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 1, 3-20, and 31 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 independent claims 1 and 18, the preamble of the claim discloses a “magnetic field monitoring system” and that the host MR system “generates a magnetic field”. However, it is not clear from the current claim language if the “plurality of sensor assemblies” measure/sense the generated magnetic field. The claim language does not disclose what the sensor assemblies are sensing. Dependent claims 2-17, 19-20, and 31 are rejected for depending on one of said independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-4, 6-10, 13, 15-18, 20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handwerker (“An Array of Fully-Integrated Quadrature TX/RX NMR Field Probes for MRI Trajectory Mapping”), in view of Song (US 2016/0274204).
Regarding claim 1, Handwerker teaches a magnetic field monitoring system, comprising:
a host magnetic resonance (MIR) system that generates configured to generate a magnetic field [See MRI scanner. See also rest of reference.]; and
a plurality of sensor assemblies disposed apart from each other within the host MR system [See field probes. See also rest of reference.], each of the plurality of sensor assemblies comprising:
a coil wound around a sample [See field probes with 1H samples. See also rest of reference.];
a microcontroller [See microcontroller for controlling ASICs. See also rest of reference.]; and
an integrated circuit (IC) coupled with the coil, the IC configured to perform one or more MR measurements of the sample using the one or more pulse sequences received from the microcontroller [Pages 217-220, wherein circuits of the chip that forms the field probes are shown and also how the coils of the field probe excite the sample to acquire signals for measuring the magnetic field. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the coil, the sample, the IC are positioned on a printed circuit board [See Fig. 3-4, wherein the flexible field probe PCBs includes the probes, sample and ASICs. See also rest of reference.].
However, Handwerker is silent in teaching a microcontroller configured to store one or more pulse sequences, wherein the microcontroller is configured to transmit, to the IC, the one or more pulse sequences stored by the microcontroller and wherein the microcontroller is positioned on a printed circuit board.
Song, which is also in the field of NMR, teaches a microcontroller configured to store one or more pulse sequences [See pulse programmer. See also rest of reference.], wherein the microcontroller is configured to transmit, to the IC, the one or more pulse sequences stored by the microcontroller [See pulse programmer. See also rest of reference.] and wherein the microcontroller is positioned on a printed circuit board [see Fig. 1-2, see pulse programmer is on ASIC 10. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Handwerker and Song because both references are in the field of magnetic field sensors in NMR and because Song teaches it is known in the art to include a microcontroller on the sensor circuit board which can reduce interference [Song – ¶0053].
Regarding claim 3, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the host MR system is configured to provides a trigger to the magnetic field monitoring system [See trigger. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the sample comprises at least one of 1H, 19F or 2D [See field probes with 1H samples. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the microcontroller is configured to transmit data from the IC to the host MR system [See microcontroller and scanner control in Fig. 4. See also rest of reference.], the host MR system configured to adjust parameters of the host MR system in real time in response to the data from the IC [Fig. 6 wherein the MRI scanner uses the measurements to adjust and correct gradient trajectories. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the microcontroller is configured to: process data from the IC [See Fig. 4, wherein the field probe sends information to the MR scanner and then the scanner controller. See also rest of reference.], reconstruct an image of a target disposed in the host MR system [See Fig. 4, wherein a computer (scanner controller) is used to receive data from the MRI scanner, which images the subject. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein: the microcontroller is configured to transmit data from the IC to a controller of the host MR system [See Fig. 4, wherein the field probe sends information to the MR scanner and then the scanner controller. See also rest of reference.], the controller configured to: process the data from the microcontroller [Fig. 6 wherein the scanner controller uses the measurements to adjust and correct gradient trajectories. See also rest of reference.] and reconstruct an image of a target disposed in the host MR system [See Fig. 4, wherein a computer (scanner controller) is used to receive data from the MRI scanner, which images the subject. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further comprising: a computer system configured to: receive data from the IC [See Fig. 4, wherein a computer (scanner controller) is used to receive data from the field probe. See also rest of reference.]; and reconstruct an image of a target disposed in the host MR system [See Fig. 4, wherein a computer (scanner controller) is used to receive data from the MRI scanner, which images the subject. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the one or more MR measurements include at least one of pulse sequence execution, radio frequency (RF) pulse transmission, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) signal reception, amplification, or down conversion [Pages 217-220, wherein circuits of the chip that forms the field probes are shown and also how the coils of the field probe excite the sample to acquire signals for measuring the magnetic field. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the plurality of sensor assemblies is embedded in a patient bed of a magnetic resonance imaging scanner [See page 219 and Fig. 3, wherein field probes are in the mouse bed. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein a distance between the sample and the IC is in a range of 2 cm to 5 cm [See Fig. 3, wherein the sample is 1 mm. That distance extrapolated to the connectors to the signal conditioning PCB is approximately 20 mm (2 cm) away. See annotated figure below. See also rest of reference.] .
PNG
media_image1.png
374
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the host system comprises a controller configured to: analyze the one or more MR measurements of the sample to determine a frequency variation [See page 218-220. See also B0 field drifts. See also rest of reference.]; and reconstruct an image of a target disposed in the host MR system using the frequency variation [The MRI scanner uses the frequency information to calculate how to correct gradient trajectories, which are used to image the subject. See also B0 field drifts. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the host MR system comprises a controller configured to: analyze the one or more MR measurements of the sample to determine gradient performance data [Fig. 6 wherein the MRI scanner uses the measurements to adjust and correct gradient trajectories. See also rest of reference.]; and adjust parameters of the host MR system in response to the gradient performance data [Fig. 6 wherein the MRI scanner uses the measurements to adjust and correct gradient trajectories. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 above also apply to claim 18. Claim 18 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches further comprising at least one of: processing, by the microcontroller, data from the IC in real time [See real-time mapping. See also rest of reference.]; post-processing, by a controller, the data from the IC [See Fig. 4, wherein a computer is used to receive data from the MRI scanner, which images the subject. See also rest of reference.]; or reconstructing, by the controller, an image of a target disposed in the host MR system [See Fig. 4, wherein a computer is used to receive data from the MRI scanner, which images the subject. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 31, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the sample is positioned in a capillary having a longitudinal axis aligned with an axis of the magnetic field [Page 219, wherein samples are placed in capillaries. Fig. 3-4, wherein the samples are along the axis of the bed and the bed is along one of the 3 axes of the magnetic field disclosed on page 217. The bed usually travels along the z-direction in MRI. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 5, 11-12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Handwerker, in view of Song, and in further view of Dietrich (“A Field Camera for MR Sequence Monitoring and System Analysis”).
Regarding claim 5, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker and Song teach wherein the one or more pulse sequences comprise one or more sequences of pulses of oscillating radio frequency (RF) signals [Handwerker – See Fig. 5 and description. See excitation. Song – See pulse sequencer and pulse programmer. See also rest of references.].
However, Handwerker and Song are silent in teaching receive data from the IC comprising the one or more measurements of the sample .
Dietrich, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising a microcontroller configured to: transmit to the IC [Fig. 1, see FPGA and host computer. See also rest of reference.]; and receive data from the IC comprising the one or more measurements of the sample [Fig. 1, see FPGA and host computer. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Handwerker and Song with the teachings of Dietrich because all references are in the field of measuring magnetic fields in MRI and because Dietrich teaches it is known in the art to use a controller to transmit and receive information from the magnetic field probe [Dietrich – See Fig. 1. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Handwerker and Song are silent in teaching wherein the plurality of sensor assemblies is arranged in a spherical or cylindrical configuration that is disposed within the host MR system.
Dietrich, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the plurality of sensor assemblies is arranged in a spherical or cylindrical configuration that is disposed within the host MR system [Fig. 1, see field probe array is on a spherical surface. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Handwerker and Song with the teachings Dietrich because all references are in the field of measuring magnetic fields in MRI and because Dietrich teaches it is known in the art to arrange the field probes on the surface of sphere to determine spherical harmonics [Dietrich – see page 1832. See spherical harmonics. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker and Song are silent in teaching wherein a center of the spherical or cylindrical configuration is substantially at a center of a magnet of the host system.
Dietrich further teaches wherein a center of the spherical or cylindrical configuration is substantially at a center of a magnet of the host system [Fig. 1, wherein the sphere is located substantially along the center of the MRI in the vertical axis of the figure. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Handwerker and Song with the teachings Dietrich because all references are in the field of measuring magnetic fields in MRI and because Dietrich teaches it is known in the art to arrange the field probes on the surface of sphere to determine spherical harmonics [Dietrich – see page 1832. See spherical harmonics. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker and Song are silent in teaching wherein the sample is disposed between 30 cm and 100 cm from at least one of: the IC or the microcontroller.
Dietrich, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the sample is disposed between 30 cm and 100 cm from at least one of: the IC or the microcontroller [Fig. 1f, wherein the 1st stage electronics are in the range of 30 to 100 cm away from the field probe array which includes the sample. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Handwerker and Song with the teachings of Dietrich because both references are in the field of measuring magnetic fields in MRI and because Dietrich teaches it is known to separate the field probe array with the 1st stage electronics [Dietrich – see Fig. 1f. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 19, Handwerker and Song teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends from.
However, Handwerker and Song are silent in teaching receiving, by the microcontroller, data from the IC comprising the one or more MR measurements of the sample.
Dietrich, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising a microcontroller configured to: transmit to the IC [Fig. 1, see FPGA and host computer. See also rest of reference.]; and receiving, by the microcontroller, data from the IC comprising the one or more MR measurements of the sample [Fig. 1, see FPGA and host computer. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Handwerker and Song with the teachings of Dietrich because all references are in the field of measuring magnetic fields in MRI and because Dietrich teaches it is known in the art to use a controller to transmit and receive information from the magnetic field probe [Dietrich – See Fig. 1. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/RISHI R PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights