DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 3/23/2026. Claims 1-22, 24, and 26 are pending. Claims 23, 25, and 27 were canceled. Claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 20-21, 24, and 26 were amended.
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of the amendments canceling claim 25 which render the objections moot.
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of amendments correcting informalities.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments that the prior art of record fails to teach the limitations as claimed.
Further rejections are provided below over 112(b) in view of the language “phase shift” and “phase difference”. Please provide clarity and use consistent language throughout the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The terms “phase shift” and “phase difference” are not used consistently throughout the specification. See 112(b) rejections below for further details. Please review the abstract, and paragraphs 5, 29, 31, 40, 41, 43-49, 56-61, 66-67, 77-79, 83-86, 88, 91, 94, 99, 106, 116, 146, 148-149, 150, 153-154, 159, 160-161 of the corresponding Pg. Pub. US 2024/0288520. Please review the application such that the language is self-consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-22, 24, and 26 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 claim 1, in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/22/2025 the examiner proposed amending claim 1 as follows:
Regarding claim 1, the language should be amended to recite “a quadrature phase shift of a second polarity” in agreement with the language used in page 5, lines 25-30 of the specification. The term “difference” used throughout the specification generally refers to the angle between the first polarity and second polarity, e.g. see claims 7 or 8, “a phase difference between the first phase shift and the second phase shift”.
In contrast, the applicant amended claim 1 to recite:
1. (Currently amended) A passive filter circuit, for simultaneous dual-nuclear magnetic resonance quadrature transmit-receive that is configured to apply to an input a quadrature phase difference of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity, that is opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of a second nucleus.
As best understood by the examiner, the term “phase shift” corresponds to the shift(s) imparted on each nuclei by the filter modules 20 and the term “phase difference” corresponds to the angle between a first nuclei and a second nuclei, however, there appears to be confusion and inconsistencies over these terms throughout the application.
For example, the abstract recites:
A passive filter circuit, for simultaneous dual-nuclear magnetic resonance quadrature transmit-receive that is configured to apply to an input a quadrature phase shift of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity, that
is opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of a second nucleus.
As best understood by the examiner, the same terminology, “phase shift” should be used for the first and second polarity as this is a shift applied by the passive filter circuit.
Paragraph [0005] of US 2024/0288520 which corresponds to the pending application, the terms are seemingly used interchangeably.
[0005] According to various, but not necessarily all, embodiments there are provided a passive filter circuit, for simultaneous dual-nuclear magnetic resonance quadrature transmit-receive that is configured to apply to an input a quadrature phase shift (phase difference) of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity, that is opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of a second nucleus.
As with the abstract, paragraphs [0029] and [0031] use the language “phase shift” in regards to a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and “phase difference” in regards to a second polarity at a Larmor frequency of a second nucleus.
[0029] The objective is to achieve a quadrature phase shift of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity, that is opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of a second nucleus.
[0031] The following description relates to a passive filter circuit 10, for simultaneous dual-nuclear magnetic resonance quadrature transmit-receive that is configured to apply to an input a quadrature phase shift of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity, that is opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of a second nucleus.
In these instances, as well as the abstract, the applicant appears to be using different terminology to characterize actions performed by the passive filter circuit.
However, [0044] recites:
[0044] The phase offset block 26 comprises circuitry configured to apply a relative phase offset θ between the first phase shift Δφ, at the Larmor frequency of the first nucleus and the second phase shift Δφ.sub.2 at the Larmor frequency of the second nucleus to create a phase difference β between the first phase shift and the second phase shift, after the offset. If the second phase difference after the offset is Δφ.sub.2*b, then β=Δφ−Δφ.sub.2*b=Δφ.sub.1 (1−b/|R|).
In this paragraph, the term “phase shift” is used for the action applied to each nucleus by the phase offset block 26 of the filter module 20 and the term “phase difference” is used as the angle between the first phase shift and the second phase shift.
As best understood by the examiner in reference to Fig. 5A (provided below) the 1H nucleus undergoes a phase shift Δφ1 of -90o and 129Xe nucleus undergoes a phase shift Δφ2 of -30o which results in a phase difference β of 60o. See also [0059].
PNG
media_image1.png
145
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0059] recites:
[0059] The phase offset block 26 comprises circuitry configured to apply a relative phase offset θ between the first phase shift −90° at the Larmor frequency of 1H and the second phase shift −25° at the Larmor frequency of 129Xe to create a phase difference β between the first phase shift and the second phase shift, after the offset. The second phase difference after the offset is −30° and the phase difference β is 60° as illustrated in FIG. 5A.
As best understood by the examiner, “the second phase difference” corresponds to the phase shift of 129Xe in Fig. 5.
Therefore, the language throughout the application does not appear to be self-consistent and the language of claim 1 is not consistent with the language used in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the term “phase difference” will be interpreted as “phase shift” as recited in [0044] of the pending specification.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a relative phase change” and “a quadrature phase change of a first polarity at the Larmor frequency of the first nucleus and a quadrature phase change of the second polarity, opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of the second nucleus”.
As best understood by the examiner, the claimed “relative phase change” corresponds to the phase shift provided by each filter module and “a quadrature phase change of a first polarity at the Larmor frequency of the first nucleus and a quadrature phase change of the second polarity, opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of the second nucleus” is technically equivalent to “a quadrature phase difference of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity” as recited in claim 1. It is unclear how the “quadrature phase change” of claim 5 is different from the “quadrature phase difference” of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted wherein the quadrature phase change corresponds to a quadrature phase shift.
Regarding claim 7, the claim uses the terms “phase shift” (e.g. first phase shift, second phase shift) and phase difference as recited in [0044] of the pending specification, however, the language is inconsistent with the amended language of claim 1, however, as with claim 5 above, the limitation “a quadrature phase change of a first polarity at the Larmor frequency of the first nucleus and a quadrature phase change of the second polarity, opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of the second nucleus” is technically equivalent to “a quadrature phase difference of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity” as recited in claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted wherein the quadrature phase changes corresponds to a quadrature phase shifts.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “A passive filter circuit as claimed in claim 4, wherein the offset between the first phase shift at the Larmor frequency of the first nucleus and the second phase shift at the Larmor frequency of the second nucleus creates a phase difference between the first phase shift and the second phase shift, after the offset, that can be multiplied by a whole number to obtain a net 90o phase difference.” The language regarding phase shift and phase difference is consistent with the examiner’s understanding, however, there is no antecedent basis for “the first phase shift” and “the second phase shift”.
The examiner previously interpreted “the first phase shift at the Larmor frequency of the first nucleus” as corresponding to “a quadrature phase shift of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus” of claim 1 as initially filed. Likewise, the examiner interpreted “the second phase shift at the Larmor frequency of the second nucleus” as corresponding to “a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity at a Larmor frequency of a second nucleus” of claim 1 as originally filed. However, claim 1 was amended to recite a “phase difference”.
Following the amendment of claim 1, there is no longer an antecedent base for “the first phase shift” or “the second phase shift” in any of parent claims 4, 3, or 1, however, antecedent bases were established for each of these terms as well as “the offset” in claim 7. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as depending on claim 7.
Regarding claims 10-11, as stated above, the term “phase change” in claim 10 appears to be synonymous with “phase shift” as recited in claim 11. Further, claim 10 recites “each filter module introduces a relative phase change of +90 degrees at a Larmor frequency of a 1H nucleus” while claim 11, which depends on claim 10, recites “each filter module introduces a relative phase change of -90 degrees at a Larmor frequency of a 1H nucleus”. Please review the +/- signs in claims 10 and 11, and please review the language phase shift/change for consistency. As best understood by the examiner, the phase shift of each module should correspond to -90o for 1H as in Fig. 4A.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “the quadrature phase difference of the first polarity…” and “the quadrature phase difference of the second polarity…” are being interpreted as quadrature phase shifts for similar reasons as outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations “the quadrature phase difference of the first polarity…” and “the quadrature phase difference of the second polarity…” are being interpreted as quadrature phase shifts for similar reasons as outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, for similar reasons as claim 1, the claim is interpreted as follows “wherein the passive filter circuit causes a nuclear spin of the first nucleus to have a quadrature phase shift nucleus to have a quadrature phase shift
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22, 24, and 26 would be allowed after overcoming the above rejected subject matter.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 23, the closest related prior art is US 2021/0132166 which teaches a circuit for simultaneous dual-nuclear magnetic resonance quadrature transmit-receive that is configured to detect a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a second polarity at the Larmor frequency of a second nucleus. The prior art of record fails to teach a passive filter circuit configured to apply to an input a quadrature phase shift of a first polarity at a Larmor frequency of a first nucleus and a quadrature phase difference of a second polarity, that is opposite the first polarity, at the Larmor frequency of a second nucleus, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-22 and 24, definite and enabled by the specification, would be allowed after correcting the identified rejections due to a dependence on allowed claim 1.
Claim 26 would be allowed for reciting similar subject matter as claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 .
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 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
Prosecution Insights