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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period in the middle of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: a period in the middle of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the diameter” should be “a diameter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the diameter” should be “a diameter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “is between is between” should be “is between”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the wire” should be “the electrically conducting wire”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a flexible helix with constant or changing slope, with constant or changing diameter and with straight or curved extension” and being “a superconductor”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s) when the alternative limitation of “an electrically conducting wire assembly with two electrically conducting wires” is used. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the two electrically conducting wires are formed as a double helix with alternating winding directions. for electrically connecting the windings of adjacent field coils, each comprising superconductive windings of a magnet in a magnetic resonance imaging cryostat.” It is unclear from the current claim language if “each” refers to each of the two electrically conducting wires. Further, the period in the middle of the claim also leaves the claim language unclear because it is unclear how the limitations are read.
Further regarding claim 1, based on the claim language it is believed that the alternative limitation of “an electrically conducting wire assembly with two electrically conducting wires” does not then include the limitations of “a flexible helix with constant or changing slope, with constant or changing diameter and with straight or curved extension” and being “a superconductor”, which are all seemingly essential features. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 2 is rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, based on the claim language it is believed that the alternative limitation of “an electrically conducting wire assembly with two electrically conducting wires” does not then include the limitations of “a flexible helix with constant or changing slope, with constant or changing diameter and with straight or curved extension” and being “a superconductor”, which are all seemingly essential features. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 4-11 are rejected for depending on claim 3.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation 1.5 cm and 8 cm, and the claim also recites 3.5 cm and 6.5 cm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meinke (US 2009/0085710).
Regarding claim 1, Meinke teaches a use of an electrically conducting wire being formed as a flexible helix with constant or changing slope [Abstract, see helical wiring pattern. See also rest of reference which teaches helix/helical. ¶0044, wherein the conductor is flexible. ¶0062, which teaches a constant radius of curvature. See also rest of reference.], with constant or changing diameter and with straight or curved extension [See Fig. 8. See Fig. 11 and 12a. See also rest of reference.], wherein the wire comprises a superconductor or an electrically conducting wire assembly with two electrically conducting wires [See ¶0114 and see Fig. 11. See also rest of reference.], wherein the two electrically conducting wires are formed as a double helix with alternating winding directions. for electrically connecting the windings of adjacent field coils, each comprising superconductive windings of a magnet in a magnetic resonance imaging cryostat.
Regarding claim 2, Meinke further teaches wherein the electrically conducting wire or the electrically conducting wire assembly is guided via a bending that is equal or greater than 90° and/or that comprises a bending radius of 15 cm or less [¶0063, ¶0082, ¶0091, ¶0108. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breneman (US 5,412,363).
Regarding claim 3, Breneman teaches an assembly for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, the assembly comprising.
a cryostat [See Figs. 8-9, see cryocooler 100 and vacuum vessel 32. See also rest of reference.], a magnet with multiple field coils with superconductive windings arranged within the cryostat [See superconducting coil assembly 18 and 20. See also rest of reference.] and an electrically conducting wire being formed as a flexible helix with constant or changing slope [See superconducting wire 36. See also rest of reference.], with constant or changing diameter and with straight or curved extension[See superconducting wire 36. See also rest of reference.], wherein the wire comprises a superconductor [[See superconducting wire 36. See also rest of reference.], or an electrically conducting wire assembly wherein the two electrically conducting wires are formed as a double helix with alternating winding directions, wherein the electrically conducting wire or the electrically conducting wire assembly is electrically connected to windings of adjacent field coils of the magnet [See superconducting wire 36. See also rest of reference.].
Supplemental Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
At least independent claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arndt (DE 102018213598 A1. English translation provided by Espacenet and attached to this application.).
Regarding claim 1, Arndt teaches a use of an electrically conducting wire being formed as a flexible helix with constant or changing slope [See conductor section 13. See also rest of reference.], with constant or changing diameter and with straight or curved extension [See conductor section 13. See also rest of reference.], wherein the wire comprises a superconductor or an electrically conducting wire assembly with two electrically conducting wires [See ¶0053. See also rest of reference.], wherein the two electrically conducting wires are formed as a double helix with alternating winding directions. for electrically connecting the windings of adjacent field coils, each comprising superconductive windings of a magnet in a magnetic resonance imaging cryostat [See Fig. 1 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Breneman teaches an assembly for a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, the assembly comprising.
a cryostat [See cryostat. See also rest of reference.], a magnet with multiple field coils with superconductive windings arranged within the cryostat [See superconducting coil assembly 5. See also rest of reference.] and an electrically conducting wire being formed as a flexible helix with constant or changing slope [See conductor section 13. See also rest of reference.], with constant or changing diameter and with straight or curved extension [See conductor section 13. See also rest of reference.], wherein the wire comprises a superconductor [See ¶0053. See also rest of reference.], or an electrically conducting wire assembly wherein the two electrically conducting wires are formed as a double helix with alternating winding directions, wherein the electrically conducting wire or the electrically conducting wire assembly is electrically connected to windings of adjacent field coils of the magnet[See Fig. 1 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Breneman, in view of Zaitsu (US 2007/0052507).
Regarding claim 4, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the wire comprises MgB2 as a superconductor.
Zaitsu, which is also in the field of superconductors, teaches wherein the wire comprises MgB2 as a superconductor [¶0040. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Zaitsu because both references are in the field of superconducting wire and because Zaitsu teaches it is known in the art that a known superconductor is MgB2 [Zaitsu - ¶0040. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
However, Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the diameter of the helix is between 1.5 cm and 8 cm, preferably between 3.5 cm and 6.5 cm.
Zaitsu, which is also in the field of superconductors, wherein the diameter of the helix is between 1.5 cm and 8 cm, preferably between 3.5 cm and 6.5 cm [¶0044. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Zaitsu because both references are in the field of superconducting wire and because Zaitsu teaches it is known in the art helical winding can have different diameters [Zaitsu - ¶0044. See diameter throughout reference. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Breneman, in view of Kodama (US 2024/0045009).
Regarding claim 6, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
However, Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the diameter of the wire is between 0.4 and 1.6 mm.
Kodama, which is also in the field of superconductors, teaches wherein the diameter of the wire is between 0.4 and 1.6 mm [¶0098-0099. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Kodama because Kodama teaches that it is known in the art that the wire diameter can be preferably 0.4 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less [Kodama - ¶0098-0099. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
However, Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the diameter of the wire is between is between 0.4 and 1.6 mm.
Kodama, which is also in the field of superconductors, teaches wherein the diameter of the wire is between is between 0.4 and 1.6 mm [¶0098-0099. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Kodama because Kodama teaches that it is known in the art that the wire diameter can be preferably 0.4 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less [Kodama - ¶0098-0099. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Breneman, in view of Herzog (US 2021/0035722).
Regarding claim 7, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the wire has a length such that the number of windings is between 6 and 12.
Herzog, which is also in the field of superconductors, teaches wherein the wire has a length such that the number of windings is between 6 and 12 [See Fig. 5, which shows 9 turns of the HTS tape 10. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Herzog because Herzog teaches that it is known in the art that superconductor can have a different number of turns [Herzog - ¶0024. See Fig. 5, which shows 9 turns. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Breneman is silent in teaching w wherein the wire has a length such that the number of windings is between 8 and 10.
Herzog, which is also in the field of superconductors, teaches wherein the wire has a length such that the number of windings is between 8 and 10 [See Fig. 5, which shows 9 turns of the HTS tape 10. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Herzog because Herzog teaches that it is known in the art that superconductor can have a different number of turns [Herzog - ¶0024. See Fig. 5, which shows 9 turns. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Breneman, in view of Meinke (US 2009/0085710).
Regarding claim 8, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the helix is a helix with changing directions wherein winding direction of the helix changes after each full turn.
Meinke, which is also in the field of superconductors, teaches wherein the helix is a helix with changing directions wherein winding direction of the helix changes after each full turn [See Fig. 3 and 5. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Meinke because Meinke teaches different turns of the conductive structure are known in the art and can generate different fields [Meinke - See Fig. 3 and 5. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Breneman and Meinke teach the limitations of claim 8, which this claim depends from.
Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the wire is bent back by 180° towards its previous course after a full turn.
Meinke, which is also in the field of superconductors, teaches wherein the wire is bent back by 180° towards its previous course after a full turn [See Fig. 3 and 5. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Meinke because Meinke teaches different turns of the conductive structure are known in the art and can generate different fields [Meinke - See Fig. 3 and 5. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 8-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Breneman, in view of Overweg (US 2021/0132168).
Regarding claim 8, Breneman teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the helix is a helix with changing directions wherein winding direction of the helix changes after each full turn.
Overweg teaches wherein the helix is a helix with changing directions wherein winding direction of the helix changes after each full turn [See Fig. 2-3, see turns 9 and 10. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Overweg because Overweg teaches different turns of the conductive structure are known in the art [Overweg - See Fig. 2-3. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Breneman and Overweg teach the limitations of claim 8, which this claim depends from.
Breneman is silent in teaching wherein the wire is bent back by 180° towards its previous course after a full turn.
Overweg teaches wherein the wire is bent back by 180° towards its previous course after a full turn [See Fig. 2-3, see turns 9 and 10. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Breneman and Overweg because Overweg teaches different turns of the conductive structure are known in the art [Overweg - See Fig. 2-3. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12566226 also teaches a helical coupling element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
