DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0256937 to Iwasawa et al. “Iwasawa” and U.S. Publication No. 2022/0120831 to Yang et al. “Yang”.
As for Claims 1-2 and 15, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Wundrak does not expressly disclose where the coils are configured to flex or bend to conform to a contour of the jaw as now claimed. In addition, Wundrak does not expressly disclose a holding element.
Yang teaches from within a similar filed of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods (Abstract) where a flexible coil array is provided to wrap around anatomical parts such as, for example, the knee, wrist, leg, arm, foot, shoulder, head or the like so the flexible coil can be close to the anatomical feature for the most reliable imaging (Paragraph [0059]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wundrak’s fixed curvature with a flexible array as described by Yang in order to position the coil closer to the patients jaw and thus, enhance imaging (Yang; Paragraph [0056]). Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for the holding element, Iwasawa teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI flexible coil units (Abstract) where a belt (e.g. 520 in Figs. 3A, 5 and corresponding descriptions) is used to bring the coils in close contact with the head shape by deformation (Paragraph [0059]). Examiner notes that the belt configured to be tightened and fixed is considered to read on a flexible holding element as claimed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wundrak and Yang’s flexible dental coil to include Iwasawa’s flexible holding element in order to better conform the coil to the user’s individual head/face contours and thus, enhance imaging. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claims 3, 11, 13-14, 16 Examiner notes that the belt means would include an adjustment mechanism in its broadest reasonable interpretation with a fixing element and safety element in order to fasten (fix) and unfasten (open position) in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 12, Wundrak’s Fig. 2 above depicts a third coil for use on the other side of the patient’s head.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak, Yang and Iwasawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0292641 to Greiser.
As for Claim 4, Wundrak, Yang and Iwasawa discloses a flexible dental coil for MRI imaging as described above but does not specify that the phased array coil includes a smart material as claimed.
Greiser teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI body coils (Abstract) where the coil includes a smart material configured to adjust the stiffness of the coil via an excitation signal (Abstract; Paragraphs [0016] and [0019]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motived to have modified the wings of the phased array coil described by Wundrak, Yang and Iwasawa to include a smart material as described by Greiser in order to customize the stiffness of the dental coil to conform to a variety of patients. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5-10, 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak, Yang and Iwasawa as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of NPL “Optimized 14+1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures” to Sedlacik et al. “Sedlacik” evidenced by NPL “Mandibula 15-Channel Dental Coil”, hereinafter “NORAS” (Cited by Applicant).
As for Claim 5-8 and 18-20, Wundrak, Yang and Iwasawa discloses a flexible dental coil for MRI imaging as described above but do not disclose a retainer to also hold the jaw coils.
Sedlacik teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dental coil systems and methods where a dental coil optimized for 3D dental and maxillomandibular MRI with high patient comfort (Abstract) comprising a 14 element phased array coil mounted between two pillars (e.g. “retainer”, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions). Sedlacik discloses where the retainer includes fasteners to facilitate head-foot positioning and anterioposterior positioning (e.g. guide mechanisms “Materials and Methods”; Page 2). Sedlacik depicts where the “retainer” is mechanically connected to the dental coils and configured to hold the coils onto the appropriate region of the patient with a position unit and guide configured to tilt toward the patient as evidenced by NORAS.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used a retainer to hold the dental coil described by Wundrak, Yang and Iwasawa order to prevent the coil from shifting during use. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 9, Sedlacik’s coil depicts a “swan neck mechanism” and joint hose in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Sedlacik’s coil depicts fastener (e.g. damping elements) which can control the pivot range of motion in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Alternatively, regarding Claim 13, Sedlacik’s coil assembly includes a head rest which is considered to fix the head of the patient in place in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak, Yang, Iwasawa and Greiser as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of NPL “Optimized 14+1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures” to Sedlacik et al. “Sedlacik” evidenced by NPL “Mandibula 15-Channel Dental Coil”, hereinafter “NORAS” (Cited by Applicant).
As for Claim 17, Wundrak, Yang, Iwasawa and Greiser discloses a flexible dental coil for MRI imaging as described above but do not disclose a retainer to also hold the jaw coils.
Sedlacik teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dental coil systems and methods where a dental coil optimized for 3D dental and maxillomandibular MRI with high patient comfort (Abstract) comprising a 14 element phased array coil mounted between two pillars (e.g. “retainer”, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions). Sedlacik discloses where the retainer includes fasteners to facilitate head-foot positioning and anterioposterior positioning (e.g. guide mechanisms “Materials and Methods”; Page 2). Sedlacik depicts where the “retainer” is mechanically connected to the dental coils and configured to hold the coils onto the appropriate region of the patient with a position unit and guide configured to tilt toward the patient as evidenced by NORAS.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used a retainer to hold the dental coil described by Wundrak, Yang, Iwasawa and Greiser order to prevent the coil from shifting during use. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak and U.S. Publication No. 2022/0120831 to Yang et al. “Yang”.
As for Claims 21, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Wundrak does not expressly disclose where the coils are configured to flex or bend to conform to a contour of the jaw as now claimed.
Yang teaches from within a similar filed of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods (Abstract) where a flexible coil array is provided to wrap around anatomical parts such as, for example, the knee, wrist, leg, arm, foot, shoulder, head or the like so the flexible coil can be close to the anatomical feature for the most reliable imaging (Paragraph [0059]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wundrak’s fixed curvature with a flexible array as described by Yang in order to position the coil closer to the patients jaw and thus, enhance imaging (Yang; Paragraph [0056]). Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wundrak, Yang and NPL “Optimized 14+1 receive coil array and position system for 3D high-resolution MRI of dental and maxillomandibular structures” to Sedlacik et al. “Sedlacik” evidenced by NPL “Mandibula 15-Channel Dental Coil”, hereinafter “NORAS” (Cited by Applicant).
As for Claim 22, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, Wundrak does not expressly disclose where the coils are configured to flex or bend to conform to a contour of the jaw as now claimed. In addition, Wundrak does not disclose a retainer to hold the jaw coils.
Yang teaches from within a similar filed of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods (Abstract) where a flexible coil array is provided to wrap around anatomical parts such as, for example, the knee, wrist, leg, arm, foot, shoulder, head or the like so the flexible coil can be close to the anatomical feature for the most reliable imaging (Paragraph [0059]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wundrak’s fixed curvature with a flexible array as described by Yang in order to position the coil closer to the patients jaw and thus, enhance imaging (Yang; Paragraph [0056]). Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for the retainer, Sedlacik teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dental coil systems and methods where a dental coil optimized for 3D dental and maxillomandibular MRI with high patient comfort (Abstract) comprising a 14 element phased array coil mounted between two pillars (e.g. “retainer”, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions). Sedlacik depicts where the “retainer” is mechanically connected to the dental coils and configured to hold the coils onto the appropriate region of the patient with a position unit and guide configured to tilt toward the patient as evidenced by NORAS. Examiner notes Sedlacik’s coil depicts a “swan neck mechanism” which is embodied to maintain a curved shape in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used a retainer to hold the dental coil described by Wundrak and Yang order to prevent the coil from shifting during use. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for Claim 23, Wundrak discloses dental coil comprising a first element (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including a recess for a mouth or nose when the dental coil is positioned for use (Fig. 1) and a second element (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having a first flexible element configured to allow the second element to be shaped to conform to the user’s jaw region in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Each of the first and second elements including an MRI coil (e.g. coils 42, 43, 44 in Fig. 2) configured to receive radiofrequency signals for MRI imaging. Examiner also notes Wundrak’s first element is connected to the second element in the same manner depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2. Thus, the element are considered to be “mechanically” connected to each other in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
However, Wundrak does not expressly disclose where the coils are configured to flex or bend to conform to a contour of the jaw as now claimed. In addition, Wundrak does not expressly disclose a flexible holding element as claimed.
Yang teaches from within a similar filed of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods (Abstract) where a flexible coil array is provided to wrap around anatomical parts such as, for example, the knee, wrist, leg, arm, foot, shoulder, head or the like so the flexible coil can be close to the anatomical feature for the most reliable imaging (Paragraph [0059]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wundrak’s fixed curvature with a flexible array as described by Yang in order to position the coil closer to the patients jaw and thus, enhance imaging (Yang; Paragraph [0056]). Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
However, Wundrak and Yang does not disclose a retainer to hold the jaw coils.
Sedlacik teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dental coil systems and methods where a dental coil optimized for 3D dental and maxillomandibular MRI with high patient comfort (Abstract) comprising a 14 element phased array coil mounted between two pillars (e.g. “retainer”, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions). Sedlacik discloses where the retainer includes fasteners to facilitate head-foot positioning and anterioposterior positioning (e.g. guide mechanisms “Materials and Methods”; Page 2).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used a retainer to hold the dental coil described by Wundrak order to prevent the coil from shifting during use. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Publication No. 2013/0190608 to Schmidt which depicts jaw coil with various layers (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
360
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights