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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination used in the previous rejection for the rejection of the independent claims.
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 1-17 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 switching unit designed specifically for a magnetic resonance apparatus, does not reasonably provide enablement for a switching unit designed for any environment/apparatus. 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 claim 18, the only mention of “magnetic resonance” is in the preamble of the claim, which does not provide patentable weight. Therefore, the claimed apparatus is overly broad and undue experimentation would be required. Therefore, the examiner suggests adding a limitation into the body of the claim that relates the claimed apparatus to the environment of a magnetic resonance apparatus. For example, claim 17 discloses “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”.
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 1-3, 6-9, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Leussler (US 2021/0030306), in view of Possanzini (US 2016/0139218).
Regarding claim 1, Leussler teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a power unit configured to provide transmit signals [Fig. 10, The antenna connector 124 then provides power and a digital connection to the antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.];
a switching unit comprising an actuator unit [See actuator. See also rest of reference.];
a first plug-in connector part that is connected to the power amplifier unit [Fig. 10, see antenna connector 124. See also rest of reference.]; and
a number of second plug-in connector parts [Fig. 10, see antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.],
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 [Fig. 10, wherein the actuator is used to move the antenna connector 124 to the antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.].
However, Leussler is silent in teaching a power amplifier unit configured to provide transmit signals to be emitted.
Possanzini further teaches a power amplifier unit configured to provide transmit signals to be emitted [See radio frequency amplifier. 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 Leussler and Possanzini because both references teach moving connector elements in MRI and because Leussler teaches the RF antenna can be a transmission antenna [Leussler - ¶0073-0074] and therefore it would be obvious to provide a power amplifier when providing power to the RF antenna.
Regarding claim 2, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further 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.].
Regarding claim 3, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches wherein the actuator unit comprises at least one electric motor [¶0007. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches wherein the number of second plug-in connector parts are arranged in one plane, 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 [See Fig. 10, wherein the antenna connector 124 moves in a plane parallel to the antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.].
Possanzini also 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, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler 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 [See Fig. 10, wherein the antenna connector 124 moves in a plane parallel to the antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Luessler further teaches wherein the number of second plug-in connector parts are arranged in one plane, 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 [See Fig. 10, wherein the antenna connector 124 moves in a plane parallel to the antenna plug 1002. ¶0036, wherein the path can move in the z-direction and orthogonal to the z-direction. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Luessler further teaches a patient table [See patient table 120. 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. 10 wherein the actuator is in the area of the patient table 120. 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 14, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches 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 [Abstract, see remotely controllable actuator. Therefore, the actuator includes a control unit. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 14, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches 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 [Fig. 7-8, wherein the actuator is controlled to go to a specific position depending on where the RF antenna will be. Pulse sequences for a specific part of the object (e.g. head), will then move the antenna connector to closer to the head. See ¶0036. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches 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 [Fig. 10, See cable 115. See also rest of reference.].
Possanzini also 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, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler 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 [¶0073-0074. See also rest of reference.].
Possanzini also 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, Leussler 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 [¶0073-0074. See also rest of reference.], the magnetic resonance apparatus comprising a power unit configured to provide transmit signals [Fig. 10, The antenna connector 124 then provides power and a digital connection to the antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.], a switching unit comprising an actuator unit [See actuator. See also rest of reference.], a first plug-in connector part that is connected to the power amplifier unit [Fig. 10, see antenna connector 124. See also rest of reference.], and a number of second plug-in connector parts [Fig. 10, see antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.], 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 [Fig. 10, wherein the actuator is used to move the antenna connector 124 to the antenna plug 1002. See also rest of reference.]; and evaluating a signal measured by a receive unit of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0029, ¶0053, ¶0081, ¶0104. See also rest of reference.].
However, Leussler is silent in teaching a power amplifier unit configured to provide transmit signals to be emitted.
Possanzini further teaches a power amplifier unit configured to provide transmit signals to be emitted [See radio frequency amplifier. 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 Leussler and Possanzini because both references teach moving connector elements in MRI and because Leussler teaches the RF antenna can be a transmission antenna [Leussler - ¶0073-0074] and therefore it would be obvious to provide a power amplifier when providing power to the RF antenna.
Regarding claim 19, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches wherein the measured signal is evaluated with respect to amplitude, phase, or amplitude and phase [¶0029, ¶0053, ¶0081, ¶0104, wherein the coil received RF signals that is later processed into an image. 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.].
Possanzini also 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Leussler, in view of previously cited Possanzini, and in further view of Vij (US 2021/0282866).
Regarding claim 4, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Leussler further teaches further the at least one electric motor [¶0007].
However, Leussler and Possanzini 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 Leussler and Possanzini with the teachings of Vij because Leussler is 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 Leussler, in view of previously cited Possanzini, and in further view of Hofstetter (US 2025/0032200).
Regarding claim 5, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Leussler and Possanzini further teaches further comprising a magnet unit operable for creation of a main magnetic field [magnet 104].
However, Leussler and Possanzini 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 Leussler and Possanzini with the teachings of Hofstetter because Leussler is 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 Leussler, in view of previously cited Possanzini, and in further view of Kimmlingen (US 2018/0003791).
Regarding claim 10, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler and Possanzini are 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.
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 [¶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 Leussler and Possanzini with the teachings of Kimmlingen because all 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, Leussler, Possanzini, and Kimmlingen teach the limitations of claim 10, which this claim depends from.
Leussler and Possanzini are 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 Leussler and Possanzini with the teachings of Kimmlingen because all 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 Leussler, in view of previously cited Possanzini, and in further view of Feld (US 2008/0141461).
Regarding claim 12, Leussler and Possanzini teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Leussler and Possanzini are 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,.
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 [¶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 Leussler and Possanzini with the teachings of Feld because all 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, Leussler, Possanzini, and Feld teach the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends from.
Leussler and Possanzini are 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 Leussler and Possanzini with the teachings of Feld because all 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0351296 is also considered relevant for teaching a plug connector for use in MRI.
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