CTNF 18/938,245 CTNF 91807 DETAILED ACTION Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/5/2024 and 4/17/2025 were considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2 and 4-12 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 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.) ; 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 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 would could be used in any number of technologies involving superconducting magnets, 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 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.) ; 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 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 would could be used in any number of technologies involving superconducting magnets, 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 fail 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 6, Choi fails to explicitly teach 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, however, the limitations as claimed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it is well-understood that the superconducting magnet is not excited until the magnet is in the superconducting state when the temperature of the superconducting magnet falls below the critical temperature Tc. Additional support is provided in the abstract, [0023] 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 2 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 4 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 5 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 6 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 7 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 8 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 9 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 10 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 11 Art Unit: 2858 Application/Control Number: 18/938,245 Page 12 Art Unit: 2858
Prosecution Insights