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 02/10/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objections has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amendments have introduced new 112 rejections. Please see below for further details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 1-4, 8, 18, and 20 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 19 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 20 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 regarding the prior art rejection of claim 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Piron does not teach the limitations of claim 5. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Piron shows in Figs. 12A-E the anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115 teaches the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the center of the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. Therefore, it is believed that Piron does teach the argued limitations.
The same arguments for claim 5 also apply to the arguments of claims 6-7.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 regarding the prior art rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Chang only teaches a single housing piece 221. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chang teaches multiple housing pieces 221 [See at least Fig. 8 of Chang.].
Applicant then argues that Chang does not teach “the positional correspondence” relationship of claim 13. However, as the examiner noted above, there are multiple housing pieces 221. Further, the holes of certain housing pieces 221 align with the female screw holes of other housing pieces. Therefore, the argument is considered not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the hollow holes are designed for heat dissipation or weight loss) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-7 and 9-21 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 1, the claim discloses “adjacent first coils”. However, it is unclear if “adjacent first coils” refers to the “first coil units” or is different from them. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the claim discloses “adjacent first coils”. However, it is unclear if “adjacent second coils” refers to the “second coil units” or is different from them. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 2-7 and 9-17 and 21 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims discloses “the at least one second coil unit”, but claim 1 now discloses “at least two second coil units”. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the claim discloses “at least two second coil units” and then discloses “the at least one second coil unit”. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear if “the at least two second coil unit” should be “the at least two second coil units” in the last limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim discloses “adjacent first coils”. However, it is unclear if “adjacent first coils” refers to the “first coil units” or is different from them. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, the claim discloses “adjacent first coils”. However, it is unclear if “adjacent second coils” refers to the “second coil units” or is different from them. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
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, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stack (US 2019/0377040).
Regarding claim 1, Stack teaches a radio frequency device, comprising:
a surface coil, wherein the surface coil includes at least one coil assembly;
the at least one coil assembly including a first coil assembly and a second coil assembly [See Fig. 2, see second, third, and fourth coil assembly 204/206/208. See also rest of reference.], wherein the first coil assembly includes at least two first coil units arranged in an array, wherein adjacent first coils in the first coil assembly overlap [Fig. 2, see overlapping coils of 204/206/208. See also rest of reference.];
the second coil assembly includes at least two second coil units arranged in an array, wherein adjacent second coils in the second coil assembly overlap [Fig. 2, see overlapping coils of 204/206/208. See also rest of reference.];
the first coil assembly and the second coil assembly are arranged in a stacked configuration [Fig. 2, wherein 204, 206, and 208 are stacked in the y-direction. See also rest of reference.];
a size of each of the at least two first coil units is the same from a size of each of the at least two second coil units [Fig. 2, wherein 204, 206, and 208 have the same size coil elements. See also rest of reference.]; and
each of the at least two first coil units and the at least two second coil units is configured to receive one or more magnetic resonance signals [¶0020, ¶0023, ¶0049. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 18, Stack further teaches wherein the radio frequency device is applied in a magnetic resonance device [See Fig. 1. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 20, Stack teaches a radio frequency device, comprising:
a first surface coil including at least one first coil assembly and a first cladding layer, wherein the first cladding layer encases the at least one first coil assembly, the first coil assembly includes at least two first coil units arranged in an array, and adjacent first coils in the first coil assembly overlap [See Fig. 2, see second, third, and fourth coil assembly 204/206/208. See Fig. 4C, 5, and 6. ¶0047-0048. See also rest of reference.];
a second surface coil including at least one second coil assembly and a second cladding layer, wherein the second cladding layer encases the at least one second coil assembly the second coil assembly includes at least two second coil units arranged in an array, adjacent second coils in the second coil assembly overlap [See Fig. 2, see second, third, and fourth coil assembly 204/206/208. See Fig. 4C, 5, and 6. ¶0047-0048. See also rest of reference.];
the first cladding layer is detachably connected with the second cladding layer [¶0050, see straps. See Fig. 4C and 5. ¶0055. See also rest of reference.];
a size of each of the at least two first coil units is the same from a size of each of the at least two second coil units [Fig. 2, wherein 204, 206, and 208 have the same size coil elements. See also rest of reference.]; and
each of the at least two first coil units and the at least two second coil units is configured to receive one or more magnetic resonance signals [¶0020, ¶0023, ¶0049. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hardy (US 7,612,564).
Regarding claim 19, Hardy teaches A magnetic resonance device, comprising:
a surface coil, wherein the surface coil includes at least one coil assembly [See Fig. 2. See also rest of reference.]; and the at least one coil assembly includes a first coil assembly and a second coil assembly [See Fig. 2, see columns of coils 108. See also rest of reference.], wherein
the first coil assembly includes at least two first coil units arranged in an array See Fig. 2, see columns of coils 108. See also rest of reference.];
the second coil assembly includes at least two second coil units arranged in an array See Fig. 2, see columns of coils 108. See also rest of reference.];
the at least one second coil unit and the at least two first coil unit are physical separated from each other and are arranged staggered up and down [See Fig. 2, see columns of coils 108 are staggered and separated. See also rest of reference.];
a size of each of the at least two first coil units is the same from a size of each of the at least two second coil units, a count of the at least two first coil units is the same from a count of the at least two second coil units, and an arrangement of the at least two first coil units is the same from an arrangement of the at least two second coil units [See Fig. 2, see columns of coils 108 have the same number of coil elements 110 and the same size and are arranged the same. See also rest of reference.]; and
a projection of a center of each of the at least two second coil unit on the first coil assembly along a stacked direction has a distance from a center of each of the at least two first coil units [Fig. 2, see the staggering of one half the element width. 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 2-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stack, in view of Piron (US 2007/0016003).
Regarding claim 2, Stack teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein a projection of a center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along a stacked direction has a distance from a center of each of the at least two first coil units.
Piron, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein a projection of a center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along a stacked direction has a distance from a center of each of the at least two first coil units [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. 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 Mitsui and Stack because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Mitsui teaches using coil plates, similar to Stack. Further, Piron teaches it is known in the art to move coil plates relative to each other to optimize SNR and/or field of view [Piron - ¶0115-0118. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Stack and Piron teaches the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located between centers of adjacent first coil units of the at least two first coil units.
Piron, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located between centers of adjacent first coil units of the at least two first coil units [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. 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 Mitsui and Stack because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Mitsui teaches using coil plates, similar to Stack. Further, Piron teaches it is known in the art to move coil plates relative to each other to optimize SNR and/or field of view [Piron - ¶0115-0118. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Stack and Piron teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located at a midpoint of a line connecting the centers of the adjacent first coil units.
Piron, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located at a midpoint of a line connecting the centers of the adjacent first coil units [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. 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 Mitsui and Stack because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Mitsui teaches using coil plates, similar to Stack. Further, Piron teaches it is known in the art to move coil plates relative to each other to optimize SNR and/or field of view [Piron - ¶0115-0118. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Stack and Piron teaches the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein the at least two first coil units of the first coil assembly are partially overlapped to form one or more overlapped regions, and the projection of the center each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located in one of the one or more overlapped regions.
Piron, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the at least two first coil units of the first coil assembly are partially overlapped to form one or more overlapped regions, and the projection of the center each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located in one of the one or more overlapped regions [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. 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 Mitsui and Stack because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Mitsui teaches using coil plates, similar to Stack. Further, Piron teaches it is known in the art to move coil plates relative to each other to optimize SNR and/or field of view [Piron - ¶0115-0118. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Stack and Piron teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
However, Stack is silent in teaching wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located at a center of the one of the one or more overlapped regions.
Piron, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located at a center of the one of the one or more overlapped regions [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the center of the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. 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 Mitsui and Stack because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Mitsui teaches using coil plates, similar to Stack. Further, Piron teaches it is known in the art to move coil plates relative to each other to optimize SNR and/or field of view [Piron - ¶0115-0118. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Stack and Piron teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located at a first overlapped region of adjacent first coil units arranged along a first direction; the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located in a second overlapped region of the adjacent first coil units arranged along a second direction; and/or at least four first coil units are arranged in an array along the first direction and the second direction of the adjacent first coil units, the four first coil units have a third overlapped region, and the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located in the third overlapped region.
Piron further teaches wherein the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located at a first overlapped region of adjacent first coil units arranged along a first direction [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the center of the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. See also rest of reference.]; the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located in a second overlapped region of the adjacent first coil units arranged along a second direction [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the center of the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. See also rest of reference.]; and/or at least four first coil units are arranged in an array along the first direction and the second direction of the adjacent first coil units, the four first coil units have a third overlapped region, and the projection of the center of each of the at least one second coil unit on the first coil assembly along the stacked direction is located in the third overlapped region.
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 Mitsui and Stack because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Mitsui teaches using coil plates, similar to Stack. Further, Piron teaches it is known in the art to move coil plates relative to each other to optimize SNR and/or field of view [Piron - ¶0115-0118. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 21, Stack and Piron teaches the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein the center of the one of the one or more overlapped regions refers to a geometric center of the one of the one or more overlapped regions.
Piron further teaches wherein the center of the one of the one or more overlapped regions refers to a geometric center of the one of the one or more overlapped regions [See Fig. 12A-E, wherein anterior and posterior plates 62 and 63 hold coil plates 69-70. ¶0115, wherein the coil plates can be moved relative to each other and therefore teaches an embodiment where the coils’ centers of coil plate is within a overlapped region of coils in the other coil plate. Further, Fig. 12A shows the anterior plate 62 centered over posterior plate 63, which would then show that the centers of the coils in anterior plate 62 are located in the center of the overlapping region of the coils in posterior plate 63. 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 Mitsui and Stack because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Mitsui teaches using coil plates, similar to Stack. Further, Piron teaches it is known in the art to move coil plates relative to each other to optimize SNR and/or field of view [Piron - ¶0115-0118. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Stack, in view of Chang (US 2016/0349336).
Regarding claim 9, Stack teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein the surface coil has one or more through holes along a thickness direction of the surface coil.
Chang, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the surface coil has one or more through holes along a thickness direction of the surface coil [See Fig. 8, holes 222a and 223a. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stack and Chang because both references are in the field of locals RF coils for MRI and Chang teaches it is known in the art to provide holes/openings in head coils for fastening elements different housing pieces together [Chang – Fig. 8 and 10A. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Stack and Chang teaches the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Stack further teaches wherein the surface coil is configured to have a first surface coil, the first surface coil includes the first assembly and the second assembly; the first surface coil further includes a first cladding layer [See Fig. 2 and ¶0047. See also rest of reference.], the first coil assembly and the second coil assembly are both encased within the first cladding layer [Fig. 2, wherein 208 includes two rows of coil elements which can be considered the first and second coil assembly. See also rest of reference.].
However, Stack is silent in teaching the one or more through holes include a first hollow hole provided on the first cladding layer.
Chang further teaches the one or more through holes include a first hollow hole provided on the first cladding layer [See Fig. 8, holes 222a and 223a. Fig. 10, see hole 231. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stack and Chang because both references are in the field of locals RF coils for MRI and Chang teaches it is known in the art to provide holes/openings in head coils for fastening elements different housing pieces together [Chang – Fig. 8 and 10A. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Stack and Chang teaches the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Stack further teaches wherein the surface coil is configured to have a second surface coil and a third surface coil, the second surface coil includes the first coil assembly, the third surface coil includes the second coil assembly; and the second surface coil is detachably connected with the third surface coil [See Fig. 2-4D and ¶0047. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Stack and Chang teaches the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
Stack further teaches wherein the second surface coil further includes a second cladding layer, the second cladding layer encases the first coil assembly [¶0047-0048. See also rest of reference.]; the third surface coil further includes a third cladding layer, the third cladding layer encases the second coil assembly [¶0047-0048. See also rest of reference.]; and the second cladding layer is detachably connected with the third cladding layer [¶0050, see straps. See Fig. 4C and 5. ¶0055.].
Regarding claim 13, Stack and Chang teaches the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends from.
Stack is silent in teaching wherein the one or more through holes include a plurality of second hollow holes provided on the second cladding layer, and a plurality of third hollow holes provided on the third cladding layer; positions of the plurality of second hollow holes correspond to a position of a portion of the third cladding layer; and positions of the plurality of third hollow holes correspond to a position of a portion of the second cladding layer.
Chang further teaches wherein the one or more through holes include a plurality of second hollow holes provided on the second cladding layer [Figs. 7-8, see holes 231 (¶0078) of housings 221. See also Fig. 10A-B. See also rest of reference.], and a plurality of third hollow holes provided on the third cladding layer [Figs. 7-8, see screw holes 232 of housings 221. See also Fig. 10A-B. See also rest of reference.]; positions of the plurality of second hollow holes correspond to a position of a portion of the third cladding layer [Figs. 7-8, see holes 231 (¶0078) and screw holes 232 of housings 221. See also rest of reference.]; and positions of the plurality of third hollow holes correspond to a position of a portion of the second cladding layer [Figs. 7-8, see holes 231 (¶0078) and screw holes 232 of housings 221. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stack and Chang because both references are in the field of locals RF coils for MRI and Chang teaches it is known in the art to provide holes/openings in head coils for fastening elements different housing pieces together [Chang – Fig. 8 and 10A. See also rest of reference.].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art is considered previously cited Stack and Chang. Chang does disclose through holes. However, Stack and Chang are silent in teaching “wherein the device further comprises an arrangement layer, a fourth cladding layer, and a sealing structure, the arrangement layer and the fourth cladding layer are flexible, at least one of the first coil assembly and the second coil assembly is provided on the arrangement layer, the fourth cladding layer is provided on the arrangement layer and covers the at least one of the first coil assembly and the second coil assembly; the one or more through holes form a hollow structure; the sealing structure is provided along an edge of the hollow structure; and the sealing structure includes a sealing portion, a bonding region, and a stitching portion, wherein the bonding region wraps around outside the edge of the hollow structure and bonds the fourth cladding layer and the arrangement layer, the sealing portion is provided along an inner edge of the bonding region and is sealed to the fourth cladding layer and the arrangement layer, the stitching portion is provided along an outer edge of the bonding region and stitches the fourth cladding layer and the arrangement layer.”
Claims 15-17 are considered above the prior art for depending on claim 14.
Conclusion
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 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights