DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-21 are presented for examination. Claims 22-26 are withdrawn. This office action is in response to the election submitted on 08 - OCT - 2025 . 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. Examiner Note A new Examiner has been assigned to act on the application in response to the restriction election. The case has been transferred from Class 336 INDUCTOR DEVICES to Class 703 DATA PROCESSING: STRUCTURAL DESIGN, MODELING, SIMULATION, AND EMULATION . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim s 5, 8, 11, 14-17, and 20-21 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claims 6 and 7 depend on claim 5 and therefore depends on a multiple dependent claim depending on other multiple dependent claim s inheriting the objection. Claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8 and therefore depends on a multiple dependent claim depending on other multiple dependent claims inheriting the objection. Claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 11 and therefore depends on a multiple dependent claim depending on other multiple dependent claims inheriting the objection. Claims 18 and 19 depend on claim 17 and therefore depends on a multiple dependent claim depending on other multiple dependent claims inheriting the objection. Claims 5-21 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c). Accordingly, the claim s 5-21 not been further treated on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process) Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes, the claim recites a mental process, specifically: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill) “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions.” Further, the MPEP recites “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.” 2106.04(a)(2) (I)(A) “Mathematical Relationships A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.” 2106.04(a)(2) (I)(B) “Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).” 2106.04(a)(2) (I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” A method of designing a magnetic shield comprising a structure enclosing a space, the structure comprising passive magnetic shielding material, and a winding configured to produce a specified magnetic field within the structure when current is passed through the winding, the method comprising: The above are design elements. No details are provided on how these designs are measured or generated. The “ enclosing a space ” exists as an abstract idea where on could visualize the “ space ”. The “ space ” is also represented by a hyperplane as found in [0082] and eqns. 1.64-1.66. The shielding is not specified other than in the context of an equation, as found in [0061] of the specification as published, represented as equations 1.7 and 1.8. The “ configuration ” is discussed on [0094] and does not provide how the “ windings ” are configured, but is based on the results of the previous optimization found in equations fond in paragraphs [0085]-[0092]. The “ magnetic field ” is an equation found in [0068], eqns. 1.22-1.23. determining an optimised configuration of the winding accounting for the presence of the passive magnetic shielding material by implementing one or more boundary conditions at the surface of the passive magnetic shielding material. The introduction of boundary conditions remains an algorithm. [0057] of the specification presents the boundary conditions in equations 1.1-1.2. Therefore, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical algorithm . Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution? There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (in Step 2A Prong 2). The claim is directed to the abstract idea . Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? There are no additional elements, additional to the abstract idea itself, and therefore no additional elements to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (in Step 2B). The claim is ineligible . 2 . The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more boundary conditions require that the magnetic field produced by the winding is zero on a surface of the passive magnetic shielding material. The conditions of “ zero ” when evaluating the “ boundary conditions ” is setting the condition in a mathematical algorithm to zero. This can be see in [0061]. Step 2A Prong 1. 3. The method of claim 1 or of claim 2, wherein accounting for the presence of the passive magnetic shielding material comprises constructing a function, or discrete approximation thereof, for a geometry of the structure, that can be used to solve differential equations relating magnetic field to current density. Claim 3 is multiple dependent, however, in both dependencies, only an abstract idea is found in Step 2A Prong 1. Claim 3 recites “constructing a function ” or “discrete approximation ”. In both alternatives, a mathematical concept is recited. The claim further “ solve differential equations ”. Solving differential equations are mathematical concepts. Step 2A Prong 1. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the function is a Green's function subject to one or more Dirichlet boundary conditions, and further comprising implementing the method of mirror images. The functions of “ Green’s function ” and “ Dirichlet boundary conditions ” are both mathematical concepts. The “ mirror images ” are used when modifying the boundary functions, which are also mathematical concepts. Discussion is found in [0042] of the specification. Step 2A Prong 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 3/1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiebel et al., “Magnetized boxes for housing polarized spins in homogeneous fields” [2010] (hereinafter ‘Hiebel’) . Regarding Claim 1 : A method of designing a magnetic shield comprising Hiebel teaches a structure enclosing a space, the structure comprising passive magnetic shielding material, and (The claim is interpreted in view of [0119] of the specification as published “… passive magnetic shielding material (e.g., Mu-metal® )…” Pg. 41 left col section 2.6 3 rd paragraph Hiebel “… All mu-metal spin box with an inner, field shaping shell and a shielding yoke …”) Hiebel teaches a winding configured to produce a specified magnetic field within the structure when current is passed through the winding, the method comprising: ( Pg. 41 right col 2 nd – 3 rd paragraph and eqn 10 Hiebel “… Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are the most popular standard solutions for generating homogeneous magnetic fields within large volumes, because they are easy to build. Still the field on the axis of the latter, for instance, drops already by 5% on the way from the centre to the planes of the two coils which are separated from each other by a distance equal to the coil radius. At the same aspect ratio, the field of a non-shimmed solenoid drops even faster. But it is known that this drop can be removed by tightly covering the solenoid with flat pole faces from soft-magnetic material which are connected by a yoke as a magnetic short circuit as sketched in Fig. 7 by a longitudinal cross-section. At very high permeability of pole faces and yoke, the loop integral over the field H around the total number N of windings, carrying the current I, is practically reduced to the path along the constant length L in-between the pole faces. From this follows H being constant inside: …”) Hiebel teaches determining an optimised configuration of the winding accounting for the presence of the passive magnetic shielding material by implementing one or more boundary conditions at the surface of the passive magnetic shielding material. (Pg. 39 left col section 2.2. 2 nd paragraph and Fig. 8 Hiebel “…Compensation of field gradients by optimized distribution of permanent field sources The problem of the simple field box described above originates from the unfavorable boundary condition presented by the shell where the steadily continuing tangential H-field produces a magnetic flux at the inner surface which is oriented opposite to the one in the center. In the best case, i.e. l?1, this field just vanishes. Thereby the field is forced to decline rapidly in radial direction unless a much smaller aspect ratio is chosen. This gradient may be compensated in a simple manner by choosing an optimized distribution of permanent field sources: if we split, for instance, the shell in the central plane and place a third permanently magnetized ring into the gap, we introduce a step of magnetic potential also between the two halves of the shell which is bridged inside by magnetic field lines (Fig. 2b). In the neighborhood of the central plane, these additional field lines are aligned parallel to the central field and can compensate its radial decline [21]. In the simulation of Fig. 3bwetherefore added a third, equally magnetized 2.2 mm high ring 4 in the middle of the shell which has been optimized to compensate the leading second order in the central saddle point region …” (Pg. 44 left col 2 nd paragraph 4.1. Simple case of a uniaxial, shielded solenoid “ First we discuss a simple uniaxial solenoid which fits tightly into a box from mu-metal. The transverse cross-section is assumed to be circular, which allows for a fast 2D numerical field simulation using femm 4.0. Since this device may serve as a spin box for storage and transport of hyperpolarized 3He we have chosen the dimensions R ¼ 20 cm, L ¼ 18 cm, similar to those given in Fig. 3. The solenoid is powered by a current density j ¼ N I=L of 400 Ampere windings per meter which yields a magnetic field of B0 = 0.5 mT inside. The mu-metal sheets are 1.5 mm thick, enough to provide excellent shielding and to carry the flux of 0.6 Tcm2 from the solenoid with little stray flux. Fig. 8a shows the simulated magnetic field distribution in a quadrant of the box with a step grading of the false color plot of DB=B0 ¼ 104. The relative field gradient is apparently in the range of 104/cm within the entire box. Thus criterion (4) is met without any shimming …”) Regarding Claim 3 /1 : Hiebel teaches The method of claim 1 or of claim 2 , wherein accounting for the presence of the passive magnetic shielding material comprises Hiebel teaches constructing a function, or discrete approximation thereof, for a geometry of the structure, that can be used to solve differential equations relating magnetic field to current density. ( Pg. 44 right col 3 rd paragraph ad eqn. 14 “… If one aims at a homogeneous field in the close vicinity of the opening as well, one may bend the crossing windings outwards along a chimney from soft-magnetic material, pointing in y-direction as shown in Fig. 9b. In the case of a circular cross-section of the chimney, for example, one generates a longitudinal current density on its inner surface this way which varies along the azimuth as …” Pg. 48 right col Appendix and Eqns. A1-A5 “… Assuming axial symmetry, the gradient term in (2) transforms in cylindrical coordinates to where r is the distance from the central field axis. Using the free field equations, reading now and we can replace the derivatives of the radial field Dr in (A1) by those of Bz and obtain . Any fairly optimized homogeneous magnetic field will show a saddle point of at least second or even higher order in its center which forms a flat central field plateau followed by steeply rising field gradients further out. Hence the term Br/r may be neglected against the radial derivative oBr/or; this yields the first of the two approximations given in (2). Using an NMR probe rather than a vector magnetometer one measures the amount B instead Bz. Still we may write any derivative of B in terms of the derivative of B2, furthermore make use of the assumptions B B0 Bz >> Bx, By and obtain . Hence we may replace Bz by B in the final results (A4) and (2) .) 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. Claims 2/1, 3/2/1, 4/ 3 /1, and 4/3/2/1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiebel et al., “Magnetized boxes for housing polarized spins in homogeneous fields” [2010] (hereinafter ‘Hiebel’) in view of Gutkin et al., “ The method of images and Green’s function for spherical domains ” [2004] (hereinafter ‘Gutkin’) . Regarding Claim 2 : Hiebel teaches The method of claim 1, Hiebel teaches wherein the one or more boundary conditions require that the magnetic field produced by the winding is zero on a surface of the passive magnetic shielding material. (Pg. 48 left col Hiebel 5 th paragraph “… Comparing the homogenizing effect of a parallel magnetized field shaping shell to that of an inner solenoid enclosed in the shielding box, we recognize that both solutions aim at establishing the same boundary condition: At the inner lateral face of the box the magnetic field B out should be constant and parallel to that in the centre …”) Hiebel does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more boundary conditions require … zero However, Gutkin teaches wherein the one or more boundary conditions require … zero (Pg. 11990 2 nd paragraph and equation) Hiebel and Gutkin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, modeling in a design space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wherein the one or more boundary conditions require that the magnetic field produced by the winding is a surface of the passive magnetic shielding material as disclosed by Hiebel by herein the one or more boundary conditions require zero as disclosed by Gutkin . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to define how the system interacts, boundary conditions must be defined. Without boundaries, the model becomes infinite and unstable. The abstract of Gutkin describes implementing domains with Dirichlet and Green “Motivated by problems in electrostatics and vortex dynamics, we develop two general methods for constructing Green’s function for simply connected domains on the surface of the unit sphere. We prove a Riemann mapping theorem showing that such domains can be conformally mapped to the upper hemisphere. We then categorize all domains on the sphere for which Green’s function can be constructed by an extension of the classical method of images. We illustrate our methods by several examples, such as the upper hemisphere, geodesic triangles, and latitudinal rectangles. We describe the point vortex motion in these domains, which is governed by a Hamiltonian determined by the Dirichlet Green’s function…” Regarding Claim 3 /2 : Hiebel and Gutkin teach The method of claim 1 or of claim 2, wherein accounting for the presence of the passive magnetic shielding material comprises Hiebel teaches constructing a function, or discrete approximation thereof, for a geometry of the structure, that can be used to solve differential equations relating magnetic field to current density. ( Pg. 44 right col 3 rd paragraph ad eqn. 14 “… If one aims at a homogeneous field in the close vicinity of the opening as well, one may bend the crossing windings outwards along a chimney from soft-magnetic material, pointing in y-direction as shown in Fig. 9b. In the case of a circular cross-section of the chimney, for example, one generates a longitudinal current density on its inner surface this way which varies along the azimuth as …” Pg. 48 right col Appendix and Eqns. A1-A5 “… Assuming axial symmetry, the gradient term in (2) transforms in cylindrical coordinates to where r is the distance from the central field axis. Using the free field equations, reading now and we can replace the derivatives of the radial field Dr in (A1) by those of Bz and obtain . Any fairly optimized homogeneous magnetic field will show a saddle point of at least second or even higher order in its center which forms a flat central field plateau followed by steeply rising field gradients further out. Hence the term Br/r may be neglected against the radial derivative oBr/or; this yields the first of the two approximations given in (2). Using an NMR probe rather than a vector magnetometer one measures the amount B instead Bz. Still we may write any derivative of B in terms of the derivative of B2, furthermore make use of the assumptions B B0 Bz >> Bx, By and obtain . Hence we may replace Bz by B in the final results (A4) and (2) .) Regarding Claim 4/3/1 : Hiebel and Gutkin teach The method of claim 3, Gutkin teaches wherein the function is a Green's function subject to one or more Dirichlet boundary conditions, and further comprising (Pg. 11990 1 st paragraph Gutkin “… In both contexts, one starts by constructing a Green’s function (also known as Green’s functions of the first and second kinds) for the Dirichlet or Neumann Laplacian in the domain …”) Gutkin teaches implementing the method of mirror images. (Pg. 11996 5 th paragraph Gutkin “… Here, G(ω, ω) describes the influence of the original point charge inside the fundamental region, whereas the terms in the sum correspond to mirror images outside the fundamental region …”) Hiebel and Gutkin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, modeling in a design space. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wherein the one or more boundary conditions require that the magnetic field produced by the winding is a surface of the passive magnetic shielding material as disclosed by Hiebel by herein the one or more boundary conditions require zero as disclosed by Gutkin . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to define how the system interacts, boundary conditions must be defined. Without boundaries, the model becomes infinite and unstable. The abstract of Gutkin describes implementing domains with Dirichlet and Green “Motivated by problems in electrostatics and vortex dynamics, we develop two general methods for constructing Green’s function for simply connected domains on the surface of the unit sphere. We prove a Riemann mapping theorem showing that such domains can be conformally mapped to the upper hemisphere. We then categorize all domains on the sphere for which Green’s function can be constructed by an extension of the classical method of images. We illustrate our methods by several examples, such as the upper hemisphere, geodesic triangles, and latitudinal rectangles. We describe the point vortex motion in these domains, which is governed by a Hamiltonian determined by the Dirichlet Green’s function…” Regarding Claim 4 /3/2/1 : Hiebel and Gutkin teach The method of claim 3, Gutkin teaches wherein the function is a Green's function subject to one or more Dirichlet boundary conditions, and further comprising (Pg. 11990 1 st paragraph Gutkin “… In both contexts, one starts by constructing a Green’s function (also known as Green’s functions of the first and second kinds) for the Dirichlet or Neumann Laplacian in the domain …”) Gutkin teaches implementing the method of mirror images. (Pg. 11996 5 th paragraph Gutkin “… Here, G(ω, ω) describes the influence of the original point charge inside the fundamental region, whereas the terms in the sum correspond to mirror images outside the fundamental region …”) Conclusion Claims 1-4 are rejected. Claims 5-21 are objected to. Claims 22-26 are withdrawn. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4733187 A (D1) and US 20100271026 A1 (D2) have both been denoted as ‘X’ references in the international search report. Examiner finds both of these references to be relevant and supports the finding on in section 1.1 of the written opinion providing a mapping of D1. The opinion dated 10/07/2024 by the EPO cites an additional reference US 2005/0046422 A1 (D3) as evidence the claims lack novelty. If the claims are amended in the same way as found in the related EPO application, the D3 reference will be applied in combination with the other references found in this application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN E JOHANSEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8062 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9AM-3PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Emerson Puente can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712723652 . 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. /JOHN E JOHANSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187