DETAILED ACTION
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
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 24-25 are withdrawn in view of the clarifying amendment to claim 24.
Claim 21 has been amended to additionally recite “each of the plurality of wire grooves is in a closed shape, the closed shapes formed by the plurality of wire grooves are nested”, which corresponds substantially to the subject matter of now-canceled claim 26 depending directly from claim 21. Applicant argues at pages 10-11 that Ni in view of Kawaguchi, or alternatively, Ni in view of Schmidt, does not render amended claim 21 obvious. The examiner agrees insofar as the combination of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh, and not merely Ni in view of Kawaguchi or Ni in view of Schmidt, was relied upon in the prior Office action as disclosing the subject matter of claim 26.
Regarding the rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh, applicant argues at pages 15-16 regarding claim 21 as presently amended to include the subject matter of claim 26:
PNG
media_image1.png
291
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the combination of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh discloses the limitation “each of the plurality of wire grooves is in a closed shape, the closed shapes formed by the plurality of wire grooves are nested”. In particular, as discussed at pages 20-21 of the prior Office action, Parizh discloses a plurality of saddle coils for shimming, with each having a plurality of wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested (Parizh, e.g., Fig. 6 and paragraph 51, which may be a superconducting shim). As further explained in the Office action, modifying Ni in view of Kawaguchi to utilize a plurality of saddle coils for shimming, with each having a plurality of wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested, would have been obvious in further view of Parizh because space savings that increases the useable portion of an MRI system can be realized. The Office action explains that the combination of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh will result in each of the plurality of wire grooves being of a closed shape that is formed by the plurality of wire grooves being nested, as each of Parizh’s plurality wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested will be arranged in a corresponding groove of Ni in view of Kawaguchi. That is to say, in the combination of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh, the plurality of wire grooves of Ni in view of Kawaguchi will be conformed to the shape of Parizh’s saddle coils for shimming. Because Parizh’s saddle coils each have a plurality of wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested, the plurality of wire grooves of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh will have the same shape/features. Because applicant’s argument relies on Parizh alone, rather than the combined teachings of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh, the argument is not persuasive. See, e.g., MPEP 2145.IV (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
Regarding the rejection of claim 39 as unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi, or alternatively, over Ni in view of Schmidt, applicant argues at pages 11-13 that claim 39 as presently amended is non-obvious over these prior art combinations for the following two reasons:
PNG
media_image2.png
292
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the first reason (in Ni, the superconducting axial shim coil group 6 and the superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 are clearly located between the superconducting main coils 4 and the superconducting shielding coils 5, whereas, in amended claim 39, the superconducting shimming device is closer to the main magnet than the shielding coil assembly), the examiner maintains that Ni explicitly discloses “the superconducting shimming device is arranged between the main magnet and the shielding coil assembly and closer to the main magnet than the shielding coil assembly” as required by claim 39. Specifically, with reference to Fig. 1 of Ni, superconducting axial shim coil group 6 and superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 (collectively “the superconducting shimming device”) are clearly arranged between superconductive main coils 4 (“the main magnet”) and superconducting shielding coils 5 (“the shielding coil assembly”) in a radial direction. In fact, applicant’s own argument admits “[i]n Ni, the superconducting axial shim coil group 6 and the superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 are clearly located between the superconducting main coils 4 and the superconducting shielding coils” as required by the claim language. Further, in Fig. 1 of Ni superconducting axial shim coil group 6 and superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 are clearly closer to superconductive main coils 4 than superconductive main coils 4 in the radial direction. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Regarding the second reason (Ni does not disclose "wherein a distribution of wire grooves of each wire groove group on a corresponding supporting component is adapted to a current density distribution on the corresponding supporting component" recited in amended claim 39), the examiner notes that this language appears to pertain to a manner/process by which locations of the wire groove groups are determined during manufacture (see, e.g., paragraphs 96-97 of specification), rather than any distinct structural shape/geometry of the distribution of wire grooves themselves. Notably, applicant does not appear to argue that a distribution of wire grooves obtained by adapting a distribution of wire grooves to a current density distribution is structurally distinguishable from a distribution of wire grooves of Ni in view of Kawaguchi, or alternatively, Ni in view of Schmidt. In fact, the examiner notes applicant’s specification discloses that coil shapes provided by such coil manufacturing processes can be saddle-shaped (see, e.g., paragraph 97 of specification, last sentence), which is a possible shim coil configuration disclosed by Ni. Accordingly, the language "wherein a distribution of wire grooves of each wire groove group on a corresponding supporting component is adapted to a current density distribution on the corresponding supporting component" is construed merely as a product-by-process limitation that does not impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product sufficient to patentably distinguish over the cited prior art combinations. See, e.g., MPEP 2113.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to amended claim 29 at pages 13-14 are pervasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 29 as unpatentable over Ni in view of Schmidt is withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN103065758A to Ni et al. (Ni) in view of JP04002329A to Kawaguchi (Kawaguchi).
Regarding claim 39, Ni discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, comprising:
a cryostat (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconductive main coil 4, superconducting shielding coil 5, axial superconducting shim coil group 6, superconducting shim coil set 7 are arranged in a cryostat in the form of prearranged coil area 1; also see paragraph 7, liquid helium); and
a main magnet arranged in the cryostat and configured to generate a main magnetic field (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconductive main coils 4);
a shielding coil assembly arranged in the cryostat and coaxially arranged relative to the main magnet, wherein the main magnet is placed closer to a center of the cryostat than the shielding coil assembly (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconducting shielding coils 5; the cryostat in the form of prearranged coil area 1 has an annular shape, with the center of the cryostat corresponding to center of spherical imaging region 11 (i.e., the origin at point 0, 0); superconductive main coils 4 is therefore closer to the center of the cryostat than superconducting shielding coils 5); and
a superconducting shimming device arranged in the cryostat and configured to improve uniformity of the main magnetic field (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconducting axial shim coil group 6 composed of a first-order, second-order and third-order axial coils or superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 composed of first-order and second-order radial shim coils; note that superconducting axial shim coil group 6 has the function of generating and correcting a magnetic field distribution related to axial coordinate z and that superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 has the function of correcting a magnetic field distribution related to radial coordinate r), wherein
the superconducting shimming device is arranged between the main magnet and the shielding coil assembly and closer to the main magnet than the shielding coil assembly, and a gap between the superconducting shimming device and the main magnet is filled with a cooling medium (see Ni as applied above, noting in Fig. 1 that superconducting axial shim coil group 6 and superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 are arranged between superconductive main coils 4 and superconducting shielding coils 5; it is implicit that cooling medium, e.g., liquid helium, will occupy the space between superconductive main coils 4 and shim coil groups 6/7, recognizing that coils 4, 6-7 are necessarily cooled by the cooling medium present within the cryostat in the form of prearranged coil area 1),
the superconducting shimming device includes:
at least one supporting component and
wires arranged the at least one supporting component (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, shim coil groups 6/7 are comprised of superconducting wires, e.g., low temperature NbTi superconducting wires).
Ni is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that each of the at least one supporting component is configured with a plurality of wire groove groups arranged on an outer side wall of the supporting component, and that the wires are arranged in wire grooves of the plurality of wire groove groups. In related art, Kawaguchi discloses a saddle type coil that is formed in recessed grooves formed on an outer side wall of a supporting component in the form of an insulating cylinder (Kawaguchi, e.g., Figs. 1, 2 and 3 and paragraph 1; saddle type coil 21 formed in recessed grooves 23 formed on an outer side wall of an insulating cylinder 22). The examiner notes that Ni’s superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 is a saddle-type coil (Ni, e.g., paragraph 13). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the recitations that the at least one supporting component is configured with a plurality of wire groove groups arranged on an outer side wall of the supporting component, and that the wires are arranged in wire grooves of the plurality of wire groove groups, do not patentably distinguish over Ni in view of Kawaguchi.
Regarding the recitation wherein a distribution of wire grooves of each wire groove group on a corresponding supporting component is adapted to a current density distribution on the corresponding supporting component, the examiner notes that this language appears to pertain to a manner/process by which locations of the wire groove groups are determined during manufacture (see, e.g., paragraphs 96-97 of specification), rather than any distinct structural shape/geometry of the distribution of wire grooves themselves. Notably, applicant does not appear to argue that a distribution of wire grooves obtained by adapting a distribution of wire grooves to a current density distribution is structurally distinguishable from a distribution of wire grooves of Ni in view of Kawaguchi. In fact, the examiner notes applicant’s specification discloses that coil shapes provided by such coil manufacturing processes can be saddle-shaped (see, e.g., paragraph 97 of specification, last sentence), which is a possible shim coil configuration disclosed by Ni. Accordingly, the language “wherein a distribution of wire grooves of each wire groove group on a corresponding supporting component is adapted to a current density distribution on the corresponding supporting component” is construed merely as a product-by-process limitation that does not impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product sufficient to patentably distinguish over the cited prior art combinations. See, e.g., MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 41, Ni in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 39 discloses wherein the at least one supporting component includes at least two supporting components (see Ni in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 39, e.g., Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, each shim coil group 6/7 is supported by a respective framework, with the frameworks being regarded as two supporting components; see, e.g., paragraph 13, shim coils 6 and shim coils 7 are respectively installed on the two cylindrical frame of thin wall; also see references to “radial superconducting shim coils group 7 framework” and “axial superconducting shim coils group 6 framework” in paragraph 13 of Ni). Although Ni does not explicitly state that distribution densities of the wires on the at least two supporting components are different, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this relationship is implicit in Ni because Ni’s shim coils 6 provide correction for inhomogeneities along the axial direction, whereas Ni’s shim coils 7 provide correction for different inhomogeneities along the radial direction. The language the difference between the distribution densities of the wires on the at least two supporting components relates to distances each of which is between each of the at least two supporting components and the main magnet implies that the distribution density of the wires on each supporting component is dependent in some unspecified way upon a distance between the supporting component and the main magnet. This limitation is viewed by the examiner as a product-by-process limitation, e.g., the distribution density of the wires on a supporting component is set or determined based on a distance between the supporting component and the main magnet. The examiner points out that Ni’s shim coil group 6 or shim coil group 7 will also be characterized by a wire distribution density. A recitation of the manner in which the claimed distribution density is set or determined (based on based on a distance between the supporting component and the main magnet) does not in of itself represent a structural distinction that represents a patentable difference. See MPEP 2113.I.
Claims 21-22, 27-28, 30-35 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi, and further in view of US 2016/0054407 to Parizh et al. (Parizh).
Regarding claim 21, Ni discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, comprising:
a cryostat (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconductive main coil 4, superconducting shielding coil 5, axial superconducting shim coil group 6, superconducting shim coil set 7 are arranged in a cryostat in the form of prearranged coil area 1; also see paragraph 7, liquid helium); and
a main magnet arranged in the cryostat and configured to generate a main magnetic field (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconductive main coils 4); and
a superconducting shimming device arranged in the cryostat and configured to improve uniformity of the main magnetic field (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconducting axial shim coil group 6 composed of a first-order, second-order and third-order axial coils and/or superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 composed of first-order and second-order radial shim coils; note that superconducting axial shim coil group 6 has the function of generating and correcting a magnetic field distribution related to axial coordinate z and that superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 has the function of correcting a magnetic field distribution related to radial coordinate r), wherein the superconducting shimming device includes:
at least two supporting components wherein the at least two supporting components include a first supporting component with a first distance to the main magnet and a second supporting component with a second distance to the main magnet, the first distance being smaller than the second distance (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, each shim coil group 6/7 is supported by a respective framework, with the framework of shim coil group 6 being a first supporting component and framework of shim coil group 7 being a second supporting component; see, e.g., paragraph 13, shim coils 6 and shim coils 7 are respectively installed on the two cylindrical frame of thin wall; also see references to “radial superconducting shim coils group 7 framework” and “axial superconducting shim coils group 6 framework” in paragraph 13 of Ni; note in Fig. 1 of Ni that shim coil group 6 is closer to superconductive main coils 4 than shim coil group 7 and its supporting framework; it is therefore implicit that framework supporting shim coil group 6 is closer to superconductive main coils 4 than framework supporting shim coil group 7); and
wires arranged the at least two supporting components (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, shim coil groups 6/7 are comprised of superconducting wires, e.g., low temperature NbTi superconducting wires).
Ni is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that each of the at least two supporting components is configured with a plurality of wire groove groups arranged on an outer side wall of the supporting component, and that the wires are arranged in wire grooves of the plurality of wire groove groups of the at least two supporting components. In related art, Kawaguchi discloses a saddle type coil that is formed in recessed grooves formed on an outer side wall of a supporting component in the form of an insulating cylinder (Kawaguchi, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and paragraph 1; saddle type coil 21 formed in recessed grooves 23 formed on an outer side wall of an insulating cylinder 22). The examiner notes that Ni’s superconducting radial shimming coil group 7 is a saddle-type coil (Ni, e.g., paragraph 13). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the recitations that each of the at least two supporting components is configured with a plurality of wire groove groups arranged on an outer side wall of the supporting component, and that the wires are arranged in wire grooves of the plurality of wire groove groups of the at least two supporting components, do not patentably distinguish over Ni in view of Kawaguchi.
Ni in view of Kawaguchi is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing each of the plurality of wire grooves is in a closed shape, the closed shapes formed by the plurality of wire grooves are nested. In particular, because Ni does not explicitly disclose the particular geometry of the saddle coils of the superconducting shim coil set 7, Ni in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 21 does not determine the shapes of each of the plurality of wire grooves. Parizh discloses a plurality of saddle coils for shimming, with each having a plurality wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested (Parizh, e.g., Fig. 6 and paragraph 51, which may be a superconducting shim). It 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 to modify Ni in view of Kawaguchi to utilize a plurality of saddle coils for shimming, with each having a plurality wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Parizh, space savings that increases the useable portion of an MRI system can be realized (Parizh, e.g., paragraph 46). The combination of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh will result in each of the plurality of wire grooves being of a closed shape that is formed by the plurality of wire grooves being nested, as each of Parizh’s plurality wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested will be arranged in a corresponding groove of Ni in view of Kawaguchi.
Regarding claim 22, Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 discloses wherein a distribution density of the wires on each of the at least two supporting components is adapted to a distance between the supporting component and the main magnet, with the density varying in accordance with a change in the distance (see Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21, noting that each shim coil group 6/7 of Ni will necessarily be characterized by a distribution density of the wires on its respective supporting component; further note that shim coil group 6 (e.g., four solenoid coil installed on the superconducting shim coils group 6 framework) are for generating and correcting magnetic field distribution related to axial coordinate z, whereas shim coil group 7 (e.g., single layer of saddle coil) are for correction of magnetic field distribution related to radial coordinate r; it is implicit that the distribution density of conductors in shim coil group 6 will differ from that of shim coil group 7 because the shim fields produced by each are different; also note shim coil group 6 and shim coil group 7 are located at different distances from the superconductive main coils 4; accordingly, the distribution density of conductors in shim coils group 6 differs from that of shim coil group 7, and the distance of shim coil group 6 from superconductive main coils 4 differs from that of shim coil group 7; to the extent that claim 22 seeks to establish that a distribution density of the wires on a supporting component is designed/adapted during manufacture based on the consideration of distance between the supporting component and the main magnet, the examiner points out that determination of patentability is based on the product itself and not its method of production, see, e.g., MPEP 2113.I pertaining to product-by-process claims).
Regarding claim 27, Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 discloses wherein each of the wire grooves of the plurality of wire groove groups includes an outlet, the outlet being configured to extend wire arranged in the wire groove to outside the superconducting shimming device or another wire groove of the wire grooves (see Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21, e.g., Fig. 1 of Kawaguchi, note that conductor of each coil turn exits groove 23 to extend the conductor to another groove 23 and/or to extend the conductor to outside of the shimming coil to connect to electrical source).
Regarding claim 28, Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 discloses wherein the superconducting shimming device further includes an electrically insulating element that is arranged on an inner wall of the each of the wire grooves (see Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21, e.g., Fig. 1 of Kawaguchi, grooves in which coil conductors are arranged are formed in insulating cylinder 22).
Regarding claim 30, Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 discloses wherein the each of the plurality of wire groove groups is in a saddle shape, a spiral shape, or a ring shape (see Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21, noting that Kawaguchi discloses saddle type coil formed in recessed grooves).
Regarding claim 31, Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein each of the wires includes a wire harness of multiple wires. The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of wire comprising multiple individual strands was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains for providing the advantage of increased flexibility relative to an equivalent conductor having a single non-stranded wire. It 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 to modify Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh such that each of the wires includes a wire harness of multiple wires for at least the reason that greater wire flexibility will be obtained.
Regarding claim 32, Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 discloses wherein the plurality of wire groove groups include at least one first wire groove group and at least one second wire groove group, the at least one first wire groove group and at least one second wire groove group being arranged symmetrically or approximately symmetrically with respect to an axial direction of the main magnet (see Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21, each of the Ni’s saddle coils of superconducting shim coil set 7 arranged in grooves of the at least one supporting component define at least one first wire groove group and at least one second wire groove group; also see Ni, paragraph 13, axial superconducting shim coils group 6 framework and superconducting shim coil assembly axial 7 frame of the same length and are shorter than axial length of the rectangular section of the coil area 1 are disposed; single-layer solenoid of first-order, second-order and third-order axial shim coils are composed of two pair of symmetrical about symmetry plane 9).
Claim 33 recites the MRI system of claim 21, wherein the superconducting shimming device is manufactured by:
providing the at least two supporting components;
determining the plurality of wire groove groups on each of the at least two supporting components;
processing wire grooves of the plurality of wire groove groups on the at least two supporting components; and
arranging wires in the wire grooves of the plurality of wire groove groups on the at least two supporting components.
Claim 33 is a product-by-process claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, and if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.I. In the present case, the examiner maintains that Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 discloses all of the structural limitations of the claimed MRI system, and the recited manufacturing steps of claim 33 do not appear to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the manufactured system that are any different than those disclosed by Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh. Accordingly, claim 33 is unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 because the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Claim 34 recites the MRI system of claim 33, wherein the determining the plurality of wire groove groups on the each of the at least two supporting components includes:
for the each of the plurality of wire groove groups,
determining, based on the main magnetic field, a distribution of the wire grooves of the wire groove group on the each of the at least two supporting components.
Claim 34 is a product-by-process claim and is unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 33.
Claim 35 recites the MRI system of claim 34, wherein the determining, based on the main magnetic field, the distribution of wire grooves of the wire groove group on the each of the at least two supporting components includes:
on the each of the at least two supporting components,
determining a distribution of a current density on the supporting component based on the main magnetic field, and
determining the distribution of the wire grooves on the supporting component based on the distribution of the current density.
Claim 35 is a product-by-process claim and is unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claims 33-34.
Regarding claim 42, Ni in view of Kawaguchi is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein each of the plurality of wire grooves is in a closed shape, and the closed shapes formed by the plurality of wire grooves are nested. In particular, because Ni does not explicitly disclose the particular geometry of the saddle coils of the superconducting shim coil set 7, Ni in view of Kawaguchi as applied to claim 39 does not determine the shapes of each of the plurality of wire grooves. Parizh discloses a plurality of saddle coils for shimming, with each having a plurality wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested (Parizh, e.g., Fig. 6 and paragraph 51, which may be a superconducting shim). It 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 to modify Ni in view of Kawaguchi to utilize a plurality of saddle coils for shimming, with each having a plurality wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Parizh, space savings that increases the useable portion of an MRI system can be realized (Parizh, e.g., paragraph 46). The combination of Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh will result in each of the plurality of wire grooves being of a closed shape that is formed by the plurality of wire grooves being nested, as each of Parizh’s plurality wires being in a closed shape formed by the plurality of wires being nested will be arranged in a corresponding groove of Ni in view of Kawaguchi.
Claim 43 recites wherein a distribution of wire grooves of each wire groove group on a corresponding supporting component is adapted to a current density distribution on the corresponding supporting component. This language appears to pertain to a manner/process by which locations of the wire groove groups are determined during manufacture (see, e.g., paragraphs 96-97 of specification), rather than any distinct structural shape/geometry of the distribution of wire grooves themselves. Notably, applicant does not appear to argue that a distribution of wire grooves obtained by adapting a distribution of wire grooves to a current density distribution is structurally distinguishable from a distribution of wire grooves of Ni in view of Kawaguchi. In fact, the examiner notes applicant’s specification discloses that coil shapes provided by such coil manufacturing processes can be saddle-shaped (see, e.g., paragraph 97 of specification, last sentence), which is a possible shim coil configuration disclosed by Ni. Accordingly, the language “wherein a distribution of wire grooves of each wire groove group on a corresponding supporting component is adapted to a current density distribution on the corresponding supporting component” is construed merely as a product-by-process limitation that does not impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product sufficient to patentably distinguish over Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh. See, e.g., MPEP 2113.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21, and further in view of US 2013/0154648 to Shen et al. (Shen).
Regarding claim 24, Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh discloses wherein
the main magnet includes a plurality of main coils and a main skeleton for supporting the plurality of main coils (Ni, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, superconductive main coils 4; it is implicit in Ni’s arrangement of Fig. 1 that main coils 4 are provided on a skeleton, e.g., a former/frame that supports the main coils 4),
Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing one of the first supporting component and the second supporting component, the one closer to the main magnet, is fixed on a periphery of the main skeleton by a fixing component. In related art, Shen discloses in Fig. 2, for example, a former 232 supporting shim coils 206, with the former 232 having a supporting component (e.g., bottom surface of former 232) that is close to a main magnet 202 and fixed in a periphery of a main skeleton (e.g., main coil former 203) of main magnet 202 by a fixing component (it is implicit in Fig. 2 of Shen that shim coil former 232 is necessarily fixed/anchored into position on periphery of main magnet former 203 by a fixing component). It 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 to modify Ni in view of Kawaguchi and Parizh as applied to claim 21 such that one of the first supporting component and the second supporting component, the one closer to the main magnet, is fixed on a periphery of the main skeleton by a fixing component in view of Shen’s teachings that the a periphery of a main skeleton is a suitable location for mounting shim coils for improving the homogeneity of the magnetic field of a main magnet supported by the main skeleton.
Claim 25 recites wherein
the first supporting component is fixed on the periphery of the main skeleton by a first fixing component, and
the second supporting component is fixed on a periphery of the first supporting component by a second fixing component,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Ni in view of Kawaguchi, Parizh and Shen as applied to claim 24, recognizing that the modification of Ni such that Ni’s shim coil group 6/7 are fixed in a periphery of the main skeleton, e.g., the former/frame that supports the main coils 4, will necessitate a first fixing component to position/anchor the framework of shim coil group 6 onto the periphery, and further recognizing that the framework of shim coil group 7 is necessarily fixed on a periphery of shim coil group 6 by a second fixing component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 29 and 44-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858