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 .
Remarks
In response to applicant’s amendment, dated 06/25/2026, the examiner acknowledges the correction to the Abstract. Likewise, the examiner has considered applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the Drawings and withdraws the objection. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action, mailed 04/02/2026, the examiner has considered applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims and withdraws the rejections.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection of claim 1, 9-10 and 12-15 as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/888,420 (reference application), the applicant requested “that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until claimed subject matter is otherwise deemed allowable”. The double patenting rejection is maintained by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 10 and 12-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/888,420 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application Application No. 18/888,420
(corresponds to US 2025/0093439)
1. A suspension rod for suspending a main magnet of a magnetic resonance device, comprising: a first end; a second end;
and a thermal intercept including a thermal link thermally and mechanically coupled to the thermal intercept, wherein the thermal intercept is configured to thermally couple the suspension rod to a cold source, wherein the thermal intercept is thermally and mechanically coupled to a first section of the suspension rod located between the first end and the second end, and wherein the thermal link is spaced from the suspension rod along a second section of the suspension rod located between the thermal intercept and the second end.
(Cancelled claim 9 limitations added to Claim 1)
[9]. The suspension rod according to claim 1, further comprising: a collar configured to deflect thermal radiation, wherein the collar circumferentially encompasses the suspension rod along the second section of the suspension rod.
10. The suspension rod according to claim 9, wherein the collar encompasses the suspension rod and the thermal link.
12. A magnet support system of a magnetic resonance device, comprising: a main magnet;
a thermal shield; an outer vacuum chamber; and
a suspension rod configured to suspend the main magnet, the suspension rod comprising: a first end; a second end; and a thermal intercept including a thermal link thermally and mechanically coupled to the thermal intercept, wherein the thermal intercept is configured to thermally couple the suspension rod to a cold source, wherein the thermal intercept is thermally and mechanically coupled to a first section of the suspension rod located between the first end and the second end, and wherein the thermal link is spaced from the suspension rod along a second section of the suspension rod located between the thermal intercept and the second end, wherein the first end of the suspension rod is mechanically coupled to the main magnet and the second end of the suspension rod is mechanically coupled to an outer wall of the outer vacuum chamber,
wherein the suspension rod is routed through a passage in the thermal shield, wherein the thermal intercept is mechanically coupled to a third section of the suspension rod located between the first end of the suspension rod and the thermal shield, and
wherein the thermal intercept is mechanically and thermally coupled to the thermal shield via the thermal link.
13. The magnet support system according to claim 12, further comprising: a further thermal shield arranged between the main magnet and the thermal shield, wherein the suspension rod is routed through a further passage in the further thermal shield.
14. The magnet support system according to claim 13, further comprising: a collar configured to deflect thermal radiation, wherein the collar is configured to abut against the further thermal shield and cover a gap between the further thermal shield and the suspension rod.
15. The magnet support system according to claim 13, wherein the thermal intercept is mechanically coupled to a fourth section of the suspension rod located between the first end of the suspension rod and the further thermal shield.
(Claims 1 + 7) 1. A suspension rod for suspending a main magnet of a magnetic resonance device, comprising: a first end; a second end; and a collar configured to deflect thermal radiation, wherein the collar is mechanically connected to the suspension rod and circumferentially encompasses the suspension rod along a section of the suspension rod located between the first end and the second end.
7. The suspension rod according to claim 1, comprising: a thermal intercept including a thermal link thermally and mechanically connected to the thermal intercept, wherein the thermal intercept is configured to thermally connect the suspension rod to a cold source, and is thermally and mechanically connected to a section of the suspension rod located between the first end and the collar, and wherein the thermal link is spaced from the suspension rod along a section of the suspension rod located between the thermal intercept and the second end.
(See Claim 1)
(See Claim 7)
(See Claim 1) – main magnet
(See Claim 8) – thermal shield & vacuum chamber
(See Claims 1 + 7)
(See Claim 8)
(See Claim 11)
(See Claim 9)
(See Claim 8)
(See Claim 7)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11, 16 and 18-20 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.
Claim 17 is allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 31, 2026
