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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 06/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 06/30/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1, 4-19, and 21-22 are pending in the application with claims 12-13 withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-11, 14-19, and 21-22 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because “the wall of the process chamber” should be amended to recite “the at least one wall of the walls of the process chamber”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the movable separator is a rigid wall”. Parent claim 4 previously recites “wherein the wall of the process chamber that is the wall of the regulating chamber comprises a movable separator” and parent claim 1 previously recites “wherein at least one wall of the walls of the process chamber is a wall of the regulating chamber”. It is unclear the relationship between the “rigid wall” and the previously recited “at least one wall of the walls of the process chamber [that] is a wall of the regulating chamber”. Perhaps the claim should be amended to recite “wherein the movable separator is rigid” or “wherein the at least one wall of the walls of the process chamber that is the wall of the regulating chamber is a rigid wall”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-8, 14, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “DEMO tritium fuel cycle: performance, parameter explorations, and design constraints” (“Coleman”) in view of US Publication No. 2018/0066679 (“Arikawa”).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 21-22, Coleman (previously cited) (see FIG. 5) discloses a fusion reactor (“EU-DEMO”) comprising a tritium injection system (“Matter injection system”, “tritium accumulators”) (p. 83: “The matter injection system supplies solid fuel to the plasma, and gas (D, T, and other gases) to the in-vessel environment.... The gaseous T is injected continuously during the pulse”, “Tritium accumulators are modelled in the storage system to represent the long-term storage of the tritium inventory, in the form of uranium beds, and in the matter injection system. Here, there will be a buffer storage of tritium to meet the minute-to-minute and day-to-day operational tritium storage requirements”).
Coleman discloses the tritium injection system includes tritium accumulators for storing and supplying tritium and a tritium gas source (“storage system”) in fluidic communication to the tritium accumulators (FIG. 5, pp. 83-84: “Tritium accumulators are modelled in the storage system to represent the long-term storage of the tritium inventory ... and in the matter injection system. Here there will be a buffer storage of tritium to meet the minute-to-minute and day-to-day operational tritium storage requirements. The model is set up in such a way that there is never a lack of tritium in the accumulators, which would mean the plasma would be unable to operate as scheduled”), but does not appear to disclose the structure of the accumulators as recited in claims 1 and 21-22.
Arikawa (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards an accumulator (100) for storing and supplying a fluid1 ([0036], [0039]). Arikawa teaches the accumulator comprises a process chamber (“fluid chamber”) containing the fluid and having at least one outlet (121), wherein the process chamber includes walls (130, 150) defining an internal volume, and at least one of the walls (130) is a flexible wall ([0039]); the fluid contained within the internal volume ([0039]); and a regulating chamber (“gas chamber”) adjacent to the process chamber, wherein at least one wall (150) of the walls of the process chamber is a wall of the regulating chamber ([0039]). Arikawa further teaches the accumulator provides the advantages of diminishing pressure fluctuations ([0002], [0037]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to use an accumulator as taught by Arikawa in Coleman’s tritium injection system for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Coleman in order to reduce pressure fluctuations, as suggested by Arikawa, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 4, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Arikawa teaches the wall of the process chamber that is the wall of the regulating chamber comprises a movable separator (FIGS. 1-2, [0039]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure, would have resulted in the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 4. Arikawa teaches the movable separator is a rigid wall and is coupled to the flexible wall of the process chamber (FIG. 1, [0039]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure, would have resulted in the features of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 4. Arikawa teaches a container (110) surrounding the process chamber and the regulating chamber (FIG. 1, [0038]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure, would have resulted in the features of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 6. Arikawa teaches the process chamber is coupled to a stopper (140, 190) that contacts an inner surface of the container when the process chamber expands to a first amount and/or contracts to a second amount (FIGS. 1-2, [0041], [0043]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure, would have resulted in the features of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 6. Coleman discloses at least one inlet for supplying gas to within the tritium injection system (FIG. 5). Arikawa teaches the container comprises at least one inlet (111) for supplying gas to the process chamber and/or the regulating chamber (FIG. 1, [0038]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure, would have resulted in the features of claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Arikawa teaches the regulating chamber comprises at least one inlet (111) (FIG. 1, [0038]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure, would have resulted in the features of claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the fusion reactor of claim 17. Coleman discloses a radioactive containment chamber (“Tokamak building”, “Tritium plant”) surrounding the tritium injection system (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Arikawa teaches the flexible wall is configured to expand and contract (FIGS. 1-2, [0035], [0039]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure, would have resulted in the features of claim 19.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 14, 16-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of CN Publication No. 110469492 (“Li”).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 21-22, Coleman (see FIG. 5) discloses a fusion reactor (“EU-DEMO”) comprising a tritium injection system (“Matter injection system”, “tritium accumulators”) (p. 83: “The matter injection system supplies solid fuel to the plasma, and gas (D, T, and other gases) to the in-vessel environment.... The gaseous T is injected continuously during the pulse”, “Tritium accumulators are modelled in the storage system to represent the long-term storage of the tritium inventory, in the form of uranium beds, and in the matter injection system. Here, there will be a buffer storage of tritium to meet the minute-to-minute and day-to-day operational tritium storage requirements”).
Coleman discloses the tritium injection system includes tritium accumulators for storing and supplying tritium and a tritium gas source (“storage system”) in fluidic communication to the tritium accumulators (FIG. 5, pp. 83-84: “Tritium accumulators are modelled in the storage system to represent the long-term storage of the tritium inventory ... and in the matter injection system. Here there will be a buffer storage of tritium to meet the minute-to-minute and day-to-day operational tritium storage requirements. The model is set up in such a way that there is never a lack of tritium in the accumulators, which would mean the plasma would be unable to operate as scheduled”), but does not appear to disclose the structure of the accumulators as recited in claims 1 and 21-22.
Li (newly cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards an injection system comprising an accumulator (“accumulator”) for storing and suppling a gas (“process gas”) in a nuclear environment ([0002], [0004], [0010]). Li teaches the injection system comprises a process chamber (“inner cavity”, “inner [] chamber”, “bellows chamber”) containing the gas and having at least one outlet ([0009], [0011]-[0012], [0015]-[0016], [0021]-[0022]), wherein the process chamber includes walls (“diaphragm”, “bellows”) defining an internal volume, and at least one of the walls (“bellows”) is a flexible wall ([0012]-[0013], [0015]); a gas source (“low-pressure tank”) in fluidic communication to the process chamber ([0011], [0015], [0021]); the gas contained within the internal volume ([0011]-[0012], [0015]-[0016], [0021]-[0022]); and a regulating chamber (“outer cavity”, “outer [] chamber”) adjacent to the process chamber, wherein at least one wall (“diaphragm”) of the walls of the process chamber is a wall of the regulating chamber ([0011]). Li further teaches this system provides the advantages of reducing loss and ensuring gas purity ([0006]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use Li’s injection system in Coleman’s tritium injection system for the economic benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Coleman in order to improve reactor economy, as suggested by Li, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 4, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Li teaches the wall of the process chamber that is the wall of the regulating chamber comprises a movable separator (FIG. 1, [0013]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Li’s injection system, would have resulted in the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 4. Li teaches the movable separator is a rigid wall and is coupled to the flexible wall of the process chamber (FIG. 1, [0012]-[0013]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Li’s injection system, would have resulted in the features of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 4. Li teaches a container surrounding the process chamber and the regulating chamber (FIG. 1). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Li’s injection system, would have resulted in the features of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 6. Coleman discloses at least one inlet for supplying gas to within the tritium injection system (FIG. 5). Li teaches the container comprises at least one inlet for supplying gas to the process chamber and/or the regulating chamber (FIG. 1, [0009], [0011], [0015], [0021]-[0022], [0037]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Li’s injection system, would have resulted in the features of claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Li teaches the regulating chamber comprises at least one inlet (FIG. 1, [0014], [0037]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Li’s injection system, would have resulted in the features of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Li teaches the process chamber comprises stainless steel ([0018]). Li appears to be silent as to the magnetic properties of the stainless steel. However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use a non-magnetic stainless steel for the process chamber since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18, Coleman in view of Li teaches the fusion reactor of claim 17. Coleman discloses a radioactive containment chamber (“Tokamak building”, “Tritium plant”) surrounding the tritium injection system (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Li teaches the flexible wall is configured to expand and contract (FIG. 1, [0013], [0015]-[0016], [0021]-[0022]). Thus, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Li’s injection system, would have resulted in the features of claim 19.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Li, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Arikawa.
Regarding claim 7, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 6, but does not appear to teach a stopper. Arikawa (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards an accumulator (100) for storing and supplying a fluid2 ([0036], [0039]), the accumulator comprising a process chamber (“fluid chamber”) containing the fluid and having a metal bellows (130) ([0039]; see Li, [0012] which also teaches a metal bellows), with a container (110) surrounding the process chamber ([0038]). Arikawa teaches the process chamber is coupled to a stopper (140, 190) that contacts an inner surface of the container when the process chamber expands to a first amount and/or contracts to a second amount ([0041], [0043]). Arikawa further teaches the stopper provides the advantages of allowing for smooth expansion and contraction, suppressing oscillations of the bellows, and maintaining the position of the bellows ([0041], [0043]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a stopper in the modified Coleman’s tritium injection system, as taught by Arikawa, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Coleman in order to enhance bellows performance, as suggested by Arikawa, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either (1) Coleman in view of Arikawa or (2) Coleman in view of Li, as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of JP Publication No. H9-184589 (“Isobe”).
Regarding claim 9, Coleman in view of Arikawa and Coleman in view of Li teach the tritium injection system of claim 8, but do not appear to teach a detector. Isobe (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards an accumulator (3) comprising a metal bellows (6) ([0001]; see also Arikawa, [0039] which teaches a metal bellows (130); see also Li, [0012] which teaches a metal bellows). Isobe teaches the accumulator comprises a detector (10) configured to measure a pressure of gas within a container of the accumulator ([0014]-[0016]). Isobe further teaches the detector provides the advantages of automatically detecting and displaying a failure in the bellows, thereby allowing for more reliable operation and repair ([0007], [0016], [0021]-[0022]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include Isobe’s detector for the safety and maintenance benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Coleman in order to reliably detect damages and leaks within the tritium injection system, as suggested by Isobe, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Arikawa, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of JP Publication No. H11-142130 (“Inoue”) and, if necessary, US Publication No. 2010/0241383 (“Teraguchi”).
Regarding claim 11, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 6, but does not appear to teach a scale or a linear encoder. Inoue (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2, 11) is similarly directed towards an accumulator comprising a container (3A) surrounding a process chamber (2A), a regulating chamber (1A), and a movable separator (4A) forming a shared wall of the process chamber and the regulating chamber ([0001], [0022]). Inoue teaches a linear encoder (12) coupled to the container and configured to measure a position ([0029], [0044]). Inoue further teaches the linear encoder provides the advantages of detecting a position of accumulator components in order to determine and manage leakage within the accumulator ([0002]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include Inoue’s linear encoder for the safety and monitoring benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Coleman in order to detect undesirable leaks, as suggested by Inoue, would have been obvious to a POSA.
It would appear that linear encoders necessarily include a scale which encodes position and are configured to measure position using the scale3. As Inoue teaches a linear encoder, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect Inoue’s linear encoder to include a scale. Nevertheless, if necessary, because Inoue does not explicitly state a scale, Teraguchi is cited. Specifically, Teraguchi (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) establishes that linear encoders (100) are configured to measure a position of a movable body using a scale (112, 114) ([0003], [0006]-[0008]). Teraguchi teaches the scale allows the linear encoders to detect both absolute and relative positions ([0003], [0006]-[0008], [0047], [0055]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA, if necessary, to utilize a scale, as taught by Teraguchi, with the linear encoder of the modified Coleman for the predictable advantage of monitoring absolute and relative positions of the structures within the tritium injection system.
Regarding claim 10, Coleman in view of Arikawa, Inoue, and, if necessary, Teraguchi, teaches the tritium injection system of claim 11. Inoue teaches the linear encoder is configured to measure an amount of fluid within the process chamber ([0029], [0044]). As discussed above, Arikawa teaches the process chamber includes the fluid to be stored and supplied ([0036], [0039]) and Coleman discloses the fluid to be stored and supplied is tritium gas (p. 83: “The matter injection system supplies solid fuel to the plasma, and gas (D, T, and other gases) to the in-vessel environment.... The gaseous T is injected continuously during the pulse”, “Tritium accumulators are modelled in the storage system to represent the long-term storage of the tritium inventory, in the form of uranium beds, and in the matter injection system. Here, there will be a buffer storage of tritium to meet the minute-to-minute and day-to-day operational tritium storage requirements”). Therefore, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Arikawa’s accumulator structure and Inoue’s linear encoder, would comprise a linear encoder (Inoue’s element 12) configured to measure an amount of the tritium gas within the process chamber, i.e., the features of claim 10.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Li, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Inoue and, if necessary, Teraguchi.
Regarding claim 11, Coleman in view of Li teaches the tritium injection system of claim 6, but does not appear to teach a scale or a linear encoder. Inoue (see FIGS. 2, 11) is similarly directed towards an accumulator comprising a container (3A) surrounding a process chamber (2A), a regulating chamber (1A), and a movable separator (4A) forming a shared wall of the process chamber and the regulating chamber ([0001], [0022]). Inoue teaches a linear encoder (12) coupled to the container and configured to measure a position ([0029], [0044]). Inoue further teaches the linear encoder provides the advantages of detecting a position of accumulator components in order to determine and manage leakage within the accumulator ([0002]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include Inoue’s linear encoder for the safety and monitoring benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Coleman in order to detect undesirable leaks, as suggested by Inoue, would have been obvious to a POSA.
It would appear that linear encoders necessarily include a scale which encodes position and are configured to measure position using the scale4. As Inoue teaches a linear encoder, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect Inoue’s linear encoder to include a scale. Nevertheless, if necessary, because Inoue does not explicitly state a scale, Teraguchi is cited. Specifically, Teraguchi (see FIGS. 1-2) establishes that linear encoders (100) are configured to measure a position of a movable body using a scale (112, 114) ([0003], [0006]-[0008]). Teraguchi teaches the scale allows the linear encoders to detect both absolute and relative positions ([0003], [0006]-[0008], [0047], [0055]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA, if necessary, to utilize a scale, as taught by Teraguchi, with the linear encoder of the modified Coleman for the predictable advantage of monitoring absolute and relative positions of the structures within the tritium injection system.
Regarding claim 10, Coleman in view of Li, Inoue, and, if necessary, Teraguchi, teaches the tritium injection system of claim 11. Inoue teaches the linear encoder is configured to measure an amount of fluid within the process chamber ([0029], [0044]). As discussed above, Li teaches the process chamber includes the gas to be stored and supplied ([0011]-[0012], [0015]-[0016], [0021]-[0022]) and Coleman discloses the fluid to be stored and supplied is tritium gas (p. 83: “The matter injection system supplies solid fuel to the plasma, and gas (D, T, and other gases) to the in-vessel environment.... The gaseous T is injected continuously during the pulse”, “Tritium accumulators are modelled in the storage system to represent the long-term storage of the tritium inventory, in the form of uranium beds, and in the matter injection system. Here, there will be a buffer storage of tritium to meet the minute-to-minute and day-to-day operational tritium storage requirements”). Therefore, Coleman’s tritium injection system, modified to include Li’s injection system and Inoue’s linear encoder, would comprise a linear encoder (Inoue’s element 12) configured to measure an amount of the tritium gas within the process chamber, i.e., the features of claim 10.
Claim 15, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Arikawa, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of KR Patent No. 10-0618204 (“Lee”)5.
Regarding claim 15, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1. Arikawa teaches the regulating chamber comprises a gas ([0038]-[0039]), but appears to be silent as to the specific type of gas. Lee (previously cited) (see FIG. 5a) is similarly directed towards an accumulator comprising a process chamber (B) and a regulating chamber (A) which includes a gas (p. 3: “divide the receiving space into the filling gas chamber A and the fluid inlet chamber B”). Lee teaches the gas in the regulating chamber may be helium (p. 4: “helium can be used as the filling gas”), which is an inert gas6. Lee further teaches the inert gas provides the advantages of reducing the weight of the accumulator and increasing the ratio of the process chamber fluid to the regulating chamber gas (p. 4: “The accumulator can be made, and as a fully metal sealed structure, helium can be used as the filling gas, thereby reducing the weight and increasing the ratio of the flow volume to the gas volume”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the compressed gas in the modified Coleman’s regulating chamber be an inert gas, as taught by Lee, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Coleman in order to reduce accumulator weight and improve tritium storage volume, as suggested by Lee, would have been obvious to a POSA. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use an inert gas since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 16, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman in view of Arikawa, further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0042524 (“Baltes”).
Regarding claim 16, Coleman in view of Arikawa teaches the tritium injection system of claim 1, but appears to be silent as to the material of the process chamber. Baltes (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards an accumulator (2) comprising a bellows (20) ([0001]). Baltes teaches the bellows is made of a non-magnetic stainless steel ([0008]). Baltes further teaches the non-magnetic stainless steel is a suitable material for forming bellows and provides the advantages of providing excellent weldability ([0008]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the modified Coleman’s process chamber comprise a non-magnetic stainless steel, as taught by Baltes, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Coleman in order to improve manufacturing, as suggested by Baltes, would have been obvious to a POSA. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use a non-magnetic stainless steel for the process chamber since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, but have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 The term “fluid” refers to a liquid or a gas: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
2 The term “fluid” refers to a liquid or a gas: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_encoder
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_encoder
5 Citations to Lee refer to the machine translation provided with the PTO-892 dated 08/01/2024
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas