DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “the passage forming member” in line 2. It should recite “a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members”.
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 1-15 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 1 recites “wherein each of the discrete members protrude from the outer side surface toward the patient”. The direction that the members protrude is define based on the location of the subject, which is variable. It is therefore not clear how the discrete members protrude. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the discrete members protruding towards the patient when the flexible when the receive coil unit is mounted on subject and it is being used.
Claim 9 recites “wherein each of the plurality of heat generation sources is connected to each of a plurality of coil elements”. It is not clear if each one of the heat sources is connected to each of the plurality of coil elements (i.e. all of them), or if the different heat sources are connected to different subset of the coil elements. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of the heat generation sources” in line 6. It is not clear if this is referring to the plurality of heat generation sources set forth above, or if this is setting forth a different plurality of the heat generation sources. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 11 recites "the outer side surface" in line 3. It is not clear if this is referring to the "outer side surface that comes in contact with the subject" in claim 1, or if this is referring to any of the outer side surfaces. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 15 recites “wherein each of the discrete members protrude from the outer side surface toward the patient”. The direction that the members protrude is define based on the location of the subject, which is variable. It is therefore not clear how the discrete members protrude. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the discrete members protruding towards the patient when the flexible when the receive coil unit is mounted on subject and it is being used.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the receive coil unit" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to the coil cover.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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 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, 4-7, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (U.S PGPub 2013/0137969 A1) in view of Henderson et al. (U.S Patent 5,594,339).
Regarding Claim 1, Jones teaches a receive coil unit (Abstract) [0004] comprising:
a coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0055] that is configured to receive a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject [0004]+[0055]+[0057];
a flexible coil cover (Fig. 5A, 1B) that covers a periphery of the coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0072]; and
a plurality of passage forming members (Fig. 5A, 116) disposed on an outer side surface of the coil cover that is configured to contact with the subject [0072] (grooves are in both layers, and would therefore be on the layer that would contact the patient), the plurality of passage forming members forming a first passage extending in a first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extend in x-direction) and a second passage extending in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extends in z-direction) between the subject and the coil cover (as the grooves are both sides of the cover, they would be present between the subject and the coil cover (the layer of the cover which makes up the groove) [0072] and wherein each of the discrete members protrudes from the outer side surface toward the subject [0072] (grooves are in both layers, and would therefore be on the layer that would contact the patient) (as each of the non-grooved regions are separated by grooves, they are discrete regions) and, when the receive coil unit is mounted on the subject, spaces the outer side surface of the coil cover apart from the subject to define the first passage and the second passage (Fig. 5A, 115) [0072] (when the system is mounted on the patient, the passage forming members would define the first and second passages).
Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of passage forming members comprise discrete members disposed on top of the outer side surface of the coil cover.
Henderson teaches a resonance coil (Abstract). This coil member has a coil cover (Fig. 3, 44) which contains a plurality of discrete members (Fig. 3, 44+46) disposed on tope of the outer side surface of the coil cover (the discrete members (trestle shape portion) are on top of the flat portion of the coil cover. Therefore, they are considered on top of the outer side surface as they are attached to the flat portion, and protrude out from the flat portion) (Col 4-5, lines 59-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Jones to have the passage forming members on the outer side surface, as taught by Henderson, because this provides improved patient comfort while maintain adequate performance and reliability, as taught by Henderson (Col 2, lines 61-65).
Regarding Claim 2, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members is formed of one material or a combination of two or more materials selected from the group consisting of a non-magnetic metal, a resin, a closed-cell material, and rubber [0072] (passage forming member is made of one material (EVA foam) which is a closed-cell material).
Regarding Claim 4, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members is configured to be deformable (Fig. 5A, 116) [0072] (the EVA foam can bend, and be deformed).
Regarding Claim 5, Jones teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members is formed of two or more types of members having different shapes.
Henderson teaches a receiving coil for nuclear magnetic resonance (Abstract). This system has a cover (Fig. 3, 44) which has passage forming members (the indents in the cover) formed of two or more types of members having different shapes (the top of the indent is a member that is flat with a curved end, the side member is a rectangle) (Col 4-5, lines 59-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to have the passage forming member made of two types of members having different shapes, as taught by Henderson, because this provides improved patient comfort while maintain adequate performance and reliability, as taught by Henderson (Col 2, lines 61-65).
Regarding Claim 6, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members has a shape in which a groove is formed on a subject side (Fig. 5B, the circular groove can be considered as defining a passage forming member, and the grooves inside the circular groove is a groove on the passage forming member) [0075].
Regarding Claim 7, Jones teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members has a hollow structure [0072] (non-grooved regions are hollowed out).
Regarding Claim 10, Jones teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones further teaches wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members is formed of a heat insulating member [0072] (EVA foam can act as a heat insulating member, as it provide a level of heat resistance).
Regarding Claim 14, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches a medical image diagnostic system (Abstract) comprising: the receive coil unit according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above); and a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus that processes the nuclear magnetic resonance signal received by the receive coil unit [0065]+[0009].
Regarding Claim 15, Jones teaches a coil cover (Fig. 5A, 1B) that covers a periphery of a coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0055]+ [0072] which is configured to receive a nuclear magnetic resonance signal of a subject [0004]+[0055]+[0057], the coil cover comprising:
a plurality of passage forming members (Fig. 5A, 116) disposed on an outer side surface of the coil cover that is configured to contact with the subject [0072] (grooves are in both layers, and would therefore be on the layer that would contact the patient), the plurality of passage forming members forming a first passage extending in a first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extend in x-direction) and a second passage extending in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 5A, 115) (groove which extends in z-direction) between the subject and the coil cover (as the grooves are both sides of the cover, they would be present between the subject and the coil cover (the layer of the cover which makes up the groove) [0072] and wherein each of the discrete members protrudes from the outer side surface toward the subject [0072] (grooves are in both layers, and would therefore be on the layer that would contact the patient) (as each of the non-grooved regions are separated by grooves, they are discrete regions) and, when the receive coil unit is mounted on the subject, spaces the outer side surface of the coil cover apart from the subject to define the first passage and the second passage (Fig. 5A, 115) [0072] (when the system is mounted on the patient, the passage forming members would define the first and second passages).
Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of passage forming members comprise discrete members disposed on top of the outer side surface of the coil cover.
Henderson teaches a resonance coil (Abstract). This coil member has a coil cover (Fig. 3, 44) which contains a plurality of discrete members (Fig. 3, 44+46) disposed on top of the outer side surface of the coil cover (the discrete members (trestle shape portion) are on top of the flat portion of the coil cover. Therefore, they are considered on top of the outer side surface as they are attached to the flat portion, and protrude out from the flat portion) (Col 4-5, lines 59-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Jones to have the passage forming members on the outer side surface, as taught by Henderson, because this provides improved patient comfort while maintain adequate performance and reliability, as taught by Henderson (Col 2, lines 61-65).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Henderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siemens (DE202023101763U1).
Regarding Claim 3, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members has a plate-like shape.
Siemens teaches a cover for a local coil [0001]. This coil cover has grooves which separate the cover into rectangular non-groove portions (Fig. 7, 21 separates the cover into rectangular non-groove portions) (which is a plate like shape, as a plate can be rectangular) [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the groove configuration of Jones with a grid-like structure, as taught by Siemens, as the substitution for one known groove configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a grid-like groove configuration are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein the passage forming member has a plate-like shape.
Siemens teaches a cover for a local coil [0001]. This coil cover has grooves which separate the cover into rectangular non-groove portions arranged as a lattice (Fig. 7, 21 separates the cover into rectangular non-groove portions) [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the groove configuration of Jones with a grid-like structure, as taught by Siemens, as the substitution for one known groove configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a grid-like groove configuration are reasonably predictable.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Henderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii et al. (U.S PGPub 2008/0100297 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches a circuit (Fig. 2, 22+30+40) connect to the coil element (Fig. 2, 21) [0055]+[0058], wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members is disposed at a position corresponding to the circuit [0072] (the circuitry is located in the non-grooved regions).
Jones fails to explicitly teach the circuitry is a heat generation source.
Ishii teaches an magnetic resonance coil system (Abstract). This system recognizes the coil circuitry generates heat [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the circuitry of Ishii with circuitry which generates heat, as taught by Jones, as the substitution for one known circuitry with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of circuitry which generates heat are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones further teaches a circuit (Fig. 2, 22+30+40), wherein each of the plurality of circuitry connected to each of a plurality of the coil elements (Fig. 2, 21) [0055]+[0058], wherein a passage forming member of the plurality of passage forming members is disposed at a position corresponding to one of a plurality of the circuits [0072] (the circuitry is located in the non-grooved regions).
Jones fails to explicitly teach the circuitry is a plurality of heat generation sources.
Ishii teaches an magnetic resonance coil system (Abstract). This system recognizes the coil circuitry generates heat [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the circuitry of Ishii with circuitry which generates heat, as taught by Jones, as the substitution for one known circuitry with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of circuitry which generates heat are reasonably predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Henderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (U.S PGPub 2021/0055362 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Jones teaches the invention as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teach a spacer provided between the passage forming member and the outer side surface of the coil cover.
Feng teaches an coil unit (Abstract). This unit uses spacing members in the coil unit [0046] (The spacer would is between one side of the coil cover and the other, opposite side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Jones to use a spacer between the passage forming member and the outer side surface of the coil cover, as taught by Feng, because it increases patient comfort, as recognized by Feng [0046].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Henderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwasawa et al. (U.S PGPub 2019/0383891 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Jones fails to explicitly teaches wherein the coil cover has a bag shape.
Iwasawa teaches an array coil for imaging (Abstract). This system has a coil cover with a bag shape [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shape of the coil cover of Jones with a bag shape, as taught by Iwasawa, as the substitution for one known shape of the coil cover with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a bag-shaped coil cover are reasonably predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 11 contains no error, and that it is clear the outer side surface is the same outer side surface of claim 1. The Examiner disagrees. The outer side surface is an inherent feature of the coil cover. It is not clear whether the “outer side surface” refers only to the portion of the outer side surface where the passage forming members are located, or if it is referring to the entire outer side surface of the coil cover (that can, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, extend around a coil element). Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the outer side surface is not interpreted as limited to the portion of the surface where the passage forming members are located.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims are now rejected under a combination of Jones and Henderson.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights