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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/13/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species A, there being no allowable generic or
linking claim. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on
09/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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 14 and 18-20 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.
As to claim 14, the claim recite the limitation “spaced apart from the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil in the second coil group” (lines 2-3). However, claim 14’s parent claims are 12, 4, and 1. None of the parents claims introduce a “third loop coil” or a “fourth loop coil”. Therefore, claim 14 is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis. A possible correction would have claim 14 depend on claim 13 where the “third loop coil” and “fourth loop coil” are introduced. For the purposes of examination and the prior art rejection set forth below, the Examiner has interpreted claim 14 as depending from claim 13.
As to claims 18 and 20, the claims are drafted as independent claims but improperly incorporate limitations from other claims by reference by reciting: “comprising the magnetic resonance coil of claim 1” (claim 18, lines 1-2) and “comprising the coil assembly of claim 18” (claim 12, line 1), respectively. Incorporating limitations from other claims by reference within an independent claim blurs the line between independent and dependent claims, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. If the Applicant intends to include these limitations, they must be explicitly recited within the body of the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vernickel et al. (hereinafter, “Vernickel”; US 20180364319).
With regards to claim 1, Vernickel teaches a magnetic resonance coil for receiving a magnetic resonance signal of a to-be-scanned object (receiving coil 16; [0031]; fig. 1), comprising:
a first coil group comprising at least two coils arranged in a first direction (multiple coils arranged in a two-dimensional pattern of a square or rectangular grid; [0014]; coils arranged along the first principal axis 101-1; [0025]; fig. 1); and
a second coil group comprising at least two coils arranged in a second direction (coils arranged along the second principal axis 101-2; [0025]; fig. 1);
wherein the first coil group and the second coil group are arranged to overlap (two-dimensional pattern that is spanned by a first and a second principal axis; [0014]; fig. 1), and each two adjacent coils in the first coil group and in the second coil group are arranged to be decoupled (decoupling of RF coil elements includes geometrical overlap of adjacent coils; [0013]; [0025]; fig. 1).
With regards to claim 2, Vernickel teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 1. Vernickel further teaches wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (the first principal axes are at right angles to the second principal axes; [0025]; fig. 1).
With regards to claim 3, Vernickel teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 1. Vernickel further teaches wherein the first coil group and the second coil group are arranged to overlap in a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction (Examiner’s Note on Inherency: While Vernickel does not explicitly use the words “overlap in a third direction”, this limitation is inherently present in the disclosed device. Under MPEP 2112, a reference anticipates a claim if a missing limitation is the natural result flowing form the explicit disclosure of the prior art, such that it is necessarily present. Vernickel explicitly discloses an array of separate, functional RF coils arranged along a first principal axis (X-axis) and a perpendicular second principal axis (Y-axis), wherein the adjacent coils have a geometrical overlap with each other ([0025]; fig .1). For separate electrical conductor loops to geometrically overlap each other in an X-Y plane without physically merging and short-circuiting, the traces must necessarily cross over and under one another in the depth or thickness dimension (Z-axis). Because the Z-axis is strictly perpendicular to both the X-axis and Y-axis, this inherent stacking constitutes overlapping in a third direction that is perpendicular to both the first and second directions. Therefore, this structural limitation is a necessary and inherent physical characteristic of the overlapping planar coil array taught by Vernickel.).
With regards to claim 4, Vernickel teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 1. Vernickel further teaches wherein in the first coil group, the at least two coils arranged in the first direction comprises a first loop coil and a second loop coil; the first loop coil and the second loop coil have a first overlap region (geometrical overlap 105 between coils along the first principal axes 101-1; [0025]).
With regards to claim 12, Vernickel teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 4. Vernickel further teaches wherein each two adjacent coils in the second coil group overlap (geometrical overlap 107 between coils along the second principal axes 101-2).
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vernickel et al. (hereinafter, “Vernickel”; US 20180364319) in view of Okamoto et al. (hereinafter, “Okamoto”; US 20060267586).
With regards to claim 13, Vernickel teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 12. Vernickel further teaches wherein in the second coil group, the at least two coils arranged in the second direction comprises a third loop coil and a fourth loop coil; and a second overlap region is formed between the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil (geometrical overlap 107 between the coils along the second principal axis 101-2; [0025]; fig. 1).
Vernickel does not teach the second overlap region comprises a first sub-region of second overlap region and a second sub-region of second overlap region; and the first sub-region of second overlap region and the second sub-region of second overlap region are both away from a center of an area where the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil are arranged.
However, Okamoto teaches the second overlap region comprises a first sub-region of second overlap region and a second sub-region of second overlap region; and the first sub-region of second overlap region and the second sub-region of second overlap region are both away from a center of an area where the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil are arranged (an arrangement for decoupling coils where only the loops at both of the outer side in a direction perpendicular to the body axis direction overlap with each other by a suitable width; [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the overlapping coil array of Vernickel to incorporate the teaching of Okamoto wherein the second overlap region comprises a first sub-region of second overlap region and a second sub-region of second overlap region; and the first sub-region of second overlap region and the second sub-region of second overlap region are both away from a center of an area where the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil are arranged to insure the magnetic flux linked between the coils can be zero, so that the decoupling can be obtained and simultaneously keeping the central field-of-view of the coils unobstructed to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the imaging center ([0093], [0095] Okamoto).
With regards to claim 14, Vernickel as modified teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 13 (As set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, the Examiner has interpreted claim 14 to depend on claim 13.). Okamoto further teaches wherein the first overlap region of the first loop coil and the second loop coil is spaced apart from the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil in the second coil group (adjacent coils are decoupled by utilizing an overlap region split into distinct sub-regions located at the outer edges of the coils; [0114]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the overlapping coil array of Vernickel to incorporate the teaching of Okamoto wherein the first overlap region of the first loop coil and the second loop coil is spaced apart from the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil in the second coil group to ensure the magnetic flux linked between the coils can be zero, so that the decoupling can be obtained ([0114] Okamoto).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vernickel et al. (hereinafter, “Vernickel”; US 20180364319) in view of Okamoto et al. (hereinafter, “Okamoto”; US 20060267586) and further in view of Yang et al. (hereinafter, “Yang”; CN 112114282).
With regards to claim 15, Vernickel as modified teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 13. Vernickel as modified does not teach wherein an area of the first loop coil is equal to an area of the second loop coil; an area of the third loop coil is equal to an area of the fourth loop coil; and an area of the first sub-region of second overlap region is equal to an area of the second sub-region of second overlap region.
However, Yang teaches utilizing coils wherein the adjacent coils have the same shape and size ([0062]) and further teaches the coils and their overlapping areas are arranged symmetrically ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the overlapping coil array of Vernickel as modified to incorporate the teachings of Yang wherein an area of the first loop coil is equal to an area of the second loop coil; an area of the third loop coil is equal to an area of the fourth loop coil; and an area of the first sub-region of second overlap region is equal to an area of the second sub-region of second overlap region to ensure the coupling between the two units cancels each other out, and ideally no coupling will occur ([0012] Yang). Furthermore, this is merely a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
With regards to claim 16, Vernickel as modified teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 13. Vernickel as modified does not teach wherein the first loop coil and the second loop coil are symmetrically arranged with respect to an axis parallel to the second direction, and the first loop coil is symmetrical with respect to a symmetry axis; the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil are symmetrically arranged with respect to the symmetry axis, and the third loop coil is symmetrical with respect to the axis parallel to the second direction; and the first overlap region is symmetrically arranged with respect to the symmetry axis; and the symmetry axis is parallel to the first direction.
However, Yang teaches a highly symmetrical coil arrangement wherein any two adjacent orthogonal coils can be centered and arranged such that their overlapping areas extend along the orthogonal and parallel axes ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the overlapping coil array of Vernickel as modified to incorporate the teachings of Yang wherein the first loop coil and the second loop coil are symmetrically arranged with respect to an axis parallel to the second direction, and the first loop coil is symmetrical with respect to a symmetry axis; the third loop coil and the fourth loop coil are symmetrically arranged with respect to the symmetry axis, and the third loop coil is symmetrical with respect to the axis parallel to the second direction; and the first overlap region is symmetrically arranged with respect to the symmetry axis; and the symmetry axis is parallel to the first direction to ensure the coupling between the two units cancels each other out, and ideally no coupling will occur ([0012] Yang). Furthermore, this is merely a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
With regards to claim 17, Vernickel as modified teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 13. Vernickel as modified does not teach wherein an area of the third loop coil is equal to an area of the fourth loop coil; a third overlap region is formed between the first loop coil in the first coil group and the third loop coil in the second coil group; a fourth overlap region is formed between the first loop coil in the first coil group and the fourth loop coil in the second coil group; an area of the third overlap region and an area of the fourth overlap region are equal; or an area of the third loop coil is equal to an area of the fourth loop coil; the second loop coil in the first coil group and the third loop coil in the second coil group form a fifth overlap region; the second loop coil in the first coil group and the fourth loop coil in the second coil group form a sixth overlap region; and an area of the fifth overlap region is equal to an area of the sixth overlap region.
However, Yang teaches utilizing coils wherein the adjacent coils have the same shape and size ([0062]). Yang further teaches that partial overlap is the preferred decoupling method over adding auxiliary decoupling circuits ([0033]) and overlapping orthogonal coil elements in a centered, symmetrical relationship ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the overlapping coil array of Vernickel as modified to incorporate the teachings of Yang wherein an area of the third loop coil is equal to an area of the fourth loop coil; a third overlap region is formed between the first loop coil in the first coil group and the third loop coil in the second coil group; a fourth overlap region is formed between the first loop coil in the first coil group and the fourth loop coil in the second coil group; an area of the third overlap region and an area of the fourth overlap region are equal; or an area of the third loop coil is equal to an area of the fourth loop coil; the second loop coil in the first coil group and the third loop coil in the second coil group form a fifth overlap region; the second loop coil in the first coil group and the fourth loop coil in the second coil group form a sixth overlap region; and an area of the fifth overlap region is equal to an area of the sixth overlap region to ensure the coupling between the two units cancels each other out, and ideally no coupling will occur ([0012] Yang). Furthermore, this is merely a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vernickel et al. (hereinafter, “Vernickel”; US 20180364319) in view of Yan (US 20210190889).
With regards to claim 18, Vernickel teaches the magnetic resonance coil of claim 1. Vernickel does not teach a coil assembly used for a magnetic resonance device comprising a housing, and a substrate, wherein the substrate is a flexible substrate, and at least part of the magnetic resonance coil is printed on the substrate; and the substrate is arranged on the housing to allow the first direction of the magnetic resonance coil to be parallel to a length direction of the housing, wherein the length direction of the housing is a direction in which the to-be-scanned object is moved into a scanning cavity of the magnetic resonance device.
However, Yan teaches a coil assembly used for a magnetic resonance device (RF coil array for MRI; [0024]) comprising a housing (an acrylic tube; [0067]), and a substrate (substrate material; [0051]-[0052]), wherein
The substrate is a flexible substrate (the substrate material may be flexible so that the substrate may be curved; [0052]), and at least part of the magnetic resonance coil is printed on the substrate (circuit etching techniques may be used to fabricate coil array elements onto the surfaces of the substrate; [0051]); and
the substrate is arranged on the housing to allow the first direction of the magnetic resonance coil to be parallel to a length direction of the housing (the loops are mounted on an acrylic tube; [0067]), wherein the length direction of the housing is a direction in which the to-be-scanned object is moved into a scanning cavity of the magnetic resonance device (a cylindrical phantom or subject is placed inside the tube for operation in the MRI system; [0067], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magnetic resonance coil of Vernickel to incorporate the teachings of Yan wherein comprising a coil assembly used for a magnetic resonance device comprising a housing, and a substrate, wherein the substrate is a flexible substrate, and at least part of the magnetic resonance coil is printed on the substrate; and the substrate is arranged on the housing to allow the first direction of the magnetic resonance coil to be parallel to a length direction of the housing, wherein the length direction of the housing is a direction in which the to-be-scanned object is moved into a scanning cavity of the magnetic resonance device to ensure the RF energy transmitted or received is substantially homogenous throughout the volume being imaged ([0045] Yan).
With regards to claim 19, Vernickel teaches the coil assembly of claim 18, wherein a shape of the housing comprises any one of a cylindrical shape, a semi-cylindrical shape, and a flat plate shape (an acrylic tube, which is a cylindrical shape; [0067]), and the substrate is fixed on the housing (the loops are mounted on an acrylic tube; [0067]).
With regards to claim 20, Vernickel teaches a magnetic resonance device (MRI system; [0024]), comprising the coil assembly of claim 18 (RF coil array; 0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/NEEL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights