DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
With respect to claims 2 and 12, the applicant argues that the term "majority of superconductors" means that the main superconducting coils contain more than half of the total superconducting material in the main field coil assembly. This argument is persuasive. The claims will be examined in view of this definition.
With respect to claim 1 and 11, the applicant argues that the prior art device does not teach the newly added limitation of “…a cylindrical gradient coil assembly without an active shielding layer…”. This argument is not persuasive because Gore does not disclose an active shielding layer. The applicant provides no argument that points to Gore having an active shielding layer. In fact, the applicant suggests in the arguments that Gore does not have shielding layers by arguing that: “Gore shows gradient coils 21 only abstractly as a rectangle in Figure 1, without disclosing any details regarding shielding layers.”.
The applicant argues that: “Further, Gore does not disclose or suggest any conductors or windings of the gradient coil, including main conductor segments and return conductor segments as recited by dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 13-15. The Office alleges that these features are inherent in Gore's gradient coils, but Gore provides no disclosure of the internal winding structure of its gradient coils.” This argument is not persuasive because Gore clearly discloses the claimed windings (see lines 10-12 of column 2 disclosing windings, and figure 1 showing the arrangement of the windings around a central turning point). It is inherent for an electromagnet coil to have windings, because having windings is what makes a coil, and how an electromagnet coil is defined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gore et al. (US 5812043).
In re claim 1, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, comprising: a superconducting main field coil assembly inside a vacuum vessel of a cryogenic assembly, the vacuum vessel (15) defining a cylindric patient bore (18) in which a homogeneity volume of a main field created by the superconducting main field coil assembly is located, wherein the superconducting main field coil assembly includes multiple superconducting coils including at least two main superconducting coils (2-3,5-6) located in opposing longitudinal end regions of the cryogenic assembly; and a cylindrical gradient coil assembly without an active shielding layer (there is no active shielding layer disclosed), the cylindrical gradient coil assembly having at least one transversal gradient coil (21) and being located inside the cylindric patient bore, the at least one transversal gradient coil being configured to generate a gradient field perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the patient bore (the gradient field extends in all directions due to the gradient coil having a cylindrical shape), wherein conductors of the at least one transversal gradient coil of the gradient coil assembly only extend in a longitudinal conductor region between the two longitudinal end regions (as shown in figure 1).
In re claim 2, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses that the at least two main superconducting coils in the longitudinal end regions comprise a majority of superconductors of the main field coil assembly (coils 2-3 and 5-6 in the longitudinal end regions as shown in figure 1 comprise a majority of superconductors).
In re claims 3 and 9, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses that the conductors of the at least one transversal gradient coil comprise windings around a central turning point in a longitudinal-circumferential plane (inherent to the shown winding), the windings including main conductor segments located on a first longitudinal side of the main turning point towards the homogeneity volume and return conductor segments on a second longitudinal side of the main turning point away from the homogeneity volume (this is inherent to a cylindrical coil in the same way as shown by the applicant), wherein a conductor density of the return conductor segments is at least 90% of a conductor density of the main conductor segments in the longitudinal direction (since the number of return segments and the main segments is approximately equal, the density is also more than 90% and is approximately 100%; this is inherent to a coil that is wound around a central turning point as shown in the figures, to create a uniform field).
In re claim 4 and 10, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses that a longitudinal extension of an arrangement of the return conductor segments is equal to or less than a longitudinal extension of an arrangement of the main conductor segments (the extension is approximately equal, as shown in figure 1, and in the same way as disclosed by the applicant).
In re claim 11, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, comprising: a superconducting main field coil assembly surrounding a patient bore (18) in which a homogeneity volume of a main field created by the superconducting main field coil assembly is located, the superconducting main field coil assembly including at least two main superconducting coils (2-3,5-6) located in opposing longitudinal end regions; and a gradient coil assembly without an active shielding layer (there is no active shielding layer disclosed), the gradient coil assembly having at least one transversal gradient coil (21) and being located inside the patient bore, the at least one transversal gradient coil being configured to generate a gradient field perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the patient bore, wherein conductors of the at least one transversal gradient coil extend only in a region between the two longitudinal end regions (as shown in figure 1).
In re claim 12, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses that the at least two main superconducting coils in the longitudinal end regions comprise a majority of superconductors of the main field coil assembly (coils 2-3 and 5-6 in the longitudinal end regions as shown in figure 1 comprise a majority of superconductors).
In re claims 13-14, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses that the conductors of the at least one transversal gradient coil comprise windings around a central turning point in a longitudinal-circumferential plane (inherent to the shown winding), the windings including main conductor segments located on a first longitudinal side of the main turning point towards the homogeneity volume and return conductor segments on a second longitudinal side of the main turning point away from the homogeneity volume (this is inherent to a cylindrical coil in the same way as shown by the applicant), wherein a conductor density of the return conductor segments is at least 90% of a conductor density of the main conductor segments in the longitudinal direction (since the number of return segments and the main segments is approximately equal, the density is also more than 90% and is approximately 100%; this is inherent to a coil that is wound around a central turning point as shown in the figures, to create a uniform field).
In re claim 15, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses that a longitudinal extension of an arrangement of the return conductor segments is equal to or less than a longitudinal extension of an arrangement of the main conductor segments (as shown in figure 1, and in the same way as disclosed by the applicant).
In re claim 16, Gore, in figures 1-2, discloses that the cylindrical gradient coil assembly is radially adjacent to the cryogenic assembly (as seen in figure 1, in the same way as disclosed by the applicant since the cryogenic assembly and the gradient coil positioning is the same in Gore and in the disclosed invention).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et al. (US 5812043).
In re claim 5, Gore discloses the claimed device except for the length of the gradient coil. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the length of the gradient coil less than 1.2m since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The gradient coil shown in figure 1 appears to be significantly shorter than a patient and thus appears to meet the claim limitations. Please note that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, and it appears that other lengths can also be used in the device.
In re claim 6, Gore discloses the claimed device except for the specific wire dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the width of the wire less than 3mm and cross sectional area less than the claimed area since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. It appears that other widths can also be used in the device.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gore et al. (US 5812043) in view of Citver et al. (US 2011/0136671).
In re claims 7-8, Gore teaches the claimed device but does not explicitly discuss an amplifier or the output current. Citver however, shows a similar device having gradient coils with amplifiers (42). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used amplifiers as taught by Citver to drive gradient coils of Gore to provide appropriate current to the gradient coils. With respect to the current values being over 1000A. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an amplifier capable of providing more than 1000A since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 10, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights