DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 12/16/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP22214182.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4, the steps are not articulated.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the local coil apparatus includes a switching facility with which the antenna coil may be switched alternately between the first or second sensor facility” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Lines 8-9, “a magnetic resonance signal” already has antecedent basis in Line 3.
In Line 9, “an excitation signal” already has antecedent basis in Line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biber et al. (US 2013/0082707 A1, Pub Apr 4, 2013, herein Biber '707).
Regarding Claim 1, Biber '707 teaches:
A local coil apparatus for a magnetic resonance system (a magnetic resonance antenna element of a local coil in magnetic resonance system 1 [0035]; see Fig 3 & 4) comprising:
a first sensor facility for detecting magnetic resonance signals (Magnetic resonance antenna element 50 - "first sensor facility" - detects "magnetic resonance signals" [0056-0059].; see Fig 3-4); and
a second sensor facility for detecting an excitation signal of the magnetic resonance system (Test antenna element 60 - "second sensor facility" - detects the high-frequency field - "excitation signal" - transmitted by high-frequency transmitter device 13 in "magnetic resonance system" 1 [0053-0055,0062].; see Fig 4);
wherein the excitation signal is configured for exciting nuclear spins that produce the magnetic resonance signals by way of the magnetic resonance system (HF transmitter device 13 produces high-frequency pulse sequences to excite nuclear spins in the desired manner [0054].; see Fig 3-4).
Regarding Claim 4, Biber '707 teaches:
the first sensor facility includes a first antenna coil (50) and the second sensor facility includes a second antenna coil (60) that is different from the first antenna coil (50; see Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Biber '707 teaches:
the first sensor facility (50) and the second sensor facility (60) include a common electronic unit for signal processing and a common signal output (Receiver device 14 - "electronic unit" - is connected to local coil arrangement 5 with antenna elements 50, which includes test antenna element 60 [0057]. Receiver device 14 has a "common signal output" to image reconstruction unit 15 [0058].; see Fig 3-4).
Regarding Claim 9, Biber '707 teaches:
an evaluation facility is connected in terms of signaling to the local coil apparatus and is configured for a non-exclusively binary, quantitative determination of a signal strength of the excitation signal of the magnetic resonance system that is detected by the local coil apparatus within a predetermined signal strength range (The high-frequency field that is transmitted by HF transmitter device 13 is the "excitation signal" that is picked up by test antenna element 60 - "local coil apparatus". Control device 10 and terminal 30 - "evaluation facility" - receives the signal picked up by antenna 60, and checks - "binary, quantitative determination" - the values - "signal strength of the excitation signal" - and ensures that no limit values are exceeded - "within a predetermined signal strength range."; see [0062] & Fig 3-4).
Regarding Claim 10, Biber '707 teaches:
the second sensor facility includes one or more antennas (60), and a respective relative position of each antenna within the local coil apparatus is provided for the evaluation facility so as to optimize homogeneity of the excitation signal (The transmitting field is present in as homogeneous manner as possible inside the patient tunnel [0008].).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Biber '707 teaches:
A magnetic resonance system (magnetic resonance system 1 [0035]; see Fig 3 & 4) comprising:
a local coil apparatus (a magnetic resonance antenna element of a local coil [0035]; see Fig 3 & 4) comprising:
a first sensor facility for detecting magnetic resonance signals (Magnetic resonance antenna element 50 - "first sensor facility" - detects "magnetic resonance signals" [0056-0059].; see Fig 3-4); and
a second sensor facility for detecting an excitation signal of the magnetic resonance system (Test antenna element 60 - "second sensor facility" - detects the high-frequency field - "excitation signal" - transmitted by high-frequency transmitter device 13 in "magnetic resonance system" 1 [0053-0055,0062].; see Fig 4), wherein
the excitation signal is configured to excite nuclear spins that produce the magnetic resonance signals by way of the magnetic resonance system (HF transmitter device 13 produces high-frequency pulse sequences to excite nuclear spins in the desired manner [0054].; see Fig 3-4); and
a transceiver unit (Control device 10) that is connected in terms of signaling via a signal output path (The path connecting receiver device 14 to local coil arrangement 5) to the local coil apparatus (local coil arrangement 5), wherein the transceiver unit (10) is configured to selectively evaluate a magnetic resonance signal, an excitation signal, or the magnetic resonance signal and the excitation signal (Control device 10 is able to evaluate the magnetic resonance signals from antenna elements 50 and test antenna element 60) detected by the local coil apparatus (see [0055-0062] & Fig 3-4).
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 4.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 5.
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 2, 7, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber ‘707 in view of Matschl et al. (US 7,030,614, Pub Apr 18, 2006, herein Matschl).
Regarding Claim 2, Biber '707 teaches:
the first sensor facility and the second sensor facility jointly share at least one antenna coil (During test phase TP, coil 50 - "at least one antenna coil" - can be switched to receive test high frequency pulse TS that is transmitted by high-frequency transmitter interface 13 is shared by the "first sensor facility" and the "second sensor facility" [0059].; see Fig 3-4),
Biber '707 does not teach:
the first sensor facility includes a first electronic unit for processing the magnetic resonance signals that are detected by the antenna coil and
the second sensor facility includes a second electronic unit that is different from the first electronic unit for signal processing the detected excitation signal, and
the local coil apparatus includes a switching facility with which the antenna coil may be switched alternately between the first or second sensor facility.
However, Matschl teaches:
the first sensor facility includes a first electronic unit (preamplifier 46A [3:50-54], [4:12], [6:36-38]; see Fig 1 & 5) for processing the magnetic resonance signals that are detected by the antenna coil (Antenna unit 3A [3:57]) and
the second sensor facility includes a second electronic unit (preamplifier 46B [3:50-54], [4:12], [6:36-38]; see Fig 1 & 5) that is different from the first electronic unit (46A) for signal processing the detected excitation signal (signal detected by Antenna unit 3B [3:57]; see Fig 1), and
the local coil apparatus includes a switching facility (Selector switch 11) with which the antenna coil may be switched alternately between the first (preamplifier 46A) or second sensor facility (preamplifier 46B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biber '707 in view of Matschl by having the first sensor facility includes a first electronic unit for processing the magnetic resonance signals that are detected by the antenna coil and the second sensor facility includes a second electronic unit that is different from the first electronic unit for signal processing the detected excitation signal, and the local coil apparatus includes a switching facility with which the antenna coil may be switched alternately between the first or second sensor facility because it ensures that the antennas in the pair are always alternately active as taught by Matschl [2:63-66].
Regarding Claim 7, Biber '707 and Biber '950 do not teach the limitations.
However, Matschl teaches:
a signal output path, wherein the first sensor facility (Antenna unit 3A) and the second sensor facility (Antenna unit 3B) may be switched via a switch (Switching unit 11) on the signal output path (The path between selector switch 11 to RF unit 5; see [3:50-54],[3:65-4:5] & Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biber '707 and Biber '950 in view of Matschl by having a signal output path, wherein the first sensor facility and the second sensor facility may be switched via a switch on the signal output path because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable results of achieving optimal coil decoupling and reduced circuit complexity.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 2.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 7.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber ‘707 in view of Matschl and further in view of Wynn et al. (US 2024/0319294 A1, PCT Filed Jul 4, 2022, herein Wynn).
Regarding Claim 3, Biber '707 and Matschl do not teach the limitations.
However, Wynn teaches:
the first electronic unit provides a lower attenuation or a higher amplification than the second electronic unit (Preamplifier 320a is used during the receive cycle provides a higher gain than preamplifier 320b which is used during the transmit cycle and provides a lower gain.; see [0054-0062] & Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biber '707 and Matschl in view of Wynn by having the first electronic unit provides a lower attenuation or a higher amplification than the second electronic unit because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable results of allowing for a receive signal that is orders of magnitude less than the transmit signal to be detected by a detector more easily.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 3.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber ‘707 in view of Biber et al. (US 2012/0187950 A1, Pub Jul 26, 2012, herein Biber '950).
Regarding Claim 6, Biber '707 does not teach the elements.
However, Biber '950 teaches:
the first antenna coil of the first sensor facility is arranged together with the second antenna coil of the second sensor facility on a common printed circuit board (At least one local coil 11 may be disposed on printed circuit board 1 [0034].; see Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biber '707 in view of Biber '950 by having the first antenna coil of the first sensor facility is arranged together with the second antenna coil of the second sensor facility on a common printed circuit board because it is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable results of allowing for high-precision manufacturing, improved patient comfort and enhanced SNR.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 6.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber ‘707 in view of Reykowski et al. (US 2014/0070808 A1, Pub Mar 13, 2014, herein Reykowski).
Regarding Claim 8, Biber '707 does not teach the limitations.
However, Reykowski teaches:
all antenna coils of the first sensor facility (instances of coil segments 42) and all antenna coils of the second sensor facility (other instances of coil segments 42) are switched via a common frequency multiplexer (multiplexer circuit 60) on a common signal output path (The coil 42 selected by multiplexer 60 can be sent to one or more RF receiver channels 26. One of the receiver channels 26 can be the "common signal output path".) of the local coil apparatus (RF receive coils 18'; see [0037-0040] & 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 combine Biber '707 in view of Reykowski by having all antenna coils of the first sensor facility and all antenna coils of the second sensor facility are switched via a common frequency multiplexer on a common signal output path of the local coil apparatus because it improves signal routing efficiency by combining multiple inputs into a single output thus optimizing bandwidth, minimizing hardware complexity, and reducing wiring count.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber ‘707 in view of Lei et al. (US 2017/0102344 A1, Pub Apr 13, 2017, herein Lei).
Biber '707 does not teach the limitations of the Claim.
However, Lei teaches:
in a first state of detection using the first sensor facility and in a second state of detection using the second sensor facility, wherein the evaluation facility is configured so that a resolution bandwidth of the evaluation facility is automatically parameterized in dependence upon the respective state (During the excitation mode - "first state of detection" - the "bandwidth" is expanded. During the receiving mode - "second state of detection" - the "bandwidth" is shrunk [0100].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biber '707 in view of Lei by having in a first state of detection using the first sensor facility and in a second state of detection using the second sensor facility, wherein the evaluation facility is configured so that a resolution bandwidth of the evaluation facility is automatically parameterized in dependence upon the respective state because it allows for recovery from the excitation pulse and the reduction of out-of-band noise as taught by Lei [0100].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHUL MAINI whose telephone number is (571)270-1099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9am-4pm, EST.
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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 04/19/2026
/A. A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights