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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “moulded” should be amended to “molded”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the system” should be amended to “the magnetic resonance imaging system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a sensor/antenna for use in MRI, does not reasonably provide enablement for a system for transmitting and receiving power. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claims 10-15, the claim’s preamble states “A system for transmitting and receiving power”. However, the specification does not disclose how power is transmitted or received in any detail. Therefore, the claims are considered unduly broad and does not provide enablement for claims 10-15.
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 1-6 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 preamble states “a magnetic imaging system”. However, the specification discloses a “magnetic resonance imaging system”. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite and it is believed by the examiner that the claim should disclose “a magnetic resonance imaging system”.
Regarding claim 1, The claim discloses “an array of antennas” in line 2 of the claim and then “a plurality of antennas” in line 4 of the claim. It is not clear if “an array of antennas” is meant to be the same or different from “a plurality of antennas”.
Regarding claim 1, the claim discloses “the antennas” in lines 6-7. However, it is unclear if “the antennas” refers back to “an array of antennas” in line 2 or “a plurality of antennas” in line 4.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims disclose “the antennas”. However, it is unclear if “the antennas” refers back to “an array of antennas” or “a plurality of antennas”.
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 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feinberg (US 2015/0323624).
Regarding claim 1, Feinberg teaches a sensor for a magnetic imaging system including an array of antennas comprising:
a substrate [Fig. 1D1-1D2, see dielectric substrate 149. See also rest of reference.];
a plurality of antennas arranged on a first face of the substrate [¶0060, wherein coil-loops system 104 having a plurality of different-size-circumference concentric coil loops 111 and loop 122 each connected to one of a plurality of RF receiver-electronics systems (e.g., capacitor 115, RF trap 116, preamplifier 117). See also rest of reference.]; and
a plurality of guard rings arranged only on a second face of the substrate opposite the first face, a projection of each of the antennas on the second face of the substrate being circumscribed within a specific guard ring, and the guard rings are spaced apart from one another [¶0060, wherein coil-loops system 104 having a plurality of different-size-circumference concentric coil loops 111 and loop 122 each connected to one of a plurality of RF receiver-electronics systems (e.g., capacitor 115, RF trap 116, preamplifier 117). ¶0072, wherein the plurality of coil loops are optionally overlapped, meaning there does not need to be overlap and they can be spaced apart. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Feinberg further teaches further comprising an examination tunnel that includes the sensor [See Fig. 6. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Feinberg teaches a magnetic resonance imaging system comprising:
a sensor that includes:
a substrate [Fig. 1D1-1D2, see dielectric substrate 149. See also rest of reference.];
a plurality of antennas arranged on a first face of the substrate [¶0060, wherein coil-loops system 104 having a plurality of different-size-circumference concentric coil loops 111 and loop 122 each connected to one of a plurality of RF receiver-electronics systems (e.g., capacitor 115, RF trap 116, preamplifier 117). See also rest of reference.]; and
a plurality of guard rings arranged only on a second face of the substrate opposite the first face, a projection of each of the antennas on the second face of the substrate being circumscribed within a specific guard ring, and the guard rings are spaced apart from one another [¶0060, block diagram of a concentric-and-spaced-apart coil-loops system 104 having a plurality of different-size-circumference concentric coil loops 111 and loop 122 each connected to one of a plurality of RF receiver-electronics systems (e.g., capacitor 115, RF trap 116, preamplifier 117). See spaced apart disclosed throughout the reference.¶0072, wherein the plurality of coil loops are optionally overlapped, meaning there does not need to be overlap and they can be spaced apart. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Feinberg further teaches wherein the system is configured for animal imaging. [See “patient” used throughout the disclosure which refers to a human. Humans are considered animals. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Feinberg teaches a system for transmitting and receiving power comprising:
a sensor that includes:
a substrate [Fig. 1D1-1D2, see dielectric substrate 149. See also rest of reference.];
a plurality of antennas arranged on a first face of the substrate [¶0060, wherein coil-loops system 104 having a plurality of different-size-circumference concentric coil loops 111 and loop 122 each connected to one of a plurality of RF receiver-electronics systems (e.g., capacitor 115, RF trap 116, preamplifier 117). See also rest of reference.]; and
a plurality of guard rings arranged only on a second face of the substrate opposite the first face, a projection of each of the antennas on the second face of the substrate being circumscribed within a specific guard ring, and the guard rings are spaced apart from one another [¶0060, wherein coil-loops system 104 having a plurality of different-size-circumference concentric coil loops 111 and loop 122 each connected to one of a plurality of RF receiver-electronics systems (e.g., capacitor 115, RF trap 116, preamplifier 117). ¶0072, wherein the plurality of coil loops are optionally overlapped, meaning there does not need to be overlap and they can be spaced apart. 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 2-3, 11-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feinberg, in view of Kopp (US 4,739,269).
Regarding claim 2, Feinberg teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Feinberg is silent in teaching wherein connection terminals of each of the antennas are arranged on the substrate outside of the specific guard ring associated with each of the antennas.
Kopp, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein connection terminals of each of the antennas are arranged on the substrate outside of the specific guard ring associated with each of the antennas [Fig. 3, see terminals 28 and 29. 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 Feinberg and Kopp because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Kopp teaches it is known in the art to include connection terminals that are extended from the RF coil/antenna [Kopp – See Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 3, Feinberg teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feinberg is silent in teaching wherein each of the antennas is connected to a magnetic decoupling circuit of said sensor arranged on the substrate outside of the specific guard ring associated with each of the antennas.
Kopp, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein each of the antennas is connected to a magnetic decoupling circuit of said sensor arranged on the substrate outside of the specific guard ring associated with each of the antennas [Abstract, wherein the reception circuit 30 is connected between midpoint 26 and capacitor terminals. Fig. 4 and corresponding description, The receiving circuit 30 essentially includes a field-effect transistor (FET) 31 mounted with a common emitter connection through a bias resistor 32 and through a decoupling capacitor 33. 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 Feinberg and Kopp because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Kopp teaches it is known in the art to include decoupling circuits that are extended from the RF coil/antenna [Kopp – See Figs. 3-4.].
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 above also apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 above also apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 above also apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 above also apply to this claim.
Claims 4, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feinberg, in view of Corea (“Screen-printed flexible MRI receive coils”).
Regarding claim 4, Feinberg teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feinberg teaches the guard rings [¶0060, block diagram of a concentric-and-spaced-apart coil-loops system 104 having a plurality of different-size-circumference concentric coil loops 111 and loop 122 each connected to one of a plurality of RF receiver-electronics systems (e.g., capacitor 115, RF trap 116, preamplifier 117). See spaced apart disclosed throughout the reference.¶0072, wherein the plurality of coil loops are optionally overlapped, meaning there does not need to be overlap and they can be spaced apart. See also rest of reference.].
Feinberg is silent in teaching wherein the antennas and rings are obtained by double-sided single layer screen printing.
Corea, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the antennas and the rings are obtained by double-sided single layer screen printing [Page 4, where screen printing is done on both sides of the substrate. See Fig. 2. 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 Feinberg and Corea because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Corea teaches it is know in the art to use printing technology for RF coils because the advantage that printing has over previous techniques is the scalability and adaptability it possesses, qualities necessary to become a commonly used technology [Corea - Page 2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 above also apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 above also apply to this claim.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feinberg, in view of Jones (US 2018/0263561).
Regarding claim 5, Feinberg teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feinberg is silent in teaching further comprising a flexible support whereon the substrate is arranged so that the array of antennas locally has a curvilinear shape and forms an acute bending angle.
Jones, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising a flexible support whereon the substrate is arranged so that the array of antennas locally has a curvilinear shape and forms an acute bending angle [Fig. 5B, and ¶0078. See also rest of reference which teaches flexible.].
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 Feinberg and Jones because both references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because Jones teaches that flexible coil elements allows for conforming to patient’s anatomy and higher signal-to-noise ratio [Jones – see S/N ratio and conform.].
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 above also apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 above also apply to this claim.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feinberg, in view of previously cited Jones, in view of La Viola (US 2015/0005619).
Regarding claim 6, Feinberg and Jones teach the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Feinberg and Jones are silent in teaching wherein the array of antennas is integrated into the flexible support by a moulded interconnect device method.
La Viola, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the array of antennas is integrated into the flexible support by a moulded interconnect device method [¶0023. 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 Feinberg and Jones with the teaching so of La Viola because all references are in the field of RF coils for MRI and because La Viola teaches that molding RF coil elements is known in the art to be cost-effective [La Viola – see ¶0007, ¶0023.].
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 above also apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 above also apply to this claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0375487 is also relevant prior art for teaching an antenna array similar to claim 1 in Fig. 1-2B.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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 2858
Prosecution Insights