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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a colon (:) should be added after the word “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the metal track” should be amended to “the at least one continuous metal track”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the frequency” in the second-to-last line of the claim should be amended to “a frequency”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the metal track” should be amended to “the at least one continuous metal track”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the substrate” should be amended to “the dielectric substrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “a volumetric antenna configured to emit a radiofrequency field and a device” should be amended to “the volumetric antenna configured to emit the radiofrequency field and the device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are 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 claim 1, the claim discloses multiple times the phrase “the wavelength of the radiofrequency field”. It is unclear if “the wavelength of the radiofrequency field” is the same or different from “a given wavelength emitted by a volumetric antenna” disclosed earlier in the claim. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite. Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motovilova (“Hilbert Curve-Based Metasurface to Enhance Sensitivity of Radio Frequency Coils for 7-T MRI”).
Regarding claim 1, Motovilova teaches a device for homogenizing a radiofrequency field, for magnetic resonance imaging, of a given wavelength emitted by a volumetric antenna, characterized in that it the device comprising at least one continuous metal track with a total length of between 50% and 75% of the wavelength of the radiofrequency field [Fig. 2 and Page 617. See also rest of reference.], the metal track forming a pattern having a width area of between 4% and 10% of the wavelength of the radiofrequency field [Fig. 2 and Page 616. See also rest of reference.] and a height of between 10% and 25% of the wavelength of the radiofrequency field [Fig. 2 and 7 and Page 616. See also rest of reference.], the metal track comprising two end segments extending in mutually parallel directions and a main portion extending between the two end segments and comprising several local deformations identical to one another and connected to one another in series by at least one at least partially rectilinear connection portion in such a way as to provide the homogenizing device with an electric dipole property [Fig. 2, 5, and 7 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.], the homogenizing device having a fundamental frequency higher than the frequency corresponding to the wavelength of the radiofrequency field [Page 616, wherein the MRI can operate as low as 40 MHz and metasurface operates at 297 MHz. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Motovilova further teaches wherein the pattern is formed by a plurality of second-order Hilbert curves connected to one another in series [See Fig. 1-2. See also rest of reference which discloses H2.], several second-order Koch curves connected to one another in series, or several second-order Minkowski curves connected to one another in series.
Regarding claim 3, Motovilova further teaches wherein the second-order Hilbert, second-order Koch or second-order Minkowski curves are distributed alternately right/left along several aligned, at least partially rectilinear connection portions [See Fig. 1-2, 4, 6-7, 14. See also rest of reference which discloses H2.].
Regarding claim 4, Motovilova further teaches wherein at least one at least partially rectilinear connection portion comprises a cross pattern [See Fig. 1-2, 4, 6-7, 14. See also rest of reference which discloses H2.].
Regarding claim 5, Motovilova further teaches wherein the pattern has a width of between 4 and 10 centimeters and a height of between 10 and 25 centimeters [Page 620. See Fig. 1-2, 4, 6-7, 14. See also rest of reference which discloses H2.].
Regarding claim 6, Motovilova further teaches wherein the metal track is arranged on a dielectric substrate [See FR4 substrate. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Motovilova further teaches wherein the substrate comprises a dielectric loss factor, evaluated at the frequency corresponding to the wavelength of the radio frequency field, of less than 0.05 [Page 623, see tanδ = 0.025].
Regarding claim 9, Motovilova further teaches an assembly formed by a volumetric antenna configured to emit a radiofrequency field and a device according to claim 1 [Fig. 7 and section III.A on pages 619-620. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Motovilova further teaches wherein the volumetric antenna is a birdcage antenna configured to be placed around an area of the body to be imaged Fig. 7 and section III.A on pages 619-620. 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Motovilova, in view of Vergara Gomez (“Hilbert Fractal Inspired Dipoles for B1 + Field Control in Ultra-High Field MRI”).
Regarding claim 7, Motovilova teaches the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Motovilova is silent in teaching wherein the dielectric substrate has a thickness of between 0.1 millimeters and 1 millimeter.
Vergara Gomez, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the dielectric substrate has a thickness of between 0.1 millimeters and 1 millimeter [See 0.4-mm-thick FR-4 substrate. 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 Motovilova and Vergara Gomez because both references teach using an FR-4 substrate and because Vergara Gomez teaches it is known in the art to use a 0.4 mm thick FR-4 substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Metamaterials for image quality enhancement in Ultra-High Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging” is considered relevant but is not considered prior art under the 102(b)(1)(A) because the sole author Vergara Gomez is an inventor of the current application.
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