DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/19/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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 5, 8, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, both claims recite “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the two antennas are arranged in a common plane.”
First, both claims depend on claim 1 and recite identical subject matter. Therefore, claim 17 is identical in scope as claim 5. Claim 17 should be canceled or the dependency should be changed.
Second, as best understood by the examiner, the radiation sections in the pending application cross each other but do not electrically connect. If they cross each other but are not electrically connected (e.g. with an insulating layer formed therebetween), then they would reasonably be interpreted as substantially in the same plane, but not in the same plane, per se. Please provide clarification if this interpretation is correct or provide clarification. For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted wherein the radiation segments are “substantially” in the same plane in an equivalent manner as shown in Fig. 2 of US 2015/0022420 (Lu).
Regarding claim 8, claim recites “wherein the radiation section of each of the two antennas is produced from a material substantially transparent to PET and/or SPECT, for example copper or aluminum.” The claim is indefinite as it is not clear if “for example copper or aluminum” are intended to limit the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected through a dependence on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0022420 (Lu) in view of US 2022/0236353 (herein as Choi, which is the national stage of WO 2020/244689 published 12/10/2020)
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches an antenna assembly (antenna structure 10; see Fig. 2), the antenna assembly comprising at least two antennas (antennas 13 and 15; see Fig. 2), each of the two antennas configured as an antenna with a radiation section and a feed section, wherein the radiation sections of the two antennas are arranged crossing each other (first antenna 13 comprises feeding portion 131 and radiation portion 1331, 1333 and second antenna 15 comprises feeding portion 151 and radiation portion 1531, 1533; see Fig. 2; see [0015]).
Choi teaches an antenna assembly for an imaging method, each of the two antennas configured as a J-pole antenna (an antenna assembly 10 for an imaging method comprises antennas 1a-f; see Fig. 3; see [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Lu into Choi in order to gain the advantage of improving the transmission efficiency of a pair of antennas.
Regarding claim 4, Lu teaches wherein the radiation sections of the two antennas form an angle α between 30° and 90°between one another (the radiating arms 1331 are shown to cross at an angle between 30 degrees and 90 degrees; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Lu teaches wherein the two antennas are arranged in a common plane (Lu teaches wherein the antennas are in two parallel planes which overlap. As best understood by the examiner, the radiation sections in the pending application cross each other but do not electrically connect (e.g. with an insulating layer formed therebetween) and the radiation segments are “substantially” in the same plane in an equivalent manner as shown in Fig. 2 of Lu).
Regarding claims 6, 9, and 19, Lu fails to teach wherein the antenna assembly comprises several pairs of two antennas arranged crossing each other in each case; and wherein the antenna assembly has between 4 and 32 antennas; and wherein the antenna assembly has between 6 and 16 antennas, however, the limitations as claimed would amount to a mere duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.4 VI B.
Regarding claims 7, 10, 11, and 18, Lu fails to teach wherein the antennas of the antenna assembly define a hollow body in which a body or a body part can be arranged; and wherein the hollow body has a circular cylindrical basic shape; and wherein each pair of antennas is arranged in a plane, wherein the planes of two adjacent pairs of antennas form an angle β between each other, wherein: β = 0° or 0°<β≤ 90°.
Choi teaches wherein the antennas of the antenna assembly define a hollow body in which a body or a body part can be arranged; and wherein the hollow body has a circular cylindrical basic shape; wherein each pair of antennas is arranged in a plane, wherein the planes of two adjacent pairs of antennas form an angle β between each other, wherein: β = 0° or 0°<β≤ 90° (the arrangements corresponds to a configuration of antennas arranged in an MRI instrument and Choi teaches the use of J-shaped antennas MRI instruments; see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Choi into Lu as such an arrangement is well-known in the art of MRI. Merely arranging said antennas in such a configuration would not require any undue experimentation or provide any unexpected result.
Regarding claim 8, Lu fails to teach wherein the radiation section of each of the two antennas is produced from a material substantially transparent to PET and/or SPECT, for example copper or aluminum.
Choi teaches wherein the radiation section of each of the two antennas is produced from a material substantially transparent to PET and/or SPECT, for example copper or aluminum (the dipole antenna is made from aluminum; see [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Choi into Lu as copper and aluminum are known in the art as materials for antennas due to their properties including high conductivity, non-magnetic, and no interference with PET/SPEC.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Lu teaches wherein the antenna assembly has a radiation part and a feed part adjacent to the radiation part, wherein the radiation sections of the antennas are arranged in the radiation part and the feed sections of the antennas are arranged in the feed part (the antenna assemblies have radiation parts 1333, 1533 and feeding portions 131 and 151; see Fig. 2; see [0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Lu fails to teach wherein the antenna assembly comprises at least two antennas arranged adjacent to each other, which are designed as J-pole antennas with a radiation section and a feed section, wherein the at least two antennas are arranged alternately at a first angle and a second angle different from the first angle in relation to a reference surface.
Choi teaches wherein the antenna assembly comprises at least two antennas arranged adjacent to each other, which are designed as J-pole antennas with a radiation section and a feed section, wherein the at least two antennas are arranged alternately at a first angle and a second angle different from the first angle in relation to a reference surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Lu into Choi to gain the advantage of improving the transmission efficiency of a pair of antennas.
Regarding claim 16, Lu fails to teach wherein the radiation sections of the two antennas form an angle α between 45° and 90° between one another, however, determining the exact angle would be a matter of routine optimization in order to obtain a desired transmission efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to teach wherein the antenna assembly is an antenna assembly for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultra-high field MRI, MR positron emission tomography (MR-PET), MR single proton emission computed tomography (MR-SPECT), MR linac and/or MR ultrasound, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
The body of claim 1 fails to recite wherein the antenna assembly is configured for MRI. Lu teaches wherein two antennas, having radiating portions and feeding portions, may cross the radiating portions to improve transmission efficiency. Further, J-pole antennas are known antennas systems existing for approximately a century (see US 2,124,424). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try arranging two generic J-pole antennas in a cross configuration taught in Lu in order to improve the efficiency.
However, the only prior art references which teach the use of J-pole antennas in MRI systems are secondary reference Choi (and the corresponding patent family) and IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 41, NO. 5, MAY 2022 (identified herein as “Choi et al.” having the same author as the pending application). Although J-pole antennas and MRI have been around for decades, Choi et al. acknowledges on page 1105 under MATERIALS AND METHODS, “As a type of radiating antenna, the J-shape antenna is a novel and extremely attractive concept which, to the best of our knowledge, has never been employed in medical imaging, although it is often used for other purposes relating to the antenna engineering [40].” The Examiner was also unable to identify use of J-shape antennas in medical imaging. Further, Lu teaches where the antenna structure is designed for a wireless communication device (see [0002]) which operates with a peak transmission efficiency at frequencies exceeding 1.2 GHz. In contrast, conventional MRI systems operating at 1.5-7 T are known to operate at frequencies between 60 and 300 MHz, well below 1.2 GHz. Further still, the Examiner was unable to identify any examples of crossing dipole antennas (or other antennas) in MRI systems.
For these reasons, it is the opinion of the examiner that it may be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of designing a generic antenna to try combining Lu with a generic J-pole antenna to improve efficiency as recited in the rejection of claim 1, however, it would not be “reasonably pertinent” for one of ordinary skill in the art designing MRI systems seeking to effectively decouple antennas in an MRI system to have looked at Lu in an attempt to find a solution to the problem as it would require undue experimentation to combine Lu and Choi. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I..
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the antenna assembly is an antenna assembly for simultaneous MR-PET/-SPECT, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1. The claim is objected to for similar reasons as recited above for claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are allowed.
Regarding claim 14, the closest related prior art is US 2022/0236353 (Choi) which teaches a method of using an antenna assembly in a tomography system, the method comprising providing the antenna assembly having at least two antennas, each of the two antennas configured as a J-pole antenna with a radiation section and a feed section, and acquiring imaging via MRI or simultaneous MR-PET/-SPECT using the antenna assembly.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method of using an antenna assembly in a tomography system, the method comprising wherein the radiation sections of the two antennas are arranged crossing each other, in combination with all other limitations of claim 14.
The claim is allowed for similar reasons as outlined in the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the closest related prior art is US 2022/0236353 (Choi) which teaches a tomography system adapted for MRI or simultaneous MR-PET/-SPECT, the system comprising an antenna assembly having at least two antennas, each of the two antennas configured as a J-pole antenna with a radiation section and a feed section, and wherein the antenna assembly is arranged in particular such that the feed sections are located outside a measuring range of the tomography system.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a tomography system adapted for MRI or simultaneous MR-PET/-SPECT, the system comprising wherein the radiation sections of the two antennas are arranged crossing each other, in combination with all other limitations of claim 15.
The claim is allowed for similar reasons as outlined in the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter above for claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858