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 § 103
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(s) 1, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE-102018220351-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Biber discloses
A local coil (¶ 11 under Specific Implementation Examples) for a magnetic resonance tomography system (¶ 2 under Background), the local coil comprising:
the local coil configured to receive a pilot tone signal in a first frequency range (¶ 12 under Contents Of The Invention) and a magnetic resonance signal in a second frequency range, the first frequency range being disjunct from and having a
frequency spacing from the second frequency range (¶ 12 under Contents Of The Invention);
Biber does not disclose
“at least a first frequency converter configured to convert the pilot tone signal and the magnetic resonance signal into a common frequency range”.
Speier, however, teaches
at least a first frequency converter configured to convert the pilot tone signal and the magnetic resonance signal into a common frequency range (¶ 25 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “common frequency range for the pilot and MRI signal” as taught by Speier in the coil of Biber.
The justification for this modification would be to conserve frequency space since the tomograph systems have a need for many high frequency signals (¶ 25 & 26 under Description, Speier).
Regarding claim 13
Biber discloses
A magnetic resonance tomography system (¶ 2 under Background) comprising:
an oscillator (¶ 13 under Specific Implementation Examples);
a local coil configured to receive an oscillator signal from the oscillator (¶ 10 under Specific Implementation Examples) and generate a pilot tone (¶ 1 under Specific Implementation Examples), the local coil comprising
Biber does not disclose
“a frequency converter configured to convert a pilot tone signal and a magnetic resonance signal received by the local coil into a common frequency range; and
a receiver configured to receive the magnetic resonance signal and the pilot tone signal”.
Speier, however, discloses
a frequency converter configured to convert a pilot tone signal and a magnetic resonance signal received by the local coil into a common frequency range (¶ 25 under Description); and
a receiver configured to receive the magnetic resonance signal and the pilot tone signal (¶ 25 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “common frequency range for the pilot and MRI signal” as taught by Speier in the coil of Biber.
The justification for this modification would be to conserve frequency space since the tomograph systems have a need for many high frequency signals (¶ 25 & 26 under Description, Speier).
Regarding claim 14
Biber in view of Speier teach the magnetic resonance tomography system of claim 13,
Speier, applied to claim 14, further teaches
wherein the local coil comprises an antenna coil configured to receive the pilot tone signal in a first frequency range and a magnetic resonance signal in a second frequency range, the first frequency range being disjunct from and having a
frequency spacing from the second frequency range (¶ 25 under Description).
Claim(s) 2 – 4, 15 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE102018220351-A1) in view of Biber2 (EP-3895610-A1).
Regarding claim 2
Biber1 in view of Speier teach the local coil as claimed in claim 1,
further comprising:
Bibier1 in view of Speier do not disclose
“an input for an oscillator signal, and a circuit configured to generate from the oscillator signal a pilot tone for transmission and a mixer signal for frequency conversion of the pilot tone signal with the first frequency converter”.
Biber2, however, discloses
an input for an oscillator signal, and a circuit configured to generate from the oscillator signal a pilot tone for transmission and a mixer signal for frequency conversion of the pilot tone signal with the first frequency converter (¶ 44 & 45 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “oscillator signal and mixer signal for frequency conversion” as taught by Biber2 in the system of Biber1 in view of Speier.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to mix the frequencies up and down as needed.
Regarding claim 3
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 teach the local coil as claimed in claim 2,
Biber2, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein the circuit comprises a first frequency multiplier with a first multiplication factor for generating the pilot tone from the oscillator signal and a second frequency multiplier with a second multiplication factor for generating the mixer signal from the oscillator signal,
wherein the first multiplication factor and the second multiplication factor are different (¶ 29 under Description).
Regarding claim 4
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 teach the local coil as claimed in claim 3,
Biber2, applied to claim 4, further teaches
wherein the first multiplication factor and the second multiplication factor differ by the number 1 (¶ 5 above “Claims”).
Regarding claim 15
Biber1 in view of Speier teach the magnetic resonance tomography system of claim 13,
Although strongly implied, Biber1 in view of Speier do not exactly teach
“wherein the local coil comprises an input for an oscillator signal, and a circuit configured to generate from the oscillator signal the pilot tone for transmission and a mixer signal for frequency conversion of the pilot tone signal with the first frequency converter”.
Biber2, however, discloses
wherein the local coil comprises an input for an oscillator signal, and a circuit configured to generate from the oscillator signal the pilot tone for transmission and a mixer signal for frequency conversion of the pilot tone signal with the first frequency converter (¶ 44 & 45 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “oscillator signal and mixer signal for frequency conversion” as taught by Biber2 in the system of Biber1 in view of Speier.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to mix the frequencies up and down as needed.
Regarding claim 16
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 teach the magnetic resonance tomography system of claim 15,
Biber2, applied to claim 16, further teaches
wherein the circuit comprises a first frequency multiplier with a first multiplication factor for generating the pilot tone from the oscillator signal and a second frequency multiplier with a second multiplication factor for generating
the mixer signal from the oscillator signal,
wherein the first multiplication factor and the second multiplication factor are different (¶ 29 under Description).
Regarding claim 17
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 teach the magnetic resonance tomography system of claim 16,
Biber2, applied to claim 17, further teaches
wherein the first multiplication factor and the second multiplication factor differ by the number 1 (¶ 5 above “Claims”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE102018220351-A1) in view of Biber2 (EP-3895610-A1) in view of Lehmann (DE-102014219092-A1).
Regarding claim 5
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 teach the local coil as claimed in claim 2,
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 do not teach
“wherein the mixer signal has the same frequency as the oscillator signal and the first frequency converter is a switching mixer”.
Lehmann, however, teaches
wherein the mixer signal has the same frequency as the oscillator signal and the first frequency converter is a switching mixer (¶ 62 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “switching mixer” as taught by Lehmann in the system of Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2.
The justification for this modification would be to use a low-loss, high-linearity mixer.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE-102018220351-A1) in view of Axelrod (US-20100112614-A1).
Regarding claim 6
Biber1 in view of Speier teach the local coil as claimed in claim 1,
Biber1 in view of Speier do not disclose
“further comprising an antenna coil that simultaneously has a resonance in the first frequency range and the second frequency range”.
Axelrod, however, teaches
further comprising an antenna coil that simultaneously has a resonance in the first frequency range and the second frequency range (Claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “two resonant ranges” as taught by Axelrod in the coil of Biber1 in view of Speier.
The justification for this modification would be to be able to detect one of more molecular species.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE-102018220351-A1) in view of Den Boef (WO-2005024448-A1).
Regarding claim 7
Biber1 in view of Speier teach the local coil as claimed in claim 1,
Biber1 in view of Speier do not teach
“further comprising an attenuator configured to attenuate the pilot tone signal to a level equal to or less than the magnetic resonance signal to be received, before being output by the local coil”.
Den Boef, however, teaches
further comprising an attenuator configured to attenuate the pilot tone signal to a level equal to or less than the magnetic resonance signal to be received, before being output by the local coil (¶ or line 6 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “pilot tone attenuator” as taught by Den Boef in the system of Biber1 in view of Speier.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure the pilot tone does not overdrive receiving components, creating distortion.
Regarding claim 9
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Den Boef teach the local coil as claimed in claim 7,
Den Boef, applied to claim 9, further teaches
further comprising multiple antenna coils (¶ or line 2 under Description), and
wherein the attenuator is one of multiple attenuators assigned to the multiple antenna coils (¶ or line 2 under Description),
wherein an attenuation value differs for at least two attenuators (¶ or line 2 under Description).
Regarding claim 19
Biber1 in view of Speier teach the magnetic resonance tomography system of claim 13,
Biber1 in view of Speier do not explicitly teach
“wherein the local coil comprises an attenuator configured to attenuate the pilot tone signal to a level equal to or less than the magnetic resonance signal to be received, before being output by the local coil”.
Den Boef, however, teaches
wherein the local coil comprises an attenuator configured to attenuate the pilot tone signal to a level equal to or less than the magnetic resonance signal to be received, before being output by the local coil (¶ or line 6 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “pilot tone attenuator” as taught by Den Boef in the system of Biber1 in view of Speier.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure the pilot tone does not overdrive receiving components, creating distortion.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE102018220351-A1) in view of Biber2 (EP-3895610-A1) in view of Den Boef (WO-2005024448-A1).
Regarding claim 8
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 teach the local coil as claimed in claim 2,
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 do not teach
“further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the pilot tone with a level which results in a level of the received pilot tone signal that is higher than the magnetic resonance signal to be received”.
Den Boef, however, discloses
further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the pilot tone with a level which results in a level of the received pilot tone signal that is higher than the magnetic resonance signal to be received (¶ or line 6 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “pilot tone attenuator” as taught by Den Boef in the system of Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure the pilot tone does not overdrive receiving components, creating distortion.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE102018220351-A1) in view of Biber2 (EP-3895610-A1) in view of Lehmann (DE-102014219092-A1) in view of Axelrod (US-20100112614-A1).
Regarding claim 10
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 in view of Lehmann teach the local coil as claimed in claim 5,
further comprising
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 in view of Lehmann do not teach
“an antenna coil that simultaneously has a resonance in the first frequency range and the second frequency range”.
Axelrod, however, teaches
an antenna coil that simultaneously has a resonance in the first frequency range and the second frequency range (Claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “two resonant ranges” as taught by Axelrod in the coil of Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2.
The justification for this modification would be to be able to detect one of more molecular species.
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE102018220351-A1) in view of Biber2 (EP-3895610-A1) in view of Lehmann (DE-102014219092-A1) in view of Axelrod (US-20100112614-A1) in view of
Regarding claim 11
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 in view of Lehmann in view of Axelrod teach the local coil as claimed in claim 10,
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 in view of Axelrod do not teach
“further comprising an attenuator configured to attenuate the pilot tone signal to a level equal to or less than the magnetic resonance signal to be received, before being output by the local coil”.
Den Boef, however, discloses
further comprising an attenuator configured to attenuate the pilot tone signal to a level equal to or less than the magnetic resonance signal to be received, before being output by the local coil (¶ or line 6 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “less or similar pilot tone level as MRI signal” as taught by Den Boef in the coil of Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure to not overdrive the circuitry of the coil.
Regarding claim 12
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 in view of Lehmann in view of Axelrod in view of Den Boef teach the local coil as claimed in claim 11,
Den Boef, applied to claim 12 further teaches
further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the pilot tone with a level which results in a level of the received pilot tone signal that is higher than the magnetic resonance signal to be received (¶ or line 6 under Description)..
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber1 (CN-112083367-A) in view of Speier (DE102018220351-A1) in view of Biber2 (EP-3895610-A1) in view of Lehmann (DE-102014219092-A1).
Regarding claim 18
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 teach the magnetic resonance tomography system of claim 15,
Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2 do not teach
“wherein the mixer signal has the same frequency as the oscillator signal and the first frequency converter is a switching mixer”.
Lehmann, however, discloses
wherein the mixer signal has the same frequency as the oscillator signal and the first frequency converter is a switching mixer (¶ 62 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “switching mixer” as taught by Lehmann in the system of Biber1 in view of Speier in view of Biber2.
The justification for this modification would be to use a low-loss, high-linearity mixer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852