DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 8.4.25. In view of this communication, claims 1-3,6-8,11-12 are now pending in this application. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include previous claim 4 and claim 4 is canceled.
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 Invention Group I : Claims 1-4,6-8,11-12 in the reply filed on 8.4.25 is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1 by combining with claim 4.
Applicant Argument 1: The Applicant has amended independent claim 1 by combining with claim 4 and argued that “Please note that MRI compatibility and “low-conducting material that does not radiate electromagnetic noise” are not synonymous. For example, axles formed of MRI compatible materials such as in Wendt may be suitable for use in an MRI environment, but would also introduce noise into MRI images if used during image acquisition”.
Examiner Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees to the extent that if instant “low-conducting material” is same or equivalent to material disclosed in Wendt, then it would be inherent in Wendt material to not radiate electromagnetic noise. Instant specification Page 16, Line 2-4 which is standard for “low-conducting material” specifically “ polymer, carbon fiber, titanium, FR4 Garolite, fiberglass” are substantially equivalent to Wendt claim 14 materials “PA, POM, PTFE, PMMA, PEEK, plastic compounds or fiber composites, such as E.g. GRP, CFRP” with respect to electric conductivity as they are not or minimally electrically conductive. If Applicant intends any specific structure with respect to argument “during image acquisition”, those would need to be recited in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “a low-conducting material that does not radiate electromagnetic noise” in claim 1. Examiner will prosecute these limitations using Specification Page 16, Line 2-4 as the standard for “a low-conducting material”.
Claim 6 recites “a high field magnet”. The closest standard Examiner could find in instant specification is Para 0061 “ The terms “high magnetic field” or “strong magnetic field” are intended to include magnetic fields of greater than approximately 0.1 Tesla (T), in some cases from 2-10 T, and in some cases greater than about 20 T which Examiner will use as the as the standard.
Claim 7 recites “a superconducting magnet”. The closest standard Examiner could find in instant specification is Para 0071 “ The motor concept is designed to utilize an external high magnetic field, such as the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet of an MRI scanner which obviates the need for permanent magnets. Since the magnetic field is homogeneous, strong (1.5-3T for standard clinical systems), and extends well beyond…” which Examiner will use as the as the standard.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
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.
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 1-3, 8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt (DE29914116U1 English translation) in view of Roeck (US20100264918A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wendt discloses (Figs 1-2) a mechanically commutated motor (1) configured for use with an external magnetic field (Bo), comprising:
an axle (2,8) comprising a non-magnetic material [0025 discloses system components which includes axle from materials that have low magnetic susceptibility and examples are provided in claim 14 which are non-magnetic], wherein the axle is comprised of a low-conducting material (Claim 14 discloses plastics which are low-conductive as per standard defined in Claim interpretation) that does not radiate electromagnetic noise (plastics will inherently not radiate electromagnetic noise) from the mechanically commutated motor;
a rotor (3) coupled to the axle, the rotor comprising:
actuator units (Claim 6 discloses several winding packages) spaced about the axle, wherein each actuator unit comprises a non-magnetic material [0025, claim 14];
a coil winding (Claim 5) along each of the actuator units; and
a commutator (4) coupled to the axle (2,8) and electrically associated with one or more of the coil windings; and
two or more resilient contacts (5) oriented to direct a current through the commutator (4) to one of the coil windings to induce a current in the coil winding to form an electromagnet that is configured to rotate the rotor (3) relative the external magnetic field (Bo) from a magnet located external to the mechanically commutated motor (1).
Wendt does not explicitly disclose rotor having three or more actuator units(Claim 6 discloses several winding packages) comprising a coil winding along each of the three or more actuator units.
Roeck discloses [Fig 2, Para 0040 discloses 8] rotor (16) having 3 or more actuator units comprising a coil winding (12) along each of the three or more actuator units..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed motor of Wendt with three of more actuator units with winding coils as taught by Roeck in order to meet the nature of torque profile required which is a function of design choice of rotor poles.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
606
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wendt in view of Roeck discloses the mechanically commutated motor of claim 1. Wendt in view of Roeck further comprising a motor case (7,9)surrounding (Fig 1) the rotor (3) , the motor case comprising a non-magnetic material [0025 discloses system components which includes motor case from materials that have low magnetic susceptibility and examples are provided in claim 14 which are non-magnetic].
Regarding Claim 3, Wendt in view of Roeck discloses the mechanically commutated motor of claim 2. Wendt in view of Roeck further discloses wherein the non-magnetic material [Wendt 0025, claim 14 discloses plastics such as PMMA] of the three or more actuator units (Wendt Claim 6 discloses several winding packages and combination with Roeck discloses 8 coils) and the axle and the motor case (7,9) have a magnetic susceptibility X that meets the condition |Xw - X|<10-1 where the magnetic susceptibility of water (Both water and material such as PMMA are diamagnetic and have very low magnetic susceptibility and are of the order of 9x10-6 Wikipedia search Magnetic Susceptibility).
Regarding Claim 8, Wendt in view of Roeck discloses the mechanically commutated motor of claim 2. Wendt in view of Roeck further discloses further comprising power supply terminals coupled to the two or more resilient contacts (Wendt, 5) and configured to be coupled to a power supply to provide a direct current voltage [Wendt,Para 0023 discloses DC motors which will inherently have a power supply] .
Regarding Claim 11, Wendt in view of Roeck discloses the mechanically commutated motor of claim 1. Wendt in view of Roeck further does not explicitly disclose further comprising electromagnetic shielding configured to substantially enclose the motor to reduce electromagnetic interference from the motor to an external device.
Roeck further discloses (Fig 1, Para 0047) comprising electromagnetic shielding configured to substantially enclose the motor (10) to reduce electromagnetic interference from the motor to an external device (shielding is RF shielding similar to instant application element 870).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed motor of Wendt in view of Roeck with RF shielding around motor as further taught by Roeck in order to have desired signal to noise ratio in an MRI system.
PNG
media_image3.png
390
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Wendt in view of Roeck discloses the mechanically commutated motor of claim 1. Wendt in view of Roeck further discloses wherein each coil winding is comprised of a conductive material (Wendt Claim 5 discloses “at least one current-carrying conductor, which can be designed in multiple windings) , that is non-magnetic (Para 0025, Claim 14).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt in view of Roeck and Instant Specification Background).
Regarding Claim 6, Wendt in view of Roeck discloses the mechanically commutated motor of claim 1. Wendt in view of Roeck further discloses wherein the magnet located external to the motor is a high field magnet in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system (Wendt Para 0034 discloses “significant magnetic field” but does not explicitly disclose as interpreted – See claim interpretation above).
Instant specification Background discloses (Para 0005 discloses “More recently, the improved image resolution and widespread availability of closed-bore and high-field scanners (1.5-T and 3-T)..”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed motor of Wendt in view of Roeck with external magnet being high field magnet as taught by Instant specification Background in order to have desired resolution in a MRI intraoperative system.
Regarding Claim 7, Wendt in view of Roeck discloses the mechanically commutated motor of claim 1. Wendt in view of Roeck further discloses wherein the magnet located external to the motor is a superconducting magnet (Wendt Para 0034 discloses “significant magnetic field” but does not explicitly disclose as interpreted – See claim interpretation above).
Instant specification Background discloses (Para 0005 discloses “More recently, the improved image resolution and widespread availability of closed-bore and high-field scanners (1.5-T and 3-T)..”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed motor of Wendt in view of Roeck with external magnet being a super conducting magnet as taught by Instant specification Background in order to have desired resolution in a MRI intraoperative system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834