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 § 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for controlling a ramping process of a superconducting magnet of a magnetic resonance imaging device, comprising:
receiving, via an interface, cryocooler status data indicative of a status of a cryocooler configured to cool the superconducting magnet;
receiving, via the interface, superconducting magnet data indicative of a parameter of the superconducting magnet comprising a value of an electrical property and/or a physical property of the superconducting magnet that is measured via at least one sensor;
determining, via processing circuitry, an operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device based upon (i) the cryocooler status data, and (ii) the superconducting magnet data; and
generating, via a controller, a control signal that controls the ramping process of the superconducting magnet,
wherein the control signal is from among a set of dedicated control signals, each respective one of the dedicated control signals being generated based upon the determined operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device to control the ramping process of the superconducting magnet based upon (i) the cryocooler status data indicating that a volume of a condensed phase of cryogen of the cryocooler is less than a predetermined threshold volume, and (ii) the superconducting magnet data.
Regarding the highlighted language above, the language “generating, via a controller, a control signal that controls the ramping process of the superconducting magnet” has a scope that include generating a single control signal. Regarding the subsequent language “wherein the control signal is from among a set of dedicated control signals, each respective one of the dedicated control signals being generated based upon the determined operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device to control the ramping process of the superconducting magnet …”, it is not clear if this subsequent language affirmatively requires generating other control signals of the set of control signals as a part of the claimed method. As best understood by the examiner in light of the specification and drawings, this language does not appear to mean that the method additionally requires, after the “generating” step, generating additional control signals. Rather, this language is interpreted to mean that the control signal produced by the “generating” step is one of several possible control signals that could have been produced. The claim language does not specify any step or process that governs selection of a particular one of the possible control signal for generation versus another one of the possible control signals, or the manner in which the control signals differ (the examiner notes that each possible control signal depends on the same factors (i) and (ii)). Insofar as the language “wherein the control signal is from among a set of dedicated control signals, each respective one of the dedicated control signals being generated …” provides there are other possible control signals that could have been generated instead of the control signal that was actually generated, the other possible control signal are regarded as merely optional and without patentable weight. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. The analogous issue is present in claim 11. Claims 2-10 and claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by virtue of their dependence from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0146611 to Nakabayashi et al. (Nakabayashi) in view of US 2005/0111159 to Knight (Knight).
Regarding claim 1, Nakabayashi discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling a ramping process of a superconducting magnet of a magnetic resonance imaging device, comprising:
receiving, via an interface, cryocooler status data indicative of a status of a cryocooler configured to cool the superconducting magnet (Nakabayashi, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 35-51, processing circuitry 38 determines, for example, when power outage of the main power supply 31 occurs, e.g., when the cooling system 33 is being powered by subsidiary power supply 32; also see, e.g., Figs, 3-4 in which T0 (main power supply outage) is necessarily determined in order to determine Te and Ts; also see, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs 57-76; note in particular paragraph 59 and step S2);
receiving, via the interface, superconducting magnet data indicative of a parameter of the superconducting magnet comprising a value of an electrical property and/or a physical property of the superconducting magnet that is measured via at least one sensor (Nakabayashi, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraphs 35-51, see, e.g., paragraph 40, thermometer 36 measures the temperature of the superconducting magnet 41; information regarding the measured temperature is supplied to the excitation/ramp-down unit 37 and the processing circuitry 38; also see, e.g., paragraph 45, with the time-needed-for-ramp-down determining function 383, the processing circuitry 38 determines the second time needed to demagnetize the superconducting magnet 41 based on the excitation current of the superconducting magnet 41 and the temperature of the superconducting magnet 41; the excitation current according to the present embodiment is a magnet current flowing to the superconducting coil 410 in order to generate a static magnetic field having a desired magnetic field intensity value; also see, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs 57-76; note in particular paragraph 62 and step S3; note in particular paragraph 63 and step S5, the processing circuitry 38 determines the time Tg needed for ramp-down based on the internal temperature Kc of the superconducting magnet 41 measured in step S4 and an excitation current I0 of the superconducting magnet 41; a value of the excitation current I0 is measured as a value of a magnet current I to the superconducting coil 410 needed for each superconducting coil 410 to attain a desired magnetic field intensity);
determining, via processing circuitry, an operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device based upon (i) the cryocooler status data, and (ii) the superconducting magnet data (Nakabayashi, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs 57-76, see, e.g., paragraphs 63-76 pertaining to the determination of time Tg needed for ramp-down at step S5 and the determination of ramp-down starting-time Ts based on T0 and Tg at step S6; also see Fig. 3 in this regard; at least the determination of Ts is a determination of the operational status/state of Nakabayashi’s MRI imaging device, i.e., the status/state of the MRI imaging device is such that ramp-down much be commenced at Ts in order to avoid a possible quench; note also that Ts is dependent upon T0 (cryocooler status data as discussed above, e.g., main power supply outage) and Tg which is dependent on superconducting magnet data, e.g., magnet temperature, magnet current); and
generating, via a controller, a control signal that controls the ramping process of the superconducting magnet (Nakabayashi, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs 57-76, see, e.g., paragraph 76 and step S7, if the ramp-down starting time Ts elapses, the processing circuitry 38 controls the excitation/ramp-down unit 37 to start ramp-down through implementation of the control function 385);
wherein the control signal is from among a set of dedicated control signals, each respective one of the dedicated control signals being generated based upon the determined operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device to control the ramping process of the superconducting magnet based upon (i) the cryocooler status data and (ii) the superconducting magnet data (see Nakabayashi as discussed above, the control signal, e.g., paragraph 76 and step S7 of Fig. 5, is generated based upon the determined operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device to control the ramping process of the superconducting magnet based upon (i) the cryocooler status data and (ii) the superconducting magnet data; the examiner notes that the language “generating, via a controller, a control signal that controls the ramping process of the superconducting magnet” has a scope that include generating a single control signal; the subsequent language “wherein the control signal is from among a set of dedicated control signals, each respective one of the dedicated control signals being generated based upon the determined operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device to control the ramping process of the superconducting magnet …” is not construed to mean that the method requires, after the “generating” step, generating additional control signals; rather, this language is interpreted to mean that the control signal produced by the “generating” step is one of several possible control signals that could have been produced; the claim language does not specify any step or process that governs selection of a particular one of the possible control signal for generation versus another one of the possible control signals, or what differentiates one control signal from another (the examiner notes that each possible control signal depends on the same factors (i) and (ii)); insofar as the language “wherein the control signal is from among a set of dedicated control signals, each respective one of the dedicated control signals being generated …” provides there are other possible control signals that could have been generated instead of the control signal that was actually generated, the other possible control signal are regarded as merely optional and without patentable weight).
Nakabayashi discloses a cryocooler having a volume of a condensed phase of cryogen (Nakabayashi, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraph 35, superconducting coil 410 is accommodated in a cooling container such as a cryostat; cooling container contains a coolant such as liquid helium), but is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing (i) the cryocooler status data indicating that a volume of a condensed phase of cryogen of the cryocooler is less than a predetermined threshold volume. In related art, Knight discloses cryocooler status data indicating that a volume of a condensed phase of cryogen of the cryocooler is less than a predetermined threshold volume (Knight, e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraph 37, sensors for measuring cryogen temperature, pressure, and level may be located in the helium vessel 44 and are collectively indicated generally by reference numeral 68; other sensors 68 may monitor shield temperatures, the magnet field strength and frequency (i.e., with a Tesla meter probe inserted into the magnet bore), magnet current, and operating variables of the condensing system 54, such as operating pressure and temperature of the cold head 58 and the compressor 60; also see paragraph 39, the helium 44 may decline to undesirable levels and/or may reach undesirable temperatures, at which the magnet 40 may lose superconductivity). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand from Knight that low cryogen levels increase the likelihood of quenching, and in the context of Nakabayashi’s disclosure low cryogen levels may impact the start ramp-down time Ts (Nakabayashi, e.g., Fig. 4), e.g., ramp-down may need to be commenced earlier than it otherwise would have been due to low cryogen levels. It 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 to modify Nakabayashi such that the cryocooler status data includes data indicating that a volume of a condensed phase of cryogen of the cryocooler is less than a predetermined threshold volume. In this way, Nakabayashi’s determination of start ramp-down time Ts can also take into account cryogen levels, which may dictate starting ramp-down sooner than would otherwise be necessary to avoid a quench in the event that Nakabayashi’s coolant in the cooling container has declined to undesirable levels.
Regarding claim 2, Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses wherein the parameter of the superconducting magnet comprises a voltage, a current, a magnetic field, and/or a temperature of the superconducting magnet (see Nakabayashi in view of Knight as applied to claim 1, noting that Nakabayashi measures temperature of the superconducting magnet 41 and a value of the excitation current I0).
Regarding claim 3, Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses wherein the cryocooler status data comprises data indicative of a capacity of the cryocooler to maintain a predefined cooling condition (see Nakabayashi in view of Knight as applied to claim 1, noting that Nakabayashi measures temperature of the superconducting magnet 41, which is at least indirectly indicative of a capacity of the cryocooler to maintain a predefined cooling condition).
Regarding claim 7, although Nakabayashi in view of Knight is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises: assessing a readiness of the superconducting magnet to perform a magnetic resonance imaging measurement based upon the superconducting magnet data, the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that assessing the readiness of a superconducting magnet of perform an MRI measurement based on superconducting magnet parameters such as temperature and/or excitation current was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. It 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 to modify Nakabayashi in view of Knight such that determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing a readiness of the superconducting magnet to perform a magnetic resonance imaging measurement based upon the superconducting magnet data. In this way, in cases where the temperature of the magnet is indicative of a possible quenching condition, or where the current is too low to produce a field having the required imaging strength, the superconducting magnet can be assessed as not ready to perform an imaging measurement.
Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses a present ramping process is detected based upon the superconducting magnet data (Nakabayashi, e.g., paragraphs 41, 47). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that during ramping-up or ramping down the magnet, the current is insufficient to generating the desired field for imaging. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakabayashi in view of Knight such that when a present ramping process is detected based upon the superconducting magnet data, the magnetic resonance imaging device is assessed as being unready to perform the magnetic resonance imaging measurement. Such reasoning falls well-within the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ in light of the teachings of Nakabayashi and Knight, and well-known and conventional practices relating to superconducting magnet operation.
Regarding claim 8-9, Nakabayashi in view of Knight is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping down when the voltage of the superconducting magnet is less than a predefined value (claim 8) and wherein the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping up when the voltage of the superconducting magnet exceeds a predefined value (claim 9) The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via at least one sensor during ramping to assess the onset of quenching, for example, was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the voltage of a superconducting magnet during ramp-up/ramp-down is determined at least in part by the well-known relationship V=L*di/dt, with L being the inductance of the coil, di/dt being the rate of increase/decrease of current during ramp-up/ramp down, and V being the inducted voltage resulting from the changing current. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the coil voltage during ramp down to be less than a typical ramp up voltage of the coil since di/dt is negative during ramp down (current is being reduced). It 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 to modify Nakabayashi in view of Knight such that (1) the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping down when the voltage of the superconducting magnet is less than a predefined value, and such that (2) the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping up when the voltage of the superconducting magnet exceeds a predefined value. In this way, the acquired voltage may be utilized to determine a quench condition, as is well-known in the art, and further utilized to assess whether a ramp down is in progress based on the well-known relationship V=L*di/dt for an inductive coil and the knowledge that di/dt is a positive quantity during ramp up and a negative quantity during ramp down.
Regarding claim 10, Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses wherein the control signal controls the ramping process of the superconducting magnet by (i) triggering initiation of a ramp-up process or a ramp-down process, (ii) maintaining a current ramp-up or a current ramp-down process, or (iii) interrupting a current ramp-up or a current ramp-down process (see Nakabayashi in view of Knight as applied to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 4, start ramp-down at time Ts; also see Fig. 5, step S8).
Claim 11 recites a computer-implemented method for controlling a ramping process of a superconducting magnet of a magnetic resonance imaging device, comprising:
receiving, via an interface, cryocooler status data indicative of a status of a cryocooler configured to cool the superconducting magnet;
receiving, via the interface, superconducting magnet data indicative of a parameter of the superconducting magnet comprising a value of an electrical property and/or a physical property of the superconducting magnet that is measured via at least one sensor;
determining, via processing circuitry, an operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device based upon (i) the cryocooler status data, and (ii) the superconducting magnet data; and generating, via a controller, a control signal that controls the ramping process of the superconducting magnet,
wherein the control signal is from among a set of dedicated control signals, each respective one of the dedicated control signals being generated based upon the determined operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device to control the ramping process of the superconducting magnet based upon (i) the cryocooler status data indicating that a pressure level provided via a compressor of the cryocooler is less than a predetermined threshold pressure level, and (ii) the superconducting magnet data,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Nakabayashi in view of Knight for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with the rejection of claim 1, recognizing that Knight discloses in addition to a level sensor a sensor for monitoring the operating pressure of compressor 60 (Knight, e.g., paragraph 37), and further recognizing that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a loss of suitable compressor pressure is indicative of loss of cooling capacity and increase likelihood of a magnet quench.
Regarding claim 12, Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses wherein the parameter of the superconducting magnet comprises a voltage, a current, a magnetic field, and/or a temperature of the superconducting magnet (see Nakabayashi in view of Knight as applied to claim 1, noting that Nakabayashi measures temperature of the superconducting magnet 41 and a value of the excitation current I0).
Regarding claim 13, Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses wherein the cryocooler status data comprises data indicative of a capacity of the cryocooler to maintain a predefined cooling condition (see Nakabayashi in view of Knight as applied to claim 1, noting that Nakabayashi measures temperature of the superconducting magnet 41, which is at least indirectly indicative of a capacity of the cryocooler to maintain a predefined cooling condition).
Regarding claim 17, although Nakabayashi in view of Knight is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises: assessing a readiness of the superconducting magnet to perform a magnetic resonance imaging measurement based upon the superconducting magnet data, the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that assessing the readiness of a superconducting magnet of perform an MRI measurement based on superconducting magnet parameters such as temperature and/or excitation current was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. It 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 to modify Nakabayashi in view of Knight such that determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing a readiness of the superconducting magnet to perform a magnetic resonance imaging measurement based upon the superconducting magnet data. In this way, in cases where the temperature of the magnet is indicative of a possible quenching condition, or where the current is too low to produce a field having the required imaging strength, the superconducting magnet can be assessed as not ready to perform an imaging measurement.
Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses a present ramping process is detected based upon the superconducting magnet data (Nakabayashi, e.g., paragraphs 41, 47). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that during ramping-up or ramping down the magnet, the current is insufficient to generating the desired field for imaging. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakabayashi in view of Knight such that when a present ramping process is detected based upon the superconducting magnet data, the magnetic resonance imaging device is assessed as being unready to perform the magnetic resonance imaging measurement. Such reasoning falls well-within the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ in light of the teachings of Nakabayashi and Knight, and well-known and conventional practices relating to superconducting magnet operation.
Regarding claim 18-19, Nakabayashi in view of Knight is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping down when the voltage of the superconducting magnet is less than a predefined value (claim 18) and wherein the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping up when the voltage of the superconducting magnet exceeds a predefined value (claim 19) The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via at least one sensor during ramping to assess the onset of quenching, for example, was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the voltage of a superconducting magnet during ramp-up/ramp-down is determined at least in part by the well-known relationship V=L*di/dt, with L being the inductance of the coil, di/dt being the rate of increase/decrease of current during ramp-up/ramp down, and V being the inducted voltage resulting from the changing current. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the coil voltage during ramp down to be less than a typical ramp up voltage of the coil since di/dt is negative during ramp down (current is being reduced). It 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 to modify Nakabayashi in view of Knight such that (1) the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping down when the voltage of the superconducting magnet is less than a predefined value (claim 18), and such that (2) the receiving the superconducting magnet data comprises acquiring a voltage of the superconducting magnet via the at least one sensor, and wherein the determining the operational status of the magnetic resonance imaging device comprises assessing the superconducting magnet to be ramping up when the voltage of the superconducting magnet exceeds a predefined value (claim 19). In this way, the acquired voltage may be utilized to determine a quench condition, as is well-known in the art, and further utilized to assess whether a ramp down is in progress based on the well-known relationship V=L*di/dt for an inductive coil and the knowledge that di/dt is a positive quantity during ramp up and a negative quantity during ramp down.
Regarding claim 20, Nakabayashi in view of Knight discloses wherein the control signal controls the ramping process of the superconducting magnet by (i) triggering initiation of a ramp-up process or a ramp-down process, (ii) maintaining a current ramp-up or a current ramp-down process, or (iii) interrupting a current ramp-up or a current ramp-down process (see Nakabayashi in view of Knight as applied to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 4, start ramp-down at time Ts; also see Fig. 5, step S8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
