DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
Claim(s)
Generic Placeholder or “means for”
Functional Language
Corresponding Structure
15-16 and 20-28 (seen in claims 15 and 27)
at least one internal magnetization “means”
which inverts as traveling through the inside of the inversion portion so as to transfer, within the inversion portion, the hyperpolarization from the first type of nuclear spins to the second type of nuclear spins during a solution flow with non-zero velocity in the inversion portion from the chamber inlet to the chamber outlet
Spec. [0064]: “The at least one internal magnetization means 11, 12 comprises: - on the inlet side of chamber 2, at least one internal inlet magnetization means 11, - on the outlet side of chamber 2, at least one internal outlet magnetization means 12. [0065] In the present description, magnetization means preferably means an electromagnet, a permanent magnet, an assembly of electromagnets, an assembly of permanent magnets, or an assembly of electromagnet(s) and
permanent magnet(s).”
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.
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 Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “an inlet arranged so that a flow of a solution in the liquid state, the solution comprising” is grammatically incorrect because the term “so that” is a subordinating conjunction that implies a future clause that establishes reasoning for the arrangement of the inlet, yet no subsequent clause is stated. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. According to MPEP 2111.04, "the claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed". The recitations of claim 16 that follow the term “preferably at the center of”, which renders said recitations as optional, are therefore not required elements of these claims and are thus given no patentable weight. Since these elements have no patentable weight because they are merely optional, no prior art is required to teach these elements in order for these claims to be rejected.
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) 15, 24, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhattacharya et al. USPG Pub. No.: 2011/0095759.
Regarding Claim 15, Bhattacharya teaches a hyperpolarization method, comprising:
providing a solution in the liquid state (see figure 1B and [0221]) comprising:
a first type of nuclear spins that are hyperpolarized and with a first gyromagnetic ratio, and
a second type of nuclear spins with a second gyromagnetic ratio (see [0186]-[0189], [0222]-[0227], in which an inversion pulse is applied in an inversion chamber to a solution resulting in first and second nuclear spins with first and second gyromagnetic ratios; also consider that the second type of nuclear spin with a second gyromagnetic ratio can be same as the first spin, as the claim is not limiting to differences);
the nuclear spins of both types being coupled by scalar spin-spin coupling in one or more molecules of solution (magnitude dependent J-couplings, synonymous with scalar spin-spin coupling, are referenced for any type of nuclear spins [0228]-[0231]);
supplying the solution to an inversion chamber so that this solution circulates in the form of a solution flow in a conduit of which a portion called the inversion portion passes through the inversion chamber (seen in figures 1b-2b in which the solution flows in a conduit through the chamber 116 from the outside of the chamber through the inside of the chamber);
the inversion chamber comprising an inlet through which the solution flow enters and an outlet through which the solution flow exits (see figures 1a-2b);
the inversion chamber comprising a magnetic screen which surrounds the inversion portion so as to isolate the inversion from ambient magnetic fields around the magnetic screen (discussed in [0160]-[0161] describing a magnetic shielding around the chamber that handles inversion pulses); and
creating, by at least one internal magnetization means located at least partially inside the magnetic screen, an inversion magnetic field having a main component along a direction Z, which inverts as traveling through the inside of the inversion portion so as to transfer, within the inversion portion, the hyperpolarization from the first type of nuclear spins to the second type of nuclear spins during a solution flow with non-zero velocity in the inversion portion from the chamber inlet to the chamber outlet (see [0153]-[0154], discussing the inversion pulse occurring in chamber 116 of figure 1b, which causes a change, i.e. flipping, on the nuclear spin resulting in second spins occurring with a non-zero velocity in the chamber from the inlet, at valves 3 and 4, to the outlet at valve 5).
Regarding Claim 24, Bhattacharya teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein supplying the solution to the inversion chamber comprises supplying the solution from a dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) device connected to the conduit (see [0196], in which a DNP is stated as being used alternatively to PASADENA with the given device).
Regarding Claim 27, Bhattacharya teaches a hyperpolarization device, comprising an inversion chamber, said inversion chamber (see figure 1A-4C and [0221]-[0239]), comprising:
an inlet arranged so that a flow of a solution in the liquid state (see figures 2B-4C in which chamber 114 as an inlet and an outlet for fluid to flow through conduits), the solution comprising:
a first type of nuclear spins that are hyperpolarized and with a first gyromagnetic ratio and a second type of nuclear spins with a second gyromagnetic ratio, the nuclear spins of both types being coupled by scalar spin-spin coupling in one or more molecules of the solution, enters the chamber through the inlet (see [0186]-[0189], [0222]-[0227], in which an inversion pulse is applied in an inversion chamber to a solution resulting in first and second nuclear spins with first and second gyromagnetic ratios; also consider that the second type of nuclear spin with a second gyromagnetic ratio can be same as the first spin, as the claim is not limiting to differences);
an outlet arranged so that the solution flow leaves the chamber through the outlet, the inlet and outlet being arranged so that this solution flows according to the solution flow within a conduit, a portion of which, called the inversion portion, passes through the inversion chamber (seen in figures 1b-2b in which the solution flows in a conduit through the chamber 116 from the outside of the chamber through the inside of the chamber);
a magnetic screen surrounding the inversion portion to isolate the inversion portion from ambient magnetic fields around the magnetic screen (discussed in [0160]-[0161] describing a magnetic shielding around the chamber that handles inversion pulses); and
at least one internal magnetization means located at least partially inside the magnetic screen, arranged to create an inversion magnetic field having a main component along a direction Z that inverts as the main component travels through the inside of the inversion portion so as to transfer, within the inversion portion, the hyperpolarization from the first type of nuclear spins to the second type of nuclear spins during a solution flow with non-zero velocity in the inversion portion from the chamber inlet to the chamber outlet (see [0153]-[0154], discussing the inversion pulse occurring in chamber 116 of figure 1b, which causes a change, i.e. flipping, on the nuclear spin resulting in second spins occurring with a non-zero velocity in the chamber from the inlet, at valves 3 and 4, to the outlet at valve 5); and
a device arranged to supply the solution to the inlet of the inversion chamber via the conduit (see [0117] and figure 1b, elements 10, 112, and 114).
Regarding Claim 28, Bhattacharya teaches the hyperpolarization device according to claim 27, wherein the device arranged to supply the solution to the inlet of the inversion chamber comprises a dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP) device connected to the conduit (see [0196], in which a DNP is stated as being used alternatively to PASADENA with the given device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-23 and 25-26 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.
RE Claim 17, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the at least one internal magnetization means comprises, at least in part within the magnetic screen, multiple internal solenoids, at least partially surrounding the inversion portion and connected by current divider bridges, the internal solenoids being separated into two assemblies of internal solenoids powered by currents of opposite direction of rotation and whose leakage fields oppose each other,” in combination with the other claim limitations. Claims 18-19 depend from base Claim 17, and therefore these claims are also allowed.
RE Claim 20, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the inversion chamber further comprises a magnetization means, called an external inlet magnetization means, at least partially outside the magnetic screen and extending at least as far as the inlet of the inversion chamber, and a magnetization means, called an external outlet magnetization means, at least partially outside the magnetic screen and extending at least as far as the outlet of the inversion chamber, each external magnetization means maintaining within the conduit an input magnetic field at the inlet of the inversion chamber and an output magnetic field at the outlet of the inversion chamber,” in combination with the other claim limitations. Claims 21-22 depend from base Claim 20, and therefore these claims are also allowed.
RE Claim 23, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the at least one internal magnetization means is at least one internal solenoid, each internal solenoid being carried at least in part by the inversion portion, surrounding the inversion portion at least in part, via an internal support piece that: on the conduit side, is in contact with the conduit, and on the side of each internal solenoid, comprises reliefs arranged to accommodate and position the turns of each internal solenoid along the conduit,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 25, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein inversion portion and/or the conduit is a capillary whose largest dimension, perpendicular to the solution flow, is less than 5 mm,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 26, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein, in the inversion portion, the inversion magnetic field is comprised, in absolute value along the direction Z, at least between 0 mT and 0.1 mT,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights