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 § 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 and 4 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).
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) (see fig. 1; ¶ 0058);
a magnet support (see the annotated figure 1 below) 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);
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; 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); and
Boesel teaches a refrigerator support and a magnet support, does not explicitly teach at least one coupling member that couples the refrigerator support and the magnet support at a position above the installation surface.
However, Neils discloses cryostat (10) including a cryocooler (GM-type pulse tube cryocooler 12) and a housing 14 an integrated superconducting magnet, wherein the cryostat comprising at least one coupling member (64) that couples a refrigerator support (62) and a magnet support (31) at a position above an installation surface (floor) (see ¶ 0037; fig. 2).
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 by employing at least one coupling member that couples the refrigerator support and the magnet support at a position above the installation surface, in view of the teachings of Neils, for the purpose of providing a controlled mechanical and thermal interface between the refrigerator support and the magnet support, enabling load transfer and alignment while suppressing vibration, maintaining precise positional alignment of the refrigerator relative the magnet device body, and accommodating thermal deformation, thereby improving stability and reliability of the superconducting magnet device.
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 In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesel and Neils as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kan Song (CN 208295033 U).
In regard to claim 3, the modified Boesel discloses the superconducting magnet device according to claim 1, wherein the magnet support includes: a magnet support body (see the plurality of the magnetic body stands as shown in the above annotated figure) to which the at least one coupling member is connected (as modified by Neils’s coupling member) (see the rejection of claim 1 above);
Boesel, as modified by Neils teaches a magnet support body to support the magnet device body, does not explicitly teach a vibration damper that is disposed between the magnet support body and the magnet device body and reduces vibration transmitted from the magnet support body to the magnet device body.
However, Song discloses a superconducting magnet compound vibration absorbing supporting device, comprising: a supporting leg (1), the top part thereof is provided with an air spring shock absorber (2), and the bottom thereof is provided with a rubber pad (3), wherein: the air spring shock absorber (2), the bottom end thereof is fixedly connected with the support leg top, top end thereof connected with said superconducting magnet bottom flange, to isolate the vertical direction of low-frequency vibration (see Abstract; fig. 1).
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 by including a vibration damper between the magnet support body and the magnet device body, in view of the teachings of Song, for no more than the predictable result of improving vibration isolation and magnet stability the purpose of isolating vibration transmitted from the support to the superconducting magnet.
Conclusion
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
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights