DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 (which appear to be duplicates) are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 2-6 by dependency): This claim appears to lack a transitional phrase and reads a “cryostat containing”. Thus, the metes and bounds are unclear. For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification “cryostat containing a cryogenically-cooled internal volume” at the beginning of claim 1 is interpreted as “cryostat comprising: a cryogenically-cooled internal volume”
Regarding claim 2: the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, the term “about” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what reads upon “about” 22 x 10-6 T and 67 x 10-6 T (i.e., how far below or above the range is included.
Regarding claim 3: “the wire” and “the nylon former” lack antecedent basis.
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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slutsky et al. ("Cryogenic magnetic coil and superconducting magnetic shield for neutron electric dipole moment searches”) in view of Hobson et al. (“Bespoke magnetic field design for a magnetically shielded cold atom interferometer”).Regarding claim 1:Slutsky teaches a cryostat containing
a cryogenically-cooled internal volume for containing an object to be tested at or apparatus to be operated at a cryogenic temperature (abstract; section 2.4; FIG. 3; FIG. 8), cooling means for reducing the temperature of the internal volume to the cryogenic temperature (section 2.2; section 2.4; FIG. 8), at least one coil winding within the cryogenically-cooled internal volume for generating a magnetic field in the internal volume (e.g., page 46; section 2.2; FIG. 3; FIG. 8), and passive magnetic shielding located within the cryogenically-cooled internal volume, outside the at least one coil winding (section 2.2; FIG. 3; FIG. 8)Slutsky fail to teach:
the internal coil winding generating a magnetic field to cancel the effect of an ambient magnetic field(Slutsky does teach the cancellation of ambient magnetic fields and noise – e.g., section 2.2)Hobson teaches:
coils inside a passive magnetic shield providing targeted cancellation of residual magnetic fields including from external background via an integrated coil arrangement that generates three uniform field components and three gradients to improve compensation over an extended region (abstract; FIG. 2; last paragraph of “Design” section through end of next page; FIG. 5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ambient magnetic field / magnetic noise/interference cancellation of Hobson in the device of Slutsky to increase accuracy. Slutsky already teaches cancellation of ambient magnetic fields / noise. Hobson teaches an improved compensation structure inside a similar passive shield and also explicitly teaches retrofitting existing systems (Hobson – last paragraph of “Design” section, first paragraph of “Characterisation” section”, and, especially, last paragraph of “Discussion” section).
Regarding claim 2:Slutsky and Hobson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Slutsky and Hobson:
the least one coil winding provides active magnetic shielding to cancel the effect, within the cryogenically-cooled internal volume, of an ambient magnetic field of below 100 x 10-6 T, and preferably between about 22 x 10-6 T and 67 x 10-6 T(Operating the internal magnetic field compensation of Hobson when the ambient magnetic field is 100 x 10-6 T or below yields the instant claim limitation. The examiner notes that the instant claim provides no requirement as to where the “ambient magnetic field” value of 100 x 10-6 T or less is located that is to be cancelled at the measurement apparatus inside the volume – e.g., under BRI it could even be the ambient field measured outside the apparatus.)
Regarding claim 5:Slutsky and Hobson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Hobson teaches:
there are at least three coil windings, oriented in mutually orthogonal directions (e.g., abstract; last paragraph of “Design” section; FIG. 3; FIG. 5)
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slutsky et al. ("Cryogenic magnetic coil and superconducting magnetic shield for neutron electric dipole moment searches”) in view of Hobson et al. (“Bespoke magnetic field design for a magnetically shielded cold atom interferometer”) and further in view of Meinke et al. (US 20150318102 A1).Regarding claim 3:Slutsky and Hobson teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Hobson teaches:
the wire of at least one of the at least one coil windings is supported on the nylon former in a pattern having arcuate sections(FIG. 3; “Design and manufacture of the coil former” – spanning pages 8 and 9 of the attached pdf)Hobson fails to explicitly teach:
the wire being retained in place by upstanding arcuate ridges located adjacent the arcuate sections, on the inner side of the arcMeinke teaches:
the wire being retained in place by upstanding arcuate ridges located adjacent the arcuate sections, on the inner side of the arc (e.g., FIGS. 8C-8K; claims 72-79)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or more of the wire/coil retaining features of Meinke in the device of Slutsky and Hobson to make wire installation easier and for improved wire/coil retaining (especially for thermal expansion). Such a modification is easy given Hobson’s former is 3D printed.
Regarding claim 4:Slutsky, Hobson, and Meinke teach all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 3 rejection above Meinke teaches:
the upstanding arcuate ridges have an elongate channel for receiving the wire, on the convex side thereof (e.g., FIGS. 8C-8K; claims 72-79)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slutsky et al. ("Cryogenic magnetic coil and superconducting magnetic shield for neutron electric dipole moment searches”) in view of Hobson et al. (“Bespoke magnetic field design for a magnetically shielded cold atom interferometer”) and further in view of Pinho-Meneses et al. (US 20220236350 A1)Regarding claim 6:Slutsky and Hobson teach all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Slutsky and Hobson fail to teach:
each of the at least three coil windings, is mounted on one of three nylon formers, the three formers each including a cylindrical portion and being sized so that a second former of the three fits concentrically within the first of the three, and a third former of the three fits concentrically within the secondPinho-Meneses teaches:
each of the at least three coil windings, is mounted on one of three nylon formers, the three formers each including a cylindrical portion and being sized so that a second former of the three fits concentrically within the first of the three, and a third former of the three fits concentrically within the second(e.g., [0107]; FIGS. 10A-10B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use three nested formers, as taught by Pinho-Meneses, instead of one former for all 3 coil windings (as in Hobson) for ease of fabrication and control and/or as they are art-recognized equivalent means for using one or more former(s) for holding coils of differing orientations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights