arrangement under the broadest reasonable interpretation, ([FIG. 4a]-In vivio imaging with flexible coil array at 3T, [Fabrication and characterization], ‘The four-channel array was fabricated by printing neighbouring coils on alternating sides of the substrate.’).
wherein a portion of the first conductor pattern on the first surface overlaps with a portion of the second conductor pattern on the second surface of the flexible substrate therebetween to form at least one capacitor; and
-Corea discloses, (FIG. 2, ‘(a) Schematic of a printed coil showing tuning, Ct, and matching, Cm, capacitors. (b) Photograph of a printed coil. Inset highlights top-down view of printed capacitor. (c) Coil printing process flow showing two optional possible processes: printed dielectric or using the substrate as a dielectric. (d) Dependence of capacitance with top electrode area, dielectric thickness and ink composition. (e) Relative dielectric constant, measured at 127 MHz, as the volume of barium titanate in the ink is increased. High dielectric constant is achieved with barium titanate ink, while low dielectric constant is achieved with ultraviolet-curable ink. Error bars show standard deviation.’; [Results: Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: ‘In the simplest sense, receive coils are formed by loops of wire integrated with capacitors.’); and
-Corea discloses Screen-Printing [printing with a pre-pattern mask (mask)] a silver ink pattern [first conductor pattern] onto the first of the two major surfaces; and flipping the substrate and screen-printing a second silver ink pattern [second conductor pattern] onto the second of the two major surfaces; wherein the receive coils are formed by loops of wire integrated with capacitors (and thus to form at least one capacitor). As shown in FIG. 2c, the silver ink pattern overlap one another across the PET substrate. Furthermore, Corea discloses, (Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners: ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’.
Corea fails to disclose:
c) depositing a layer of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) over each of the first and second conductor patterns.
However, Stormont in the context of RF coil arrays discloses: depositing a layer of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) over each of the first and second conductor patterns.
-Stormont confirms, that Teflon, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is used as a coating for the RF coil loop elements (i.e., first and second conductor patterns). (¶0081, ‘the RF coil loop elements with miniaturized coupling electronics units may be coated with Teflon or another suitable material to keep them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment’)
-Merriam-Webster defines “depositing” as an act of laying or putting something down. -Merriam Webster defines coating as a layer of one substance covering another. The Applicant’s specification does not define what further constitutes the term “depositing”. Accordingly, the term “coating” correctly describes the term “depositing”, as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabricating method of Corea receive coil to include depositing a layer of material over the first and second conductor patterns as taught by Stormont. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as providing advantages including keeping them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment, as explicitly suggested by ¶0081 of Stormont.
The modified combination above discloses depositing a layer of material over each of the first and second conductor patterns because the coating techniques taught by Stormont applied to the fabricated coil of Corea that includes the first and second conductor patterns would also be coated with Teflon. Thus, the deposited layer of material is over the conductor patterns, as required by the claim.
Claim 16: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 15, Corea further discloses, wherein the conductive material includes a conductive ink and wherein the forming the conductor pattern includes: printing a first layer of the conductive ink on the first surface using a printing mask having a pattern; and printing a second layer of the conductive ink on the second surface using said printing mask.
Corea discloses Screen-Printing [printing with a pre-pattern mask (mask)] a silver ink pattern [first conductor pattern] onto the first of the two major surfaces; and flipping the substrate and screen-printing a second silver ink pattern [second conductor pattern] onto the second of the two major surfaces. As shown in FIG. 2c, the silver ink pattern overlap one another across the PET substrate. Furthermore, Corea discloses, (Results/ Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners: ‘To demonstrate this case, we created a coil with an improved conductive silver ink (Silver micro-flake, Dupont 5064H) printed on both sides of a low-loss substrate, polyether ether ketone (PEEK), forming capacitors wherever the layers overlap, shown in Fig. 2c.’).
Claim 17: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 15, Corea further discloses, wherein the conductive material includes a metal material selected from a group consisting of gold, copper and silver ([Methods/Section Coil Fabrication]: “For coils with a printed dielectric, the first metal layer of the conductive coil was screen-printed, using an ASYS APM101 screen printer, onto a 75-μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film using a silver micro-flake ink, with flake size of 7 μm, purchased from Creative Materials (118-19A/B))”).
Claim 18: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 17, Corea further discloses, wherein the selected metal material comprises metallic flakes. ([Methods/Section Coil Fabrication]: “For coils with a printed dielectric, the first metal layer of the conductive coil was screen-printed, using an ASYS APM101 screen printer, onto a 75-μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film using a silver micro-flake ink, with flake size of 7 μm, purchased from Creative Materials (118-19A/B))”)
Claim 19: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 15, Corea further discloses, wherein the conductive material includes a metal material and a polymer-
based binder. ([Results/Section Printed MRI receive coils designed for 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners]: “The metal ink is a conductive silver micro-flake solution (Creative Materials 118-09 A/B)” and Section Methods Coil Fabrication: “For coils with the substrate as the dielectric, the two metal layers on opposite sides of a 75-μm-thick PEEK film were printed using a silver micro-flake ink, purchased from Dupont (5064H)”)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corea, J. R. et al. Screen-printed flexible magnetic resonance imaging receive coils. Nat. Commun. 7:10839 doi: 10.1038/ncomms10839 (2016), hereafter “Corea”, Joseph Corea of the instant application (filed on 04/20/2017) is a named author of the applied prior art and that the Corea reference is subject matter disclosed prior to the one year effective filing date of the instant application), in view of Stormont et al (US 2019/0310327 A1), as applied to claim 15, in further view of Ginefri et al, Implanted, inductively-coupled, radiofrequency coils fabricated on flexible polymeric material: application to in vivo rat brain MRI at 7 T. J Magn Reson. 2012 Nov;224:61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jmr.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Sep 20.
Claim 20: Corea as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 15, Corea fails to disclose,
wherein the depositing includes depositing the layer of material over the first and second conductor patterns on both the first and second surfaces.
However, Stormont is relied upon above discloses: wherein the depositing includes depositing the layer of material over the first and second conductor patterns on both the first and second surfaces.
-Stormont confirms, that Teflon, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is used as a coating for the RF coil loop elements (i.e., first and second conductor patterns). (¶0081, ‘the RF coil loop elements with miniaturized coupling electronics units may be coated with Teflon or another suitable material to keep them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabricating method of modified Corea receive coil to include depositing PTFE as taught by Stormont. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as providing advantages including keeping them from getting damaged when exposed to patients in a medical environment, ¶0081 of Stormont.
However, Ginefri in the context of fabricated flexible radiofrequency coils discloses, wherein the depositing includes laminating the layer of material over the first and second conductor pattens on both of the first and second surfaces. ([pg 63/right col], ‘A plasma treatment of He/O2 (50/50; %v) was performed for 50 s in a home-made reactor to improve the PDMS adhesion on Teflon and copper surface. The PDMS was deposited on both sides of the sample using spin-coating (1000 rpm for 60 s corresponding to a thickness of 65 μm) and cured