DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 – 3, 12 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (US-10327830-B2) in view of Park (JP-2006292560-A)
Regarding claim 1
Grant discloses
A cryogenic probe (¶ 5 under Summary), comprising a housing (Claim 1), at least one coil (¶ 82 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS), and a cooling conductive structure (¶ 5 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS), wherein the at least one coil is disposed in the housing (¶ 81 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS); and
Grant does not disclose
“the cooling conductive structure is disposed in the housing and is provided with at least one coil groove, and the at least one coil is at least partially accommodated in the at least one coil groove”.
Park, however, teaches
the cooling conductive structure is disposed in the housing and is provided with at least one coil groove, and the at least one coil is at least partially accommodated in the at least one coil groove (¶ or lines 1—4 under TECH-SOLUTION).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “coil groove” as taught by Park in the probe of Grant.
The justification for this modification would be to have a compact probe by running cooling lines next to the RF coil.
Regarding claim 2
Grant in view of Park teach the cryogenic probe of claim 1,
Grant, applied to claim 2, further teaches
wherein the at least one the coil groove is disposed on a side surface of the cooling conductive structure proximal to a to-be-tested target (¶ 9 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS); and
Park, applied to claim 2, further teaches
any of the at least one coil comprises a coil conductor and a radio frequency
element, the coil conductor is at least partially accommodated in one of the at least one coil groove, a gap exists between the cooling conductive structure and an inner wall of the housing, and a gap exists between the coil conductor and the inner wall of the housing (¶ or line 4 under TECH-SOLUTION).
Regarding claim 3
Grant in view of Park teach the cryogenic probe of claim 2,
Grant, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein the side surface of the cooling conductive structure proximal to the to-be-tested target is an arc surface ( Fig. 1A, Ref 106, ¶ 15 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS, the part 106 is cylindrical which is a 360 degrees arc),
Park, applied to claim 3, further teaches
and the coil conductor is at least partially accommodated in the one of the at least one coil groove along a radial direction of the arc surface (¶ or line 4 under TECH-SOLUTION).
Regarding claim 12
Grant discloses
A magnetic resonance imaging system, comprising a cryogenic probe (¶ 5 under Summary) and a magnetic resonance device (¶ 29 under DETAILED
DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS), wherein the magnetic resonance device comprises a magnet with a scanning cavity (¶ 5 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS), and the cryogenic probe is capable of partially entering the scanning cavity (¶ 5 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS); and
the cryogenic probe comprises a housing (Claim 1), at least one coil (¶ 29 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS), and a cooling conductive structure (¶ 5 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS), wherein the at least one coil is disposed in the housing (¶ 29 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS),
Grant does not disclose
“the cooling conductive structure is disposed in the housing and is provided with at least one coil groove, and the at least one coil is at least partially accommodated in the at least one coil groove”.
Park, however, teaches
the cooling conductive structure is disposed in the housing and is provided with at least one coil groove, and the at least one coil is at least partially
accommodated in the at least one coil groove (¶ or lines 1—4 under TECH-SOLUTION).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “coil groove” as taught by Park in the probe of Grant.
The justification for this modification would be to have a compact probe by running cooling lines next to the RF coil.
Regarding claim 13
Grant in view of Park teach the magnetic resonance imaging system of claim 12,
Grant, applied to claim 2, further teaches
wherein the at least one coil groove is disposed on a side surface of the cooling conductive structure proximal to a to-be-tested target (¶ 9 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS); and
Park, applied to claim 13, further teaches
any of the at least one coil comprises a coil conductor and a radio frequency
element, the coil conductor is at least partially accommodated in one of the at least one coil groove, and a gap exists between the cooling conductive structure and an inner wall of the housing, and a gap exists between the coil conductor and the inner wall of the housing (¶ or line 4 under TECH-SOLUTION).
Regarding claim 14
Grant in view of Park teach the magnetic resonance imaging system of claim 13,
Grant, applied to claim 14, further teaches
wherein the side surface of the cooling conductive structure proximal to the to-be-tested target is a circular arc surface ( Fig. 1A, Ref 106, ¶ 15 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS, the part 106 is cylindrical which is a 360 degrees arc), and
Park, applied to claim 14, further teaches
the coil conductor is at least partially accommodated in the one of the at least one coil groove along a radial direction of the circular arc surface (¶ or line 4 under TECH-SOLUTION).
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (US-10327830-B2) in view of Park (JP-2006292560-A) in view of Dehaan (US-6466009-B1).
Regarding claim 7
Grant in view of Park teach the cryogenic probe of claim 2,
Grant in view of Park do not teach
“wherein the cooling conductive structure is further provided with a through hole in communication with the at least one coil groove, and the coil conductor is electrically connected to the radio frequency element through the through hole”.
Dehaan, however, discloses
wherein the cooling conductive structure is further provided with a through hole in communication with the at least one coil groove, and the coil conductor is electrically connected to the radio frequency element through the through hole (Claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “through-hole facility” as taught by Dehaan in the probe of Grant in view of Park.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to connect the coil conductor to the radio frequency element.
Regarding claim 18
Grant in view of Park teach the magnetic resonance imaging system of claim 13,
Grant in view of Park do not teach
“wherein the cooling conductive structure is further provided with a through hole in communication with the at least one coil groove, and the coil conductor is electrically connected to the radio frequency element through the through hole”.
Dehaan, however, teaches
wherein the cooling conductive structure is further provided with a through hole in communication with the at least one coil groove, and the coil conductor is electrically connected to the radio frequency element through the through hole (Claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “through-hole facility” as taught by Dehaan in the probe of Grant in view of Park.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to connect the coil conductor to the radio frequency element.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (US-10327830-B2) in view of Park (JP-2006292560-A) in view of Cosman (US-20090145585-A1).
Regarding claim 11
Grant in view of Park teach the cryogenic probe of claim 1,
Grant in view of Park do not teach
“further comprising a cryogenic platform, wherein the cooling conductive structure is capable of performing heat exchange with the cryogenic platform”.
Cosman, however, teaches
further comprising a cryogenic platform, wherein the cooling conductive structure is capable of performing heat exchange with the cryogenic platform ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “heat exchanger” as taught by Cosman in the probe of Grant in view of Park.
The justification for this modification would be to cool the coldhead to 25k ([0003], Cosman).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 15 – 17, 19, 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.
Regarding claim 4
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the coil conductor protrudes at least in part from the arc surface along the radial direction of the arc surface”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 5
The claim is allowable due to its dependency on objected-to claim 4.
Regarding claim 6
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein an interior of the housing is a vacuum environment, and a gap between the coil conductor and the inner wall of the housing proximal to the to-be-tested target is less than or equal to 1.0 mm”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 8
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the cryogenic probe comprises at least two coils, parts of adjacent coil conductors overlap with each other, and one of the adjacent coil conductors at an overlapping position prevents collisions with the other coil conductor of the adjacent coil conductors on a side away from the to-be-tested target”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 9
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the at least one coil groove is filled with either or both of cooling conductive grease and cooling conductive gel, and either or both of cooling conductive grease and cooling conductive gel are in contact with both the coil conductor and an inner wall of the at least one coil groove”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 10
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the at least one coil groove is filled with cooling conductive gel, and the cooling conductive gel is arranged at intervals along an extension direction of the coil conductor”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 15
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the coil conductor protrudes at least in part from the arc surface along the radial direction of the arc surface”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 16
The claim is allowable due to its dependency on objected-to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein an interior of the housing is a vacuum environment, and a gap between the coil conductor and the inner wall of the housing proximal to the to-be-tested target is less than or equal to 1.0 mm”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 19
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“and one of the adjacent coil conductors at an overlapping position prevents collisions with the other coil conductor of the adjacent coil conductors on a side away from the to-be-tested target”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 20
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the at least one coil groove is filled with either or both of cooling conductive grease and cooling conductive gel, and either or both of cooling conductive grease and cooling conductive gel are in contact with both the coil conductor and an inner wall of the at least one coil groove”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 p.m.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights