DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, please revise the language “wherein the connection conduit is filled with in a liquid-state cooling medium filled in a portion of the first cooling chamber and a portion of the second cooling chamber.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0136456 (Jonas).
Regarding claim 31, Jonas teaches a system (apparatus 400 for combined magnetic resonance imaging and radiotherapy; see Fig. 4; see [0048]) comprising:
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device configured to perform an imaging of a subject, wherein the MRI device includes a cryostat (the apparatus 400 includes an MRI imager for performing imaging of a patient including a cryostat 420; see Figs. 1-4; see [0048]);
the cryostat includes a first cooling chamber and a second cooling chamber (first annular section 4221 and second annular section 4222’ see Fig. 4);
the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are in gas communication through a connection conduit (tubular structure 425 passes gas and/or one or more electrical wires between the first and second annular sections 4221, 4222; see Fig. 4; see [0067]); and
a first end of the connection conduit is located inside a portion of the first cooling chamber filled with a gaseous-state cooling medium; and a second end of the connection conduit is located inside a portion of the second cooling chamber filled with the gaseous-state cooling medium; (tubular structure 425 passes gas and/or one or more electrical wires between the first and second annular sections 4221, 4222 which would require a first end of the connection conduit be located inside the first cooling chamber and a second end to be located inside the second cooling chamber; see Fig. 4; see [0067]); and
a radiation source configured to emit a radiation beam toward the subject, the radiation source being positioned between the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber such that the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are outside of a radiation range of the radiation beam (radiation source 410 provides a radiation beam 415 and the radiation source is configured such that the radiation beam 415 is outside the annular sections 4221, 4222; see Fig. 4; see [0048]-[0055]).
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) 1-4, 8-10, 14, 16-18, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,568,104 (Laskaris) in view of US 2016/0136456 (Jonas).
Regarding claim 1, Laskaris teaches a system (magnet 110 for an MRI system of Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device configured to perform an imaging of a subject (an MRI magnet is conventional part of an MRI system which is configured to perform MRI imaging of a patient; see Figs. 1-3; see col. 1, lines 6-58), wherein
the MRI device includes a cryostat (dewars 152, 154 and conduits 158, 160 would reasonably be interpreted as a cryostat; see Figs. 1-3);
the cryostat includes a first cooling chamber and a second cooling chamber that are in fluid communication through a connection conduit (first dewar 152 and second dewar 154 are in fluid communication through conduit 158; see Figs. 1-3; see col. 4, lines 15-46); and
the connection conduit is located on a side of a central axis of the first cooling chamber or a central axis of the second cooling chamber (a connection conduit 158 is arranged in a structural support post 128 which is located below a central axis 126 of first dewar 152 and second dewar 154; see Figs. 1-3; see col. 1, line 35-58).
Laskaris fails to teach a radiation source configured to emit a radiation beam toward the subject, the radiation source being positioned between the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber such that the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are outside of a radiation range of the radiation beam.
Jonas teaches a radiation source configured to emit a radiation beam toward the subject, the radiation source being positioned between the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber such that the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are outside of a radiation range of the radiation beam (radiation source 410 provides a radiation beam 415 and the radiation source is configured such that the radiation beam 415 is outside the annular sections 4221, 4222; see Fig. 4; see [0048]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Jonas into Laskaris in order to gain the advantage of combining the diagnostic spatial specificity of MR imaging with radiotherapy beam focus technology to provide more accurate treatment of diseased tissue while reducing damage of health tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Laskaris teaches wherein the connection conduit is filled with in a liquid-state cooling medium filled in a portion of the first cooling chamber and a portion of the second cooling chamber (conduit 158 contains essentially only cryogenic liquid and is in communication with dewars 152, 154; see Figs. 1-3; see col. 4, line 15-62).
Regarding claim 3, Jonas teaches wherein the connection conduit is located below the central axis of the first cooling chamber or the central axis of the second cooling chamber (conduit 158 is located below axis 126; see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Laskaris teaches wherein the first cooling chamber has a first annular structure; a first end of the connection conduit is located at a position within a first arc of the first annular structure; the second cooling chamber has a second annular structure; and a second end of the connection conduit is located at a position within a second arc of the second annular structure (first and second dewars 152, 154 would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be annular as they are arranged in first annular coil housing 114 and second annular coil housing 122 for housing annular coils 142, 148, and the connection conduits 158 connect to the first and second dewars 152, 154 at respective arcs; see Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Laskaris teaches wherein the connection conduit includes a pipe (conduits 158 are arranged in posts 128 which would reasonably be interpreted as a pipe; see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Laskaris teaches wherein the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are in gas communication through a second connection conduit (the first and second dewars 152, 154 are connected by conduit 60 which contains essentially only gaseous cryogenic fluid; see Figs. 1-3; see col. 4, lines 48-62).
Regarding claim 10, Laskaris teaches wherein the second connection conduit is located outside the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber (conduit 160 would reasonably be interpreted as “outside the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber” as claimed in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation; see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Laskaris teaches including a vacuum layer housed outside the second connection conduit (the two coil housings 114 and 122 and the conduit-containing structural posts 128' and 128" together form a vacuum enclosure).
Regarding claim 15, Laskaris fails to teach wherein a first end of the second connection conduit is located inside a portion of the first cooling chamber filled with a gaseous-state cooling medium, and a second end of the second connection conduit is located inside a portion of the second cooling chamber filled with the gaseous-state cooling medium.
Jones teaches wherein a first end of the second connection conduit is located inside a portion of the first cooling chamber filled with a gaseous-state cooling medium, and a second end of the second connection conduit is located inside a portion of the second cooling chamber filled with the gaseous-state cooling medium (tubular structure 425 passes gas and/or one or more electrical wires between the first and second annular sections 4221, 4222 which would require a first end of the connection conduit be located inside the first cooling chamber and a second end to be located inside the second cooling chamber; see Fig. 4; see [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Jonas into Laskaris in order to gain the advantage of a second conduit pipe for pass gas between the first and second annular sections without the conduit interfering with a radiotherapy device.
Regarding claim 16, Laskaris teaches wherein a length direction of the connection conduit is parallel with a length direction of the second connection conduit (conduit 160 is parallel to conduit 158; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Laskaris and Jonas fail to teach wherein the second connection conduit is located inside the connection conduit, however, the limitation as claimed would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts without providing any new or useful results. See MPEP 2144.4VI.C. Laskaris teaches wherein gas and air may be massed through conduits 128’, 128” in Fig. 2. Jonas teaches wherein gas and liquid may be passed between conduits 4223 and 425. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pass the gas and liquids through a common conduit without any undue experimentation or providing any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, Laskaris teaches wherein the connection conduit is independent from the second connection conduit (conduits 158 and conduit 160 are separate components that are spaced apart from each other and would reasonably be interpreted as independent conduits; see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 22-23, Laskaris teaches wherein the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber share a cold head; and wherein: the first cooling chamber includes a first cold head; and the second cooling chamber includes a second cold head different from the first cold head (Laskaris fails to teach the limitations in the embodiment of Figs. 1-3, but teaches wherein the first coil housing and the second coil housing include a thermal shield 268 having a high-efficiency cryocooler coldhead 270 having a cold stage 272 and wherein the second superconductive coil assembly 220 is cooled by the cryocooler coldhead 270 through the structural posts 228 or having its own cryocooler coldhead, and it would be obvious to incorporate the coldhead into the embodiment of Figs. 1-3 in order to reduce liquid cryogen boil-off and allow for a single thermal shield design which allows the first superconductive main coil 242 structurally to be located longitudinally close to the magnet’s open space which reduces the cost of the magnet by reducing the amount of superconductor main coil needed. See Col. 5, lines 21-42).
Regarding claim 24, Laskaris teaches wherein at least a portion of the first cooling chamber is filled with a cooling medium; or at least a portion of the second cooling chamber is filled with the cooling medium (first and second dewars 152, 154 are filled with cryogenic fluid 140’ and cryogenic gas 140’’; see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,568,104 (Laskaris) in view of US 2016/0136456 (Jonas), and in further view of US 2009/0299170 (Gebhardt).
Regarding claim 5, Laskaris teaches at least one first coil is housed inside the first cooling chamber; at least one second coil is housed inside the second cooling chamber (magnet coils 142, 148 are arranged inside dewars 152, 154, respectively; see Fig. 2).
Laskaris fails to teach wherein at least one superconducting wire is housed inside the connection conduit; wherein the at least one superconducting wire is configured to operably connect the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil.
Gebhardt teaches wherein at least one superconducting wire is housed inside the connection conduit; wherein the at least one superconducting wire is configured to operably connect the at least one first coil and the at least one second coil (Inside the helium duct 321, a superconducting connecting line 323 is provided by means of which the superconducting coils of the two main magnets 325 and 327 are interconnected. See [0049]; see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Gebhardt into Laskaris in order to gain the advantage of connecting first and second magnets with a superconducting line such that the magnets may be controlled as one magnet with a single cooling system and wherein the superconducting line is provided in a helium duct to maintain the line below the superconducting critical temperature.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,568,104 (Laskaris) in view of US 2016/0136456 (Jonas), and in further view of US 2014/0135615 (Kruip).
Regarding claim 19, Laskaris fails to teach wherein the connection conduit is made of metal, or the second connection conduit is made of stainless steel or a radiation impermeable material.
Kruip teaches wherein the connection conduit is made of metal, or the second connection conduit is made of stainless steel or a radiation impermeable material (a cryostat is formed from aluminum, rather than conventional stainless steel; see [0048]).
While Laskaris fails to explicitly teach wherein the pipe of the cryostat is made of metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Kruip into Laskaris as stainless steel and aluminum are routine components for MRI cryostat owing to their non-magnetic properties and wherein stainless steel is a poor thermal conductor which minimizes heat loss and aluminum allows a radiation beam to be directed through the cryostat.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,568,104 (Laskaris) in view of US 2016/0136456 (Jonas), and in further view of US 2008/0092557 (Mraz)
Regarding claim 21, Laskaris fails to teach wherein: the first cooling chamber includes a first quenching valve; and the second cooling chamber includes a second quenching valve different from the first quenching valve.
Mraz teaches wherein: the first cooling chamber includes a first quenching valve; and the second cooling chamber includes a second quenching valve different from the first quenching valve (In a conventional cryostat, the quench gas is discharged via the suspension tubes of the helium container and through special safety valves, so-called quench valves, which present a large opening cross-section when the quench pressure is reached; see [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Mraz into Laskaris in order to gain the advantage of quench valves for each first and second cooling chambers as taught in Laskaris. Since both cooling chambers taught in Laskaris comprise superconducting coils, it would be common sense for one of ordinary skill in the art to include quench valves for each chamber to protect against when a superconducting magnet coil can become resistive, i.e. have a measurable electric resistance, e.g. due to slightly shifted wires in the coil packet, causing the overall magnet to quench. During a quench, the magnetic energy stored in the magnet is converted into heat and is suddenly released. In a magnet cooled by liquid helium, a considerable part or the whole amount of liquid thereby evaporates and must be discharged from the first tank to prevent generation of an inadmissibly high pressure which could damage the container.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0136456 (Jonas) in view of US 2004/0037390 (Mihara).
Regarding claim 26 Jonas teaches a system (apparatus 400 for combined magnetic resonance imaging and radiotherapy; see Fig. 4; see [0048]) comprising:
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device configured to perform an imaging of a subject (the apparatus 400 includes an MRI imager for performing imaging of a patient; see Figs. 1-4; see [0048]), wherein
the MRI device includes a cryostat (the MRI device includes a cryostat 420; see Fig. 4; see [0048]);
the cryostat includes a first cooling chamber and a second cooling chamber (first annular section 4221 and second annular section 4222’ see Fig. 4); and
the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are in gas communication through a connection conduit (tubular structure 425 passes gas and/or one or more electrical wires between the first and second annular sections 4221, 4222; see Fig. 4; see [0067]); and
a radiation source configured to emit a radiation beam toward the subject, the radiation source being positioned between the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber such that the first cooling chamber and the second cooling chamber are outside of a radiation range of the radiation beam (radiation source 410 provides a radiation beam 415 and the radiation source is configured such that the radiation beam 415 is outside the annular sections 4221, 4222; see Fig. 4; see [0048]-[0055]).
Jonas fails to explicitly teach wherein the connection conduit is positioned out of a rotation range of the radiation source, however, Fig. 4 shows the tubular structure 425 located at the bottom of the cryostat. Since the radiation source rotates in the Y-Z plane as denoted in the “R” direction of Fig. 5A, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the tubular structure 425 to be outside of the rotation range of the radiation source. See Figs. 4, 5A; see [0068]. For example, Mihara shows in Fig. 3 wherein a radiation irradiating head (10) moves along a guide rail 9 which does not extend to the bottom of the bed. Therefore, the tubular structure 425 of Jonas would reasonably be out of a rotation range of the radiation source of Mihara.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858