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 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 10-13 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 claims 10 and 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 11 and 13 are rejected for depending on either claim 10 or 12.
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, 6-9, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Possanzini (US 2016/0139218).
Regarding claim 1, Possanzini teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a power amplifier unit configured to provide transmit signals to be emitted [See radio frequency amplifier. See also rest of reference.];
a switching unit comprising an actuator unit [See electrical connectors, which are considered switching units because the first electrical connectors can be connected to different second electrical connectors. See ¶0021-0023. The electrical connectors can be moved, therefore, there is some type of actuation. See also rest of reference.];
a first plug-in connector part that is connected to the power amplifier unit [¶0021-0023 and ¶0060, wherein the electrical connectors are connected to the RF amplifier. See also rest of reference.]; and
a number of second plug-in connector parts, wherein the actuator unit is configured to move the first plug-in connector part relative to the number of second plug-in connector parts so that an electrical connection is established between the first plug-in connector part and one of the number of second plug-in connector parts [¶0021-0023. See Fig. 6 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Possanzini further teaches wherein the number of second plug-in connector parts are arranged in one plane [¶0084 and See Fig. 6. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the actuator unit is configured to move the first plug-in connector part parallel to the plane in order to bring the first plug-in connector part into a vicinity of one of the number of second plug-in connector parts [¶0022-0023 and Fig. 6-7, wherein the second electrical connectors are moved in multiple directions including in a plane parallel to the first electrical connectors of Fig. 6. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Possanzini further teaches wherein the actuator unit is configured to move the first plug-in connector part parallel to the plane in order to bring the first plug-in connector part into the vicinity of the one second plug-in connector part for alignment with the one second plug-in connector part [¶0022-0023 and Fig. 6-7, wherein the second electrical connectors are moved in multiple directions including in a plane parallel to the first electrical connectors of Fig. 6. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Possanzini further teaches wherein the number of second plug-in connector parts are arranged in one plane [¶0084 and See Fig. 6. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the actuator unit is configured to move the first plug-in connector part at right angles to the one plane in order to bring the first plug-in connector part into a releasable connection with one of the number of second plug-in connector parts [¶0021-0023 and Fig. 6-7, wherein the second electrical connectors are moved in multiple directions including in a plane orthogonal to the first electrical connectors of Fig. 6. See detachably. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Possanzini further teaches further comprising: a patient table [See subject support. See also rest of reference.]; and a magnet unit operable for creation of a main magnetic field of the magnetic resonance apparatus [See magnet 104. See also rest of reference.], wherein the switching unit is arranged in an area of the patient table [Fig. 6 and ¶0021-0023. See also rest of reference.], in a vicinity of the magnet unit, or in the area of the patient table and in the vicinity of the magnet unit.
Regarding claim 16, Possanzini further teaches further comprising a number of local coil connection units that are each configured to connect a local coil to the magnetic resonance apparatus, wherein each of the number of second plug-in connector parts is electrically connected in each case to one of the number of local coil connection units [See Fig. 7, wherein each connector 600 is connected to a coil. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, Possanzini further teaches further comprising at least one local coil that is configured to emit radio-frequency pulses in accordance with the transmit signals provided into an examination region of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0031. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 18, Possanzini teaches a method for ensuring a correct connection, the method comprising:
at the beginning of carrying out of a magnetic resonance sequence, providing, with a magnetic resonance apparatus, a transmit signal to be emitted for creation of at least one radio-frequency pulse [¶0020, ¶0031. See also RF generator. See also rest of reference.], the magnetic resonance apparatus comprising a power amplifier unit configured to provide transmit signals to be emitted [See radio frequency amplifier. See also rest of reference.], a switching unit comprising an actuator unit [See electrical connectors, which are considered switching units because the first electrical connectors can be connected to different second electrical connectors. See ¶0021-0023. The electrical connectors can be moved, therefore, there is some type of actuation. See also rest of reference.], a first plug-in connector part that is connected to the power amplifier unit [¶0021-0023 and ¶0060, wherein the electrical connectors are connected to the RF amplifier. See also rest of reference.], and a number of second plug-in connector parts, wherein the actuator unit is configured to move the first plug-in connector part relative to the number of second plug-in connector parts so that an electrical connection is established between the first plug-in connector part and one of the number of second plug-in connector parts [¶0021-0023. See Fig. 6 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.]; and evaluating a signal measured by a receive unit of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0031 and ¶0052, wherein the coil received RF signals that is later processed into an image, ¶0056-0057. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 19, Possanzini further teaches wherein the measured signal is evaluated with respect to amplitude, phase, or amplitude and phase [¶0031 and ¶0052, wherein the coil received RF signals that is later processed into an image, ¶0056-0057. As is known in the art, amplitude and phase information of the acquired signals are used to form the image. 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 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Possanzini, in view of Leussler (US 2021/0030306).
Regarding claim 2, Possanzini teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching wherein the actuator unit comprises at least one pneumatic drive, at least one hydraulic drive, or the at least one pneumatic drive and the at least one hydraulic drive.
Leussler, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the actuator unit comprises at least one pneumatic drive, at least one hydraulic drive, or the at least one pneumatic drive and the at least one hydraulic drive [¶0007. 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 Possanzini and Leussler because both references teach connector elements in MRI and because Possanzini teaches moving the connector elements and Leussler also teaches it is known in the art to use pulleys, gears, stepper motors, pneumatics or hydraulics which is used to move the antenna connector along the path [Leussler - ¶0007].
Regarding claim 3, Possanzini teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching wherein the actuator unit comprises at least one electric motor.
Leussler, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the actuator unit comprises at least one electric motor [¶0007. 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 Possanzini and Leussler because both references teach connector elements in MRI and because Possanzini teaches moving the connector elements and Leussler also teaches it is known in the art to use pulleys, gears, stepper motors, pneumatics or hydraulics which is used to move the antenna connector along the path [Leussler - ¶0007].
Regarding claim 14, Possanzini teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching further comprising a system control unit, wherein the actuator unit comprises an actuator control unit that is configured to receive control signals of the system control unit.
Leussler, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches a system control unit, wherein the actuator unit comprises an actuator control unit that is configured to receive control signals of the system control unit [See remotely controllable actuator. 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 Possanzini and Leussler because both references teach connector elements in MRI and because Possanzini teaches moving the connector elements and Leussler also teaches it is known in the art to use pulleys, gears, stepper motors, pneumatics or hydraulics which is used to move the antenna connector along the path and be remotely controllable [Leussler - ¶0007].
Regarding claim 15, Possanzini and Leussler teach the limitations of claim 14, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching wherein the system control unit is configured to send the control signals to the actuator control unit depending on a magnetic resonance sequence to be carried.
Leussler, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches a system control unit, wherein the system control unit is configured to send the control signals to the actuator control unit depending on a magnetic resonance sequence to be carried [See remotely controllable actuator.¶0105. 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 Possanzini and Leussler because both references teach connector elements in MRI and because Possanzini teaches moving the connector elements and Leussler also teaches it is known in the art to use pulleys, gears, stepper motors, pneumatics or hydraulics which is used to move the antenna connector along the path and be remotely controllable [Leussler - ¶0007].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Passanzini, in view of previously cited Leussler, and in further view of Vij (US 2021/0282866).
Regarding claim 4, Possanzini and Leussler teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches further the at least one electric motor [¶0007].
However, Possanzini and Leussler are both silent in wherein the at least one electric motor is at least one screened electric motor.
Vij, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the at least one electric motor is at least one screened electric motor [¶0012. 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 Possanzini and Leussler with the teachings of Vij because all references are in the field of actuators in MRI and because Vij teaches it is known in the art to shield electrical elements from the magnetic fields [Vij - ¶0012. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Passanzini, in view of previously cited Leussler, and in further view of Hofstetter (US 2025/0032200).
Regarding claim 5, Possanzini and Leussler teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini further teaches further comprising a magnet unit operable for creation of a main magnetic field [magnet 104].
However, Possanzini and Leussler are both silent in teaching wherein the at least one electric motor comprises a rotor that acts together with the main magnetic field of the magnetic resonance apparatus as a permanent magnetic field of the at least one electric motor.
Hofstetter, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the at least one electric motor comprises a rotor that acts together with the main magnetic field of the magnetic resonance apparatus as a permanent magnetic field of the at least one electric motor [Abstract, ¶0037-0040, ¶0044-0047. 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 Possanzini and Leussler with the teachings of Hofstetter because all references are in the field of actuators in MRI and because Hofstetter teaches it is known in the art to use a rotor operated by the static magnetic field of the MRI as the actuator [Hofstetter - Abstract, ¶0037-0040, ¶0044-0047. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Passanzini, in view of Kimmlingen (US 2018/0003791).
Regarding claim 10, Possanzini teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching wherein the first plug-in connector part, the number of second plug-in connector parts, or the first plug-in connector part and the number of second plug-in connector parts comprise at least one coaxial electrical contact element, in particular at least one coaxial contact pin.
Kimmlingen, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the first plug-in connector part, the number of second plug-in connector parts, or the first plug-in connector part and the number of second plug-in connector parts comprise at least one coaxial electrical contact element, in particular at least one coaxial contact pin [¶0060. 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 Possanzini and Kimmlingen because both references are in the field of connectors for RF coils in MRI and Kimmlingen teaches it is known in the art to use coaxial connectors as connectors for RF coils for MRI [Kimmlingen - ¶0060. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Possanzini and Kimmlingen teach the limitations of claim 10, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching wherein the at least one coaxial electrical contact element is at least one coaxial contact pin.
Kimmlingen, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the at least one coaxial electrical contact element is at least one coaxial contact pin [¶0060. 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 Possanzini and Kimmlingen because both references are in the field of connectors for RF coils in MRI and Kimmlingen teaches it is known in the art to use coaxial connectors as connectors for RF coils for MRI [Kimmlingen - ¶0060. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Passanzini, in view of Feld (US 2008/0141461).
Regarding claim 12, Possanzini teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching wherein the first plug-in connector part, the number of second plug-in connector parts, or the first plug-in connector part and the number of second plug-in connector parts comprise at least one mechanical guide element, in particular at least one mechanical guide pin.
Feld, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the first plug-in connector part, the number of second plug-in connector parts, or the first plug-in connector part and the number of second plug-in connector parts comprise at least one mechanical guide element, in particular at least one mechanical guide pin [¶0033. 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 Possanzini and Feld because both references are in the field of RF connectors in MRI and because Feld teaches it is known in the art to use mechanical guide pins so that an exact guidance of the plug relative to the socket is possible [Feld - ¶0033].
Regarding claim 13, Possanzini and Feld teach the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends from.
Possanzini is silent in teaching wherein the at least one mechanical guide element is at least one mechanical guide pin.
Feld, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the at least one mechanical guide element is at least one mechanical guide pin [¶0033. 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 Possanzini and Feld because both references are in the field of RF connectors in MRI and because Feld teaches it is known in the art to use mechanical guide pins so that an exact guidance of the plug relative to the socket is possible [Feld - ¶0033].
Conclusion
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