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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the first coil and second coil being side by side in the vertical direction, does not reasonably provide enablement for the first coil and second coil being side by side in the horizontal direction. This also applies to the third coil and fourth coil. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Undue experimentation would be required to determine how the first coil, second coil, third coil, and fourth coil to produce the gradient magnetic field disclosed in the specification when said first coil, second coil, third coil, and fourth coil are side by side in the horizontal direction.
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 1-11 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 claim 1, the position of the coils is considered indefinite. The limitations disclose “wherein the first electromagnet includes a first coil and a second coil each for generating the gradient magnetic field, the first coil and the second coil being arranged side by side at a distance from each other, the second electromagnet faces the first electromagnet with the inspection region interposed therebetween, and includes a third coil and a fourth coil each for generating the gradient magnetic field, the third coil and the fourth coil being arranged side by side at a distance from each other”. The phrasing of the claims also includes embodiments where the first coil and the second coil are side by side in the horizontal direction (which is not disclosed by the specification), rather than the vertical direction (as shown in the figures of the application). This also applies to the third coil and fourth coil. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first number of turns" and “the second number of turns”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this claim (and claim 5) should depend from claim 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first return yoke" and “the second return yoke”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this claim should depend from claim 2.
Claim 8 is rejected for depending on claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the claim discloses “the first coil and the second coil are spaced apart from each other on a plane perpendicular to the first direction, and the third coil and the fourth coil are spaced apart from each other on a plane perpendicular to the first direction” which is considered indefinite because the according to the figures of the application the first coil and the second coil are not spaced apart from each other on a plane perpendicular to the first direction and the same applies for the third coil and the fourth coil.
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected for depending on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Top (US 2021/0356536).
Regarding claim 1, Top teaches a magnetic particle imaging system for imaging magnetic particles present in an inspection region, the magnetic particle imaging system comprising:
a gradient magnetic field generation unit including a first electromagnet and a second electromagnet that each generate a gradient magnetic field in the inspection region [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ and secondary magnetic element pair 3-3’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. ¶0052, see gradient. See also rest of reference.], wherein
the first electromagnet includes a first coil and a second coil each for generating the gradient magnetic field, the first coil and the second coil being arranged side by side at a distance from each other [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see a coil from primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ and a coil from secondary magnetic element pair 3-3’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. ¶0052, see gradient. See also rest of reference.],
the second electromagnet faces the first electromagnet with the inspection region interposed therebetween, and includes a third coil and a fourth coil each for generating the gradient magnetic field, the third coil and the fourth coil being arranged side by side at a distance from each other [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see a coil from primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ and a coil from secondary magnetic element pair 3-3’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. ¶0052, see gradient. See also rest of reference.],
the first coil and the fourth coil are connected to each other [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see primary magnetic element pair 2-2’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. Also, see Fig. 8, wherein all the magnetic elements are connected to each other either directly or indirectly. See also rest of reference.],
the second coil and the third coil are connected to each other [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see primary magnetic element pair 2-2’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. Also, see Fig. 8, wherein all the magnetic elements are connected to each other either directly or indirectly. See also rest of reference.], and
the magnetic particle imaging system further comprises an imaging unit to image the magnetic particles exposed to a magnetic field obtained by combining the gradient magnetic fields generated by the first coil, the second coil, the third coil, and the fourth coil [¶0051. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Top further teaches wherein a first current is caused to flow through the first coil and the fourth coil, a second current is caused to flow through the second coil and the third coil, when the first current increases, the second current decreases by an amount equal to an amount by which the first current increases, and when the first current decreases, the second current increases by an amount equal to an amount by which the first current decreases [See ¶0022-0023, wherein the gradient is controlled using the combined current. Therefore, if a gradient is desired the sum of the currents must add up to the desired gradient. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Top further teaches wherein the first electromagnet and the second electromagnet face each other in a first direction with the inspection region interposed therebetween, and the first direction extends in a direction in which the first coil and the second coil are spaced apart from each other, and in a direction in which the third coil and the fourth coil are spaced apart from each other [See Figs. 1-2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Top further teaches wherein the first coil is disposed at a position farther from the inspection region than the second coil is, the third coil is disposed at a position farther from the inspection region than the fourth coil is, and the first number of turns is larger than the second number of turns [See Figs. 1-2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Top further teaches wherein the first electromagnet and the second electromagnet face each other in a first direction with the inspection region interposed therebetween, the first coil and the second coil are spaced apart from each other on a plane perpendicular to the first direction, and the third coil and the fourth coil are spaced apart from each other on a plane perpendicular to the first direction [See Figs. 1-2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Top teaches a magnetic particle imaging method for imaging magnetic particles present in an inspection region, the magnetic particle imaging method comprising:
generating, by a first electromagnet and a second electromagnet, a gradient magnetic field in the inspection region,
the first electromagnet including a first coil and a second coil that are arranged side by side at a distance from each other [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see a coil from primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ and a coil from secondary magnetic element pair 3-3’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. ¶0052, see gradient. Also, see Fig. 8, wherein all the magnetic elements are connected to each other either directly or indirectly. See also rest of reference.], and
the second electromagnet facing the first electromagnet with the inspection region interposed therebetween, and including a third coil and a fourth coil, the third coil and the fourth coil being arranged side by side at a distance from each other [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see a coil from primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ and a coil from secondary magnetic element pair 3-3’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. ¶0052, see gradient. Also, see Fig. 8, wherein all the magnetic elements are connected to each other either directly or indirectly. See also rest of reference.];
causing a first current to flow through the first coil and the fourth coil, and causing a second current to flow through the second coil and the third coil [¶0051 and Figs. 1-2, see primary magnetic element pair 2-2’. See also second primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ or tertiary magnetic element pair 4-4’ that can be used as well. See ¶0022-0023, wherein the gradient is controlled using the combined current. Therefore, if a gradient is desired the sum of the currents must add up to the desired gradient. See also rest of reference.]; and
imaging the magnetic particles exposed to a magnetic field obtained by combining gradient magnetic fields generated by the first coil, the second coil, the third coil, and the fourth coil [¶0051. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Top further teaches wherein the causing the first current and the second current to flow includes: when the first current increases, decreasing the second current by an amount equal to an amount by which the first current increases; and when the first current decreases, increasing the second current by an amount equal to an amount by which the first current decreases [See ¶0022-0023, wherein the gradient is controlled using the combined current. Therefore, if a gradient is desired the sum of the currents must add up to the desired gradient. See also rest of reference.].
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.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Top, in view of Goodwill (US 2018/0017639).
Regarding claim 2, Top teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Top further teaches the first coil and the third coil each have a first number of turns, and the second coil and the fourth coil each have a second number of turns that is different from the first number of turns [Fig. 2, see a coil from primary magnetic element pair 2-2’ and a coil from secondary magnetic element pair 3-3’. See also rest of reference.].
However, Top is silent in teaching wherein the first electromagnet includes a first return yoke connected to the first coil and the second coil, the second electromagnet includes a second return yoke connected to the third coil and the fourth coil.
Goodwill, which is also in the field of MPI, teaches wherein the first electromagnet includes a first return yoke connected to the first coil and the second coil, the second electromagnet includes a second return yoke connected to the third coil and the fourth coil [See Fig. 5, see flux returns 250. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Top and Goodwill because both references are in the field of MPI and because Goodwill teaches it is known in the art to use flux returns to shape magnetic flux distributions by way of, for example, creating flux paths of varying reluctance [Goodwill - ¶0039.].
Regarding claim 3, Top and Goodwill teach the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Top is silent in teaching further comprising: a first spacer for keeping a distance constant between the first return yoke and each of the first coil and the second coil, the distance being a distance in a radial direction of each of the first coil and the second coil; and a second spacer for keeping a distance constant between the second return yoke and each of the third coil and the fourth coil, the distance being a distance in a radial direction of each of the third coil and the fourth coil.
Goodwill further teaches further comprising: a first spacer for keeping a distance constant between the first return yoke and each of the first coil and the second coil, the distance being a distance in a radial direction of each of the first coil and the second coil [See Fig. 6, wherein flux return, which has an identical second piece for the other half of the MPI, includes a protruding section adjacent to pole piece 510 that can be considered the spacer. See annotated figure below. Pole piece 510 could also be considered the spacer. See also rest of reference.]; and a second spacer for keeping a distance constant between the second return yoke and each of the third coil and the fourth coil, the distance being a distance in a radial direction of each of the third coil and the fourth coil [See Fig. 6, wherein flux return, which has an identical second piece for the other half of the MPI, includes a protruding section adjacent to pole piece 510 that can be considered the spacer. Pole piece 510 could also be considered the spacer. See annotated figure below. See also rest of reference.].
PNG
media_image1.png
498
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Top and Goodwill because both references are in the field of MPI and because Goodwill teaches it is known in the art to use flux returns to shape magnetic flux distributions by way of, for example, creating flux paths of varying reluctance [Goodwill - ¶0039.].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Top, in view of Matsuda (US 2021/0015396).
Regarding claim 7, Top teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Top is silent in teaching further comprising: a third spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the first coil and the second coil are spaced apart from each other; a fourth spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the third coil and the fourth coil are spaced apart from each other; a fifth spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the first coil and the first return yoke are spaced apart from each other; and a sixth spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the third coil and the second return yoke are spaced apart from each other.
Matsuda, which is also in the field of MPI, teaches further comprising: a third spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the first coil and the second coil are spaced apart from each other [See Fig. 24, see yoke pieces 26a-d which can all be considered spacers. See also rest of reference.]; a fourth spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the third coil and the fourth coil are spaced apart from each other [See Fig. 24, see yoke pieces 26a-d which can all be considered spacers. See also rest of reference.]; a fifth spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the first coil and the first return yoke are spaced apart from each other [See Fig. 24, see yoke pieces 26a-d which can all be considered spacers. See also rest of reference.]; and a sixth spacer for keeping a distance constant in a direction in which the third coil and the second return yoke are spaced apart from each other [See Fig. 24, see yoke pieces 26a-d which can all be considered spacers. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Top and Matsuda because both references are in the field of MPI because Matsuda teaches it is known in the art to include pieces/elements to keep the MPI components in place [Matsuda – Fig. 24].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Top, in view of previously cited Matsuda, in view of Tonyushkin (US 2018/0335487).
Regarding claim 8, Top and Matsuda teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Matsuda further teaches a space formed by each of the third spacer, the fourth spacer, the fifth spacer, and the sixth spacer [See Fig. 24, see yoke pieces 26a-d which can all be considered spacers. See also rest of reference.].
However, Top and Matsuda are silent in teaching , further comprising a cooling mechanism to cause refrigerant to flow into a space.
Tonyushkin, which is also in the field of MPI, teaches a cooling mechanism to cause refrigerant to flow into a space [¶0079, see active cooling systems. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Top and Matsuda with the teachings of Tonyushkin because all references are in the field of MPI and because electromagnets may include active cooling systems, for example, coolant lines passing through the coils or built into the coils themselves to circulate a coolant, for example, water, oil, or another coolant through the coils during operation [Tonyushkin - ¶0079, see active cooling systems. See also rest of reference.], wherein Top and Matuda also disclose electromagnets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gleich (US 2013/0241548) also discloses an MPI system that is considered relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights