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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ remarks do not address the basis of the rejection. The claim limitation “means to remove effect of sample geometry from the demagnetization curve” invokes 35 USC 112(f). under 112(f), the specification must disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. For computer implemented function, the specification must disclose the algorithm used to perform the function. The specification merely states that geometry effects may be removed using a self-demagnetization factor or another suitable method, but doesn’t not describe the specific algorithm or procedure used to determine or apply the correction factor. Accordingly, the specification fails to discloses sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed function, and the rejection under USC 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant argues that Dudding removes eddy current components using an iterative pulse method and therefore differs from the claimed invention. However, claim 1 merely requires removing linear and non linear eddy currents effects from the demagnetization curve and does not recite any particular algorithm or computational procedure for performing the correction. Dudding clearly teaches eliminating eddy current components from pulse field magnetometry measurements to obtain intrinsic magnetic characteristics of the sample (col. 2 lines 24-30, 57-64). The specific technique used to implement the correction does not materially distinguish the claim method.
Applicant further argues that Robin Nathan Cornelius does not discloses non linear eddy current correction or the parameter modeling described in the application. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection does not reply on Cornelius alone for eddy current removal. Dudding already teaches eliminating eddy current components from pulsed filed magnetometry measurements. Cornelius is relied upon for teaching geometry dependent corrections and calibration techniques used to improve the accuracy of pulsed field magnetometry measurements, including correction of self demagnetization effects and calibration using samples with known magnetic current
Applicant also asserts that the invention represents an “integrated reconstruction framework” combining several correction techniques. However, claim 1 does not recite such framework and instead recited recites a sequence of correction steps. The combination of Dudding and Cornelius teaches or suggests these steps. Combining known correction and calibration techniques in a pulsed field magnetometry system to improve measurement accuracy represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which would have yielded predictable results, consistent with KSR International Co. v. Telefles Inc.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for constructing a synthesized zero, means performing, means for storing, means for applying, means for selecting, means for removing in claims, 6-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 7 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, the limitation “means to remove the effects of sample geometry from the demagnetisation curve” is unclear because either the specifications, claims and/or drawings fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform those functions of said “means to remove the effects of sample geometry from the demagnetisation curve”.
In addition, the specifications paragraph [0020] merely mention said “(iv) Remove the effects of sample geometry from the demagnetisation curve using a self demagnetisation field factor (a mathematical skew) or another suitable method”. However, the specification fails to clearly link or associate any specific structure, material or algorithm to the claimed function of removing the effects of sample geometry from the demagnetization curve.
While a “self-demagnetization field factor” is mentioned, no corresponding computational structure, hardware configuration, or algorithm is disclosed to perform this function rendering the claim indefinite.
In addition, dependent claims 8-12 are also rejected because they depend and further limit the independent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudding (U.S. Patent 5565774) in view of Cornelius, R. (2005) Pulsed Field Magnetometry for High-Speed Characterisation of Rare Earth Magnets.
Regarding claim 1, Dudding discloses a method of mapping the open circuit demagnetization curve of a sample of magnetic material to a closed circuit demagnetization curve (the corrected demagnetized curve by determining intrinsic magnetic characteristics of a material measured in open circuit by applying sequential pulsed magnetic fields and eliminating eddy current and geometric effects thereby represents the same characteristic that would be obtained in a closed magnetic circuit, inherently performing the claimed mapping col. 2 lines 23-36, col. 4 lines 9-27):
(i) measure the open circuit demagnetisation curve of the sample using pulsed field magnetometry (“apparatus for the measurement of magnetic characteristics of a sample magnetic material comprises means to generate a pulsed magnetic field for application to the sample” with the applied field and sample magnetism “magnetic fields generated in the sample may be measured by sensing coils located coaxially with the solenoid” Fig. 1 shows the sample 11 within solenoid 12 and sensing coils 13 and 14, the standard configuration of a pulsed field magnetometer col. 2 lines 16-20, col. 3 lines 32-35);
(ii) remove from the demagnetisation curve linear eddy current effects due to the applied field sweep rate (“the means for the application of sequential pulsed fields to the sample, the pulses having respectfully different rates of change of magnetic field strength, the means for elimination of eddy current components from the respective magnetic fields generated in the sample” this directly teaches correction of rate dependent (linear) eddy current effects caused by the applied field swap rates, via compression of pulses col. 2 lines 24-30);
(iii) remove from the demagnetisation curve non-linear eddy current effects due to the sample demagnetization using the magnetic coupling between the eddy flux and a pickup coil (the total fields sensed “according to the characteristics thereof including eddy currents induces therein” col. 2 lines 38-42, “elimination of eddy current components,.., by calculation of estimated values.. and comparison with net sensed fields… repeating until the estimated values are substantially equally” col. 2 lines 57-64, because the correction explicitly depends on magnetic characteristics of the sample itself, this iterative process inherently removes eddy currents coupled to changes in the samples own magnetization i/e., non linear eddy current effects due to demagnetization, the pickup coils detect magnetic flux generated by the sample, including flux sensing arising from eddy currents induced in the sample. As such, eddy currents necessarily produce corresponding magnetic flux (eddy flux) that couples to the pickup coil. Removal of eddy current components from the pickup coil signal in Dudding therefore corresponds to removing eddy current effects detected through magnetic coupling between the eddy flux and the pickup coil);
(iv) remove the effects of sample geometry from the demagnetisation curve (“provide a quick-response assessment of magnetic characteristics and which also takes account of magnetic geometry” col. 1 lines 55-60);
(v) add to the demagnetisation curve the effects of an idealised steel permeameter core (“permeameter, the magnetic sample is placed in a closed magnetic circuit between the poles of an electromagnet the current supply to which is slowly ramped up and down as the working point of the magnetic sample is monitored. This instrument exhibits a zero self-demagnetising factor and negligible adverse eddy current effects but has a maximum effective applied field capacity” col. 1 lines 33-39, col. 3 lines 61-64, inherently teaching a closed circuit condition produced by a highly permeability steel yoke that removes samples demagnetising field i.e idealized steel parameter core).
Didding does not explicitly teach removing sample geometry effects using correction factor and adding the effects of an idealized steel parameter core using calibration based on sample dipole moments
However, Cornelius in a relevant art teaches that pulsed field magnetometry measurements introduce geometry dependent self demagnetization effects that must be corrected during signal processing. In particular, Cornelius explains that the measured demagnetization curve is affected by self demagnetization fields arising from sample geometry and that these effects are removed using demagnetization fields arising from sample geometry and that these effects are removed using demagnetization factors (see discussion of self demagnetization field effects and geometry correction, chapter 7. Cornelius further teaches calibration of pulsed field magnetometry system using samples with known magnetic moment in order to determine accurate magnetic characteristics and applied field values (see calibration using test specimens with known magnetic moment, chapter 8, 8.2.1-8.2.3)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the geometry correction and calibration technique taught by Cornelius to the pulsed filed magnetometry method of Dudding in order to compensate for known measurement errors and improve the accuracy of the resulting demagnetization curve.
Regarding claims 2, 8, Dudding teaches wherein linear eddy current effects due to the applied field sweep rate are removed from the demagnetisation curve (“Elimination of eddy current components from the respective magnetic fields generated in the sample may be achieved by calculation of estimated values of the assumed eddy currents or the ratio thereof created by the respective pulses and comparison with net sensed fields or the ratio thereof, if necessary repeating the comparison until the estimated values are substantially equal with the sensed values” col. 2 lines 56-65, the removal of eddy current components by comparing pulses of different sweep rates is a perturbative variation of the field).
Dudding does not explicitly teach using a perturbative method.
However Cornelius in a relevant art teaching using a perturbative method (the analytical approximation “solve for first order effects” assuming sample geometry and conductivity neglecting higher order effects corresponds to a perturbative (first order) correction of linear eddy currents effects, pages 129-130).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the perturbative approach in Dudding’s eddy current removal algorithm to improve computational efficiency, since both address elimination of sweep rate dependent linear eddy correct effects in pulsed field magnetometry to gain the advantage of reduced radial friction and support loads.
Regarding claims 3, 9, Dudding does not explicitly teach a single pulse method.
However, Cornelius in a relevant art teaching a single pulse method (page 129 last paragraph, “if a single pules measurement is made its possible to then estimate and subtract the eddy current effect error from the measurement”, defining a single pulse eddy current removal method).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the perturbative approach in Dudding’s eddy current removal algorithm to improve computational efficiency, since both address elimination of sweep rate dependent linear eddy correct effects in pulsed field magnetometry to gain the advantage of reduced radial friction and support loads.
Regarding claims 4, 10, Dudding does not explicitly teach non-linear eddy current effects due to the sample demagnetisation are removed from the demagnetisation curve using the eddy current and the magnetic coupling between the eddy flux and a PFM pick-up coil.
However Cornelius in a relevant art teaching non-linear eddy current effects due to the sample demagnetisation are removed from the demagnetisation curve using the eddy current and the magnetic coupling between the eddy flux and a PFM pick-up coil (design of linear and radiant pickup coils with equal turns area products connected in antiphase so that coupling from eddy current flux and magnetization can be separated, p. 94-96, nonlinear (saturation) eddy current correction in nickel using subtraction based on magnetic coupling between copper and PFM pickup coils p. 145-146).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the perturbative approach in Dudding’s eddy current removal algorithm to improve computational efficiency, since both address elimination of sweep rate dependent linear eddy correct effects in pulsed field magnetometry to gain the advantage of reduced radial friction and support loads.
Regarding claims 5, 11, Dudding does not explicitly teach calculating the relationship between the field that is actually applied to the sample and the measured applied field in a permeameter air gap.
However, Cornelius in a relevant art teaching calculating the relationship between the field that is actually applied to the sample and the measured applied field in a permeameter air gap (p 911-914 teaches comparison of PFM and permeameter results discussing difference between true applied filed and the field measured in the permeameter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the perturbative approach in Dudding’s eddy current removal algorithm to improve computational efficiency, since both address elimination of sweep rate dependent linear eddy correct effects in pulsed field magnetometry to gain the advantage of reduced radial friction and support loads.
Regarding claims 6, 12, Dudding does not explicitly obtained by calculating the measured field for all applied fields and all sample dipole moments.
However, Cornelius in a relevant art teaching obtained by calculating the measured field for all applied fields and all sample dipole moments (page 168-169) shows the same permeameter comparison and FEMM finite element modeling section (page 70-74, 911-914) show calculation of measured field vs applied field for all sample geometries and dipole moments using FEMM simulations and experimental matching).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the perturbative approach in Dudding’s eddy current removal algorithm to improve computational efficiency, since both address elimination of sweep rate dependent linear eddy correct effects in pulsed field magnetometry to gain the advantage of reduced radial friction and support loads.
Regarding claim 7; the structure recited is intrinsic to the method recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Dudding (U.S. Patent 5565774) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation of the method, as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Dudding further discloses means to measure PFM (solenoid 12 with 16, col. 4 lines 40-46), means to remove linear eddy currents (fig. 1 via sequential pulse controls 17-19), means to remove non linear effects (col. 2 lines 25-30), means to remove geometry effects (“an instrument that will provide a quick-response assessment of magnetic characteristics and which also takes account of magnetic geometry” col. 1 lines 55-59), means to map to closed circuit core (comparison to parameter characteristics col. 2 lines 23-36).
Conclusion
7. 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 TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights