DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3, filed November 11, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1-4 and 15 under U.S.C. 102 and 5-14 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the amendment. The deficiencies of Yang are now met by Tsuchihata. Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. US 20190187227 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yang) in view of TSUCHIHATA et al. JP 7017911 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Tsuchihata).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a coil unit of an MRI apparatus (fig. 1, MRI apparatus 100, par. [0017]), comprising: (fig. 6, two channels CH1 6501 and CH2 6502 to simplify illustration of the techniques disclosed herein, in real situations the coil can have a significant number of channels, i.e., the coil may have multiple rows and columns of coil element, the farthest channel element will cross multiple elements to reach the composite cable joint point, par. [0028]),(fig. 7, MRI RF antenna system 700, an example multiple-channel coil array, par. [0029]), a plurality of coil elements arranged in a two-dimensional direction (fig. 9, MRI, par. [0031]) wiring line (fig. 7, shields of both coax cables (for CH1 7501 and CH2 7502) are shorted together so that they can act as one conductor for the channel element of CH3 7503, par. [0029]) connected to each coil element and configured to transmit a signal or electricity (fig. 7, MRI RF antenna system 700, two coax cables in the lower side of CH3 7503, carrying the CH1 7501 and CH2 7502 signals within, while their shields are used for the coil element of CH37503. Thus, the shields of both coax cables (for CH1 7501 and CH2 7502) are shorted together so that they can act as one conductor for the channel element of CH3 7503, par. [0029]); and baluns provided at a plurality of positions of the wiring line (fig. 7, a first balun 7521 between CH1 7501 and CH2 7502, and a second balun 7522 between CH2 7502 and CH3 7503, to third balun, par. [0029]), wherein at least a part of the wiring line runs from one end toward the other end in an arrangement direction of the coil elements while being folded back in a direction oblique to the arrangement direction (fig. 7, from one coil to the next, that the wiring line must bent to enable it to be "signal cable hidden inside the coil element 5501 such that the coax cable cannot be “seen” by the coil element because the in and return signals have same magnitude and 180 degree phase difference”, par. [0026] around the next coil).
Yang does not disclose the wiring line extends physically in a zigzag manner.
Tsuchihata discloses the wiring line (fig. 6(a-1), 6(a-2), wiring 406 meandering, par. [0047]) extends physically in a zigzag manner (see. fig. 6(a-1), 6(a-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide substrate is formed by molding an elastic base material into a band shape, and mounts a wiring meandering in a meander shape capable of feeding power to an RF reception coil which sends an NMR signal imaging region and a posture of a test object, as taught in Tsuchihata in modifying the apparatus of Yang. The motivation would be capable of feeding power to an RF reception coil which sends an NMR signal imaging region and a posture of a test object. (see Tsuchihata: par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang discloses wherein at least a part of the baluns is disposed at a folding-back point of the wiring line (see fig. 7, the baluns are placed where the wiring line bends).
Regarding claim 3, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang discloses wherein at least a part of the baluns is disposed between a folding-back point and a next folding-back point of the wiring line (see fig. 7, the baluns are placed between two bends).
Regarding claim 4, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang discloses wherein at least one balun is disposed on a wiring line between one folding-back point and a next folding-back point (see fig. 7, the baluns are placed between two bends).
Regarding claim 15, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (fig. 1, MRI apparatus 100, par. [0017]-[0022]) comprising: an RF transmission coil (fig. 1, RF antennas 150, par. [0019]) configured to generate a high-frequency magnetic field in an imaging space (fig. 1, object space, par. [0017]) in which a static magnetic field (fig. 1, RF antennas 150, par. [0019]) is formed; and an RF reception coil (fig. 1, basic field magnet(s) 110, par. [0017]) configured to receive a nuclear magnetic resonance signal (fig. 1, magnetic resonance signals received from the set of RF antennas 150 can be employed to generate an image, par. [0020]) generated from a subject placed on the imaging space, wherein the RF reception coil includes the coil unit (fig. 7, MRI RF antenna system 700, an example multiple-channel coil array, par. [0029]) according to claim 1.
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding claim 5, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang discloses further comprising: a connecting part configured to connect the wiring line to a cable of an MRI apparatus (fig. 2, for each channel CH1 (2501 )-CH9 (2509) to connect to the composite cable 253 to the MRI system, par. [0023]).
Yang does not disclose wherein the connecting part is provided at an end part of an arrangement of the coil elements in a longitudinal direction. However these limitations (connecting part provided at an end part of an arrangement of the coil elements in a longitudinal direction), absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious choice of for the arrangement of the coil elements in a longitudinal direction being connected to the connecting part provided at an end part of an arrangement
of the coil elements. Since it appears to the examiner that the choice of direction of the coils being attached to the connecting part is nothing more than one of numerous directions and arrangement that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide. In this case to provide convenient placement of connecting parts.
Regarding claim 6, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, further comprising: a connecting part configured to connect the wiring line to a cable of an MRI apparatus (fig. 2, for each channel CH1 (2501 )-CH9 (2509) to connect to the composite cable 253 to the MRI system, par. [0023]), wherein the connecting part is provided at an end part of an arrangement of the coil elements in a lateral direction.
Yang does not disclose wherein the connecting part is provided at an end part of an arrangement of the coil elements in a lateral direction. However connecting part provided at an end part of an arrangement of the coil elements in a lateral direction, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious choice of for the arrangement of the coil elements in a lateral direction being connected to the connecting part provided at an end part of an arrangement of the coil elements. Since it appears to the examiner that the choice of direction of the coils being attached to the connecting part is nothing more than one of numerous directions and arrangement that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide. In this case to provide convenient placement of connecting parts.
Regarding claim 7, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the wiring line to one folding-back point and a length of the wiring line to the other folding-back point are different from each other with the balun interposed therebetween, However the length of the wiring line to one folding-back point and a length of the wiring line to the other folding-back point are different from each other with the balun, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious choice of for the different length of the wiring line. Since applicant has not disclosed that the different length of the wiring line interposed between baluns solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with length of the wiring line interposed between baluns that are equal in length also.
Regarding claim 8, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a distance between adjacent folding-back points of the wiring line is 1/16 or less of a wavelength of a high-frequency signal transmitted and received by an MRI apparatus. However, to choose a distance between adjacent folding-back points of the wiring line is 1/16 or less of a wavelength of a high-frequency signal transmitted and received, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” value of the maximum distance between adjacent folding-back points of the wiring line, as stated above, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired accuracy and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and MPEP 2144.04 and 2144.05.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otake et al. US 2011/0267062 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Otake).
Regarding claim 9, Yang and Tsuchihata the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang and Tsuchihata do not disclose the wherein the balun is a parallel resonance circuit, and a resonance frequency is f0 ± 10% in a case where a reference frequency of an MRI apparatus is denoted by f0.
Otake discloses balun is a parallel resonance circuit (fig. 6b, balun 118, par. [0072]), and a resonance frequency is f0 ± 10% in a case where a reference frequency of an MRI apparatus is denoted by f0 (par. [0072]),.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide technique for maintaining a function for effectively blocking common mode noise, even in the case where unbalance occurs, as taught in Otake in modifying the apparatus of Yang and Tsuchihata. The motivation would be to improve the performance of the RF coil, even when unbalance occurs in the characteristic impedance of the coaxial cable in the MRI apparatus (see Otake: par. [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang and Tsuchihata do not disclose wherein the balun includes a balun composed of a solenoid coil or a figure-eight-shaped coil formed of a shield line of the wiring line and a capacitor connected in parallel to both ends of the solenoid coil or the figure-eight-shaped coil.
Otake discloses the balun includes a balun composed of a solenoid coil or a figure-eight-shaped coil (fig. 8b, figure-eight type balun 118B, par. [0106]-[0110]) formed of a shield line of the wiring line (fig. 8b, coaxial cable 10, par. [0106]) and a capacitor (fig. 8b, capacitor 341, par. [0107]) connected in parallel to both ends of the solenoid coil or the figure-eight-shaped coil (see fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide shape of figure eight balun as taught in Otake in modifying the apparatus of Yang. The motivation would be to improve the performance of the RF coil, even when unbalance occurs in the characteristic impedance of the coaxial cable in the MRI apparatus and to reduce magnetic turbulence, thereby enhancing the performance of the RF coil (see Otake: par. [0106]-[0110]).
Regarding claim 11, Yang, Tsuchihata and Otake discloses the coil unit according to claim 10, Otake discloses wherein the balun includes a balun composed of a solenoid coil or a figure-eight-shaped coil (fig. 8b, figure-eight type balun 118B, par. [0106]-[0110]) formed of the wiring line (fig. 8b, coaxial cable 10, par. [0106]) connected to the coil elements and a capacitor connected in parallel to both ends of the solenoid coil or the figure-eight-shaped coil (fig. 8b, capacitor 341, par. [0107]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang and Tsuchihata do not disclose wherein the balun is an LC circuit connected in series to the wiring line.
Otake discloses the balun is an LC circuit (fig. 6a, parallel circuit 400, par. [0069]) connected in series to the wiring line (fig. 6a, coaxial cable 10, par. [0069]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Yang and Tsuchihata discloses the coil unit according to claim 1, Yang and Tsuchihata do not disclose wherein the balun is a clamp-type balun mounted on an outer periphery of the wiring line.
Otake discloses wherein the balun is a clamp-type balun (fig. 3, elm. 300, par. [0055]) mounted on an outer periphery of the wiring line (fig. 3, connected in parallel to the outer conductors 12 at both ends of the coaxial cable 10, par. [0055]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Yang, Tsuchihata and Otake discloses the coil unit according to claim 13, wherein Otake discloses the clamp-type balun (fig. 7, balun 7523, par. [0029]) is mounted at a mounting Yang discloses position in the wiring line to include a plurality of the wiring lines (fig. 7, MRI RF antenna system 700, an example multiple-channel coil array, par. [0029]), connected to the coil elements (fig. 7, coax cables (for CH1 7501 and CH2 7502 channel element of CH3 7503, par. [0029]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9.
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 COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
3/31/2026