DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 02/12/2026. Claims 1-2, 4 have been amended. Claims 3 & 7 are canceled Presently, Claims 1-2, 4-6 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Arguments
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 02/12/2026.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 02/12/2026.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 02/12/2026.
Previous specification objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 02/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Wirtz et al (US 2015/0208944 A1) in view of Luo (CN 102323556 A) in view of Wang et al (US 2006/0006870 A1) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Wirtz et al (US 2015/0208944 A1) in view of Luo (CN 102323556 A) in view of Chmielewski et al (US 2023/0041633 A1).
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1: line 6, “the decoupling”. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 5: line 2, “identical”. Appropriate correction is needed.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, & 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirtz et al (US 2015/0208944 A1) in view of Luo (CN 102323556 A) in view of Chmielewski et al (US 2023/0041633 A1)
Claim 1: Wirtz discloses, A multichannel endorectal coil for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (FIG. 6, 7, ¶0021, FIG. 6 diagrammatically illustrates one embodiment of the local prostate coil with coil elements located on the guide tube.’; ¶0027, ‘FIG. 7 diagrammatically illustrations another embodiment of the local prostate coil with coil elements located on the guide tube.’; ¶0044, ‘FIGS. 6 and 7 can be realized as single element design as well as multichannel array designs, depending on the requirements for the intervention.’), comprising a support body (guide tube 40) provided with a wire-wound curved surface (FIG. 6, 7; The conductive loops located on the guide tube (40) provide a wire-wound curved surface),
a plurality of first endorectal coils wound on a surface of the support body in a wrapping manner, (¶0044, ‘FIG. 7 diagrammatically illustrations another embodiment of the local endorectal coil 1 with coil elements 64 located on the guide tube 40. The coil elements 64 include one or more electrically conductive loops 66 formed on the surface of the tube in a saddle coil design 68.’)
-Note Wirtz disclose having at least three endorectal coils, see the conductive loops 66 of FIG. 6-7.
the support body is arranged as a cylinder body with a part of a structure cut off along a length direction of the cylinder body to form a shaped cross section. (FIG. 1, 2, 6-7, the guide tube 40 is arranged as a cylinder body with a part of a structure cut off along a length direction of the cylinder, see also).
Wirtz fails to explicitly disclose: to form a D-shaped cross-section.
In regards to the feature that the conical portion is: to form a D-shaped cross-section; though the above noted reference may not explicitly teach such a configuration, such a configuration (i.e., shape) is considered as a design choice based on the following consideration:
The device of Wirtz discloses, the support body is arranged as a cylinder body with a part of a structure cut off along a length direction of the cylinder body to form a shaped cross section. It appears the device of modified Wirtz would operate equally well such that the configuration of the shaped cross section is formed as a D-shaped, because it has been held that “The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.”. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) . see MPEP 2144.04 IV B - Changes in Shape. Further, the applicant places no criticality on the shape claimed. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaped cross-section of Wirtz such that it is D-shaped because in the instant case, configuration as Wirtz would not would not operate differently with claimed D-shaped. There is no evidence (i.e. statistical evidence) of record in the specification to suggest otherwise. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to obtain such a configuration through routine experimentation.
Wirtz fails to explicitly disclose:
a second coil superposed on the plurality of first coils, wherein
decoupling between two adjacent first coils of the plurality of first coils is achieved by means of partial overlapping; the second coil comprises a first coil section and a second coil section that are connected in an intersecting manner, wherein the first coil section and the second coil section are symmetrically arranged, and no electrical connection exists at an intersection thereof;
the first coil section and the second coil section are connected in the intersecting manner, the second coil is figure-eight-shaped;
the first coil section is superposed on a surface of a first region of each of the plurality of first coils, the second coil section is superposed on a surface of a second region of each of the plurality of first coils,
and along a first direction, lateral edges on both sides of the first coil section and lateral edges on both sides of the second coil section extend outwardly beyond an outermost lateral boundary collectively defined by the plurality of first coils, wherein the first direction is parallel to an arrangement direction of the plurality of first coils and perpendicular to a direction along which the first coil section and the second coil section are oppositely arranged; and
However, Lou in the context of a carotid artery coil discloses a plurality of first coils and a second coil superposed on the plurality of first coils, specifically, a second coil superposed on the plurality of first coils, wherein (¶Abstract, ‘ Three parallel coil units in the coil have a good balance between the SNR (signal to noise ratio) and the penetrating power. A saddle-shaped (or 8-shaped) coil unit can be added in the coil so as to effectively increase the image SNR and uniformity of the coil without influencing other units.’)
decoupling between two adjacent first coils of the plurality of first coils is achieved by means of partial overlapping; the second coil comprises a first coil section and a second coil section that are connected in an intersecting manner, wherein the first coil section and the second coil section are symmetrically arranged, and no electrical connection exists at an intersection thereof; (see highlighted FIG. 4 below)
the first coil section and the second coil section are connected in the intersecting manner, the second coil is figure-eight-shaped; (see highlighted FIG. 4 below)
the first coil section is superposed on a surface of a first region of each of the plurality of first coils, the second coil section is superposed on a surface of a second region of each of the plurality of first coils, (see highlighted FIG. 4 below)
and along a first direction, [...] wherein the first direction is parallel to an arrangement direction of the plurality of first coils and perpendicular to a direction along which the first coil section and the second coil section are oppositely arranged; and (see highlighted FIG. 4 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
674
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-Coil 1 and Coil 2 are two adjacent first coils achieved by means of partial overlapping. (¶0015, ‘The structure across the coil is symmetrical with the three parallel coil units, and a good decoupling effect can be achieved without taking any decoupling measures. It can effectively increase the image signal-to-noise ratio and uniformity of the coil without affecting other units.’)
-Coils 1 and Coil 3 are two non-adjacent first coils. (¶0015)
-Second coil comprises a first coil section and a second coil section that are connected in an intersecting manner, wherein the first coil section and the second coil section are symmetrically arranged, and no electrical connection exist at the intersection thereof.
-The coil structure of each section in FIG. 4, has four coil elements, with three coil elements (left, middle, and right, three of the same structure), arranged in parallel, and another coil element spanning the three coil elements arranged in parallel and forming an “8-shaped” element. The structure results in good decoupling without any decoupling measures and effectively increases the image signal-to-noise ratio and uniformity of the coil, ¶0015. The absence of electrical connections/junction at the intersection improves the uniformity and signal-to-noise ratio; otherwise, the signal-to-noise ratio would be degraded because the connection would short-circuit and prevent the desired signal-to-noise ratio. And thus (the first coil section and the second coil section are connected in the intersecting manner the first coil section is superposed on a surface of a first region of each first coil, and the second coil section is superposed on a surface of a second region of each first coil, as seen in FIG. 4 highlighted above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of first endorectal coils of modified Wirtz to include decoupling between two adjacent first coils achieved by means of partial overlapping as taught by Lou’s plurality of coils for advantage of providing an effective increase the image SNR and uniformity of the coil without influencing other units, as suggested by Lou ¶0026. The modified combination would disclose the plurality of first endorectal coils such that decoupling between two adjacent first endorectal coils is achieved by means of partial overlapping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of first endorectal coils of modified Wirtz to include a second coil in view of the teachings of Lou for the advantage of adding in the coil so as to effectively increase the image SNR and uniformity of the coil without influencing other units, as suggested by Lou ¶0015.
The modified combination would disclose a second endorectal coil superposed on the plurality of first endorectal coils, wherein the second endorectal coil comprises a first coil section and a second coil section that are connected in an intersecting manner, wherein the first coil section and the second coil section are symmetrically arranged, and no electrical connection exists at an intersection thereof; the first coil section and the second coil section are connected in the intersecting manner, the second endorectal coil is figure-eight-shaped; the first coil section is superposed on a surface of a first region of each of the plurality of first endorectal coils, the second coil section is superposed on a surface of a second region of each of the plurality of first endorectal coils, and along a first direction [...] wherein the first direction is parallel to an arrangement direction of the plurality of first endorectal coils and perpendicular to a direction along which the first coil section and the second coil section are oppositely arranged.
In regards to the feature of, and along a first direction, lateral edges on both sides of the first coil section and lateral edges on both sides of the second coil section extend outwardly beyond an outermost lateral boundary collectively defined by the plurality of first coils, such a feature is considered a design choice based on the following consideration.
Lou further teaches: ¶0026, ‘The three parallel loops can have different areas. The saddle can span more than three loops or only some of the loops, and the invention can still be realized’. -Lou teaches that the three parallel loops (i.e., coil 1, 2, 3 as identified above in the highlighted figure of Lou) can indeed have different areas and the invention can be successfully realized. The primary purpose of the arrangement and area of these loops is to achieve good balance between the signal to noise ratio and penetration during magnetic resonance imaging, ¶0026.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the two side loops of the three parallel loops of modified Wirtz, such that the two side loops are narrower (i.e., less area/size) as taught by Lou, because it has been held that “In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”, see MPEP 2144.04 – A. Changes in Size/Proportion. Further, the applicant places no criticality on the claimed feature. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the two side loops of the three parallel loops of modified Wirtz, such that the two side loops are narrower (i.e., less area/size) as taught by Lou because in the instant case, claimed disclosed configuration of modified Wirtz in view of Lou would not would not operate differently with claimed configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to obtain such a configuration through routine experimentation. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such improving the coil’s uniformity and penetration while increasing the coil’s signal to noise ratio, as suggested by Lou, ¶0026. The modified combination would disclose the claimed recitation of “and along a first direction, lateral edges on both sides of the first coil section and lateral edges on both sides of the second coil section extend outwardly beyond an outermost lateral boundary collectively defined by the plurality of first endorectal coils.”
Wirtz in view of Lou fail to explicitly disclose: and decoupling between two non-adjacent first coils of the plurality of first coils is achieved by providing at least one shared capacitor;
However, Chmielewski in the context of RF coil assemblies discloses, and decoupling between two non-adjacent first coils (outer loops) of the plurality of first coils is achieved by providing at least one shared capacitor; (FIG. 2A, ¶0036, ‘further decoupling may be implemented between multiturn loops that are not adjacent [...] only a single capacitor is required.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two non-adjacent first endorectal coils of modified Wirtz such that he decoupling between two non-adjacent first coils is achieved by providing a shared capacitor as taught by Chmielewsk. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as reducing the number of electronic decoupling elements, as suggested by Chmielewsk, ¶0036. The modified combination would disclose decoupling between two non-adjacent first endorectal coils of the plurality of first endorectal coils is achieved by providing at least one shared capacitor.
Claim 2: Wirtz as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Wirtz discloses the plurality of first endorectal coils as having at least three, see loops 66 in FIG. 6-7.
Wirtz fails to disclose: wherein the plurality of first coils comprises three first coils including a first coil A, a first coil B and a first coil C, the first coil A defining a first channel, the first coil B defining a second channel, and the first coil C defining a third channel, wherein the first l coil A and the first coil B partially overlap, and the first coil B and the first coil C partially overlap,
However, Lou is relied upon above discloses: wherein the plurality of first coils comprises three first coils including a first coil A, a first coil B and a first coil C, the first coil A defining a first channel, the first coil B defining a second channel, and the first coil C defining a third channel, wherein the first l coil A and the first coil B partially overlap, and the first coil B and the first coil C partially overlap, (see highlighted FIG. 4 below – each coil defines a channel)
PNG
media_image2.png
538
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of first endorectal coils of Wirtz in view of the teachings of Lou plurality of coils for advantage of providing an effective increase the image SNR and uniformity of the coil without influencing other units, as suggested by Lou ¶0026. The modified combination would disclose wherein the plurality of first endorectal coils comprises three first endorectal coils including a first endorectal coil A, a first endorectal coil B and a first endorectal coil C, the first endorectal coil A defining a first channel, the first endorectal coil B defining a second channel, and the first endorectal coil C defining a third channel, wherein the first endorectal coil A and the first endorectal coil B partially overlap, and the first endorectal coil B and the first endorectal coil C partially overlap.
Wirtz in view of Lou fail to disclose: and the at least one shared capacitor is arranged between the first endorectal coil A and the first endorectal coil C
However, Chmielewsk is relied upon above discloses, and the at least one shared capacitor is arranged between the first endorectal coil A and the first endorectal coil C. (FIG. 2A, ¶0036, ‘further decoupling may be implemented between multiturn loops that are not adjacent [...] only a single capacitor is required.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one shared capacitor modified Wirtz such that at is arranged between the first endorectal coil A and the first endorectal coil C as taught by Chmielewsk. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as reducing the number of electronic decoupling elements, as suggested by Chmielewsk, ¶0036. The modified combination would disclose the at least one shared capacitor is arranged between the first endorectal coil A and the first endorectal coil C.
Claim 4: Wirtz as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Wirtz discloses the plurality of first endorectal coils as having at least three, see loops 66 in FIG. 6-7.
Wirtz fails to disclose: the plurality of first coils comprises two first coils including a first coil A and a first coil B, the first coil A defining a first channel and the first coil B defining a second channel, wherein the first coil A and the first coil B partially overlap.
However, Lou is relied upon above discloses: the plurality of first coils comprises two first coils including a first coil A and a first coil B, the first coil A defining a first channel and the first coil B defining a second channel, wherein the first coil A and the first coil B partially overlap. (see highlighted FIG. 4 below – each coil defines a channel)
PNG
media_image3.png
538
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of first endorectal coils of Wirtz in view of the teachings of Lou plurality of coils for advantage of providing an effective increase the image SNR and uniformity of the coil without influencing other units, as suggested by Lou ¶0026. The modified combination would disclose the plurality of first endorectal coils comprises two first endorectal coils including a first endorectal coil A and a first endorectal coil B, the first endorectal coil A defining a first channel and the first endorectal coil B defining a second channel, wherein the first endorectal coil A and the first endorectal coil B partially overlap.
Claim 5: Wirtz as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Wirtz discloses, wherein(¶0044, ‘FIG. 7 diagrammatically illustrations another embodiment of the local endorectal coil 1 with coil elements 64 located on the guide tube 40. The coil elements 64 include one or more electrically conductive loops 66 formed on the surface of the tube in a saddle coil design 68.’) -Each of the coil element has a same geometrical structure.
Claim 6: Wirtz as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Wirtz discloses, A magnetic resonance imaging system, comprising the multichannel endorectal coil for prostate MRI according to claim 1. (FIG. 1, ¶0030, ‘With reference to FIG. 1, one embodiment of an endorectal prostate coil 1 within a magnetic resonance (MR) system 2.’; ¶0031, ‘The local endorectal coil 1 includes one or more electrically conductive elements tuned to receive orthogonal components of the induced magnetic resonance radio frequency signals which orthogonal components are orthogonal to the B.sub.0 field, e.g. along the axis of the subject and transverse to the subject. The local coil can include an interface device 28 which communicates between the local coil and the RF receiver. The resonance signals inductively generate one or more currents indicative of the magnetic resonance. The one or more electrically conductive elements act as a local receive coil for tissue in the prostate region of the subject. When the local coil 1 is configured as a receive only local coil, the RF excitation and manipulation pulses is transmitted by the whole body RF coil 12. Optionally, with the power source and the controller can be used to control the one or more electrically conductive elements of the local coil to operate as a transmit and receive coil which both excites and/or manipulates magnetic resonance in the prostate tissue and receives the resonance signal.’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al (US 2006/0006870 A1) in the context of coil arrays for magnetic resonance imaging discloses, and decoupling between two non-adjacent first coils of the plurality of first coils is achieved by providing at least one shared capacitor; (Ca13). (FIG. 2-6; ¶Abstract, ‘A receiver coil array for a magnetic resonance imaging system has multiple receiver coil loops that are decoupled from each the by a decoupling circuit that connects a pair of decoupling capacitors between any two of the receiver coil loops.’; ¶0006, ‘The coupling not only results in noise and affects the received signal, but also may reduce the life span of the receiver coil due to excessive induced current. Therefore, it is necessary to decouple these loop coils. Generally, however, decoupling can be performed only between two loop coils, and it is very difficult to perform decoupling among three or more loop coils.’; ¶0034, ‘decoupling capacitor Ca13 has both ends grounded through the diodes D1, D3 in the detuning circuit of LOOP1, LOOP3.’; ¶0039, ‘There are three pairs of decoupling capacitors connected between the above three receiver coil circuits LOOP1, LOOP2, LOOP3, wherein the decoupling capacitors between LOOP1 and LOOP2 are Cal2 and Cbl2, the decoupling capacitors between LOOP2 and LOOP3 are Ca23 and Cb23, the decoupling capacitors between LOOP1 and LOOP3 are Ca13 and Cb13.’)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798