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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
at least one coupling member in claim 1;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Par. 0044 discusses the structural details as follows: “The coupling member 50 is disposed so as to extend in the horizontal direction, for example. Specifically, the coupling member 50 may have a plate shape or the like provided so as to extend in the horizontal direction. Note that the coupling member 50 may be inclined with respect to the horizontal direction. The coupling member 50 is not required to have a plate shape, may have a rod shape, a block shape, or the like.” Therefore, the coupling member will be construed accordingly and including equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites that “the refrigerator is positioned between the one leg and the refrigerator support body in the horizontal direction”. The limitation “the one leg” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the examiner reads the limitation "the one leg" as --one leg of the plurality of legs-- i.e., the same leg of the plurality of legs of the magnet support that is horizontally coupled to the refrigerator support by the at least one coupling member as recited in claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesel et al. (US 2007/0107445 A1) in view of Neils et al. (US 2020/0149686 A1) and further in view of Kan Song (CN 208295033 U: see a copy of the English translation in the office action dated 01/06/2026).
In regard to claim 1, Boesel discloses a superconducting magnet device comprising:
a magnet device body (cryostat 9) including a superconducting magnet (NMR probe head 1), the magnet device body (9) having a bottom surface (see fig. 1; ¶ 0058: Boesel discloses the cryostat 9 is a vessel having a lower exterior surface (bottom surface) from which a magnet support depends and rests on the installation surface);
a magnet support (see the annotated figure 1 below) includes a magnet support body including a plurality of legs (see the plurality of legs) that supports the magnet device body (9) such that the magnet device body (9) is disposed above an installation surface (see the annotated figure below), the magnet support being attached to the bottom surface (Boesel discloses a magnet support (see the support legs of cryostat 9 as annotated below) that supports the magnet device body (cryostat 9) above the installation surface (floor), the magnet support being attached to the bottom surface of cryostat 9. See the annotated figure 1 below; ¶ 0058);
a refrigerator (cold head 4) that is disposed at a position away from the magnet device body (9) and cools a refrigerant that cools the superconducting magnet (1) (see ¶ 0058, 0060–0063; see also the annotated figure);
a refrigerator support (stand 8) that supports the refrigerator (4) from below such that the refrigerator (4) is disposed above the installation surface (see the annotated figure below; ¶ 0058).
Boesel teaches a refrigerator support and a magnet support includes a magnet support body having a plurality of legs, but does not explicitly teach a vibration damper interposed between the bottom surface of the magnet device body and the legs of the magnet support that reduces vibration transmitted from the magnet support body to the magnet device body.
However, Song discloses a vibration damper (air spring shock absorber 2) that is interposed between the bottom surface of a superconducting magnet (4) (constituting the bottom surface of the magnet device body) and the legs of a magnet support body and reduces vibration transmitted from the magnet support body to the magnet device body, by isolating low-frequency vibration in the vertical direction. Song specifically teaches that the bottom end of the air spring shock absorber (2) is fixedly connected to the top of the support leg (1) and its top end is connected to the bottom flange of the superconducting magnet (4), thereby interposing the vibration damper between the bottom surface of the magnet device body and the tops of the support legs (See Abstract; FIG. 1; page 4 and 5 of the English translation of Song).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconducting magnet device of Boesel to provide a vibration damper interposed between the bottom surface of the magnet device body (cryostat 9) and the tops of the plurality of legs of the magnet support, in view of the teachings of Song, for the purpose of isolating low-frequency vibration transmitted from the installation surface through the leg structure to the superconducting magnet, thereby reducing interference with NMR measurements and improving measurement quality. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art, faced with the vibration isolation problem recognized in Boesel itself (¶ 0009–0010), would have been motivated to incorporate Song’s vibration-damping air spring arrangement to provide a well-established, proven solution to that exact vibration isolation problem.
The modified Boesel does not explicitly teach at least one coupling member that horizontally couples one leg of the plurality of legs to the refrigerator support at a position above the installation surface but below the vibration damper.
However, Neils discloses a low vibration cryocooled cryostat (10) comprising at least one coupling member (lower frame member 64) that couples the refrigerator support (62: frame 56, including spring isolators 45 that support the cold head 16) and the magnet support at a position above the installation surface. Specifically, Neils discloses that the magnet device body (housing 14 containing the superconducting magnet) is supported above the installation surface (floor) by a plurality of support structures functioning as legs (pneumatic isolators (31)) that support the optical bench (29) on which housing 14 rests. The lower frame member (64) extends upward from the installation surface and couples the refrigerator support (frame 56) to the magnet support legs (housing 14/bench 29/isolators 31) at a position above the installation surface (¶ 0037; FIGS. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boesel, to provide at least one coupling member that horizontally couples one leg of the plurality of legs to the refrigerator support at a position above the installation surface but below the vibration damper (see the explanation below), in view of the teachings of Neils, for the purpose of suppressing cantilever-beam vibration of the refrigerator support and refrigerator assembly by providing a rigid horizontal mechanical brace between one leg of the magnet support and the refrigerator support, reducing the amplitude of vibration transmitted from the refrigerator to the magnet device body through the refrigerant circulation pipe and structural members, and maintaining precise positional alignment of the refrigerator relative to the magnet device body, thereby improving the structural stability and operational reliability of the superconducting magnet device.
With respect to the at least one coupling member horizontally coupling one leg of the plurality of legs to the refrigerator support at a position above the installation surface but below the vibration damper: when Song’s vibration damper arrangement is incorporated into the Boesel device, the vibration damper (air spring) is located at the top of each support leg at the magnet-bottom-surface/leg-top interface. When Neils’ horizontal coupling member is applied to connect one leg of the magnet support to the refrigerator support, the coupling member necessarily attaches to a point along the leg body that is above the installation surface but below the vibration damper. This is because Song’s vibration damper sits at the uppermost end of the leg at the magnet-facing top, while any horizontal coupling member connecting the leg body to the refrigerator support must attach at an intermediate height below that point. No alternative arrangement is geometrically possible: a coupling member attached at the same height as the vibration damper would displace or interfere with the damper itself. Accordingly, the “below the vibration damper” positional relationship is the inherent and predictable geometric consequence of the combination requiring no undue experimentation.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, the modified Boesel discloses the superconducting magnet device according to claim 1, further comprising: a refrigerant circulation pipe (pipe conduit 14) that is connected to the magnet device body (9) and the refrigerator (cold head 4/4a) and through which the refrigerant passes (see fig. 2; ¶ 0060), wherein the refrigerator support (stand 8) supports the refrigerator (cold head 4) such that the refrigerator (cold head 4) is disposed at a height that allows the refrigerant condensed in the refrigerator (cold head 4) to flow from the refrigerator (cold head 4) into the magnet device body (cryostat 9) through the refrigerant circulation pipe (pipe conduit 14) by a weight of the refrigerant (the refrigerant liquefied via heat exchange with the cold head 4a, and is subsequently returned to the magnet device body by its weight or gravity through the line 14) (see ¶ 0060; fig. 1 and 2).
In regard to claim 4, the modified Boesel discloses the superconducting magnet device according to claim 1, wherein Boesel, as modified Neils, teaches at least one coupling member that couples the refrigerator support and the magnet support at a position above the installation surface (see the rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the at least one coupling member includes a plurality of coupling members, and the plurality of coupling members are disposed apart from each other in an up-down direction.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the coupling structure of Boesel to include a plurality of coupling members disposed apart from each other in the up-down direction in order to improve load distribution wherein using multiple coupling members spaced in the up-down direction would distribute mechanical loads between the refrigerator support and the magnet support, reducing stress concentration on a single coupling member, and also enhance vibration suppression because multiple coupling members positioned at different heights would more effectively suppress vibration transmission by increasing structural damping and reducing resonance, a well-known design consideration in cryogenic and superconducting magnet systems. Therefore, the modification from a single coupling member to a plurality of coupling members arranged along the up-down direction represents a predictable variation and a matter of routine structural optimization, yielding no unexpected results. Such a modification merely involves duplicating the coupling member of Boesel, as modified, and positioning the duplicated coupling members at different locations along the vertical direction, which would have been well within the ordinary skill of the art. Therefore, person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that placing multiple coupling members spaced apart in the up-down direction would achieve the same intended function as the single coupling member disclosed in Neils, the refrigerator support and the magnet support—while providing improved performance, without requiring undue experimentation. Note: the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 5, the modified Boesel discloses the superconducting magnet device according to claim 1, wherein Boesel discloses a refrigerator support body (stand 8) extending upward from the installation surface (stand 8 rises from the floor to support housing 6 above the installation surface) and a refrigerator attachment portion (the horizontal extension piece connecting stand 8 to housing 6) that supports the refrigerator (housing 6/cold head 4) above the installation surface (See FIG. 1; ¶ 0058; see the annotated figure above). Neils likewise discloses a refrigerator support body (frame 56) extending upward from the installation surface and a refrigerator attachment portion (the upper frame member 60 to connect to cold head 16 via the damping assembly 58) that supports the refrigerator (cold head 16) above the installation surface. (¶ 0037–0039; FIGS. 1, 2.)
With respect to the refrigerator being positioned between the one leg and the refrigerator support body in the horizontal direction: in Boesel, the refrigerator support body (stand 8) is disposed to one lateral side of the cryostat (9), and the refrigerator (housing 6) is supported above and adjacent to the cryostat (9). The support legs of the cryostat (9) extend along the periphery of the cryostat bottom on multiple sides. Accordingly, when the device is viewed in the horizontal direction, at least one leg of cryostat (9) that is positioned on the far side of the cryostat (i.e., the side opposite from stand 8) is laterally on the other side of the refrigerator from stand (8), thereby placing the refrigerator horizontally between that one leg and the refrigerator support body (stand 8) (See the annotated FIG. 1 above). Similarly, in Neils, the cold head (16) (refrigerator) is attached to frame 56 (refrigerator support body) via horizontal member 62 (refrigerator attachment portion), and the magnet support structure (housing 14 supported by plurality of legs (pneumatic isolators 31)) is on the opposite lateral side of cold head (16) from frame (56), thereby placing cold head 16 between at least one of the legs (31) and the refrigerator support body (frame 56) in the horizontal direction (FIGS. 1, 2).
Assuming arguendo that the prior art does not expressly depict the refrigerator positioned between the one leg and the refrigerator support body in the horizontal direction, it would nonetheless have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superconducting magnet device of the modified Boesel, to position the refrigerator between one leg of the magnet support and the refrigerator support body in the horizontal direction, for the following reasons. Positioning the refrigerator on the cryostat-facing side of the refrigerator support body, i.e., between one leg of the magnet support and the refrigerator support body—minimizes the length of the refrigerant circulation pipe (pipe conduit 14 per Boesel, ¶ 0060) connecting the refrigerator to the magnet device body, because the refrigerator is brought as close as possible to the magnet device body. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to minimize the refrigerant pipe length in order to: (1) reduce thermal heat ingress into the cryogenic circuit through the pipe walls, thereby improving refrigeration efficiency of the gravity-flow cooling system; (2) reduce the dead volume of refrigerant in the circulation pipe, which improves the responsiveness and thermal stability of the cooling circuit; and (3) reduce the overall installation footprint of the device by keeping the refrigerator, legs, and refrigerator support body in a compact lateral arrangement. These are well-recognized design objectives in cryogenic superconducting magnet systems and would have driven a person of ordinary skill to select the inward-facing “between” positioning as the predictably superior arrangement. Moreover, rearranging the position of existing components of a known device in a manner that produces no new or unexpected structural or functional result is itself within the level of ordinary skill in the art. No unexpected results arise from this positional arrangement, and the modification requires no undue experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the refrigerator support body and refrigerator attachment portion of Boesel, such that the refrigerator is positioned between one leg of the plurality of legs of the magnet support and the refrigerator support body in the horizontal direction, for the purpose of minimizing the refrigerant circulation pipe length, reducing thermal heat ingress into the cryogenic circuit, reducing dead volume in the gravity-flow refrigerant path, and providing a compact installation footprint, thereby improving the thermal efficiency and structural compactness of the superconducting magnet device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The combination of Boesel et al. (US 2007/0107445 A1) in view of Neils et al. (US 2020/0149686 A1) and further in view of Kan Song (CN 208295033 U) renders claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as set forth above.
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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights