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 § 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 1-3, 7, 11, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanchard (“Lower than low: Perspectives on zero- to ultralow-field nuclear magnetic resonance”).
Regarding claim 1, Blanchard teaches an apparatus for investigating an object using nuclear magnetic resonance, comprising:
a magnetically shielded chamber for magnetically shielding the object from external static magnetic fields when being investigated [Fig. 3-4, see magnetic shield. See also rest of reference.];
a spin-manipulation unit which is arranged, at least in part, in the magnetically shielded chamber and configured to manipulate spins of radioactive nuclei that are present in the object [Fig. 3-4, see Helmholtz coils. See also rest of reference.]; and
at least one particle detector which is configured to detect nuclear radiation emitted from the radioactive nuclei that are present in the object [Section 4.4, where the spin polarization of a radioactive nucleus is inferred by detecting the direction of gamma or beta rays emitted in its decay. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Blanchard further comprising: a computer-based data acquisition system which is coupled to the at least one particle detector and configured to record the signal from the at least one particle detector [Section 4.4, where the spin polarization of a radioactive nucleus is inferred by detecting the direction of gamma or beta rays emitted in its decay. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Blanchard further teaches further comprising: radioactive nuclei introduction means for introducing radioactive nuclei into the object to be investigated [Section 4.4, Using radioactive nuclei introduced into a sample at will provides for intrinsically background-free detection. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Blanchard further teaches further comprising hyperpolarization means for hyperpolarizing radioactive nuclei present in the object [See hyperpolarization disclosed throughout reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Blanchard further teaches wherein the hyperpolarization means is/are configured to hyperpolarize 11C by using parahydrogen-induced polarization methods [See sections 3.2, 4.1. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Blanchard further teaches wherein the spin-manipulation unit is configured to apply pi pulses [Section 2.1. See also rest of reference.] and/or continuous wave excitation and/or to perform adiabatic fast passage and/or adiabatic following to flip orientation of hyperpolarized nuclei [Section 3.2 and Fig. 5. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 16 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to this claim. Claim 17 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, Blanchard further teaches wherein the radioactive nuclei comprise at least one of 11C, 150 and 13N, which are hyperpolarized before the step of exciting spins of the radioactive nuclei, wherein the hyperpolarization is preferably carried out by using SABRE and/or parahydrogen-induced polarization methods [See hyperpolarization disclosed throughout reference. See sections 3.2, 4.1. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 19, Blanchard further teaches wherein the hyperpolarization of the radioactive nuclei is carried out in-situ inside the magnetically shielded chamber (20) and/or in-situ inside the object [See hyperpolarization disclosed throughout reference. See sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, 4.1. See also rest of reference.].
Supplemental 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.
At least claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2021/0208294).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches an apparatus for investigating an object using nuclear magnetic resonance, comprising:
a magnetically shielded chamber for magnetically shielding the object from external static magnetic fields when being investigated [See shielding/faraday cages that are disclosed. While shielding of the crystal array is disclosed, this shielding still shields the object because the shielding of the crystal array is located on around the object, see Fig. 1, 114. See also rest of reference.];
a spin-manipulation unit which is arranged, at least in part, in the magnetically shielded chamber and configured to manipulate spins of radioactive nuclei that are present in the object [See Rf coils. See also rest of reference.]; and
at least one particle detector which is configured to detect nuclear radiation emitted from the radioactive nuclei that are present in the object [¶0135, wherein PET detectors detect radiation. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 16 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
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 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Blanchard, in view of Zhu (“In vivo 17O NMR approaches for brain study at high field”).
Regarding claim 4, Blanchard teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Blanchard further teaches further comprising: radioactive nuclei introduction means for introducing radioactive nuclei into the object to be investigated [Section 4.4, Using radioactive nuclei introduced into a sample at will provides for intrinsically background-free detection. See also rest of reference.].
However, Blanchard is silent in teaching wherein the radioactive nuclei comprise at least one of 11C, 150, 13N, 32P and 129mXe.
Zhu, which is also in the field of NMR, teaches wherein the radioactive nuclei comprise at least one of 11C, 150, 13N, 32P and 129mXe [Page 87. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blanchard and Zhu because Blanchard teaches introducing radioactive nuclei and because Zhu teaches that 150 is a known radioactive material [Zhu - Page 87. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Blanchard teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Blanchard further teaches further comprising: radioactive nuclei introduction means for introducing radioactive nuclei into the object to be investigated [Section 4.4, Using radioactive nuclei introduced into a sample at will provides for intrinsically background-free detection. See also rest of reference.].
However, Blanchard is silent in teaching wherein the radioactive nuclei introduction means is/are configured to provide and/or produce 150-labelled compounds based on [150]02.
Zhu, which is also in the field of NMR, teaches wherein the radioactive nuclei introduction means is/are configured to provide and/or produce 150-labelled compounds based on [150]02 [Page 87. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blanchard and Zhu because Blanchard teaches introducing radioactive nuclei and because Zhu teaches that 150 is a known radioactive material [Zhu - Page 87. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Blanchard teaches the limitations of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Blanchard further teaches further comprising hyperpolarization means for hyperpolarizing radioactive nuclei present in the object [See hyperpolarization disclosed throughout reference.]. Blanchard further teaches wherein the hyperpolarization means is/are configured to hyperpolarize nuclei by using SABRE [See SABRE disclosed throughout reference.].
However, Blanchard is silent in teaching 150.
Zhu, which is also in the field of NMR, teaches 150 [Page 87. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blanchard and Zhu because Blanchard teaches introducing radioactive nuclei and because Zhu teaches that 150 is a known radioactive material [Zhu - Page 87. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Blanchard, in view of Kumata (“One-pot radiosynthesis of [13N]urea and [ 13N]carbamate using no-carrier-added [ 13N]NH3”).
Regarding claim 5, Blanchard teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Blanchard further teaches further comprising: radioactive nuclei introduction means for introducing radioactive nuclei into the object to be investigated [Section 4.4, Using radioactive nuclei introduced into a sample at will provides for intrinsically background-free detection. See also rest of reference.].
However, Blanchard is silent in teaching herein the radioactive nuclei introduction means is/are configured to provide and/or produce 13N- labelled compounds based on [13N]NOx and/or [13N]NH3.
Kumata, which is also in the field of NMR, teaches w herein the radioactive nuclei introduction means is/are configured to provide and/or produce 13N- labelled compounds based on [13N]NOx and/or [13N]NH3 [See [13N]NH3 disclosed throughout reference.].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blanchard and Kumata because Blanchard teaches introducing radioactive nuclei and because Kumata teaches that [13N]NH3 is a known radioactive material [Kumata - See [13N]NH3 disclosed throughout reference.].
Claims 12-13 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Blanchard, in view of Rigla Perez (US 2017/0299675).
Regarding claim 12, Blanchard teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Blanchard is silent in teaching wherein the at least one particle detector comprises at least one plastic scintillator for the detection of beta radiation, wherein the at least one plastic scintillator is used in connection with at least one silicon photomultiplier, and/or wherein the at least one particle detector comprises one or more LaBr3(Ce) and/or GAGG(Ce) scintillation crystals for the detection of gamma radiation.
Rigla Perez, which is also in the field of MR, teaches wherein the at least one particle detector comprises at least one plastic scintillator for the detection of beta radiation [¶0043. See also rest of reference which teaches plastic.], wherein the at least one plastic scintillator is used in connection with at least one silicon photomultiplier [¶0061. See also rest of reference.], and/or wherein the at least one particle detector comprises one or more LaBr3(Ce) and/or GAGG(Ce) scintillation crystals for the detection of gamma radiation.
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blanchard and Rigla Perez because both references are in the field of MR and because Rigla Perez teaches it is known in the art that silicon photodetectors are known to not affect magnetic fields, which are used in MR [Rigla Perez - ¶0006. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Blanchard teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Blanchard is silent in teaching wherein the at least one particle detector comprises at least one scintillator, and wherein the apparatus further comprises fiber optics for guiding scintillation light produced by the at least one scintillator out of the magnetically shielded chamber.
Rigla Perez, which is also in the field of MR, teaches wherein the at least one particle detector (40) comprises at least one scintillator [¶0061. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the apparatus further comprises fiber optics for guiding scintillation light produced by the at least one scintillator out of the magnetically shielded chamber [¶0119, wherein the optical fibers are used to transmit PET signals outside the MR device, which includes shielding (see shielding disclosed throughout reference). See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blanchard and Rigla Perez because both references are in the field of MR and because Rigla Perez teaches it is known in the art that silicon photodetectors are known to not affect magnetic fields, which are used in MR [Rigla Perez - ¶0006. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 13 also apply to this claim. Claim 20 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 13.
Claims 15 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Blanchard, in view of Archibald (US 2019/0265369).
Regarding claim 15, Blanchard teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Blanchard further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a sample chamber which is arranged, at least in part, in the magnetically shielded chamber [See Fig. 3].
However, Blanchard is silent in teaching the sample chamber being a microfluidic channel and wherein the at least one particle detector is arranged, at least in part, on a surface of the microfluidic channel or wherein the at least one particle detector forms, at least in part part, the structure of the microfluidic channel.
Archibald further teaches the sample chamber being a microfluidic channel [Figs. 7-8, see microchannel 720/820 of microfluidic chip 700/800. See also rest of reference.] and wherein the at least one particle detector is arranged, at least in part, on a surface of the microfluidic channel or wherein the at least one particle detector forms, at least in part, the structure of the microfluidic channel [Fig. 7-8, wherein the detector layers 750/850 form part of the microfluidic chip 700/800. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blanchard and Archibald both references are in the field of measuring radioactive material and because Archibald microfluid lab-on-chips provide many acknowledged advantages such as having low fluid volume consumption, compactness and low fabrication costs however their use in some respects has been limited in terms of what can and cannot be detected [Archibald - ¶0006].
Regarding claim 21, the same reasons for rejection as claim 15 also apply to this claim. Claim 21 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art is considered prior art Blanchard and Zhu. However, neither reference teaches wherein the hyperpolarization means is/are configured to bring [1-150]pyruvate and/or [1506]glucose into contact with parahydrogen gas in the presence of an iridium catalyst in solution.
Claim 10 is considered above the prior art for depending on claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The current claims as is are broad enough to be read on most hybrid MR-PET imaging machines such as US 2017/0299675.
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