DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 9/2/2026. Claims 1 – 5 and 7-12 are pending. Claim 6 was canceled. Claims 1 and 10 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101:
The applicant argues on page 7 of arguments filed 9/2/2026 that:
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim addresses this deficiency because the "cooling-completed state" recited in amended claim 1 is not a bare numerical threshold interposed onto an otherwise abstract calculation. Rather, as defined in the claim and supported by the specification, the cooling-completed state is a specific operational condition of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, namely, a state in which the superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and excitation of the magnet can safely be initiated. This is a materially different technical inquiry than merely determining whether the magnet temperature has fallen below the critical temperature Tc of the superconducting material.
As disclosed in the specification, in a liquid-helium-free MRI apparatus, the superconducting state of the magnet must be actively maintained by continuous power-driven cooling, rather than by atmospheric pressure as in conventional liquid-helium systems. Consequently, whether the apparatus has reached a state from which excitation can safely begin depends not merely on an instantaneous temperature reading, but on whether the cooling process has achieved a stable, sustained condition. This is reflected in the specification's disclosure that the requirement for cooling completion is not simply "temperature < threshold" at a single instant, but rather that the temperature remain below a defined reference temperature for a predetermined duration, i.e., a persistence condition indicative of thermal stability rather than a momentary crossing of a threshold value.
It is well-understood in the art that a superconducting magnet must be cooled below a critical temperature to be in a superconducting state in which current passes without resistive losses, and an initial cooldown is conventionally performed prior to charging the magnet. This is discussed below in further detail in response to the rejection under 35 USC 103. Therefore, determining a cooling-completed state would be a routine and optional concept for one of ordinary skill in the art as it is a necessary condition to energize the magnet as governed by laws of nature and natural phenomenon.
The applicant argues the pending specification discloses “a liquid-helium-free MRI apparatus, the superconducting state of the magnet must be actively maintained by continuous power-driven cooling, rather than by atmospheric pressure as in conventional liquid-helium systems.” As best understood by the examiner, the liquid-helium-free apparatus as claimed would be consistent with the cryocooler as disclosed in Choi. See introduction, “The LTS magnets cooled by cryocooler are used in several research areas, such as biology, chemistry, high energy physics and material science, and the magnetic fields achieved are comparable to those of magnets cooled by liquid helium.” One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the appropriate conditions for determining a magnet is sufficiently cooled such that charging may begin is governed by natural phenomena and laws of nature. The claims do not recite any limitations for determining that a magnetic is sufficiently cooled which would tie the claims to a practical application or recite sufficiently more than that abstract idea in view of the limitations as a whole.
Further, as best understood by the examiner, it would be well-understood in the art that the condition for cooling completion would require a stable, sustained condition regardless if cooled by a cryocooler or liquid helium. While the applicant’s arguments allege this is reflected in the specification, the disclosure as filed makes no reference to a threshold, “defined refence temperature for a predetermined duration”, or “a persistence condition indicative of thermal stability rather than a momentary crossing of a threshold value” as suggested in the arguments, nor are such limitations recited in the claims. The limitation as claimed amounts to mere condition for performing the calculation based on natural phenomena and laws of nature, i.e. the magnet must be sufficiently cool that energizing the magnet does not cause the magnet to quench from the superconducting state into a normal state.
The applicant argues on pages 7-8:
Determining the remaining time until this operationally-defined, safety-relevant state is reached - and using that determination to control when a user is permitted to proceed toward magnet excitation - is analogous to the claim at issue in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), in which a mathematical algorithm was used to determine the precise moment to open a rubber-curing mold, thereby solving a specific technological problem (avoiding under-cure or over-cure) rather than merely displaying or recording a calculated numerical result. Here, the remaining-cooling-time calculation is not an end in itself or a piece of information provided solely for a user's general awareness; it is tied to a specific technical determination of whether the MRI apparatus's superconducting magnet has reached an operationally safe condition for excitation, a step with direct consequences for equipment safety (e.g., avoiding attempted excitation before thermal stability is achieved, which could result in a quench or other magnet failure).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In Diamond v. Diehr, it was found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’. See MPEP 2106.04(d). In addition to the abstract idea, the method claim of Diehr teaches an additional step of “opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence.” As noted in 2106.05(a) II. i., the method of Diehr provides an improvement in existing technology including “reducing under- and over-curing problems common in the art.”
As best understood by the examiner, the amended limitation of claim 1 does not amount to “additional steps” or result in an improvement in existing technology by solving a common problem in the art. The limitation “wherein the cooling-completed state is a state in which a superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting the magnet” does not amount to an “additional step(s)” but rather amounts to a mere boundary condition for performing the calculation of the judicial exception. Further, it is known in the art that a magnet must be cooled to a sufficiently low temperature which is governed by natural phenomena and laws of nature to prevent quenching of the magnet. Since the magnet being in a completed state is governed by natural phenomena and laws of nature, and determining such a state would amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The applicant alleges, see page 9 of arguments, the limitations as claimed amount to an inventive concept under Step 2B, stating the limitations as claimed amount to an improvement in existing technology as it “enables general users (not only specialized service personnel) to correctly and safely understand the state of a liquid-helium-free superconducting magnet, a problem that did not exist, or existed differently, prior to the shift away from liquid-helium cooling systems” as alleged on page 9 of arguments. This argument is unclear to the examiner because 1) the claims to not recite the magnet is a liquid-helium-free superconducting magnet, 2) liquid helium cooling systems and liquid-helium-free cooling systems are both already known in the art with the prior art reference Choi directed toward a cryocooler which is a liquid-helium-free superconducting magnet, and 3) determining that a magnet is sufficiently cooled to begin energizing the magnet is necessary regardless of whether the magnet is cooled using a liquid helium or liquid-helium-free system. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner what specific problem is being solved. As best understood by the examiner, the limitations as claimed cool the magnet such that the magnet may be charged (but the claims do not recited limitations toward actually charging the magnet) then charges the magnet after cooling in an equivalent manner as known in the art without providing any improvement or any new or unexpected results.
The disclosure recites in [0031] of the specification filed 11/5/2024, “The processor 212 performs processes such as determination of the state of the magnet, prediction (calculation) of the remaining cooling time, output of the determination result and the prediction result, and a safety check and start of excitation in a case of exciting the magnet 110, which will be described in detail below.” See [0031] of the specification filed 11/5/2024.” Amending the claim to perform such additional processes would integrate the claims into a practical application.
U.S.C. 103:
Regarding Choi, the applicant argues on page 10, “Choi is directed to a numerical, heat-transfer-based method for estimating the initial cool- down time of a conduction-cooled superconducting magnet from room temperature to a cryogenic operating temperature, using energy-balance equations that account for support conduction, thermal radiation, current-lead heat leak, and gas conduction across the radiation shield, thermal anchors, and magnet.” The applicant concludes:
“Choi's endpoint of "cool-down" is thus a fixed cryogenic temperature threshold determined by thermal analysis of the physical system, and Choi contains no discussion whatsoever of magnet excitation, of any operation terminal that acquires real-time temperature data from an MRI apparatus and calculates a remaining cooling time for output to a user, or of any state of the magnet that is defined by reference to whether excitation can safely be initiated. In other words, Choi discloses a target temperature as the criterion for "cooling completion," not an operationally-defined state tied to the ability to begin exciting the magnet, and Choi is silent as to what, if anything, must additionally be true of the magnet or the cooling system before excitation may begin.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “acquiring real-time temperature data” or “whether excitation can be safely initiated”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the limitations as claimed provide no guidance as to how one would determine whether an excitation can be safely initiated.
Further, Choi determines a magnet temperature versus time curve derived both experimentally and numerically as shown in Fig. 6 (provided below)
PNG
media_image1.png
454
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the time required to cool from one temperature to another temperature during a cooling operation by referencing the above curve. As stated throughout the application, e.g. abstract, Introduction, Conclusion, this information is provided with the intended purpose of estimating the initial cool-down time of a magnet cooled by a cryocooler.
While Choi does not explicitly recite magnet excitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would fundamentally understand cooling a superconducting magnet to a superconducting state wherein it is “possible” to excite the magnets is the intended purpose of the initial cooldown of a superconducting magnet in order for the superconducting magnet to be operable for its intended purpose.
The Introduction section acknowledges the system as being a 3 Tesla superconducting magnet comprising niobium titanium or niobium tin operating at cryogenic temperature of 4 K. While the process of exciting the magnet is not recited in Choi, the reference discloses wherein the magnet is a 3 T or 5 T magnet for MRI and discloses the operating current for generating the respective field in Table 1. Therefore, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the superconducting magnet would be excited after the initial cooldown, otherwise, the superconducting magnet of Choi would not be operable as a 3 T or 5 T magnet for MRI. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a super conducting magnet may not be excited until suitably cooled to a superconducting state in order for current to flow without resistive losses. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret cooling the magnet to a temperature of 4 K would be equivalent to “wherein the cooling-completed state is a state in which a superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting the magnet” in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Further, it is routine and conventional for one of ordinary skill in the art to cool a magnet into a superconducting state such that it is possible to excite the superconducting magnetic field as recited in the claims in order for the superconducting magnet to operate as intended. Further support may be found in:
US 2017/0117076 in [0041], “A magnetic field is generated when a current is supplied to the superconducting coil 101 after cooling,”
US 2010/0113282 in [0005], “Such a superconducting coil is cooled by a superconducting coil cooling unit and goes into a superconducting state under an extremely-low temperature condition. It is possible to generate a strong magnetic field by supplying a current to the superconducting coil in the superconducting state.”
US 2015/0234018 in [0002], “The superconducting magnet is cooled to a temperature (normally, for example, 4.2 Kelvin, the boiling point of liquid helium) at which the superconducting magnet transitions to a superconducting state; an electric current is applied to the superconducting coil to attain a rated magnetic field after cooling the superconducting magnet.”
US 2012/0066895 in [0108], “The excitation power supply unit 711 for performing an excitation operation is separated from the superconducting magnet 101 by a distance (for example, 7 meters) not influenced by the magnetic field generated by the superconducting magnet 101. The power lead adapter 713 is inserted into the injection port 201 after the injection adapter 703 is disconnected when cooling is completed, and is connected to the main superconducting coil 205 and the shielded superconducting coil 206 to supply a current for excitation. The computer 714 which records the value of a current flowing through the superconducting magnet and the like is connected to the power supply unit 711.”
US 2025/0314725 in [0137], “After the cooling process (a1) of the magnet has been completed and the cooling is still on, the charging process can be initiated by starting the current charging program (a2), which can also be started by a non-expert by simply operating a corresponding switch. The program runs through the method by first (b1) measuring the actual temperature Tcoil and, if necessary, Tistshield. When the temperatures have reached the target value from which the MR magnet coil system 12 and the HTS current rods are super-conductive and can be charged, in step (b2) the charging current is supplied to the MR magnet coil system 12 and the MR magnet coil system 12 is charged with electric current.”
US 5,635,838 in col. 3, line 55 – col. 4, line 6, “This procedure includes the step of bringing the superconductive magnet to a temperature equal to generally the operating temperature and the step of thereafter putting the superconductive magnet in a persistent superconducting mode (via a superconductive switch which electrically disconnects the external power supply, as is known to those skilled in the art). It is noted that the operating temperature of a superconductive magnet: is simply the temperature of the magnet when it is operating in the superconducting mode; depends upon the particular cooling employed; is generally constant (typically to within one-hundredth of a degree) over a short period of time (such as eight hours); typically slowly rises over time due to normal deterioration in the particular cooling employed; and may slightly increase after the employment of new cooling (such as a new but higher-operating-temperature cryocooler).”
US 6,169,402 in col. 4, lines 58-64 and col. 9, lines 3-14.
Regarding Amano, the applicant argues on page 11:
Amano discloses that current is supplied from the excitation power supply to the superconducting coil, and the persistent current mode is initiated, immediately once the coil is cooled to or below the critical temperature M, that is, before any subsequent "specific condition" is evaluated. The "specific condition for stabilizing a magnetic field" in Amano is instead a precondition only to commencing the "steady operation" (i.e., the point at which the generated field is put to actual use), and is directed to eliminating a noise magnetic field arising from eddy currents, a concern unrelated to whether the magnet may be safely excited in the first place. Amano therefore does not use any post-critical-temperature stabilization determination as a gate for excitation; rather, its excitation step precedes that determination entirely.
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards limitations which are not recited in the claim, and appear to rely on a piecemeal analysis of Amano while ignoring what is well-known and common sense for one of ordinary skill in the art.
The applicant argues Amano does not use any post-critical-temperature stabilization determination as a gate for excitation. The claims do not recite any such temperature stabilization determination. Thus, these arguments are moot.
The applicant further argues current is supplied from the excitation power supply “immediately once the coil is cooled to or below the critical temperature M.” This interpretation is not consistent with Amano, however, such an interpretation would still read on the claim in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation. Amano teaches in Fig. 5 and [0059] wherein “First, in the step S11 as shown in FIG. 5, the cooling controller 25 starts to cool the superconducting coil 2 and the persistent current switch 3 by supplying electric current from the cooler power-supply 15 to the cooler 5 and operating the cooler 5. When the cooling operation begins, the superconducting coil 2 and the persistent current switch 3 are cooled to or below the critical temperature M. Consequently, the superconducting coil 2 and the persistent current switch 3 transition to the superconductive state. Further, the superconducting coil 2 and the persistent current switch 3 are cooled down until both reach the steady operation temperature N.” Therefore, cooling is performed in step S11 and excitation current is provide in step S13 after the superconducting coil and the persistent current switch are cooled down until both reach the steady operation temperature.
The applicant’s arguments regarding “specific conditions for stabilizing the magnetic field” are not understood. As best understood by the examiner, the “specific conditions for stabilizing the magnetic field” disclosed in Amano are directed for establishing a uniform magnetic field which would take place after cooling has completed. For example, cooling the magnet is performed in step S11 (see Fig. 5) and supplying current to the magnet takes place in step S13 of Fig. 5, while determining the central field is constant is performed in step S20. See [0068]. Therefore, the specific conditions for stabilizing the magnetic field are immaterial to the limitations as claimed.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the claims stand rejected in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation as claimed as outlined in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s):
1. An operation terminal for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, the operation terminal comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire information indicating a temperature of a magnet provided in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus from the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus;
calculate a remaining cooling time, which is a time required until the magnet is cooled to a cooling-completed state, on the basis of the acquired information; and
output information indicating the remaining cooling time.
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 1 is directed to an operation terminal which is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): The limitation “calculate a remaining cooling time, which is a time required until the magnet is cooled to a cooling-completed state, on the basis of the acquired information;” is directed toward an abstract idea regarding a mathematical calculation and mental processes. Determining a cooling time is determined based on a cooling curve. As shown in Fig. 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a cooling time using mental processes by comparing the current temperature of the magnet and the time to reach a desired cooling completion temperature by referencing a cooling curve.
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): The claim recites additional limitations of a generic processor, “acquire information indicating a temperature of a magnet provided in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus from the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus;”, and “output information indicating the remaining cooling time.” These limitations amount to a generic computer processor to perform a routine and conventional step data gathering and outputting the result of the judicial exception using a generic processor. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims amount to a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): As with step 2A, the additional limitations amount to implementing the judicial exception using a generic computer to perform routine data gathering to obtain information and then outputting the result of the judicial exception. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the limitation “wherein the cooling- completed state is a state in which a superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting the magnet” is an inherent condition for cooling a superconducting magnet and is merely insignificant extra-solution activity corresponding a boundary condition required to perform the calculation which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial limitation or tie the judicial-exception into a practical application. The limitations including “acquiring information” and “output information” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity performed using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 10 is directed to a method and is rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 3 is not rejected under 101. Claim 3 recites “wherein, as the data of the cooling curve, data of a plurality of cooling curves corresponding to a type of a cooling device that cools the magnet and a change in the cooling device over time is recorded in the recording medium, and the processor is configured to interpolate the data of the plurality of cooling curves according to the type of the cooling device and the change in the cooling device over time to calculate the remaining cooling time.”
Claim 3 is supported in Fig. 12 and [0053] of the specification as filed 11/5/2024 which teaches wherein a “… cooling curve C6 one year after the start of use is calculated by interpolating a cooling curve C4 at the start of use and a cooling curve C5 three years after the start of use for refrigerator 1.” Extrapolating a curve after one year of use of a type of cooling device based on curves determined at the start of use and after three years of use. The interpolated data would not
Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-4 and 6 recite further limitations which amount to routine data gathering, additional calculations directed to a judicial exception, and/or determining a temperature corresponding to a cooling-completed state.
Claims 5 and 7-9 are directed toward insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the result.
Claim 11-12 directs the judicial exception to components of a generic MRI system and apparatus which are routine and conventional in the art.
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) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. Optimal cool-down time of a 4 K superconducting magnet cooled by a two-stage cryocooler; Cryogenics 52 (2012) 13-18 (Choi) in view of US 2019/0362874 (Amano).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches an operation terminal for an apparatus (the cryocooler of Fig. 1), the operation terminal comprising:
acquire information indicating a temperature of a magnet provided in the apparatus from the apparatus (Figs. 6-8 show analytical calculations of the cooling curve and experimental measurements of a cooling curve measuring the temperature of a magnet over time and, although not explicitly recited, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the data collection and calculations would reasonably be performed using a processor; see Figs. 6-8);
calculate a remaining cooling time, which is a time required until the magnet is cooled to a cooling-completed state, on the basis of the acquired information (Figs. 6-8 provide analytical and experimental cooling curves for a magnet, wherein the abstract teaches wherein “The estimation of cool-down time seeks the elapsed time to cool the thermal object by a cryocooler during initial cool-down processes (see abstract; see last paragraph of left col. Of page 13 of the “Introduction” section). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the remaining time to cool down from any arbitrary temperature based on the analytical or experimental curves of Figs. 6-8. Further, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an appropriate “cooling-completed state”. For example, it is well-understood in the art that superconducting magnets must be cooled below the critical temperature Tc in order for the magnet to operating in the superconducting state. For example, Tc for NbTi, used for the magnet wire in Choi, is well-known to be approximately 9.5 K. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a time from an arbitrary temperature to a cooling state where the magnet temperature is below 9.5 K by referencing graphs 6-8.), wherein the remaining cooling-completed state is a state in which a superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting the magnet (The limitation does not explicitly recite “exciting the magnet”, merely that the magnet is in a state in which the superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting”. It is well-known in the art that superconducting magnets comprise a normal state which resists current and a superconducting state when the temperature falls below a critical temperature Tc wherein current flows without resistance. Applying a current to a superconducting magnet coil while in the normal state would result in resistive heating which would make cooling the coil to a superconducting coil impossible, thus rendering the superconducting magnet inoperable for its intended purpose. Thus, it is conventional in the art, and a matter of common sense for one of ordinary skill, to cool the magnet to a superconducting state prior to exciting the magnet. The magnet of Choi is a 3 T or 5 T magnet comprising niobium titanium which is well-known in the art to have a TC of 9.5 K or niobium tin 18.3 K, and the desired tooling temperature is around 4K. See introduction section. Section 2.1 teaches wherein current leads are employed for supplying current to the magnet. Section 2.2 states “During initial cool-down process no current is supplied, however table 1 shows wherein a 3 T magnet operates with a current of 195 A and a 5 T magnet operates with a current of 165 A. In view of the reference as a whole, it would be well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the magnet is cooled to a superconducting state such that a current may be applied by the current leads to excite the magnet to generate a 3 T or 5 T magnetic field. Thus, it would be obvious for a “cooling-completed state” of a superconducting magnet to be in a superconducting state such that it is possible to start exciting the magnet, as such a condition would be essential to the operability of a 3 T superconducting magnet. If the magnet is not cooled to a state “in which a superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting the magnet”, then the magnet of Choi would not be operable for its intended purpose.); and
output information indicating the remaining cooling time (The cooling curves of Figs. 6-8 display the total cooling time from the start of cooling until the end and it would be an obvious matter of design choice to output the remaining cooling time for an arbitrary temperature without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results. See Figs. 6-8).
Choi fails to teach an operation terminal for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, and a processor configured to: acquire information indicating a temperature of a magnet provided in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus from the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus.
Amano teaches an operation terminal for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (a superconducting magnet 1 of Figs. 1-2 corresponds to an operational terminal conventionally used in an MRI diagnostic apparatus; see [0003], [0040]), and a processor configured to: acquire information indicating a temperature of a magnet provided in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus from the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (the superconducting magnet of Fig. 1 comprises a control device 8 including a processing unit and monitors the temperature from a magnet 2 which is part of an MRI system using a temperature sensor 7; see [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Amano into Choi in order to gain the advantage of a processor for monitoring the temperature and controlling the cooling operation of a magnet for an MRI system. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the superconducting magnet of Choi may be used in any number of technologies involving superconducting magnets (e.g. biology, chemistry, high energy physics, material science), wherein Amano specifically teaches wherein a system for monitoring a superconducting magnet implemented with an MRI system. Further, while Choi fails to explicitly recite a processor, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude Choi includes a processor similar to that of Amano for performing the functions of collecting the experimental data and performing calculations to estimate the cool-down time of a magnet cooled by a cryocooler.
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches a method for operating an operation terminal for an apparatus, the method comprising:
acquire information indicating a temperature of a magnet provided in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus from the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (Figs. 6-8 show analytical calculations of the cooling curve and experimental measurements of a cooling curve measuring the temperature of a magnet over time and, although not explicitly recited, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the data collection and calculations would reasonably be performed using a processor; see Figs. 6-8);
calculate a remaining cooling time, which is a time required until the magnet is cooled to a cooling-completed state, on the basis of the acquired information (Figs. 6-8 provide analytical and experimental cooling curves for a magnet, wherein the abstract teaches wherein “The estimation of cool-down time seeks the elapsed time to cool the thermal object by a cryocooler during initial cool-down processes (see abstract; see last paragraph of left col. Of page 13 of the “Introduction” section). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the remaining time to cool down from any arbitrary temperature based on the analytical or experimental curves of Figs. 6-8. Further, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an appropriate “cooling-completed state”. For example, it is well-understood in the art that superconducting magnets must be cooled below the critical temperature Tc in order for the magnet to operate in the superconducting state. For example, Tc for NbTi, used for the magnet wire in Choi, is well-known to be approximately 9.5 K. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a time from an arbitrary temperature to a cooling state where the magnet temperature is below 9.5 K by referencing graphs 6-8.) , wherein the remaining cooling-completed state is a state in which a superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting the magnet (The limitation does not explicitly recite “exciting the magnet”, merely that the magnet is in a state in which the superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting”. It is well-known in the art that superconducting magnets comprise a normal state which resists current and a superconducting state when the temperature falls below a critical temperature Tc wherein current flows without resistance. Applying a current to a superconducting magnet coil while in the normal state would result in resistive heating which would make cooling the coil to a superconducting coil impossible, thus rendering the superconducting magnet inoperable for its intended purpose. Thus, it is conventional in the art, and a matter of common sense for one of ordinary skill, to cool the magnet to a superconducting state prior to exciting the magnet. The magnet of Choi is a 3 T or 5 T magnet comprising niobium titanium which is well-known in the art to have a TC of 9.5 K or niobium tin 18.3 K, and the desired tooling temperature is around 4K. See introduction section. Section 2.1 teaches wherein current leads are employed for supplying current to the magnet. Section 2.2 states “During initial cool-down process no current is supplied, however table 1 shows wherein a 3 T magnet operates with a current of 195 A and a 5 T magnet operates with a current of 165 A. In view of the reference as a whole, it would be well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the magnet is cooled to a superconducting state such that a current may be applied by the current leads to excite the magnet to generate a 3 T or 5 T magnetic field. Thus, it would be obvious for a “cooling-completed state” of a superconducting magnet to be in a superconducting state such that it is possible to start exciting the magnet, as such a condition would be essential to the operability of a 3 T superconducting magnet. If the magnet is not cooled to a state “in which a superconducting state of the magnet is maintained and it is possible to start exciting the magnet”, then the magnet of Choi would not be operable for its intended purpose.); and
output information indicating the remaining cooling time (The cooling curves of Figs. 6-8 display the total cooling time from the start of cooling until the end and it would be an obvious matter of design choice to output the remaining cooling time for an arbitrary temperature without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results. See Figs. 6-8).
Choi fails to teach a method for operating an operation terminal for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, the operation terminal including a processor.
Amano teaches a method for operating an operation terminal for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (a superconducting magnet 1 of Figs. 1-2 corresponds to an operational terminal conventionally used in an MRI diagnostic apparatus; see [0003], [0040]), and the operation terminal including a processor (the superconducting magnet of Fig. 1 comprises a control device 8 including a processing unit and monitors the temperature from a magnet 2 which is part of an MRI system using a temperature sensor 7; see [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Amano into Choi in order to gain the advantage of a processor for monitoring the temperature and controlling the cooling operation of a magnet for an MRI system. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the superconducting magnet of Choi may be used in any number of technologies involving superconducting magnets (e.g. biology, chemistry, high energy physics, material science), wherein Amano specifically teaches wherein a system for monitoring a superconducting magnet implemented with an MRI system. Further, while Choi fails to explicitly recite a processor, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude Choi includes a processor similar to that of Amano for performing the functions of collecting the experimental data and performing calculations to estimate the cool-down time of a magnet cooled by a cryocooler.
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches further comprising: in which data of a cooling curve, which indicates a relationship between a time from a start of the cooling of the magnet and the temperature of the magnet and which has been generated on the basis of an actually measured value, is recorded (a experimental cooling curves indicate a relationship between a time from the start of the cooling of the magnet and the temperature of the magnet, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer the experimental values are determined using a temperature sensor on the magnet in an equivalent manner as disclosed in Amano; see Figs. 6-8).
Choi fails to explicitly teach a non-transitory tangible recording medium, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the time with reference to the recorded data of the cooling curve.
Amano teaches a non-transitory tangible recording medium, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the time with reference to the recorded data of the cooling curve (the control device 8 includes a memory storage such as a ROM and monitoring the temperature of the magnet coil as a function of time; see [0133]; see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Amano into Choi in order to gain the advantage of a processor and recording medium for monitoring the temperature of the magnet coil vs time as illustrated in Fig. 4 of Amano into Choi for obtaining and storing the temperature of the magnet coil vs time as illustrated in Figs. 6-8 of Choi. While not explicitly recited in Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer Choi employs a processor and storage medium in order to record and generate the data illustrated in Figs. 6-8 to estimate the cool-down time of a magnet cooled by a cryocooler.
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches wherein the processor is configured to newly generate data of a cooling curve indicating a relationship between a cooling time of the magnet and the temperature of the magnet on the basis of an actually measured value of the temperature of the magnet and to record the generated data of the cooling curve in the recording medium (Choi teaches generating a cooling curve, wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate a new curve each time a magnet is cooled in order to monitor the cooling of the magnet without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results; see Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 5, Choi fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to display the data of the cooling curve on a display device, however, it would be inferred by one of ordinary skill in the art that the cooling curves illustrated in Figs. 6-8 would reasonably be displayed on a computer display, for example a display device as recited in [0133] of Amano.
Regarding claim 7, Choi fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to output the information using at least one of display output or voice output, however, it would be inferred by one of ordinary skill in the art that the cooling curves illustrated in Figs. 6-8 would reasonably be displayed on a computer display, for example a display device as recited in [0133] of Amano.
Regarding claim 8, Choi and Amano teach all the limitations of claim 1, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “wherein the processor is configured to discretely output the information according to the remaining cooling time” as a mere matter of design choice. Choi teaches a cooling curve of the temperature of a magnet vs time and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to infer a remaining cooling time of a magnet at an arbitrary temperature from the cooling curve. The choice to discretely output the remaining cooling time to, for example a display, would be an obvious matter of design choice without providing any new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, Choi fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a small granularity for the information stepwise according to the remaining cooling time and to output the information with the determined granularity. As best understood by the examiner, the granularity corresponds to a unit of measurement, e.g. “week”, “day”, “hour”, for reporting the remaining cooling time as disclosed in [0057] of the pending specification filed 11/5/2024. As stated in the rejection of claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a remaining cooling time of a magnet from the cooling curves of Figs. 6-8 based on a temperature of the magnet. The limitations as recited in claim 9 would be a matter of common sense and design choice to scale the remaining time based on how many days, hours, weeks, etc. remain without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results. For example, it would be an obvious matter of personal preference to represent a remaining time of 12 hours as wither 12 hours or 0.5 days.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Choi and Amano teaches the operation terminal according to claim 1.
Amano teaches a magnetic resonance imaging system comprising: the operation terminal according to claim 1; and the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (an operational terminal is interpreted as the superconducting magnet apparatus 1 comprising a superconducting coil 2, controller 8, temperature sensor 7, etc. of Figs. 1-2 and wherein an MRI diagnostic apparatus as recited in Amano would reasonably comprise conventional components of a MRI apparatus, e.g. RF coils, gradient coils configured around the magnet; see [0003], [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Amano into Choi in order to gain the advantage of estimating the cool-down time of a superconducting magnet cooled by a cryocooler of Choi to a superconducting magnet of an MRI system of Amano.
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches a cooling device that cools the magnet; and a thermometer that measures the temperature of the magnet, wherein the magnet is a superconducting magnet for generating a static magnetic field (a cryocooler cools a superconducting magnet, see abstract, see Fig. 1, and it would be inferred by one of ordinary skill in the art the determining the experimental temperature curves of Figs. 6-8 would require a thermometer to measure the temperature of the magnet, e.g. temperature sensor 7 of Amano.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and by overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein, as the data of the cooling curve, data of a plurality of cooling curves corresponding to a type of a cooling device that cools the magnet and a change in the cooling device over time is recorded in the recording medium, and the processor is configured to interpolate the data of the plurality of cooling curves according to the type of the cooling device and the change in the cooling device over time to calculate the remaining cooling time.”
Fig. 12 and [0053] of the specification as filed 11/5/2024 teaches wherein a “… cooling curve C6 one year after the start of use is calculated by interpolating a cooling curve C4 at the start of use and a cooling curve C5 three years after the start of use for refrigerator 1.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
