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.
Claim 2 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 claim 2, the limitation “the predetermined percentage” is unclear because it is not clear if this term refers to “a predetermined limit value” disclosed in claim 1.
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 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parker (WO 2005/024443).
Regarding claim 1, Parker teaches a gradient coil arrangement for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, the gradient coil arrangement comprising a first axis and at least one second axis in different spatial directions than one another [See Fig. 11, see gradient coils in the different directions. See also rest of reference.], the gradient coil arrangement comprising:
at least one gradient coil for each of the different spatial directions, each gradient coil being configured to generate a magnetic gradient field in a direction of a respective axis [See Fig. 11, see gradient coils in the different directions. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the gradient coil for each of the different spatial directions is configured to generate a magnetic gradient field having a respective maximum field region corresponding to a spatial region in which a field strength attains at least a predetermined percentage of a maximum field strength of the respective magnetic gradient field [See Fig. 11, wherein field 316 (in Z direction) and the corresponding field strength in Fig. 8. As an alternative interpretation, Fig. 3 shows that the gradient coils shown in Fig. 11. The gradient coil 302 shown has a maximum field region which lies in the area of the middle sub-coil, see the field distribution 136 in Fig. 3. Therefore, the corresponding area of the gradient coil 302 can be identified with the claim "maximum field region". See also rest of reference.], and
wherein a gradient coil of the first axis is configured such that a spatial overlap of a maximum field region of the magnetic gradient field in a direction of the at least one second axis is less than a predetermined limit value [See Fig. 11, wherein field 322 (in x direction) partly overlaps field 316 (in z-direction) and the overlap would be less than a total overlap. As an alternative interpretations, the maximum field region of the gradient coil 302 shown in Fig. 11 lies in the region of the middle sub-coil and the maximum field region of the gradient coil 308 lies in the region of the left or right current loop. It follows directly from this that the gradient coil 302 is configured such that "a spatial overlap of its maximum field region with the maximum field region of the magnetic gradient field in the direction of the at least one second axis is less than a limiting value," as defined in the claim. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Parker further teaches wherein the predetermined percentage comprises 90% [See Fig. 11, wherein field 322 (in x direction) partly overlaps field 316 (in z-direction) and the overlap would be less than a total overlap. As an alternative interpretations, the maximum field region of the gradient coil 302 shown in Fig. 11 lies in the region of the middle sub-coil and the maximum field region of the gradient coil 308 lies in the region of the left or right current loop. It follows directly from this that the gradient coil 302 is configured such that "a spatial overlap of its maximum field region with the maximum field region of the magnetic gradient field in the direction of the at least one second axis is less than a limiting value," as defined in the claim.].
Regarding claim 3, Parker further teaches wherein the predetermined limit value is selected such that the spatial overlap is less than 10% of the maximum field region of the magnetic gradient field in the direction of the first axis or the at least one second axis [Fig. 11, wherein the left region 316 (z direction) does not overlap at all with the right region 320 (x direction). See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Parker further teaches wherein the gradient coil of the first axis comprises a whole-body coil [See Figs. 2, 11-15. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Parker further teaches wherein the maximum field region of the gradient coil of the first axis is disposed at a spatial distance without overlap along the first axis from the maximum field region of the gradient coils of the at least one second axis [Fig. 11, wherein the left region 316 (z direction) does not overlap at all with the right region 320 (x direction). See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Parker further teaches wherein spatial displacement of the maximum field regions relative to one another result in a sum of field strengths of the magnetic gradient fields generated by the gradient coils being below the predetermined limit value [See Fig. 11, wherein field 322 (in x direction) partly overlaps field 316 (in z-direction) and the overlap would be less than a total overlap, which would result in a combined field that is less than specific amount. As an alternative interpretations, the maximum field region of the gradient coil 302 shown in Fig. 11 lies in the region of the middle sub-coil and the maximum field region of the gradient coil 308 lies in the region of the left or right current loop. It follows directly from this that the gradient coil 302 is configured such that "a spatial overlap of its maximum field region with the maximum field region of the magnetic gradient field in the direction of the at least one second axis is less than a limiting value," as defined in the claim. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Parker further teaches wherein the gradient coil of the first axis is configured to have a reduced conductor density in a section of the first axis corresponding to the maximum field region of the at least one second axis, and wherein the reduced conductor density is at most 10% of a conductor density of an equal-width adjacent section of the gradient coil of the first axis [See Figs. 3-4 and 11 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Parker further teaches wherein the first axis comprises a Z-axis of the MRI system, which corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the MRI system corresponding to an orientation of an examination subject, and wherein the at least one second axis comprises an X-axis or a Y-axis of the MRI system [See Fig. 11 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Parker further teaches wherein: the at least one second axis comprises a second axis and a third axis, the gradient coil arrangement defining the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis, the first axis comprises a Z-axis of the MRI system, which corresponds to a longitudinal axis of the MRI system corresponding to an orientation of an examination subject, the second axis comprises a Y-axis of the MRI system, and the third axis comprises an X-axis of the MRI system [See Fig. 11 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Parker further teaches wherein the gradient coil of the Z-axis is configured such that a spatial overlap of maximum field region with a combined maximum field region corresponding to a combination of the magnetic gradient fields in the Y-axis and the X-axis directions is less than the predetermined limit value [See Fig. 11, wherein field 322 (in x direction) and field 326 (in y direction) partly overlaps field 316 (in z-direction) and the overlap would be less than a total overlap, which would result in a combined field that is less than specific amount. As an alternative interpretations, the maximum field region of the gradient coil 302 shown in Fig. 11 lies in the region of the middle sub-coil and the maximum field region of the gradient coil 308 lies in the region of the left or right current loop. It follows directly from this that the gradient coil 302 is configured such that "a spatial overlap of its maximum field region with the maximum field region of the magnetic gradient field in the direction of the at least one second axis is less than a limiting value," as defined in the claim. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Parker further teaches wherein the gradient field of the gradient coil of the first axis is rotationally symmetrical with respect to its longitudinal axis [See Fig. 2 and 11 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Parker further teaches wherein the longitudinal axis comprises a Z-axis of the MRI system [See Fig. 2 and 11 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Parker further teaches wherein the gradient coil of the first axis is symmetrical with respect to a plane through an isocenter of the gradient coil arrangement [See Fig. 2 and 11 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 16. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Parker, in view of Shvartsman (US 2015/0077118).
Regarding claim 8, Parker teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Parker is silent in teaching wherein the gradient coil of the first axis is configured to have no field conductors in a section of the first axis corresponding to the maximum field region of the gradient coil of the at least one second axis.
Shvartsman, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the gradient coil of the first axis is configured to have no field conductors in a section of the first axis corresponding to the maximum field region of the gradient coil of the at least one second axis [See Fig. 3, wherein the primary gradient coil windings are not in region of interest, where the gradients encode. 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 Parker and Shvartsman because both references are in the field of gradient coils in MRI and because Shvarstman teaches concentrations of conductors or radially oriented conductors may be moved away from the gap of the MRI so as to reduce eddy currents that may be induced in any instrument placed within the gap [Shvartsman – abstract].
Regarding claim 9, Parker teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Parker is silent in teaching wherein the gradient coil of the first axis is configured such that primary conductors are multilayered in a region outside a section along the first axis corresponding to the maximum field region of the at least one second axis.
Shvartsman, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the gradient coil of the first axis is configured such that primary conductors are multilayered in a region outside a section along the first axis corresponding to the maximum field region of the at least one second axis [See Figs. 3 and 5A, wherein the primary gradient coil windings are not in region of interest, where the gradients encode. Further, the left side coil and right side coil can be considered multiple layers of primary conductors. 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 Parker and Shvartsman because both references are in the field of gradient coils in MRI and because Shvarstman teaches concentrations of conductors or radially oriented conductors may be moved away from the gap of the MRI so as to reduce eddy currents that may be induced in any instrument placed within the gap [Shvartsman – abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,030,920 teaches using a cost function to determine gradient parameters that do not exceed a PNS limit.
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