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
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 in connection with the prior art rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pages 6-7 in connection with claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
131
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Roozen discloses a vibration isolator in the form of a plurality of suspension elements 19 supporting gradient coil carrier 18 and therefore disposed between first magnet system 1 and second magnetic system 2 (the gradient coil system), with the vibration isolator (i.e., the plurality of suspension elements 19) including a plurality of vibration-proof materials. In particular, each suspension element 19 is composed of a spring in the form of resilient element 22 and a drivable element 21. At least from Fig. 2 of Roozen, it is clear that the plurality of suspension elements 19 (and therefore the resilient elements 22 and drivable elements 21) may be provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet (e.g., the cryostat enclosure 20 of first magnet system 1). Further, from Figs. 3a-3b of Roozen, it is clear that the plurality of suspension elements 19 (and therefore the resilient elements 22 and drivable elements 21) may be provided in a height direction of the cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet (e.g., the cryostat enclosure 20 of first magnet system 1, with the height direction being along the longitudinal axis of the cryostat enclosure 20). Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant further argues, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
201
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the outset, the examiner maintains that each of Roozen’s drivable elements 21, e.g., magnetostrictive actuators or piezo actuators, constitute a damper, e.g., an active damper, because it is a structure configured to reduce or cancel vibration behavior of the gradient coil carrier 18. Regarding the language “processing circuitry configured to control either or both of springs and dampers constituting the plurality of vibration-proof materials”, this language has a scope wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control (1) only the springs, (2) only the dampers or (3) both the springs and the dampers. Roozen clearly discloses processing circuitry that controls the drivable elements 21, e.g., magnetostrictive actuators or piezo actuators, and therefore discloses controlling the dampers, which satisfies one of the possible claimed processing circuitry configurations. Additionally, the examiner notes that control of each drivable element 21 also corresponds to control of the corresponding resilient element 22 because these elements are coupled together. Further, the examiner maintains that Roozen’s control of the drivable elements 21 is based on a type of pulse sequence to be executed (see Roozen, e.g., paragraphs 26, 29). Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Regarding claim 3, applicant argues at pages 7-8:
PNG
media_image4.png
170
581
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This argument is unpersuasive for same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, e.g., at least from Fig. 2 of Roozen, it is clear that the plurality of suspension elements 19 (and therefore the resilient elements 22 and drivable elements 21) may be provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet (e.g., the cryostat enclosure 20 of first magnet system 1), and from Figs. 3a-3b of Roozen it is clear that the plurality of suspension elements 19 (and therefore the resilient elements 22 and drivable elements 21) may be provided in a height direction of the cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet (e.g., the cryostat enclosure 20 of first magnet system 1, with the height direction being along the longitudinal axis of the cryostat enclosure 20).
Applicant further argues in connection with claim 3:
PNG
media_image5.png
515
584
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner first considers the claim language “processing circuitry configured to control a softness/hardness of the vibration-proof materials”. In response to applicant’s statement above that “[Roozen] does not disclose driving or changing properties of the resilient element in the '895 application” (emphasis in original), the examiner notes Roozen’s teaching regarding the disclosed suspension element in paragraph 9:
[0009] A further embodiment of the MRI apparatus in accordance with the invention is provided with a drive circuit that is arranged to drive the active drivable elements in such a manner that each of these elements compensates the vibration displacements performed by the gradient coil carrier at the area of the point of attachment of the relevant suspension element. This aspect of the invention is based on the following insight. The gradient carrier has at least one internal resonance frequency. For these resonance frequencies (the most important of which has a frequency that is typically of the order of magnitude of 700 Hz) the weak suspension constitutes an inadequate vibration isolation from the environment. This means that the transfer of vibrations that are produced by the gradient coil carrier to the environment (the frame of the MRI apparatus) is insufficiently reduced, so that the annoying noise is transferred to the further environment via the frame. This transfer is counteracted in that the active drivable element can be driven in such a manner that the displacement of the point of attachment of the suspension element to the gradient coil carrier, caused by the relevant vibrations, is compensated by an oppositely directed extension/shortening of the active drivable element that is caused by a change of the length of the drivable element that is induced by the driving. As a result, the suspension element is virtually weakened for the drive frequency (frequencies), notably for the stated typical value of 700 Hz. Such virtual weakening reduces the transfer of the dynamic forces that would be exerted on the frame of the MRI apparatus by the gradient coil carrier. Thus, displacement compensation is applied in order to achieve the effect of elimination of the transfer of forces from the gradient coil to the frame.
Contrary to applicant’s position, Roozen does disclose driving or changing properties of the resilient element because “the suspension element is virtually weakened for the drive frequency (frequencies), notably for the stated typical value of 700 Hz” and the “virtual weakening reduces the transfer of the dynamic forces that would be exerted on the frame of the MRI apparatus by the gradient coil carrier”. One of ordinary skill would understand that Roozen’s “virtual weaking” means that the resilient element is effectively made less stiff in order to reduce the transfer of dynamic forces from the gradient carrier to the MRI apparatus. The examiner therefore maintains the position that Roozen’s control of each suspension element 19 (resilient element 22 + drivable element 21) to control an amount of force applied to the gradient coil carrier 18 is tantamount to controlling a softness/hardness of each suspension element 19. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Regarding control a softness/hardness of the vibration-proof materials “according to positions of an antinode and a node at time of vibration of the gradient coil, the antinode and the node being positionally determined according to a type of pulse sequence to be executed”, the examiner maintains that in Roozen’s arrangement the vibration behavior of the gradient coil carrier is predicted based on the applied gradient current Ig in such a manner that the sum of the net forces acting on the gradient coil carrier becomes zero. For instance, Roozen discloses in paragraph 10:
[0010] In order to realize (electronic) control with the desired characteristics, that is, force neutralization for low frequencies (with the result that macroscopic displacements are eliminated) and/or displacement compensation for higher frequencies (with the result that the transfer of force is prevented), an embodiment of the MRI apparatus in accordance with the invention is provided with a gradient control circuit for producing the gradient signal, the drive circuit in said apparatus being provided with a feedforward circuit that is connected between the gradient control circuit and the active drivable element. This embodiment advantageously utilizes the a priori knowledge concerning the state of vibration of the gradient coil carrier. This knowledge is derived from (the control signal for) the gradient currents in such a manner that a drive signal is generated for the active drivable element such that the desired force neutralization for low frequencies and/or the desired displacement compensation for higher frequencies are achieved.
Further, regarding the transfer of vibrations that are produced by the gradient coil carrier to the environment (the frame of the MRI apparatus), Roozen discloses in paragraph 9 (duplicated above):
This transfer is counteracted in that the active drivable element can be driven in such a manner that the displacement of the point of attachment of the suspension element to the gradient coil carrier, caused by the relevant vibrations, is compensated by an oppositely directed extension/shortening of the active drivable element that is caused by a change of the length of the drivable element that is induced by the driving.
The examiner maintains that Roozen’s compensating displacement of the point of attachment of the suspension element to the gradient coil carrier caused by the relevant vibrations by oppositely directed extension/shortening of the active drivable element necessarily entails determining positions of an antinode and a node (e.g., peak and valley) at time of vibration of the gradient coil. That is to say, Roozen’s arrangement “knows” (e.g., from a priori knowledge concerning the state of vibration of the gradient coil carrier) the amplitude/frequency of the vibratory movement to be compensated and uses this knowledge to generate oppositely directed movement in order to effect the compensation. Roozen’s knowledge of the amplitude and frequency of the vibratory movement necessarily implies knowledge of the positions of an antinode and a node at time of vibration of the gradient coil. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0079895 to Roozen et al. (Roozen).
Regarding claim 1, Roozen discloses an MRI apparatus comprising:
a cylindrical static magnetic field magnet configured to generate a static magnetic field (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph 19, first magnet system 1 for generating a steady magnetic field B);
a cylindrical gradient coil installed inside the static magnetic field magnet, the cylindrical gradient coil being configured to generate a gradient magnetic field (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph 19, second magnetic system 2 (the gradient coil system) for generating magnetic gradient fields; also see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 20-22, noting that gradient coil carrier 18 customarily has the shape of a cylinder);
a vibration isolator disposed between the static magnetic field magnet and the gradient coil, the vibration isolator including a plurality of vibration-proof materials provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet and in a height direction of the cylindrical body, each of the vibration-proof materials being composed of a pair of a spring and a damper (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 20-22; also see Figs. 3a-3b and paragraphs 23-25, vibration isolator in the form of plurality of suspension elements 19 supporting gradient coil carrier 18 and therefore disposed between first magnet system 1 and second magnetic system 2 (the gradient coil system), with the vibration isolator including a plurality of vibration-proof materials (e.g., the plurality of suspension elements 19) provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the first magnet system 1 and in a height direction of the cylindrical body; in this regard, note in Figs. 3a-3b, for example, that each suspension element 19 bears on the cryostat enclosure 20 of first magnet system 1, with the cryostat enclosure 20 necessarily comprising a cylindrical body in view of the cylindrical geometry of the first magnet system 1; further note that each suspension element 19 is composed of a spring in the form of resilient element 22 and a damper in the form of drivable element 21, e.g., a magnetostrictive actuator or a piezo actuator; drivable element 21 is regarded as a damper, e.g., an active damper, because it is a structure configured to reduce or cancel vibration behavior of the gradient coil carrier 18); and
processing circuitry configured to control either or both of the springs and the dampers constituting the plurality of vibration-proof materials according to a type of pulse sequence to be executed (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-29, processing circuitry in the form of circuitry for implementing controller block 25 and processor block 29 for controlling the control behavior of the driving of an active drivable element for low frequencies; note in Fig. 4 that the active drivable element may be, for example, drivable element 21 (e.g., piezo actuator) of a particular suspension element 19; the examiner notes that control of the drivable element 21 also corresponds to control of the resilient element 22 because these elements are coupled together; further note that Fig. 4 implements feedforward control, e.g., a form of driving where the vibration behavior of the gradient coil carrier is predicted in such a manner that the sum of the net forces acting on the gradient coil carrier becomes zero; such a prediction is possible because the signal that drives the gradient coils, and hence causes vibration thereof, is known in advance, see, e.g., paragraph 26; also see paragraph 29, a signal that represents the gradient current Ig is applied to the input of the feedforward controller 26 and also to the input of the block 30; the output of the block 30 represents the displacement of the relevant point of the gradient coil carrier under the influence of the input signal Ig; the feedforward controller 26 predicts, on the basis of the input signal Ig, the (negative value of the) latter displacement and translates it into a voltage Uf that makes the piezo actuator induce said displacement; the examiner notes that the gradient current Ig (e.g., the waveform used to drive the gradient coils) is dependent on a type of pulse sequence to be executed).
Regarding claim 2, Roozen discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control a softness/hardness of either or both of the springs and the dampers constituting the plurality of vibration-proof materials according to positions of an antinode and a node at a time of vibration of the gradient coil, the antinode and the node being positionally determined depending on the type of pulse sequence to be executed (see Roozen as applied to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-29; each suspension element 19 (resilient element 22 + drivable element 21) is controlled such that that the sum of the net forces acting on the gradient coil carrier 18 becomes zero; in this way, each suspension element 19 counteracts vibrations of the gradient coil carrier 18; control of each suspension element 19 (resilient element 22 + drivable element 21) to control an amount of force applied to the gradient coil carrier 18 is tantamount to controlling a softness/hardness of each suspension element 19; further note that in Roozen’s feedforward control (feedforward controller 26 of Fig. 4) that the vibration behavior of the gradient coil carrier is predicted based on the applied gradient current Ig in such a manner that the sum of the net forces acting on the gradient coil carrier becomes zero, which necessarily entails determining positions of an antinode and a node (e.g., peak and valley) at time of vibration of the gradient coil; also see paragraph 9 in this regard, the active drivable element can be driven in such a manner that the displacement of the point of attachment of the suspension element to the gradient coil carrier, caused by the relevant vibrations, is compensated by an oppositely directed extension/shortening of the active drivable element that is caused by a change of the length of the drivable element that is induced by the driving; also note that the applied gradient current Ig (e.g., the waveform used to drive the gradient coils) is dependent on a type of pulse sequence to be executed; also see paragraph 29, feedforward controller 26 predicts, on the basis of the input signal Ig, the (negative value of the) latter displacement and translates it into a voltage Uf that makes the piezo actuator induce said displacement).
Regarding claim 3, Roozen discloses an MRI apparatus comprising:
a cylindrical static magnetic field magnet configured to generate a static magnetic field (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph 19, first magnet system 1 for generating a steady magnetic field B);
a cylindrical gradient coil installed inside the static magnetic field magnet; the cylindrical gradient coil being configured to generate a gradient magnetic field (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph 19, second magnetic system 2 (the gradient coil system) for generating magnetic gradient fields; also see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 20-22, noting that gradient coil carrier 18 customarily has the shape of a cylinder);
a vibration isolator disposed between the static magnetic field magnet and the gradient coil, the vibration isolator including a plurality of vibration-proof materials provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 20-22; also see Figs. 3a-3b and paragraphs 23-25, vibration isolator in the form of plurality of suspension elements 19 supporting gradient coil carrier 18 and therefore disposed between first magnet system 1 and second magnetic system 2 (the gradient coil system), with the vibration isolator including a plurality of vibration-proof materials (e.g., the plurality of suspension elements 19) provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the first magnet system 1 and in a height direction of the cylindrical body; in this regard, note in Figs. 3a-3b, for example, that each suspension element 19 bears on the cryostat enclosure 20 of first magnet system 1, with the cryostat enclosure 20 necessarily comprising a cylindrical body in view of the cylindrical geometry of the first magnet system 1; further note that each suspension element 19 is composed of a spring in the form of resilient element 22 and a damper in the form of drivable element 21, e.g., a magnetostrictive actuator or a piezo actuator; drivable element 21 is regarded as a damper, e.g., an active damper, because it is a structure configured to reduce or cancel vibration behavior of the gradient coil carrier 18); and
processing circuitry configured to control softness/hardness of the vibration-proof materials according to positions of an antinode and a node at a time of vibration of the gradient coil, the antinode and the node being positionally determined according to a type of pulse sequence to be executed (Roozen, e.g., Fig. 4 and paragraphs 26-29, processing circuitry in the form of circuitry for implementing controller block 25 and processor block 29 for controlling the control behavior of the driving of an active drivable element for low frequencies; each suspension element 19 (resilient element 22 + drivable element 21) is controlled such that that the sum of the net forces acting on the gradient coil carrier 18 becomes zero; in this way, each suspension element 19 counteracts vibrations of the gradient coil carrier 18; control of each suspension element 19 (resilient element 22 + drivable element 21) to control an amount of force applied to the gradient coil carrier 18 is tantamount to controlling a softness/hardness of each suspension element 19; further note that in Roozen’s feedforward control (feedforward controller 26 of Fig. 4) that the vibration behavior of the gradient coil carrier is predicted based on the applied gradient current Ig in such a manner that the sum of the net forces acting on the gradient coil carrier becomes zero, which necessarily entails determining positions of an antinode and a node (e.g., peak and valley) at time of vibration of the gradient coil; also see paragraph 9 in this regard, the active drivable element can be driven in such a manner that the displacement of the point of attachment of the suspension element to the gradient coil carrier, caused by the relevant vibrations, is compensated by an oppositely directed extension/shortening of the active drivable element that is caused by a change of the length of the drivable element that is induced by the driving; also note that the applied gradient current Ig (e.g., the waveform used to drive the gradient coils) is dependent on a type of pulse sequence to be executed; also see paragraph 29, feedforward controller 26 predicts, on the basis of the input signal Ig, the (negative value of the) latter displacement and translates it into a voltage Uf that makes the piezo actuator induce said displacement).
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.
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 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005245775A to Takamori et al. (Takamori).
Regarding claim 1, Takamori discloses an MRI apparatus, comprising:
a cylindrical static magnetic field magnet configured to generate a static magnetic field (Takamori, e.g., Figs. 1, 6, cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2);
a cylindrical gradient coil installed inside the static magnetic field magnet, the cylindrical gradient coil being configured to generate a gradient magnetic field (Takamori, e.g., Figs. 1, 6, cylindrical gradient magnetic field coil 3 provided inside the static magnetic field magnet 2 and arranged coaxially therewith);
a vibration isolator disposed between the static magnetic field magnet and the gradient coil, the vibration isolator including a plurality of vibration-proof materials provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet , each of the vibration-proof materials being composed of a pair of a spring and a damper (Takamori, e.g., Figs. 1-2, first note vibration isolator in the form of gradient magnetic field coil support system 10 that includes air springs 9 between the gradient magnetic field coil 3 and the static magnetic field magnet 2, with the air springs 2 provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2; next note Figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 42-52 showing an alternative gradient magnetic field coil support system in the form of gradient coil support system 10B for supporting the gradient coil 3 with respect to the static magnetic field magnet 2, with the gradient coil support system 10B including spring 30 and the damper 31; it is implicit in Takamori that the spring 30/damper 31 configuration of Fig. 6 can be used as an alternative to the air spring 9 of Figs. 1-2, in which case the gradient coil support system 10B will include a plurality of the spring 30/damper 31 sets provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2; the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Takamori therefore discloses a vibration isolator (e.g., gradient coil support system 10B) disposed between the static magnetic field magnet (e.g., cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2) and the gradient coil (e.g., cylindrical gradient magnetic field coil 3), the vibration isolator including a plurality of vibration-proof materials (e.g., springs 30/dampers 31) provided in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet); and
processing circuitry configured to control either or both of the springs and dampers constituting the plurality of vibration-proof materials according to a type of pulse sequence to be executed (Takamori, e.g., Fig. 6 and paragraph 50, the control system 7 includes a sequence controller 15, a sequence generation unit 17, and a viscous damping coefficient control unit 41; the viscous damping coefficient control means 41 is connected to the driving mechanism 40 and has a function of controlling the viscous damping coefficient of the damper 31 by giving a control signal to the driving mechanism 40 according to a sequence; the examiner notes that the language “processing circuitry configured to control either or both of the springs and dampers constituting the plurality of vibration-proof materials according to a type of pulse sequence to be executed” has a scope wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control (1) only the springs, (2) only the dampers or (3) both the springs and the dampers; Takamori clearly discloses processing circuitry that controls at least the dampers 31, which satisfies at least one of the possible claimed processing circuitry configurations; additionally, Takamori explicitly recognizes in paragraph 45 in connection with Fig. 6 that spring constant of spring 30 may be fixed or variable, and when the spring constant is variable, the air spring 9 can be used in combination with the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus 1 of Fig. 1; accordingly, Takamori also discloses the possibility of the processing circuitry being configured to control both of springs and dampers in each spring 30/damper 31 set in the arrangement of Fig. 6).
The examiner notes that the views presented in Figs. 1-2 and Fig. 6 of Takamori show only a single end of the connection between the cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2 and the cylindrical gradient magnetic field coil 3. It is at least implicit in Takamori’s arrangement that the opposite end of the cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2 and the cylindrical gradient magnetic field coil 3 must be connected in the same manner; otherwise the goal of Takamori’s arrangement (vibration isolation between the magnet and gradient coil) would not be realized. For this reason, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Takamori’s vibration-proof materials (spring 30/damper 31 sets of Fig. 6) are provided not only in a circumferential direction of a cylindrical body of the static magnetic field magnet, but also in a height direction of the cylindrical body (i.e., in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical body). In the alternative, 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 Takamori such that the spring 30/damper 31 sets of Fig. 6 are also provided in a height (longitudinal) direction of the cylindrical body so that both ends of the cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2 and the cylindrical gradient magnetic field coil 3 are circumferentially supported by spring 30/damper 31 sets to ensure that suitable vibration isolation at both ends of the cylindrical static magnetic field magnet 2 and the cylindrical gradient magnetic field coil 3 is obtained.
Regarding claim 4 Takamori as applied to claim 1 discloses:
an air pump connected to each of the plurality of springs; and
an oil chamber connected to each of the plurality of dampers (see Takamori as applied to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 7 and paragraphs 46-48, oil chamber in the form of at least variable orifice 33 containing viscous fluid 32; additionally, Takamori explicitly recognizes in paragraph 45 in connection with Fig. 6 that spring constant of spring 30 may be fixed or variable, and when the spring constant is variable, the air spring 9 can be used in combination with the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus 1 of Fig. 1, which utilizes an air pump 12 coupled to air spring 9; see, e.g., paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 5, Takamori as applied to claim 1 discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
specify the vibration pattern of the gradient coil based on the pulse sequence to be executed (Takamori, e.g., paragraphs 50-52; also see paragraphs 18, 23-28);
calculate either or both the spring constant of the spring and the attenuation constant of the damper for each position with respect to the specified vibration pattern (Takamori, e.g., paragraphs 50-52; additionally, Takamori explicitly recognizes in paragraph 45 in connection with Fig. 6 that spring constant of spring 30 may be fixed or variable, and when the spring constant is variable, the air spring 9 can be used in combination with the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus 1 of Fig. 1, which utilizes an air pump 12 coupled to air spring 9; see, e.g., paragraphs 18, 23-28); and
dynamically control the pressure of either or both the spring and the damper at each position (Takamori, e.g., paragraphs 50-52, also see paragraphs 18, 23-28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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