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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, directed to claims 10-21 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the floating resonant radio-frequency traps (Baluns) mounted on its shaft in fig. 13A should be labeled or annotated for clarity of record. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure, applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 should be amended to recite --the coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array being more dense at a distal end of the array than at a proximal end of the array--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 and 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " wherein each element of the four-element coil array ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes, that claim 17 recites “a four-element coil array”. However, claim 18 is currently drafted as depending from claim 16, which does not include “a four-element coil array”. Applicant may amend claim 18 to depend from claim 17 or amend claim 16 to include “a four-element coil array”.
Claim 20 recites “a metallic-braided cable assembly including floating resonant radio-frequency traps (Baluns) mounted on its shaft”. It is unclear what shaft is referenced by the limitation as no prior definitions have been provided for the shaft and what association(s) it has to the elements of the claims including the floating resonant radio-frequency traps, the metallic-braided cable assembly, the device of claim 10, nor any features of the device of claim 10. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being interpreted to mean that the floating traps/baluns and the cable are connected.
Claims 10, 12-13, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opelt, et al., US 6317091 B1 in view of Weber, J., US 20070023424 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Opelt teaches a device for magnetic resonance imaging (see reproduce fig. 4 below depicting apparatus for inductive coupling of a nuclear magnetic resonance signal) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
656
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array (resonant solenoid coil 44 of reproduced fig. 4 above and col. 5 lines 35-40),
a sideways-looking magnetic resonance imaging array (the two resonant saddle coils 46 (reproduced fig. 4 above and col. 5 lines 42-46) and the other pairs of resonant saddle coils 48 (reproduced fig. 4 above and col. 5 lines 49-52)) ,
wherein the sideways-looking magnetic resonance imaging array includes electrically-conductive coils disposed about a base (cylindrical carrier 42 forms a base around which the two saddle resonant solenoid coils 46 and 48 are wound. Col. 5 lines 44-47 state that “The saddle coils 46 are identically fashioned and are arranged opposite one another on the surface of the cylindrical carrier 42. Only the front areas of the conductors of the saddle coil 46 are visible in FIG. 5” and lines 52-53 of col. 5 state that “resonant capacitors and detuning circuits are not shown for the saddle coils 46, 48, but are nevertheless used”, hence indicating that the coils are electrically conductive).
Opelt fails to teach wherein the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array includes a metallic layer and coil windings disposed outside of the metallic layer.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Weber teaches a resonator device of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system ([0014] discloses such MRI systems and [0069] describes such resonator device 400 of reproduced fig. 4 below in intravascular MRI), the resonator 400 of reproduced fig. 4 below comprising an elongate tube 452 including induction coil 402, and conductive film 450 according to [0059], and a first surface 458 and a second surface according to [0060]. The conductive film 450 can be located on at least a portion of the first surface 458 and the second surface 460 according to [0060]. The conductive film 450 is taught to extend longitudinally along the first surface 458 of the elongate tube 450 according to [0062] and the conductive film 450 and the induction coil 402 can be formed from an electrically conducive thin film as positioned on the elongate tube 452 according to [0064]. [0065] then indicates that the conductive film 450 and the induction coil 402 can have a thickness sufficient to conduct the energy through the resonator device 400. In addition, the induction coil 402 and/or the conductive film 450 can be formed of conductive nanoparticles. As used herein, a nanoparticle is a microscopic particle whose size is measured in nanometers. Examples of suitable nanoparticles include those that can be oxidized, including but not limited to gold (Au), hence teaching wherein the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array ([0017] describe amplifying magnetic fields for the magnetic resonance imaging and [0068] describes the resonator being tuned or aligned to the magnetic field of the MRI system, meaning that a direction of the magnetic field of the resonator is the same as the magnetic field direction of the MRI system) includes a metallic layer (conductive film 450) and coil windings (induction coil 402) disposed outside of the metallic layer (see reproduced fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Opelt wherein the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array includes a metallic layer and coil windings disposed outside of the metallic layer, as taught by Weber, in an attempt to reduce artifacts during MRI of vascular regions of interest ([0015-[0016],[0069]]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Opelt also strives to improve signal-to-noise ratio in the imaging region of magnetic resonance imaging (col. 1, lines 26-33 and 39-44).
Regarding claim 12, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt further teaches capacitors disposed within the coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array (In col. 5, lines 40-42 state “The solenoid coil 44 is an embodiment of a dipole coil and has a number of turns. A resonant capacitor, and a detuning circuit, are used but are not shown here”).
Regarding claim 13, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt fails to teach an insulator layer disposed between the metallic layer and the coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array.
However, Weber further teaches an insulator layer disposed between the metallic layer and the coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array by stating in [0059] that “FIG. 4 provides an additional embodiment of the resonator device 400 that includes the induction coil 402, a conductive film 450 positioned adjacent the induction coil 402, and a dielectric layer 440. As illustrated, the dielectric layer 440 can be positioned between at least a portion of the induction coil 402 and the conductive film 450 to form the capacitor structure 408” The dielectric layer 440 forms the insulator layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Opelt to include an insulator layer disposed between the metallic layer and the coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array, as taught by Weber, in an attempt to reduce artifacts during MRI of vascular regions of interest ([0015-[0016],[0069]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Opelt also strives to improve signal-to-noise ratio in the imaging region of magnetic resonance imaging (col. 1, lines 26-33 and 39-44).
Regarding claim 16, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt further teaches wherein the coil windings of the sideways-looking array includes capacitors disposed among the coil windings (col. 5, lines 41-42 state that “A resonant capacitor, and a detuning circuit, are used but are not shown here”).
Regarding claim 17, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt further teaches wherein the sideways-looking magnetic resonance imaging array includes a four-element coil array (the second resonant coil arrangement 46 includes two saddle coils 46 (col. 5, lines 42-46) and the third resonant coil arrangement 48 includes two saddle coils 48 (col. 5, lines 49-52)).
Regarding claim 18, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt further teaches wherein each element of the four-element coil array covers a 90 degree arc (col. 5, lines 49-52 state that “A third resonant coil arrangement likewise has two saddle coils 48 arranged opposite one another on the cylindrical carrier, these being constructed just like the saddle coils 46 but being rotated by 90.degree. relative thereto”).
Regarding claim 19, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt further teaches a matching, tuning, and decoupling circuit (col. 5, lines 30-34 state that “In an embodiment the coils are arranged around a common center and their symmetry axes are perpendicular to one another. The decoupling of the coil arrangements from one another thus achieved exclusively by means of the geometrical arrangement”. In col. 5, lines 40-42 state “The solenoid coil 44 is an embodiment of a dipole coil and has a number of turns. A resonant capacitor, and a detuning circuit, are used but are not shown here” and lines 53-54 state that “For clarity, resonant capacitors and detuning circuits are not shown for the saddle coils 46, 48, but are nevertheless used”).
Regarding claim 21, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt further teaches wherein the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array and the sideways-looking magnetic resonance imaging array are configured for imaging the vagina and cervix (col. 5, lines 55-58 state that “When the catheter 40 with the device for signal intensification is introduced into the body via blood vessels, the blood flowing through the vessels can be employed as an imaging substance in the magnetic resonance tomogram”. The modified catheter 40, which includes all the features, including components, shape and size, of the apparatus of claim 10 as demonstrated above, is configured for intravascular magnetic resonance imaging. This means that the modified catheter as shown in fig. 4, is configured, in components, shape and size, for imaging the vagina and cervix. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opelt, et al., US 6317091 B1 in view of Weber, J., US 20070023424 A1, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Lardo et al. US 6675033 B1.
Regarding claim 11, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt in view of Weber fails to teach the coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array being more dense at a distal end of the array that at a proximal end of the array.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Lardo teaches a system, method, and means for an MRI guidewire that can be visible on an MRI, can act as an antenna and receive MRI signals from surrounding subject matter, and can allow the use of multiple interventional tools without removal of the guidewire from a subject (as described in the abstract), the system comprising a helical whip antenna (fig. 28 has been reproduced below for reference), col. 13, lines 46-48 state that “In addition to altering the diameter of the coils in the helical coil whip antenna 306, the spacing between the coils can also be modified” and lines 53-58 stating that “Alternatively to FIG. 28, the coil spacing could be altered so that the spacing is tighter at the distal end 415 than the proximate end 515, the coil spacing could follow any type of regular change from tighter to looser coils along its length, or the coil spacing could contain coils of random spacing”, and hence teaching coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array being more dense at a distal end of the array that at a proximal end of the array.
PNG
media_image3.png
220
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Opelt, as modified by Weber, the coil windings of the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array being more dense at a distal end of the array that at a proximal end of the array, as taught by Lardo, to “allow the construction of a helical coil whip antenna that has greater electrical length but preserves the desired mechanical properties present in a looser packed coil” with respect to at least flexibility, as taught in Lardo in line 50-53 of col. 13, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Opelt is also tasked with coil arrangements that will improve the signal-to-noise ratio, col. 1, lines 39-44 stating that “The improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio of the inductively coupled, signal-intensifying resonant circuit and of the resonant coil arrangement is dependent on the quality (Q) of the coil arrangement and on the angle of the imaging area of the resonant coil arrangement relative to the basic magnetic field direction”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opelt, et al., US 6317091 B1 in view of Weber, J., US 20070023424 A1, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Viswanathan, R.R., US 20080169811 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt in view of Weber fail to teach wherein the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array takes a generally conical form.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Viswanathan teaches an apparatus is disclosed for Magnetic Resonance Imaging with specialized imaging coils possessing high Signal-to-Noise-Ratios (SNR). Radio Frequency transmitting and/or Radio Frequency receiving elements include carbon nanotube material, a ballistic electrical conductor having a resistance that does not increase significantly with length (see abstract), the apparatus comprising an imaging coil (see reproduced fig. 4 below) and [0072] stating that “FIG. 4 shows an imaging coil embodiment constructed as a generalized conical helical carbon nanotube winding with turns of progressively smaller winding diameter in the portion of the coil closer to the patient. The axial length L of the winding can be as high as about 8 cm; the largest winding diameter is in the range 5 cm-80 cm and the smallest winding diameter can be up to 20 times smaller than the largest winding diameter” and hence teaching wherein the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array takes a generally conical form as required by the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
443
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Opelt, as modified by Weber, wherein the forward-looking magnetic resonance imaging array takes a generally conical form, as taught by Viswanathan, to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the system ([0072], abstract), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Opelt is also tasked with coil arrangements that will improve the signal-to-noise ratio, col. 1, lines 39-44 stating that “The improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio of the inductively coupled, signal-intensifying resonant circuit and of the resonant coil arrangement is dependent on the quality (Q) of the coil arrangement and on the angle of the imaging area of the resonant coil arrangement relative to the basic magnetic field direction”.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opelt, et al., US 6317091 B1 in view of Weber, J., US 20070023424 A1, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Sasada, I., US 20140327434 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt in view of Weber fail to teach wherein the coil windings of the sideways-looking array are disposed around a plastic cylinder.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sasada teaches a magnetic field sensor with which it is possible to simultaneously operate a DC flux gate magnetometer 10 and a search coil magnetometer 20, a sensor is miniaturized by the DC flux gate magnetometer and the search coil magnetometer being positioned close to one another (see abstract and depicted in reproduced fig. 2A below and [0046]), the sensor head includes a second sensor head 24 which is composed of a core 21 [0039]. [0040] further clarifies that “The second sensor head 24 of the search-coil magnetometer 20 according to the embodiment of the present invention has been prepared by winding a magnetic tape having a width of 50 mm around a pipe formed of plastic material having an outer diameter of 10 mm by several turns into a cylindrical shape (the second magnetic core 21) to obtain a core as the second magnetic core 21”. The pipe formed of plastic material is equivalent to the claimed plastic cylinder.
PNG
media_image5.png
240
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Opelt, as modified by Weber, wherein the coil windings of the sideways-looking array are disposed around a plastic cylinder, as taught by Sasada, as such modification would improve the signal-to-noise ration of the system ([0004], [0094]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Opelt is also tasked with coil arrangements that will improve the signal-to-noise ratio, col. 1, lines 39-44 stating that “The improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio of the inductively coupled, signal-intensifying resonant circuit and of the resonant coil arrangement is dependent on the quality (Q) of the coil arrangement and on the angle of the imaging area of the resonant coil arrangement relative to the basic magnetic field direction”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opelt, et al., US 6317091 B1 in view of Weber, J., US 20070023424 A1, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Seeber, D., US 20030209354 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Opelt in view of Weber teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Opelt in view of Weber fails to teach a metallic-braided cable assembly including floating resonant radio-frequency traps (Baluns) mounted on its shaft.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Seeber teaches a shield current trap 10 (see reproduced figs. 1 and 2 below) including a tubular inner portion 12 having a central lumen 14 receiving one or more coaxial cables 16 of conventional design [0037], for use in MRI machine [0038]. The trap is an improved floating shield current trap that provides a simple tuning mechanism so that the trap may be used with different machines according [0009]. [0037] further discloses that the size of the central lumen 14 may be varied depending on how many cables are to be accepted. Each coaxial cable, known in the prior art, includes an outer insulating sheath 18 fitting around a braided, rigid, or similar shield 20 covering an insulator 22 having a central signal-carrying conductor 24. The coaxial cables 16 are shown attached to the trap 10.
PNG
media_image6.png
364
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Opelt, as modified by Weber, with a metallic-braided cable assembly including floating resonant radio-frequency traps (Baluns) mounted on its shaft, as taught by Seeber, as such modification would reduce noise from different sources ([0003]-[0004]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Opelt also strives to improve signal-to-noise ratio in the imaging region of magnetic resonance imaging (col. 1, lines 26-33 and 39-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797