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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-6, 9, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Punchard (US 2011/0260727).
Regarding claim 1, Punchard teaches a method of shimming an MRI system, the MRI system having a bore and a plurality of coils positioned around the bore, the plurality of coils forming a shim coil matrix, the method comprising:
determining an amount of current associated with each coil of the plurality of coils, so as to obtain a desired magnetic field [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.], wherein the desired magnetic field is expressed as a set of spherical harmonic terms, each spherical harmonic term having an order [See spherical harmonics. See Table 1. See also rest of reference.]; and
simultaneously providing each coil of the plurality of coils its associated amount of current [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.], wherein at least one coil of the plurality of coils is configured to contribute to a plurality of spherical harmonic terms having different orders [See Table 1. See ¶0160, wherein different orders are included. See order, m. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Punchard teaches wherein each spherical harmonic term has an order selected from the group consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 [See Table 1. See ¶0160, wherein different orders are included. See order, m. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Punchard further teaches wherein the amount of current associated with at least one coil is non-zero [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Punchard further teaches an MRI shim coil system comprising:
a plurality of shim coils distributed around a bore of an MRI system, the shim coils distributed around the bore so that applying an amount of current associated with each coil of the plurality of coils produces a desired magnetic field [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.], wherein the magnetic field is expressed as a set of spherical harmonic terms, each spherical harmonic term having an order [See spherical harmonics. See Table 1. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the amount of current associated with at least one coil is different from the amount of current associated with another coil [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.]; and
wherein at least one coil of the plurality of coils is configured to contribute to a plurality of spherical harmonic terms having different orders [See Table 1. See ¶0160, wherein different orders are included. See order, m. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Punchard teaches wherein each spherical harmonic term has an order selected from the group consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 [See Table 1. See ¶0160, wherein different orders are included. See order, m. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Punchard further teaches wherein the amount of current associated with at least one coil is non-zero [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Punchard further teaches wherein each coil of the plurality of coils is substantially rectangular in shape [Fig. 3 and ¶0097. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Punchard teaches an MRI shim coil system comprising:
a plurality of shim coils distributed around a bore of an MRI system [See active shim coils. See also rest of reference.]; and
a controller, electrically coupled to the plurality of shim coils and configured to:
determine an amount of current associated with each coil of the plurality of coils, so as to obtain a desired magnetic field [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.], wherein the desired magnetic field is expressed as a set of spherical harmonic terms, each spherical harmonic term having an order [See spherical harmonics. See Table 1. See also rest of reference.]; and
simultaneously provide each coil of the plurality of coils its associated amount of current [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.]t, wherein at least one coil of the plurality of coils is configured to contribute to a plurality of spherical harmonic terms having different orders [See Table 1. See ¶0160, wherein different orders are included. See order, m. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Punchard teaches wherein each spherical harmonic term has an order selected from the group consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 [See Table 1. See ¶0160, wherein different orders are included. See order, m. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Punchard further teaches wherein the amount of current associated with at least one coil is non-zero [¶0067-¶0070. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Punchard further teaches wherein each coil of the plurality of coils is substantially rectangular in shape [Fig. 3 and ¶0097. 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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Punchard, in view of Konijn (US 2012/0098541).
Regarding claim 7, Punchard teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Punchard further teaches wherein each one of the plurality of coils includes a set of arc portions [See arc. See also rest of reference.].
However, Punchard is silent in teaching wherein at least one arc portion of at least one coil is arranged so that it partially overlaps with an arc portion of another coil.
Konijn, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein each one of the plurality of coils includes a set of arc portions, and wherein at least one arc portion of at least one coil is arranged so that it partially overlaps with an arc portion of another coil [See Fig. 7 and ¶0052. 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 Punchard and Konijn because both references are in the field of active shimming in MRI and Konijn teaches tesseral shim coils are known to have multiple layers [Konijn - See Fig. 7 and ¶0052. See also rest of reference.], and wherein Punchard teaches a tesseral shim coil [Punchard - ¶0157].
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 also apply to this claim.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Punchard, in view of Pinho-Meneses (US 2022/0236350).
Regarding claim 8, Punchard teaches the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
However, Punchard is silent in teaching wherein the plurality of coils includes 24 coils and integer multiples thereof.
Pinho-Meneses, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the plurality of coils includes 24 coils and integer multiples thereof [¶0020 and ¶0182. 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 Punchard and Pinho-Meneses because both references are in the field of active shimming in MRI and Pinho-Meneses teaches tesseral shim coils are known to have a shim coil array that includes 24 coils and integer multiples thereof [Pinho-Meneses - ¶0020 and ¶0182], wherein Punchard does teach multiple shim coils.
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 8 also apply to this claim.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Punchard, in view of Leskowitz (US 2011/0137589).
Regarding claim 10, Punchard teaches the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
However, Punchard is silent in teaching wherein the plurality of coils includes 48 coils arranged in four layers.
Leskowitz, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the plurality of coils includes 48 coils arranged in four layers [¶0105, wherein there can be 48 shim paths. ¶0074, wherein there can be 4 layers. 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 Punchard and Leskowitz because both references are in the field of active shimming in MRI and because Leskowitz teaches it is known in the art that the disposition of shim paths on multiple layers or planes may allow better and more accurate control of the shimming fields [Leskowitz - ¶0075. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 10 also apply to this claim.
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, 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