DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mine et al. (US 2014/0028316) in view of Okamoto (US 4905316).
In re claims 1, 6, and 8, Mine discloses a superconducting magnet device, including a radiation shield structure comprising: a superconducting coil (14); a radiation shield (16) including a plurality of divided shield pieces disposed to surround the superconducting coil; a thermal bridge member (35) that thermally connects the plurality of divided shield pieces to each other; and a resistance layer (37) that is interposed between the thermal bridge member and the divided shield pieces and has a higher electrical resistivity than the thermal bridge member (inherent functionality of electrical insulation) wherein the thermal bridge member thermally connects the plurality of divided shield pieces over a slit. Mine does not disclose the slit completely dividing the radiation shield or a specific metal material used to make the bridge member. Okamoto however, teaches a superconducting magnet device having a radiation shield (4) completely divided by slits (see figure 7 for best view). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made slits, as taught by Okamoto, to completely divide the shield of Mine to reduce eddy currents, as discussed by Okamoto throughout the specification. Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a high thermal conductivity material for the thermal bridge member to allow uniform temperature distribution around the magnet, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 22, applicant discloses that materials such as copper or aluminum can be used, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since these materials are well known to be highly thermally conductive.
In re claim 2, Mine discloses that the resistance layer is a passive film (37, as shown in figure 1).
In re claim 5, Mine teaches the claimed device except for the shield being formed of high thermal conductivity metal. Okamoto however teaches that the shield 4 is formed of aluminum (see column 5, line 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a high thermal conductivity metal as taught by Okamoto in the shield of Mine to provide a more uniform thermal distribution in the shield.
In re claim 7, Mine discloses the resistance layer (37) having a higher electrical resistivity than the thermal bridge member but does not disclose a plurality of resistance layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided additional resistance layers to the existing layers to increase resistance, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are allowed.
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 Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights