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 .
Claims 1 – 15 are canceled.
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.
Claims 1 & 45 & 47 are 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 claims 1 & 45
The phrase “electromagnetic sample spinning field” is ambiguous. Does this mean the sample itself contains a “spinning field”? Or does it mean that the spinning sample itself is subject to an electromagnetic field that produces the torque? For purposes of examination the Examiner will assume “broadest possible interpretation”—i.e., the sample is subjected to a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 47
The claim uses the phrase “particles not packed in a rotor”. Does this mean these particles of the sample are not rotating? It would be helpful to clarify this language.
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) 16, 25, 30, 31, 32, 35 – 38, 45, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1).
Regarding claim 16
Schoeter discloses
A magnetic resonance device (¶ 2 under Background Technology) comprising:
a sample spinning apparatus (¶ 2 under Invention Contents) configured to spin a sample about a sample spinning axis (¶ 8 under Background Technology); and
a resonance structure for exposing the spinning sample to an electromagnetic excitation field to manipulate a nuclear or electronic spin state of the sample (¶ 2 under Background Technology),
Although strongly implied, Schroeter does not explicitly teach
“wherein the sample spinning apparatus is configured to exert a torque on the sample by interaction of the sample with an electromagnetic sample spinning field”.
Song, however, discloses
wherein the sample spinning apparatus is configured to exert a torque on the sample by interaction of the sample with an electromagnetic sample spinning field ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the facility of the “torque exerted on sample by electromagnetic field” as taught by Song in the device of Schoeter.
The justification for this modification would be to generate an NMR spectrum ([0035]).
Regarding claim 25
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Song, applied to claim 25, further teaches
comprising a sample support structure configured to support the sample ([0017], the flat-bottomed container is the “sample support structure”).
Regarding claim 30
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Schoeter, applied to claim 30, further teaches
further comprising an excitation apparatus coupled to the resonance structure to create the excitation field (¶ 2 under Background Technology).
Regarding claim 31
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 30,
Song, applied to claim 31, further teaches
further comprising a detection apparatus for detecting a response of the sample to the excitation field ([0034]).
Regarding claim 32
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Song, applied to claim 32, further teaches
wherein the resonance structure comprises a flat carrier defining a carrier plane ([0017], the version of this sample container is flat-bottomed).
Regarding claim 35
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Song, applied to claim 35, further teaches
wherein the magnetic resonance device is configured to expose the sample to a static magnetic field that defines a static field direction ([0005]), and
wherein the magnetic resonance device is configured to be arranged relative to the static magnetic field in such a manner that the sample spinning axis has an
orientation at the magic angle Θₘ⁻ = arctan √2 relative to the static field direction ([0005]—[0006]).
Regarding claim 36
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Song, applied to claim 36, further teaches
wherein the magnetic resonance device comprises a cylindrical probe body defining a cylinder axis ([0037]), and wherein the sample spinning axis has an orientation at the magic angle Θₘ⁻ = arctan √2 relative to the cylinder axis of the cylindrical probe body ([0005]).
Regarding claim 37
Schoeter discloses
A magnetic resonance system (¶ 2 under Background Technology), comprising a magnet device for generating a static magnetic field along a static
field direction (¶ 2 under Background Technology) and a magnetic resonance device comprising:
a sample spinning apparatus (¶ 2 under Invention Contents) configured to spin a sample about a sample spinning axis (¶ 8 under Background Technology); and
a resonance structure for exposing the spinning sample to an electromagnetic excitation field to manipulate a nuclear or electronic spin state of the sample (¶ 2 under Background Technology),
Schoeter does not disclose
“wherein the sample spinning apparatus is configured to exert a torque on the sample by interaction of the sample with an electromagnetic sample spinning field”.
Song, however, teaches
wherein the sample spinning apparatus is configured to exert a torque on the sample by interaction of the sample with an electromagnetic sample spinning field ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the facility of the “torque exerted on sample by electromagnetic field” as taught by Song in the device of Schoeter.
The justification for this modification would be to generate an NMR spectrum ([0035]).
Regarding claim 38
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance system of claim 37,
Song, applied to claim 38, further teaches
wherein the magnetic resonance device is arranged relative to the static magnetic field in such a manner that the sample spinning axis has an orientation at the magic angle 0ₘ= = arctan √₂ relative to the static field direction ([0005]).
Regarding claim 45
Schoeter discloses
A magnetic resonance method (¶ 2 under Background Technology), comprising:
exposing a sample to a static magnetic field along a static field direction (¶ 2 under Background Technology);
spinning the sample about a sample spinning axis (¶ 8 under Background Technology);
creating an excitation field to manipulate a spin state of the spinning sample; and measuring a response of the sample to the manipulation of the spin state,
wherein torque is exerted on the sample by interaction of the sample with an
electromagnetic sample spinning field.
Regarding claim 46
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance method of claim 45,
Song, applied to claim 46, further teaches
wherein the sample spinning axis has an orientation at the magic angle Θₘ= = arctan √2 relative to the static field direction ([0005]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Wiggins et al. (US-20130063145-A1).
Regarding claim 17
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“wherein the sample spinning field comprises an oscillating electromagnetic field that is circularly polarized so as to exert the torque on the sample by transfer of angular momentum from the electromagnetic field to the sample”.
Wiggins, however, discloses
wherein the sample spinning field comprises an oscillating electromagnetic field that is circularly polarized so as to exert the torque on the sample by transfer of angular momentum from the electromagnetic field to the sample ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “circularly polarized
field exerting a torque on the sample” as taught by Wiggins in the device of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to impart spin angular momentum to the sample through absorption and scattering.
Claim(s)18, 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Shroff et al. (US-20100064611-A1).
Regarding claim 18
Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 17,
Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins do not teach
“wherein the sample spinning field comprises light, and wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises:
a laser for generating said light; and
a focusing element for focusing said light to a sample location”.
Shroff, however, teaches
wherein the sample spinning field comprises light, and wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises:
a laser for generating said light (Claim 14); and
a focusing element for focusing said light to a sample location (Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “laser light illuminating the sample” as taught by Shroff in the device of Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins.
The justification for this modification would be to improve optical sectioning of the sample and signal-to-noise ratio.
Regarding claim 33
Schoeder in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 32,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“wherein the sample spinning field comprises light,
wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises a laser for generating said light and a focusing element for focusing said light to a sample location, and
wherein the carrier plane is parallel to a direction of propagation of the light at the sample location”.
Shroff, however, teaches
wherein the sample spinning field comprises light ([0028]),
wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises a laser for generating said light and a focusing element for focusing said light to a sample location ([0028]), and
wherein the carrier plane is parallel to a direction of propagation of the light at the sample location ([0052] & Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “laser light illuminating the sample” as taught by Shroff in the device of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to improve optical sectioning of the sample and signal-to-noise ratio.
Regarding claim 34
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“wherein the sample spinning field comprises light,
wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises a laser for generating said light and a focusing element for focusing said light to a sample location, and
wherein the carrier plane is transverse to a direction of propagation of the light at the sample location, the carrier having a hole to allow the light to pass through the carrier”.
Shroff, however, teaches
wherein the sample spinning field comprises light,
wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises a laser for generating said light and a focusing element for focusing said light to a sample location, and
wherein the carrier plane is transverse to a direction of propagation of the light at the sample location, the carrier having a hole to allow the light to pass through the carrier (Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “laser light illuminating the sample” as taught by Shroff in the device of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to improve optical sectioning of the sample and signal-to-noise ratio.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Wiggins et al. (US-20130063145-A1) in view of Shroff et al. (US-20100064611-A1) in view of Taimuraazu (JP-H11312719-A).
Regarding claim 19
Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins in view of Shroff teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 18,
Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins in view of Shroff do not teach
“wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises a polarization control device for controlling a polarization state of the light”.
Taimuraazu, however, teaches
wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises a polarization control device for controlling a polarization state of the light (¶ 1 & 2 under [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “polarized light” as taught by Taimuraazu in the device of Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins in view of Shroff.
The justification for this modification would be to reveal hidden features of the sample based on optical properties.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Wiggins et al. (US-20130063145-A1) in view of Taimuraazu (JP-H11312719-A).
Regarding claim 20
Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 17,
Schoeter in view of Song in view of Wiggins do not teach
“wherein the sample spinning field comprises a microwave field, and wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises:
a microwave source for generating microwave radiation; and
a microwave resonator coupled to the microwave source, wherein the sample location is positioned inside said microwave resonator”.
Taimuraazu, however, discloses
wherein the sample spinning field comprises a microwave field, and wherein the sample spinning apparatus comprises:
a microwave source for generating microwave radiation (¶ 1 under [0010]); and
a microwave resonator coupled to the microwave source, wherein the sample location is positioned inside said microwave resonator (¶ 1 under [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “microwave facility” as taught by Taimuraazu in the device of Schoeder in view of Song in view of Wiggins.
The justification for this modification would be to sterilize the sample.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Shroff et al. (US-20100064611-A1)
Regarding claim 26
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 25,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“wherein the sample support structure comprises a transparent sample support plate configured to allow light to pass through the transparent sample support plate towards the sample”.
Shroff, however, teaches
wherein the sample support structure comprises a transparent sample support plate configured to allow light to pass through the transparent sample support plate towards the sample (Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “laser light illuminating the sample” as taught by Shroff in the device of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to improve optical sectioning of the sample and signal-to-noise ratio.
Claim(s) 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Baltzer (EP-2988118-A1)
Regarding claim 27
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 25,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“wherein the sample support structure comprises a nozzle device for directing a fluid flow towards the sample”.
Baltzer, however, teaches
wherein the sample support structure comprises a nozzle device for directing a fluid flow towards the sample (¶ 1 above “Claims”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “nozzle device for fluid flow” as taught by Baltzer in the device of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to assist with sample surface analysis.
Regarding claim 28
Schoeter in view of Song in view of Baltzer teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 27,
Baltzer, applied to claim 28, further teaches
wherein the fluid flow is a flow of superfluidic helium (¶ 1 above “Claims”).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Title Not Available (JP-H0351355-U).
Regarding claim 29
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance device of claim 16,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“further comprising a vacuum chamber, wherein the sample location is arranged inside the vacuum chamber to enable the sample to be spun in a vacuum”.
Title Not Available, however, discloses
further comprising a vacuum chamber, wherein the sample location is arranged inside the vacuum chamber to enable the sample to be spun in a vacuum (¶ 7 under Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “sample arranged in a vacuum chamber” as taught by Title Not Available in the device of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to allow for precise, uncontaminated data collection.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Liang (EP-3167944-A1).
Regarding claim 39
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance system of claim 38,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“wherein the sample spinning axis is parallel or perpendicular to a direction of gravity, and
wherein the static field direction is inclined to the direction of gravity by the magic angle Θₘ.”
Liang, however, teaches
wherein the sample spinning axis is parallel or perpendicular to a direction of gravity (¶ 7 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT), and
wherein the static field direction is inclined to the direction of gravity by the magic angle Θₘ (¶ 7 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “sample spinning axis parallel to the direction of gravity” as taught by Liang in the system of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to prevent unwanted wobbling of the specimen.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeter (CN-104793157-A) in view of Song et al. (US-20160033599-A1) in view of Duflot (US-20180037599-A1).
Regarding claim 47
Schoeter in view of Song teach the magnetic resonance method of claim 45,
Schoeter in view of Song do not teach
“wherein the sample comprises one or more particles that are not packed in a rotor”.
Duflot, however, discloses
wherein the sample comprises one or more particles that are not packed in a rotor ([0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “non-rotor packed sample” as taught by Duflot in the method of Schoeter in view of Song.
The justification for this modification would be to avoid NMR artifacts such as “spinning sidebands”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 – 24, 40 – 44 are 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 21
Nothing in the prior are of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the sample spinning apparatus is configured to confine the sample at the sample location by interaction of the sample with the sample spinning field”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language
Regarding claim 22
Nothing in the prior are of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the sample spinning apparatus is configured to confine the sample at the sample location by interaction of the sample with an electromagnetic trapping field that is different from the sample spinning field.”
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim2 23 & 24
The claims are allowable due to their dependencies on objected-to claim 20.
Regarding claim 40
Nothing in the prior are of record teaches or discloses
“A magnet device comprising a ring-shaped superconducting magnet having a ring axis that is inclined to a direction of gravity by the magic angle Θₘ⁻ = arctan √2, the superconducting magnet being configured to generate a static magnetic field having a static field direction along the ring axis”.
Regarding claims 41 – 44
The claims are allowable due to their dependencies on objected-to claim 40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 p.m.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852