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 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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Regarding claim 3, the Specification is enabling for control system includes a decoder which is configured to decode a plurality of messages, wherein the plurality of messages comprises a control parameter. However, the Specification is not enabling regarding the control parameter being distinct from a binary tune or detune command. The Specification fails to provide any parameters included, excluded or further define what are the differences between the other possible options known in the art in order to further define the decoding process. Likewise, regarding claim 5, the Specification is not enabling regarding the magnetic field sensor being distinct from an antenna coil used for receiving MR signals. The Specification does not clearly define the function of the sensor in a way that excludes other components that function as a sensor component for sensing.
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Specification is not enabling regarding the control parameter being distinct from a binary tune or detune command. The Specification fails to provide any parameters included, excluded or further define what are the differences between the other possible options known in the art in order to further define the decoding process. Likewise, regarding claim 5, the Specification is not enabling regarding the magnetic field sensor being distinct from an antenna coil used for receiving MR signals. The Specification does not clearly define the function of the sensor in a way that excludes other components that function as a sensor component for sensing. The new limitations in claims 3 and 5 require a different interpretation, opposite to the broadest reasonable interpretation provided herein, the claims have not ben rejected with prior art with the current interpretation of the messages including a binary process of tunning and detuning and wherein the magnetic field sensor is the antenna for receiving MR signals. Due to the discrepancies of claims having limitations with no enablement in the Specification, having a different (opposite) interpretation, the claims have not been rejected under prior art at this time.
Claims 1-5 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.
The term “sufficient” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification of the current application fails to disclose the limits of minimum and maximum values that will be considered as sufficient. For examination purposes, the limitation “lower energy usage is sufficient” has been considered as any amount as long as it is operational. Claims 2-5 have been rejected due to its dependency to claim 1 above.
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 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deunsing et al. (US 2017/0176551 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Deunsing discloses a local coil for a magnetic resonance tomography system, the local coil comprising (see MRI system in Figure 1 having RF coils as seen on Figure 2 showing loop array #242): a detuning apparatus with a signal path for activation
PNG
media_image1.png
742
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Figure 2 attached herein showing detuning devices #248-x having signal path including switch to activate the system or deactivate be opening or closing as discussed in paragraph 0043); a functional unit comprising one of a low noise amplifier (LNA) (see paragraph 0056 discussing the amplifier in low loss circuit s discussed in paragraph 0057 wherein low-loss is considered as the low noise characteristic of the components), a mixer, a multiplexer (see multiplexer described in paragraph 0040), an A/D converter, a memory store (see power storage #252 in Figure 2 and memory #620 as seen on Figure 6 attached herein), or a
PNG
media_image2.png
366
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
processor (processor #610 as seen on Figure 6), the functional unit having at least a first operational state and a second operational state with lower energy usage than the first operational state (see paragraph 0030 discussing tuned and detuned states with different power amount according to paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0042-0043); and an energy usage control system that is configured to control the operational states of the functional unit dependent upon an image acquisition (see paragraphs 0006-0010, 0038 and 0056 wherein the relationship of the circuits with power control in relation with the coil array #242 is considered as the recitation dependent upon an image acquisition since said relationship pertains to image acquisition process) by setting the functional unit into the second operational state during predetermine portions of the image acquisition where a lower energy usage is sufficient (see paragraphs 0006-0010, 0038 and 0056).
With respect to claim 2, Deunsing discloses the energy usage control system is configured to acquire a detuning signal for the detuning apparatus on the signal path (see Figure 2 showing detuning devices #248-x having signal path including switch to activate the system or deactivate be opening or closing as discussed in paragraph 0043) and to control the operational states of the functional unit dependent upon the detuning signal (see paragraphs 0045 and 0056-0057).
With respect to claim 4, Deunsing discloses the energy usage control system is configured, in an absence of a predetermined image acquisition event for a predetermined interval of a plurality of seconds, to set the functional unit in a predetermined operational state comprising a current-free rest state (see paragraphs 0038, and 0042-0043 discussing the off state considered as the claimed current-free rest state).
PNG
media_image3.png
427
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Deunsing discloses a magnetic resonance tomography system comprising (MR system as seen on Figure 1 attached herein): a detuning apparatus with a signal path for activation (see Figure 2 showing detuning devices #248-x having signal path including switch to activate the system or deactivate be opening or closing as discussed in paragraph 0043); a functional unit comprising one of a low noise amplifier (LNA) (see paragraph 0056 discussing the amplifier in low loss circuit s discussed in paragraph 0057 wherein low-loss is considered as the low noise characteristic of the components), a mixer, a multiplexer (see multiplexer described in paragraph 0040), an A/D converter, a memory store (see power storage #252 in Figure 2 and memory #620 as seen on Figure 6), or a processor (processor #610 as seen on Figure 6), the functional unit having two operational states with differing energy usage; and an energy usage control system that is configured to control the operational states of the functional unit dependent upon an image acquisition (see paragraphs 0006-0010, 0038 and 0056 wherein the relationship of the circuits with power control in relation with the coil array #242 is considered as the recitation dependent upon an image acquisition since said relationship pertains to image acquisition process), wherein the energy usage control system is configured to acquire a detuning signal for the detuning apparatus on the signal path and to control the operational states of the functional unit dependent upon the detuning signal (see Figure 2 showing detuning devices #248-x having signal path including switch to activate the system or deactivate be opening or closing as discussed in paragraph 0043), wherein the energy usage control system includes a decoder which is configured to decode a plurality of messages encoded in the detuning signal comprising a control parameter for the functional unit, and to set a plurality of operational states of the functional unit dependent upon the messages (see processor #240 in Figure 2 considered as the claimed decoder; see paragraphs 0033-0034), wherein the energy usage control system is configured, in an absence of a predetermined event of the image acquisition, to set the functional unit in a predetermined operational state (see paragraphs 0030-0035); and an encoding unit configured to encode a message regarding an operational state of the functional unit in the detuning signal (see processor #240 in Figure 2 considered as the claimed encoder and decoder; see paragraphs 0033-0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Deunsing thus teaches a protection system and a separate energy harvesting system, but it does not disclose a single, integrated "energy usage control system" as claimed, which is configured to set multiple energy-saving operational states of functional units in dependence on the image acquisition sequence itself as recited by claim 1 and described in Applicant's specification. Accordingly, Deunsing does not teach or suggest "an energy usage control system that is configured to control the operational states of the functional unit dependent upon an image acquisition" as recited by claim 1. The distinction between Deunsing and the concepts provided by the Application can be seen more clearly in the dependent claims which reinforce the arguments above.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single, integrated "energy usage control system") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues: “Claim 4 recites setting the functional unit in a predetermined operational state "in an absence of a predetermined event of the image acquisition." The Examiner cites paragraphs [0030]-[0035] of Deunsing. These paragraphs describe the general function of the tune and detune states. While the system is in a detuned state (a predetermined state) during an RF transmission event, the claim requires this action in the absence of an event. Applicant's specification clarifies this means, for example, during long operational pauses (para. [0026]).”
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument since Deunsing discloses an off, state, where the switches are open, hence current free (see paragraphs 0038, and 0042-0043). Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., long operational pauses) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the claimed inventions because Deunsing's signal does not contain a "plurality of messages" beyond binary information, its processor cannot be said to "decode" them. The Examiner's mapping of this limitation is based on a misreading of the reference and a disregard for the plain language of the claim as clarified by the specification.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument since the definition according to the Specification states a "plurality of messages beyond binary information” which it is understood to include at least binary information with many more types of messages in addition to the binary messages. Deunsing discloses the at least binary set considered as the plurality of messages. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., beyond binary) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXOMARA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Raymond Keith can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/DIXOMARA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights