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 § 102
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, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 2015/0212174 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Brown discloses a device comprising (see Figure 1 showing device #10): a control input (see processor or logic for performing control operations according to paragraphs 0130 and 0132-0134); and a field control material arranged between a local coil and a patient, wherein the field control material is configured to modify a spatial propagation of an electrical and/or a magnetic alternating field as a function of a control signal at the control input (see Figure 4 showing a shield #90 that is made from a transparent material to the gradient field as noted in the Abstract and paragraph 0132, see also paragraphs 0134-0135 for current distribution affecting the gradient field).
With respect to claim 2, Brown discloses the field control material is configured, in a first state, to be transparent for the electrical and/or the magnetic alternating field (see Abstract and paragraph 0132) and in a second state to raise a field strength of an incident electrical and/or magnetic wave front of an alternating field in a predetermined first volume relative to the first state (see paragraph 0039-0042 discussing the improvement of the RF shield considered as the raise a field strength of an incident electrical and/or magnetic wave front).
With respect to claim 7, Brown discloses a magnetic resonance tomography system comprising: a local coil comprising: a local coil matrix; and a device (see Figure 1 showing device #10) comprising a control input (see processor or logic for performing control operations according to paragraphs 0130 and 0132-0134) and a field control material arranged between a local coil and a patient, wherein the field control material is configured to modify a spatial propagation of an electrical and/or a magnetic alternating field as a function of a control signal at the control input (see Figure 4 showing a shield #90 that is made from a transparent material to the gradient field as noted in the Abstract and paragraph 0132, see also paragraphs 0134-0135 for current distribution affecting the gradient field), wherein the field control material is configured, in a first state, to be transparent for the electrical and/or the magnetic alternating field and in a second state to raise a field strength of an incident electrical and/or magnetic wave front of an alternating field in a predetermined first volume relative to the first state; wherein the device is arranged on a surface of the local coil such that with an arrangement of the local coil, the device is arranged on a patient or on the surface thereof; and a controller in signal connection with the control input of the device, wherein the controller is configured to set a state of the field control material as a function of a sequence (see paragraph 0039-0042 discussing the improvement of the RF shield considered as the raise a field strength of an incident electrical and/or magnetic wave front).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2021/0100475 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Zhang discloses a method for operating a magnetic resonance tomography system, the magnetic resonance tomography system comprises a local coil and a controller (see Figure 1A showing an MRI machine #100 having a local coil #130 and a controller #140), wherein the local coil comprises a local coil matrix and a device comprising a control input and a field control material arraigned between a local coil and a patient, wherein the field control material is configured to modify a spatial propagation of an electrical and/or a magnetic alternating field as a function of a control signal at the control input (see Figure 1B showing a metamaterial array # 300 between patient #99 and surface/local coil #130; see paragraph 0156-0158 altering the propagation by amplifying the signals according to paragraph 0099), wherein the field control material is configured, in a first state, to be transparent for the electrical and/or the magnetic alternating field and in a second state to raise a field strength of an incident electrical and/or magnetic wave front of an alternating field in a predetermined first volume relative to the first state (see paragraph 0083 discussing permittivity, and/or permeability considered as the claimed transparency since materials with both positive permittivity and positive permeability are transparent to electromagnetic waves), wherein the device is arranged on a surface of the local coil such that with an arrangement of the local coil (as seen on Figure 1B showing device #300 on the surface of coil #130), the device is arranged on a patient or on the surface thereof (see Figure 1B showing device #300 arranged on the patient #99), wherein the controller is in signal connection with the control input of the device (see controller #140), wherein the controller is configured to set a state of the field control material as a function of a sequence, the method comprising: outputting of an excitation pulse by a radio-frequency unit (see paragraphs 0119-0121); setting of the second state of the field control material by the controller; capturing a magnetic resonance signal with the local coil (see paragraph 0190); and reconstructing of an image from the captured magnetic resonance signal; output of the reconstructed image to a user (see paragraph 0075).
With respect to claim 11, Zhang discloses prior to outputting the excitation pulse, setting, by the controller the first state of the field control material (see paragraphs 0008, 0104-0107 and 0197).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-9, and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Brown fails to teach, at a minimum, a "control input" and a "field control material" that is "configured to modify a spatial propagation of an electrical and/or a magnetic alternating field as a function of a control signal at the control input," as recited in Claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a device comprising a "control input" and a "field control
material" that can actively and dynamically modify the propagation of a field in response to "a control signal at the control input." For example, as described in the Specification, the field control material has controllable properties, comparable to liquid crystals, that can be brought into at least two different states by a control signal to alter field propagation (paras [0002], [0005]) This allows for the controlled and variable modification of field characteristics during operation. Brown, in contrast, is directed to a static, passive radio frequency (RF) shield for an MRI apparatus. Brown's shield is a "copper-dielectric-copper laminate structure with slits" and capacitors, designed with a fixed physical structure to be transparent to gradient fields and opaque to RF fields ([0006], [0033]). The properties of Brown's shield are determined by its physical construction (e.g., the pattern of slits) during a pre-manufacturing design process and are not modified by a control signal during operation. The Office Action errs when it asserts that Brown discloses a "control input (see processor or logic for performing control operations according to paragraphs 0130 and 0132- 0134)." The paragraphs cited in Brown do not support this finding. Paragraph [0130] contains boilerplate definitions. Paragraphs [0132] through [0134] describe a method for designing a static RF shield, wherein heating attributes and field properties are identified as design parameters before fabrication. Brown does not disclose a processor, logic, or any other form of control input that modifies the properties of the shield "as a function of a control signal" during its operation. Brown's shield is passive and its characteristics are immutable once fabricated. In addition, the Office Action incorrectly maps Brown's passive shield to the claimed "field control material... configured to modify... as a function of a control signal." Brown's shield is not configured to be actively controlled. Its effect on a field is a static consequence of its physical structure. The modification of eddy currents in Brown is achieved by the fixed slits and capacitors, not by an active control signal that changes the material's intrinsic properties, as recited by claim 1. While the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), that interpretation cannot be so broad as to read limitations out of the claim or to encompass structures that are antithetical to the claimed invention. The Examiner's interpretation equates pre-manufacturing design parameters with an active 'control signal' used during operation. This is not a reasonable interpretation, as Brown's disclosure of a static shield with a fixed physical structure is fundamentally different from the claimed dynamically reconfigurable device. A 'control signal,' consistent with its use in the specification and its ordinary meaning in the art, implies a signal sent during the operation of the device to cause a change. Brown discloses no such signal or capability.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 1, that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,
The field control material has controllable properties, comparable to liquid crystals, that can be brought into at least two different states by a control signal to alter field.
This allows for the controlled and variable modification of field characteristics during operation).
Shield is not configured to be actively controlled.
Active control signal that changes the material's intrinsic properties.
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 Zhang fails to teach a "controller is in signal connection with the
control input of the device" and the "controller is configured to set a state of the field control material as a function of a sequence." The primary embodiment in Zhang describes a "controllable array assembly" (1100), also called a nonlinear metamaterial (NLMM), that is passive and self-adaptive. Its state changes automatically based on the strength of the incident RF field. When the MRI machine transmits a high-power excitation pulse, the strong RF field itself induces a nonlinear response in the material (specifically, in a varactor-loaded resonator 1000), shifting its resonant frequency away from the operating frequency. This makes the assembly effectively transparent or "off" ([0159]-[0160], [0175]). This is a passive reaction to the field strength, not a state "set by the controller" via a control signal prior to or during the pulse.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument since claim 10, state that first state is define as the capacity for the material to be transparent, however, it fails to further provide how said transparency is accomplished or what “transparency” means to applicant in an electrical circuit or material.
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., shifting its resonant frequency away from the operating frequency) 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). Therefore, any action or object that makes the function of making a material “transparent” could be considered as the claimed limitation. In the current application, permittivity, and/or permeability is considered as the claimed transparency since materials with both positive permittivity and positive permeability are transparent to electromagnetic waves. If applicant means said transparency a is accomplished in a different manner or as a temporary effect in response to a frequency shift to the operation of the MR device, applicant is reminded that the claim language is silent as to what component is receiving and reacting to said frequency shift or the frequency shift itself. The term “material” does not provide enough evidence of what component in the MR device is being referred to, allowing to a broad reasonable interpretation of any component of the device or material forming a component could be read as such as long as complies with the claimed function without requiring the transparency being produce in a particular manner, as the claim is also silent about how the transparency is produced. Therefore, the only requirement in the claim is to have an item that perform or capable of having a function of transparency at a point in time or permanently due to a particular feature. Applicant is reminded that even though the claim is read in light of the Specification, the limitations of the Specification cannot be read into the claim.
Applicant argues that in Zhang, when the MRI machine is in reception mode, the high-power excitation pulse is absent. The weak response signals from the patient are not strong enough to trigger the nonlinear effect. The material passively returns to its original resonant frequency, which is tuned to the MRI's working frequency, thereby amplifying the patient's signal ([0160], [0192]). Again, the controller does not "set" this state; the state is achieved by the absence of the strong RF pulse. The Examiner's assertion that controller 140 sets the state is not supported by Zhang's description of the self-adaptive NLMM embodiment. While Zhang does mention an alternative embodiment using a switch (820) that could be operated by a control signal (821) from a controller (140) ([0148]), the Examiner's rejection specifically relies on the primary embodiment involving the self-adaptive metamaterial array (300) that responds to field strength. This embodiment does not teach or suggest at least" setting of the second state of the field control material by the controller" as recited by claim 10. Instead, Zhang's controller 140 is described as performing conventional system-level functions, such as receiving signals for image reconstruction and providing control signals to the MRI machine itself ([0075]). Zhang does not teach or suggest that controller 140 sends a signal to set the state of the metamaterial array. The state change is an automatic, physical reaction to the RF field, independent of any command from controller 140. Therefore, because the embodiment of Zhang's does not teach a controller that sets the state of the material via a control signal, but rather a material that passively reacts to the ambient RF field strength, Zhang cannot anticipate Claim 10.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument since claim 10, fails to state or imply what a first or second state consist of in order to provide a specific function. Therefore, any action or inaction of any kind could be interpreted as two different stages as long as the function associated with said stage is present, i.e., the “material/object” to be transparent or have the capacity to increase the field strength regardless of the means associated with it or the process by which it is accomplished. Zhang discloses the resonator array #300 increases the magnetic field component of radiofrequency energy during signal transmission by the MRI machine #100 (considered as the stage where the field is increased; see paragraph 0119) wherein the controller #140 is configured to provide control signals to the MRI machine, and/or to an array as described below in connection with control signal 821, and/or to receive signals from the body coils #120 and specimen coils #130 in device #300 (paragraph 0075) wherein it is understood that the connection to the controller #140 in generic terms dictates the different functions of the devices during operation wherein each action could be understood to be a different stage.
Applicant argues that Zhang fails to teach or suggest that "prior to outputting the excitation pulse, setting, by the controller the first state of the field control material."
As discussed above, in Zhang's primary embodiment, the "first state" (the passthrough or transparent state) is caused by the presence of the high-power excitation pulse itself. It is impossible to set this state prior to the event that causes it. Claim 11, recites where the controller sets the state before the pulse, whereas Zhang teaches that the pulse is the trigger that creates the state. Accordingly, Zhang does not teach or suggest "prior to outputting the excitation pulse, setting, by the controller the first state of the field control material."
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument since Zhang discloses the accessory #300 also includes a non-linear control resonator having (a) a resonator coil; and (b) a controllable impedance coupled to the resonator coil. The control resonator has a first resonant frequency when the controllable impedance is in a first impedance state, and a second resonant frequency when the controllable impedance is in a second impedance state. The resonator coil and the controllable impedance selected so that the control resonator is configured (i) to produce, in concert with the resonator array when the MRI machine is in the transmitting mode, a first array resonant frequency offset from the transmission frequency; and (ii) to produce, in concert with the resonator array when the MRI machine is in a receiving mode, a second array resonant frequency equal to the response frequency, so as to magnify the response signal (see paragraphs 0008-0009).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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