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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination used in the prior office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 with respect to independent claim 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 18 is above the prior art for the same reasons as amended claim 1. However, claim 18 does not include the argued limitation of “wherein the coil, the sample, the IC, and the microcontroller are positioned on a printed circuit board.” Therefore, the arguments are not considered persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Handwerker (“An Array of Fully-Integrated Quadrature TX/RX NMR Field Probes for MRI Trajectory Mapping”).
Regarding claim 18, Handwerker teaches a method of monitoring a magnetic field, comprising:
providing a host magnetic resonance (MR) system that generates a magnetic field [See MRI scanner. See also rest of reference.];
disposing a plurality of sensor assemblies 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 sample disposed in a sample holder [See field probes with 1H samples. See also rest of reference.],
a microcontroller configured to store one or more pulse sequences [See microcontroller for controlling ASICs. See also rest of reference.]; and
an integrated circuit (IC) [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.]; and
performing, by the IC, 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.].
Regarding claim 20, 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; 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.].
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, 15-17, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Handwerker, in view of Van Niekerk (US 2021/0212588).
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 configured to store one or more pulse sequences [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 wherein the microcontroller are positioned on a printed circuit board.
Van Niekerk, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches the microcontroller are positioned on a printed circuit board [¶0077, ¶0083, and Fig. 2 wherein microcontroller 22 is on-board with a magnetometer 20, pick-up coils 12, and RF detection circuit 14. 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 Van Niekerk because both references are in the field of magnetic field sensors for use inside an MRI scanner and because Van Niekerk teaches it is known in the art to include a microcontroller on the sensor circuit board [Van Niekerk – Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 3, Handwerker and Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 31, Handwerker and Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk, and in further view of Dietrich (“A Field Camera for MR Sequence Monitoring and System Analysis”).
Regarding claim 5, Handwerker and Van Niekerk teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker further teaches wherein the microcontroller is configured to: transmit the one or more pulse sequences to the IC [See microcontroller for controlling ASICs. See also rest of reference.]. Handwerker also teaches acquiring MR signals [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.].
However, Handwerker and Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Handwerker and Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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, Van Niekerk, and Dietrich teach the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker and Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Handwerker and Van Niekerk 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 Van Niekerk 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, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 also apply to this claim. Claim 19 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 5.
Conclusion
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 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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 2896