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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1 encompassing claims 21-32 in the reply filed on 8/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that:
“There is no motivation or teaching in either reference to combine Yang's parallel coil-end plate manipulation system with Hu's mobile stage stator array. Combining Yang et al. with Hu is technically improper because integrating Yang's parallel mobile coil mechanism into Hu's haptic tracking device would destroy the core operational principle of both systems:
Yang et al. relies on continuous 3D parallel kinematic repositioning of heavy electromagnetic coils to calculate close-proximity field forces.
Hu, by contrast, relies on a static or linear stage sensor- feedback loop optimized for real-time haptic response.
Physical integration of Yang's moving coil mechanism into Hu's platform introduces severe physical inertia and kinematic conflicts that defeat Hu's intended haptic feedback responsiveness, rendering the combination inoperable for its intended purpose.”
Neither of them nor their combination teaches the device for tracking of a magnetic element of this invention. This is not found persuasive because Hu teaches coils and therefore the heavy electromagnetic coils of Yang are not being combined with Hu. Each of the coils of Hugh could be positioned in a parallel manipulation system and still be moved as a whole by the stator.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 33-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/24/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 15, 34, 35, 49, and 60. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both the linear rail actuator that moves the magnetic source and the eye-in-hand sensing module, reference character “46” has been used to designate both the electromagnetic source and a portion of the micro-Stewart Platform of Fig. 6(a), reference character “47” has been used to designate both a rotational actuator and a portion of the micro-Stewart Platform of Fig. 6(a), and reference character “48” has been used to designate both a linear actuator and a portion of the micro-Stewart Platform of Fig. 6(a). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 recites “b. a first linear actuation mechanism (39) supported by a first rotational joint (40) and a second rotation joint (42)”. However, this should be read as “b. a first linear actuation mechanism (39) supported by a first rotational joint (40) and a second rotational joint (42)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 23 recites “a positioning device selected from the group consisting of steward platform and rotational joint”. However, this should be read as “a positioning device selected from the group consisting of a stewart platform and a rotational joint”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
a plurality of magnetic sources arranged evenly around said eye-in-hand sensing module in claim 21.
an adjustment mechanism connected to each of said plurality of magnetic sources for adjusting said tilt angle and said adjacent angle in claim 21.
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.
The eye-in-hand sensing module is disclosed in paragraph [0071] of the specification as “eye-in-hand sensing module comprises one or more components selected from the group consisting of cameras, 2D/3D ultrasound probes, x-ray generators, electrostatic sensors, magnetic sensors, fluorescent sensor, optical transmissometer, force sensors, grating sensor, photoacoustic probes, laser speckle imaging, infrared thermography cameras, radio frequency probes and humidity sensors”. Therefore the structure of the eye-in-hand sensing module will be interpreted as one or more components selected from the group consisting of cameras, 2D/3D ultrasound probes, x-ray generators, electrostatic sensors, magnetic sensors, fluorescent sensor, optical transmissometer, force sensors, grating sensor, photoacoustic probes, laser speckle imaging, infrared thermography cameras, radio frequency probes and humidity sensors.
The adjustment mechanism is disclosed in paragraph [0072] of the specification as “adjustment mechanism comprises a configuration selected from the group consisting of: a) two linear actuators (17) and two universal ball joints (19); b) a four-bar linkage formed by four rotational joints (26, 27); c) a linear actuator (28), a universal ball joint (29) and a rotational joint (30); and d) a linear actuator (31) or a rotational actuator”. Therefor the structure of the adjustment mechanism will be interpreted as a configuration selected from the group consisting of: a) two linear actuators (17) and two universal ball joints (19); b) a four-bar linkage formed by four rotational joints (26, 27); c) a linear actuator (28), a universal ball joint (29) and a rotational joint (30); and d) a linear actuator (31) or a rotational actuator
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 23 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.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites “wherein said ultrasound probe is controlled by a positioning device selected from the group consisting of steward platform and rotational joint.” However, claim 23 is dependent on claim 21 which recites “two rotational joints (36, 37) to control in-plane motion and two rotational joints (38) to control the out-of-plane motion; b. a first linear actuation mechanism (39) supported by a first rotational joint (40) and a second rotation joint (42)”. Therefore, it is unclear if the rotational joint is one of the two rotational joints to control in-plane motion, one of the two rotational joints to control the out-of-plane motion, the first rotational joint, the second rotation joint, or a different rotational joint. Fore examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as “wherein said ultrasound probe is controlled by a positioning device selected from the group consisting of steward platform and a rotational joint for the ultrasound probe”.
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.
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.
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 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20060209019) and further in view of Du NPL 2020 (“RoboMag: A Magnetic Actuation System Based on Mobile Electromagnetic Coils With Tunable Working Space”).
Regarding claim 21, Hu teaches a device for tracking of a magnetic element (Abstract - "A detector of the system, optionally multiple sensors of different types, is operative to detect at least the position of the moveable device in the operating space", [0010] - "The moveable device is magnetically responsive, e.g., all or at least a component of the device comprises iron or other suitable material that can be attracted magnetically and/or into which a temporary magnetism can be
impressed"), comprising:
a. a magnetic actuation unit (Abstract - "a stator having an array of independently controllable
electromagnet coils"), comprising:
i. an eye-in-hand sensing module ([0017] – “employing Hall-effect sensors or other suitable position sensors in the stator to refine tool position”);
ii. a plurality of magnetic sources arranged evenly around [...the center of the stator], each of
said plurality of magnetic sources is tilted at a tilt angle and separated from an adjacent magnetic
source at an adjacent angle (see Figs. 2 and 4 the coils [56, 68] are arranged evenly around the stator
[54, 66], tilted at a tilt angle, and separated from an adjacent electromagnetic coil at an adjacent angle);
and
b. a robotic platform for mounting of said magnetic actuation unit and providing dexterous pose
control of said magnetic actuation unit (Abstract - "the actuator has a controllably moveable stage
positioning the stator in response to movement of the moveable device", [0014] - "In certain exemplary
embodiments the mobile stage can also provide rotational movement of the stator about one, two or
three axes");
wherein said robotic platform comprises a configuration for dexterous pose control of said
magnetic actuation unit, said configuration is selected from the group consisting of:
a. two rotational joints (36, 37) to control in-plane motion and two rotational joints (38) to
control the out-of-plane motion;
b. a first linear actuation mechanism (39) supported by a first rotational joint (40) and a second
rotation joint (42), wherein said second rotation joint is connected to a second linear actuation mechanism (41); and
c. a rotational actuator (47) and a linear actuator (48) ([0013] - "the mobile stage is an X-Y-Z
table operative to move the stator up and down, left and right, and fore and aft, or more degree of freedom can be added such as tip and tilt", [0014] - "In certain exemplary embodiments the mobile stage can also provide rotational movement of the stator about one, two or three axes").
Conversely Hu does not teach ii. a plurality of magnetic sources arranged evenly around said eye-in-hand sensing module,
iii. an adjustment mechanism connected to each of said plurality of magnetic sources for adjusting said tilt angle and said adjacent angle to achieve a desired magnetic field;
However, Du discloses ii. a plurality of magnetic sources arranged evenly around said eye-in-hand sensing module (See Figs. 1 and 2),
iii. an adjustment mechanism connected to each of said plurality of magnetic sources for adjusting said tilt angle and said adjacent angle to achieve a desired magnetic field (See Figs. 1 and 2, the 4 degrees of freedom of each robotic arm would provide adjustment of the tilt angle and the adjacent angle, pg. 126 left column – “With the actuation of robotic platform, the coils can track the movement of controlled medical robot within a large workspace…With the mathematical model based on coordinate transformation and linear superimposition, and localization such as stereo vision, the mobile coils are able to generate required magnetic torque and force at the location of controlled object.”);
Du is an analogous art considering it is in the field of robotically manipulating a magnetic device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hu to incorporate the adjustment of each magnetic source that is arranged around an eye-in-hand sensing module of Du to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it is “able to program magnetic field at a required point inside a hemispherical space with a diameter of 152 mm” (Du – abstract)
Regarding claim 22, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 21.
Hu further discloses wherein said eye-in-hand sensing module comprises one or more components selected from the group consisting of cameras, 2D/3D ultrasound probes, x- ray generators, electrostatic sensors, magnetic sensors, fluorescent sensor, optical transmissometer, force sensors, grating sensor, photoacoustic probes, laser speckle imaging, infrared thermography cameras, radio frequency probes and humidity sensors ([0009] – “detected by a detector, e.g., one or more sensors, e.g., a camera or other optical sensors, Hall Effect sensors, accelerometers on-board the movable device, etc”, [0017] – “employing Hall-effect sensors or other suitable position sensors in the stator to refine tool position”).
Regarding claim 24, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 21.
Conversely Hu does not teach wherein said adjustment mechanism comprises a configuration selected from the group consisting of:
a. two linear actuators (17) and two universal ball joints (19);
b. a four-bar linkage formed by four rotational joints (26, 27);
c. a linear actuator (28), a universal ball joint (29) and a rotational joint (30); and
d. a linear actuator (31) or a rotational actuator.
However, Du discloses wherein said adjustment mechanism comprises a configuration selected from the group consisting of:
a. two linear actuators (17) and two universal ball joints (19);
b. a four-bar linkage formed by four rotational joints (26, 27);
c. a linear actuator (28), a universal ball joint (29) and a rotational joint (30); and
d. a linear actuator (31) or a rotational actuator (See Fig. 2, the adjustment mechanism comprises multiple rotational actuators).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hu to incorporate the adjustment mechanism of Du to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it is “able to program magnetic field at a required point inside a hemispherical space with a diameter of 152 mm” (Du – abstract)
Regarding claim 25, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 21.
Hu further discloses wherein said plurality of magnetic sources comprises electromagnets or permanent magnets (Abstract – “an array of independently controllable electromagnet coils”).
Regarding claim 30, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 21.
Hu further discloses wherein said magnetic element is selected from the group consisting of tethered magnetic robots, magnetic catheters, magnetic guidewires, magnetic needles, ([0079] – “It will be appreciated that a great number of other types of user objects can be used with the methods and systems disclosed here…Such objects may include…surgical tool, catheter, hypodermic needle, wire”) magnetic sleeves, magnetic soft robots, magnetic continuum robots, untethered magnetic robot ([0010] – “the moveable device is untethered…The moveable device is magnetically responsive”), magnetic helical swimmers, magnetic rollers, magnetic grippers, magnetic surgical tools, magnetic endoscopes, and magnetic capsule endoscopes.
Regarding claim 32, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 21.
Hu further discloses wherein said robotic platform comprises a rail (43) for stable translation motion of said device ([0040] – “the actuator 55 comprises x-y-z table 58 for moving the stator in any combination of those three directions or dimensions”, as seen in Fig. 2 the actuator providing translation motion can be interpreted as rails).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20060209019) and Du NPL 2020 (“RoboMag: A Magnetic Actuation System Based on Mobile Electromagnetic Coils With Tunable Working Space”) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Huang (US 20240042593).
Regarding claim 23, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 21 and 22.
Hu discloses ([0009] – “a magnetically-responsive, device which during movement in an operating space or area, is tracked or otherwise detected by a detector, e.g., one or more sensors, e.g., a camera or other optical sensors, Hall Effect sensors, accelerometers on-board the movable device, etc.”, [0017] – “employing Hall-effect sensors or other suitable position sensors in the stator to refine tool position”, [0079] – “Such objects may include a…surgical tool…hypodermic needle”, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a metal surgical tool and a hypodermic needle can be tracked in the body using ultrasound)
Conversely Hu does not teach wherein said ultrasound probe is controlled by a positioning device selected from the group consisting of steward platform and rotational joint.
However Huang discloses wherein said ultrasound probe is controlled by a positioning device selected from the group consisting of steward platform and rotational joint ([0111] – “The motion mapping diagram of the main manipulator and the end point of the ultrasonic probe in the user coordinate system is illustrated in FIG. 6 , in which the motion of the probe from S0 to S′ is implemented through the motion of the Stewart platform, and the motion from S′ to St is implemented by the motions of the rotating joint”).
Huang is an analogous art considering it is in the field of robotically moving a medical device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hu to incorporate the stewart platform and rotational joint for movement of the sensing device of Huang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “may implement movements of six degrees of freedom in space…[and it] has high micro motion accuracy, which is more appropriate to perform high-precision surgical operations” (Huang [0020]).
Claim 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20060209019) and Du NPL 2020 (“RoboMag: A Magnetic Actuation System Based on Mobile Electromagnetic Coils With Tunable Working Space”) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Takeshi (JP 2006043077A) machine translation and Ookawa (US 20140239950).
Regarding claim 26, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 21 and 25.
Hu further discloses wherein said electromagnets comprises a soft iron core ([0044] – “the distributed electromagnetic field winding iron core”), copper wire ([0109] – “copper magnetic wires can be used for the electromagnetic field windings”),
Conversely Hu does not teach a temperature control module for controlling temperature of said […] core, said temperature control module comprises:
a. a cooling channel having an inlet and an outlet, wherein said cooling channel is looped around or within said […] core;
b. cooled heat-exchange fluid entering and leaving said cooling channel from said inlet and said outlet respectively; and
c. temperature sensors installed at said inlet, said outlet and embedded within or on said […] core.
However, Takeshi discloses a temperature control module for controlling temperature of said […] core ([0015] – “The amount of refrigerant flowing and the pressure within the refrigerant flow path are appropriately determined by the heat generated by the gradient magnetic field coils. Therefore, it is preferable to provide temperature sensors 8a and 8b at the refrigerant inlet and near the refrigerant inlet of the refrigerant flow path in the gradient magnetic field coil 2, input their outputs to the controller 9”), said temperature control module comprises:
a. a cooling channel having an inlet and an outlet, wherein said cooling channel is looped around or within said […] core (See Fig. 1, Abstract – “a coolant channel (6)”);
b. cooled heat-exchange fluid entering and leaving said cooling channel from said inlet and said outlet respectively (Abstract – “a coolant channel (6) which is partly proximate to the gradient magnetic field coil (2) and cools heat generated at the gradient magnetic field coil (2) by making a coolant flow through inside”); and
c. temperature sensors installed at said inlet, said outlet […] (See Fig. 1 elements 8a and 8b, [0015] – “it is preferable to provide temperature sensors 8a and 8b at the refrigerant inlet and near the refrigerant inlet of the refrigerant flow path in the gradient magnetic field coil 2”, as seen in Fig. 1 sensor 8a is at the inlet and sensor 8b is at the outlet).
Takeshi is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an electromagnetic coil.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hu to incorporate the temperature control of an electromagnetic coil of Takeshi to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “an increase in the amount of heat generated from the gradient coil can lead to a rise in the temperature of the space containing the subject” (Takeshi [0005]), therefore by cooling the coil the patient becomes more comfortable.
Conversely Hu and Takeshi do not teach c. temperature sensors[…] embedded within or on said […] core.
However, Ookawa discloses c. temperature sensors […] embedded within or on said […] core ([0094] – “FIG. 2 is a schematic perspective view showing an example of the arrangement of the temperature sensors 36A, 36B, 36C and 36D in the gradient magnetic field coil unit 33”, [0106] – “any arrangement is possible as far as the temperature of the gradient magnetic field coil unit 33 can be detected”).
Ookawa is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an electromagnetic coil.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hu to incorporate the temperature sensors embedded within the coil of Ookawa to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it may provide a more accurate value of the temperature of the coil.
Regarding claim 28, Hu, Du, Takeshi, and Ookawa disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 21, 25, and 26.
Hu further discloses wherein said soft iron core comprises a tip shape that is cylindrical, cone, stepped or round (As seen in Fig. 4 the electromagnetic coils have a cylindrical shape and therefore would have a cylindrical tip, [0109] – “An exemplary cylinder electromagnetic field winding configuration is shown schematically in Diagram 10”, it can be seen in diagram 10 along with Fig. 4 that the core is cylindrical, [0044] – “electromagnetic field winding iron core”).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20060209019) and Du NPL 2020 (“RoboMag: A Magnetic Actuation System Based on Mobile Electromagnetic Coils With Tunable Working Space”) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Ameri (US 20210072056).
Regarding claim 29, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 21 and 25.
Hu further discloses wherein a current control unit is used for controlling electric current supplied to said electromagnets to achieve said desired magnetic field ([0075] – “Haptic force feedback control 160 provides control signals for powering the electromagnet coils of stator 172 through PWM current control 180”),
Conversely Hu does not teach said current control unit comprises bidirectional power supply units, h-bridge regulation units and micro-controller units.
However Ameri discloses said current control unit comprises bidirectional power supply units, h-bridge regulation units and micro-controller units ([0022] – “the magnetic flowmeter 100 may be wholly powered by the loop current IL flowing through the control loop 115”, as seen in Fig. 1 the control loop is bidirectional, [0024] – “current source 108 and H Bridge 110 are used to inject a square current wave into the coil 104”, [0028] – “PWM commands from a microcontroller 308”).
Ameri is an analogous art considering it is in the field of current control.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hu to incorporate the components of the current control of Ameri to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “continuously monitors any parameter changes and provides optimum current control” (Ameri [0018]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20060209019) and Du NPL 2020 (“RoboMag: A Magnetic Actuation System Based on Mobile Electromagnetic Coils With Tunable Working Space”) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Munger (US 20070030958).
Regarding claim 31, Hu and Du disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 21.
Conversely Hu does not teach further comprises a magnetic isolation shield made of layers of materials with different magnetic permeability.
However, Munger discloses further comprises a magnetic isolation shield made of layers of materials with different magnetic permeability ([0040] – “a first layer closest to the magnetic source a material with a relatively high saturation level such as Hiperco, 706; a second layer will see reduced fields and can therefore use a material of reduced saturation level and higher permeability such as Permalloy, 716”).
Munger is an analogous art considering it is in the field of magnetic navigation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hu to incorporate the magnetic shield of Ookawa to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it may reduce the influence of magnetic noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 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.
Regarding claim 27, as recited in the rejection of claim 26 Hu teaches electromagnets with an iron core. However, Hu does not teach that the soft iron core has a stepped shape design. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the electromagnets of Hu, as modified by Du, Takeshi, and Ookawa, to include a stepped shape design for the iron core of the electromagnets. No art was found in the same field of endeavor that would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine with Hu, Du, Takeshi, and Ookawa to teach a stepped shape design for the iron core of the electromagnets. Thus, the combination of elements is found to distinguish over the prior art collectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Véron NPL 2013 (“Geometric analysis of the singularities of a magnetic manipulation system with several mobile coils”) discloses manipulation of an untethered magnet in the body using robot-assisted mobile coils.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
