Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/651,511

COIL, COIL ASSEMBLY AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
CURRAN, GREGORY H
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Forschungszentrum Jülich GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
753 granted / 834 resolved
+22.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
852
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 834 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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 4 and 5 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. Claims 4 recites the limitation “…the total capacitance of the second loop have a difference of at least 8 MHz…” Claims 5 recites the limitation “…the total capacitance of the second loop have a difference of at most 64 MHz…” However, capacitance is not measured in MHz, and as such the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Srinivasan (US Patent 5,777,474). With reference to claim 1, Srinivasan teaches A coil for magnetic resonance imaging or spectroscopy, comprising: a first loop including one or more capacitors (Fig. 4a, Column 8 lines 6-30); and a second loop connected to the first loop by a conductor and including one or more capacitors (Fig. 4a, Column 8 lines 6-30), wherein a total capacitance of the first loop is different from a total capacitance of the second loop (Due to the decoupling component 22, which also has a certain finite capacitance, the two conductor loop halves differ in the sum of their capacitances). With reference to claim 2, Srinivasan further teaches the first loop further includes a plurality of capacitors, and wherein the second loop further includes a plurality of capacitors (Fig. 4a). With reference to claim 3, Srinivasan further teaches a feed arranged on the conductor (Fig. 4a). With reference to claim 6, Srinivasan further teaches the total capacitance of the first loop and the total capacitance of the second loop are configured such that in an unloaded state there is a phase shift of approximately 90 degrees (Column 8 lines 6-30). With reference to claim 7, Srinivasan further teaches the first loop and the second loop are configured symmetrically (Fig. 4a). With reference to claim 8, Srinivasan further teaches the total capacitance of the first loop and the total capacitance of the second loop are selected such that a B1+ field is larger than a B1- field (The coil could be configured to either be completely B1+ or B1- which would meet this limitation, Column 1 lines 15-20, Column 8 lines 20-30). With reference to claim 9, Srinivasan further teaches the B1+ field is larger than the B1- field by at least a factor of 2(The coil could be configured to either be completely B1+ or B1- which would meet this limitation, Column 1 lines 15-20, Column 8 lines 20-30). With reference to claim 10, Srinivasan further teaches the total capacitance of the first loop and the total capacitance of the second loop are configured such that a B1- field is greater than a B1+ field (The coil could be configured to either be completely B1+ or B1- which would meet this limitation, Column 1 lines 15-20, Column 8 lines 20-30). With reference to claim 11, Srinivasan further teaches the B1- field is larger than the B1+ field by at least a factor of 2 (The coil could be configured to either be completely B1+ or B1- which would meet this limitation, Column 1 lines 15-20, Column 8 lines 20-30). With reference to claim 12, Srinivasan further teaches the coil is a circularly polarized coil (Fig. 4a, Column 8 lines 6-30, Column 9 lines 9-20). With reference to claim 13, Srinivasan teaches An assembly for magnetic resonance imaging or spectroscopy, comprising a plurality of coils, wherein each of the plurality of coils including: a first loop including one or more capacitors (Fig. 4a, Column 8 lines 6-30); and a second loop connected to the first loop by a conductor and including one or more capacitors (Fig. 4a, Column 8 lines 6-30), wherein a total capacitance of the first loop is different from a total capacitance of the second loop (Due to the decoupling component 22, which also has a certain finite capacitance, the two conductor loop halves differ in the sum of their capacitances). With reference to claim 14, Srinivasan teaches a method for generating or detecting magnetic fields, comprising: generating a circularly polarized magnetic field with a coil including: a first loop including one or more capacitors (Fig. 4a, Column 8 lines 6-30); and a second loop connected to the first loop by a conductor and including one or more capacitors (Fig. 4a, Column 8 lines 6-30), wherein a total capacitance of the first loop is different from a total capacitance of the second loop (Due to the decoupling component 22, which also has a certain finite capacitance, the two conductor loop halves differ in the sum of their capacitances). With reference to claim 15, Srinivasan further teaches the coil is used as a receiving coil, and wherein the total capacitance of the first loop and the total capacitance of the second loop are configured such that a B1- field is greater than a B1+ field (Column 8 lines 6-30, The coil could be configured to either be completely B1+ or B1- which would meet this limitation). With reference to claim 16, Srinivasan further teaches the coil is used as a transmitting coil, and wherein the total capacitance of the first loop and the total capacitance of the second loop are configured such that a B1+ field is larger than a B1- field Column 8 lines 6-30, The coil could be configured to either be completely B1+ or B1- which would meet this limitation). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan. With reference to claim 4, as best as the examiner can ascertain, Srinivasan further teaches the total capacitance of the first loop and the total capacitance of the second loop have a difference of at least 8 megahertz or at least 2.5 percent (Column 8 lines 31-48). With reference to claim 5, as best as the examiner can ascertain, Srinivasan further teaches the total capacitance of the first loop and the total capacitance of the second loop have a difference of at most 64 megahertz or at most 20 percent (Column 8 lines 31-48). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Darnell et al. (US 9,880,242 B2) teach RF coil elements with split DC loops for MRI systems for integrated parallel reception, excitation and shimming. Jevtic et al. (US 7,227,360 B2) teach a phased array MRI coil with controllable coupled ring resonator. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY H CURRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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. /GREGORY H CURRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601802
System and Method for Producing Magnetic Resonance Images with In-Plane Simultaneous Multi-Segments and for Producing 3D Magnetic Resonance Images with Reduced Field-of-View
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596163
Magnetic Resonance Tomography System and Method for Operating a Magnetic Resonance Tomography System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584980
MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNING AND IMAGING METHOD AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578403
Communication in a Magnetic Resonance Imaging System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571934
NMR-BASED LITHIUM MEASURING AND MONITORING DOWNHOLE TOOLS, METHODS OF USING SAID DOWNHOLE TOOLS, AND METHODS OF MEASURING LITHIUM CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON NMR MEASUREMENTS ACQUIRED BY SAID DOWNHOLE TOOLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+1.6%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 834 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month