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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stainsby, et al. (US 10,060,995). Note: The following rejection corresponds to the Written Opinion for PCT/EP2023/061698.
Regarding claim 1, Stainsby discloses “providing autonomous electrical charging of the super-conductive MR magnet coil system by: (a1) initiating a cooling operation of the super-conductive MR magnet coil system (column 8, lines 31-48); (a2) initiating an automatic current charging program for the super-conductive MR magnet coil system (column 8, lines 31-48); (b1) measuring an actual temperature Tcoil of the MR magnet coil system and comparing Tcoil to a predefinable first temperature setpoint value T1.sub.ramp at which the MR magnet coil system is super-conductive and should be charged (column 8, lines 31-35); (b2) if T.sub.coil≤T1.sub.ramp, supplying a charging current to the MR magnet coil system and charging the MR magnet coil system with electric current (column 8, lines 31-35); (c) measuring the electric current Icoil flowing in the MR magnet coil system (12) and comparing Icoil with a predefinable first current setpoint value I1.sub.target at which the MR magnet coil system generates a desired magnetic field strength (column 8, lines 49-60); (d) repeating steps (b1), (b2) and (c) until Icoil=I1.sub.target (Figure 2), and (e) deactivating the current supply to the MR magnet coil system and stopping the automatic current charging program (See Claim 1, step vii).”
Regarding claim 4, Stainsby discloses “wherein, if Tcoil>T1.sub.ramp, in step (b2) the charging of the MR magnet coil system with electric current is interrupted and the cooling operation is continued until Tcoil≤T1ramp; then step (b1) is resumed.” (column 8, lines 35-39)
Regarding claim 10, Stainsby discloses “wherein the autonomous electrical charging operation of the super-conductive MR magnet coil system is automatically regulated by means of an electronic control unit (Fig. 1, ref.# 26), wherein the control unit is configured to detect and compare the temperature Tcoil on the MR magnet coil system (Fig. 1, ref.# 10) with predefined temperature setpoint values, to detect and compare the electric current Icoil flowing in the MR magnet coil system with predefined current setpoint values and, if necessary, to actuate valves, a charging mains supply unit (Fig. 1, ref.# 38), a vacuum pump and functional units of the cold head (Fig. 1, ref.# 36, 10).”
Regarding claim 11, Stainsby discloses “wherein the electronic control unit (Fig. 1, ref.# 260 regulates the autonomous electrical charging operation of the super-conductive MR magnet coil system (Fig. 1, ref.# 10) automatically by means of an algorithm taking into account various measured values and parameters and wherein, during the autonomous electrical charging operation of the super-conductive MR magnet coil system, the electronic control unit (Fig. 1, ref.# 26) independently detects critical changes in state and errors in the super-conductive MR magnet coil system and in the cryostat (Fig. 1, ref.# 36) and, in response, uses a predefinable alternative algorithm for further regulation of the autonomous electrical charging operation and/or sends messages, to operating or monitoring personnel (Fig. 1, ref.# 28, 30).”
Regarding claim 12, Stainsby discloses “wherein the electronic control unit has access to at least one algorithm for autonomous electrical discharging or partial discharging of the super-conductive MR magnet coil system from an electrically charged state, and wherein the discharging operation is regulated automatically by the electronic control unit with presettable boundary conditions.” (column 8, 2nd paragraph)
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stainsby, et al. (US 10,060,995).
Regarding claim 9, Stainsby teaches all the structure set forth in the claim except “wherein the predefinable temperature setpoint value T1ramp and the predefinable current setpoint value I1target are selected from the following value ranges: 2K<T1ramp≤5K, 50 A<I1target≤500 A.” However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the noted ranges as 2K<T1ramp≤5K, 50 A<I1target≤500 A, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-8 and 13-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schauwecker, et al. (EP 2985769) and Wang, et al. (CN 108022711) teach system and/or method for cooling the superconducting magnet of a magnetic resonance system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights