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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
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 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 37 encompasses a single-ADR-stage embodiment in which the sole ADR stage comprising the second cooling device is simultaneously (a) directly coupled to the sample stage to provide cooling and (b) connected to the first cooling device through its own heat switch via the high thermal conductivity connection.
The specification does not provide written description for this single-stage structural arrangement. The specification at ¶ 0063 and FIG. 1a disclose exclusively a multi-stage architecture in which: (i) heat switch 107 operates at the interface between the first cooling device 100 and the first ADR stage 106 of the second cooling device; (ii) subsequent ADR stages 106 are connected to each other through their respective heat switches 107; and (iii) the final ADR stage 106 — a structurally distinct stage — is coupled to the sample stage 4. The specification consistently and without exception requires a minimum two distinct ADR stages performing different structural roles in the thermal chain. A single-ADR-stage configuration performing both roles simultaneously is not described in the specification. Applicant’s ¶ 0064 describes only the operating mode — the magnetization/demagnetization cycle — and does not describe the structural arrangement of a single ADR stage serving simultaneously as both the first-cooling-device interface and the sample-stage coupling. In addition, Claim 37 requires specific structural connections — a high thermal conductivity connection from the first cooling device through the heat switch to the ADR stage, and a separate thermal coupling from the ADR stage to the sample stage. Even if ¶ 0064 discloses a single-stage operating mode, it does not describe these two simultaneous structural connections emanating from the same single ADR stage. Also, even under a reading of Claim 37 where the two connections are not exclusive (i.e., the ADR stage is thermally connected on one end to the first cooling device via heat switch and on the other end to the sample stage), the specification discloses this architecture only for multi-stage systems where the first and last stages are different stages — not for a single stage that is both first and last. The written description must enable the full scope claimed, not merely one embodiment within that scope. See MPEP § 2163.
Claims 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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 37-41 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 37 recites "a second cooling device comprising an adiabatic demagnetization refrigeration (ADR) stage . . . the ADR stage comprising a heat switch; and a high thermal conductivity connection that thermally couples the ADR stage to the first cooling device through the heat switch so that, when the heat switch is closed, the ADR stage is thermally coupled to the first cooling device" renders the claim indefinite because "the heat switch" in the limitation "through the heat switch" has ambiguous antecedent basis. The only prior introduction of a heat switch in Claim 37 appears nested within the ADR stage itself ("the ADR stage comprising a heat switch"). When the claim then uses the definite article "the" in "through the heat switch," it is unclear whether this refers to (a) the heat switch that is a structural component of the ADR stage, or (b) a structurally separate heat switch external to the ADR stage and disposed along the high thermal conductivity connection between the ADR stage and the first cooling device. These two interpretations describe fundamentally different structural arrangements with materially different thermal management implications. The specification at ¶ 0063 discloses each ADR stage 106 as comprising a heat switch 107, and further discloses a high thermal conductivity connection 103 running from the first cooling device 100 through the heat switch 107 to the first ADR stage 106, but whether the heat switch is an internal component of the ADR stage boundary or a distinct element along connection 103 is not resolved by the claim language. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of Claim 37 with reasonable certainty. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
Claims 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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 37, 38, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lonzarich et al. (US 2015/0292782 A1).
In regard to Claim 37, Lonzarich teaches a cooling apparatus for cooling a sample (see ¶ 0001), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (metal dewar whose interior is pumped out and maintained at a high vacuum) (see ¶ 0077: "a metal dewar, the interior of which is pumped out and maintained at a high vacuum"; FIG. 12: "Outer wall of main dewar," "Vacuum space");
a sample stage ("Sample platform" in FIG. 12; "Sample plate" in FIG. 10) configured to directly couple to a sample loaded onto the sample stage (see ¶ 0078: "A sample mounted on a sample holder such as a puck (not shown in the Figure) may be lowered into the vacuum tube of the cryogenic platform and attached to the sample platform");
a first cooling device ("1K-4K plate (First refrigeration stage)" in FIG. 12; "1K-4K plate" in FIG. 10) configured to generate a first temperature (1K-4K) in the vacuum chamber (see ¶ 0076: "When running, a cryogenic (1K-4K) plate is cooled by a liquid-cryogen free system such as a pulse tube cooler or Gifford-McMahon cooler built into the cryogenic platform");
a second cooling device ("Solid-state refrigeration device (SSR)" in FIG. 12; "Solid-state refrigeration pill 1" in FIG. 10) comprising an ADR stage (solid-state ADR refrigerator, see ¶ 0026-0027, 0073) that is thermally coupled to the sample stage (see FIG. 12: "Thermally conductive path" connecting SSR to "Sample platform"; FIG. 10: sample plate coupled to SSR pill output) and configured to provide a second temperature (milli-Kelvin range, see ¶ 0073; ¶ 0078: "sample below the cryogenic (1K-4K) plate temperature to a temperature typically in the low milli-Kelvin range") to the sample stage, the second temperature being different than the first temperature (milli-Kelvin vs. 1K-4K), the ADR stage comprising a heat switch ("Heat switch" in FIG. 12; "Heat switch 1" and "Heat switch 2" in FIG. 10; see ¶ 0026-0027, 0073); and
a high thermal conductivity connection ("Thermally conductive path" in FIG. 12; thermally conductive path shown in FIG. 10 between 1K-4K plate and SSR pill through heat switch) that thermally couples the ADR stage to the first cooling device through the heat switch (see FIG. 12: thermally conductive path runs from "1K-4K plate" through "Heat switch" to "Solid-state refrigeration device"; FIG. 10: Heat switch 1 along thermal path between 1K-4K plate and solid-state refrigeration pill 1) so that, when the heat switch is closed, the ADR stage is thermally coupled to the first cooling device (see ¶ 0079: "In operation, with the heat switches closed, one or more solid-state refrigeration devices as well as the base temperature plate and the sample platform are cooled to the temperature of the (1K-4K) plate"; see also ¶ 0026-0027, 0073).
In regard to Claim 38, Lonzarich teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 37, wherein the ADR stage comprises a plurality of ADR stages (see ¶ 0077: "one or more solid-state refrigeration devices" within the vacuum dewar; FIG. 10: "Solid-state refrigeration pill 1" and "Solid-state refrigeration pill 2" connected in series constitute a plurality of ADR stages; FIG. 11: two SSR pills in parallel constitute a further embodiment with a plurality of ADR stages; ¶ 0073: "By employing two or more solid-state refrigeration pills . . . and arranged in a series configuration, a lower overall base temperature may be achieved").
In regard to Claim 39, Lonzarich teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 38, wherein the plurality of ADR stages are arranged in series and/or parallel (series arrangement: see FIG. 10 and ¶ 0073: "arranged in a series configuration"; parallel arrangement: see FIG. 11 and ¶ 0036-0038: two SSR pills in parallel for continuous cooling).
In regard to Claim 40, Lonzarich teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 38, wherein the plurality of ADR stages comprises a first ADR stage ("Solid-state refrigeration pill 1," FIG. 10), one or more subsequent ADR stages connected through respective heat switches ("Solid-state refrigeration pill 2" connected to pill 1 through "Heat switch 2," FIG. 10), and a final ADR stage thermally coupled to the sample stage ("Solid-state refrigeration pill 2" is the final ADR stage and the "Sample plate" is thermally coupled to its output, see FIG. 10), wherein the first ADR stage is thermally coupled to the first cooling device by the high thermal conductivity connection through its heat switch ("Heat switch 1" connects the "1K-4K plate" / first cooling device to "Solid-state refrigeration pill 1" / first ADR stage via the thermally conductive path, see FIG. 10; ¶ 0073).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14, 22-26, and 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (US 2014/0202179 A1) in view of Lonzarich et al. (US 2015/0292782 A1).
In regard to Claim 14, Batey teaches a cooling apparatus (1) for cooling a sample (¶ 0033), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (5) (¶ 0034; FIG. 1);
a sample stage (20) arranged in the vacuum chamber (5), configured to directly couple to a sample (50) loaded onto the sample stage (20) (¶ 0038, 0041-0042, 0044, 0051, 0056-0059; FIGS. 2-5);
a first cooling device (pulse tube refrigerator 2) arranged in the vacuum chamber (5), configured to generate a first temperature (3.5-4 K) in the vacuum chamber (5) (FIG. 1; ¶ 0034, 0036, 0046); and
a second cooling device (dilution refrigerator 15) arranged in the vacuum chamber (5), in connection with the sample stage (20) via cooling stage (17), configured to provide a second temperature (0.6-0.8 K, 70-150 mK, and 7-10 mK, ¶ 0050) to the sample stage (20), the second temperature being different from the first temperature (¶ 0034, 0037-0038, 0046, 0050; see also the above discloses first and second temp).
Batey does not explicitly teach a heat switch configured to selectively establish and release a thermal link between the first cooling device and the second cooling device, wherein, when the heat switch is closed, the sample stage is thermally coupled to the first cooling device through the second cooling device. As addressed in the Response to Arguments, Batey's connection mechanism (52/53) operates between the mixing chamber/thermal bath (cooling stage 17) and the sample stage (20), not between the first cooling device (PTR 2) and the second cooling device (dilution refrigerator stages 13-17).
However, Lonzarich teaches a refrigeration system in which Heat switch 1 (FIG. 10; FIG. 12: "Heat switch") is positioned at the interface between the 1K-4K plate (first cooling device equivalent) and the solid-state ADR device (second cooling device equivalent), such that when the heat switch is closed, the second cooling device and the sample platform coupled to it are thermally coupled to the first cooling device through the second cooling device (see Lonzarich FIG. 10, FIG. 12; ¶ 0026-0027, 0073, 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cooling apparatus of Batey by incorporating a heat switch at the interface between the first cooling device (PTR 2) and the second cooling device (dilution refrigerator 15), as taught by Lonzarich (see FIG. 10; ¶ 0026-0027, 0073), for the purpose of enabling pre-cooling of the second cooling device by closing the heat switch during cooldown and thermally isolating the second cooling device from the first cooling device by opening the heat switch during low-temperature operation to improve base temperature stability. This modification does not change the basic function of Batey's apparatus and does not interact with Batey's existing connection mechanism (52/53). See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The proposed modification adds a heat switch at the PTR/dilution-unit interface — a standard architectural element — without altering the fundamental structure or operation of either the first or second cooling device.
In regard to Claim 22, Batey teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 14, further including a sample stage locking device (socket screws 52 and loading assembly 53) configured to mechanically lock the sample stage (20) in place (¶ 0041, 0057-0058).
In regard to Claim 23, Batey teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 22, wherein the locking device (52/53) mechanically locks the sample stage (20) in place during loading of the sample (¶ 0057-0058).
In regard to Claim 24, Batey teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 22, wherein the locking device includes shafts (55) inserted in holes (21) of the sample stage (20) to mechanically lock it in place (¶ 0057).
In regard to Claim 25, Batey teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 22, wherein the locking device (52/53) does not touch the sample stage (20) in an unlocked state (¶ 0058).
In regard to Claim 26, Batey teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 22, wherein the locking device (52/53) provides the thermal link to the main thermal bath (17) in a locked state (¶ 0041, 0059).
In regard to Claim 29, Batey teaches the second temperature (0.6-0.8K, 70-150 mK, and 7-10 mK) is lower than the first temperature (3.5-4 K) (¶ 0013, 0034, 0046, 0050).
In regard to Claim 30, Batey teaches the first temperature is in the range of 2K to 4K ("between 3.5 and 4 kelvin," ¶ 0013, 0046).
In regard to Claim 31, Batey teaches the second temperature is 300 mK or less, or 50 mK or less (0.6-0.8K, 70-150 mK, and 7-10 mK, ¶ 0037, 0050).
In regard to Claim 32, Batey teaches the first cooling device (PTR 2) is a mechanical cooling device (¶ 0034). Batey does not explicitly teach the second cooling device as a solid state cooler. However, Lonzarich explicitly teaches a solid-state refrigerator (SSR pill, FIG. 10; ¶ 0026-0027, 0073) as the second cooling device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second cooling device of Batey with a solid state cooler, in view of the teachings of Lonzarich, for the purpose of providing relatively low temperature cooler that is environmentally friendly, more compact and lightweight compared to mechanical cooling system.
In regard to Claim 33, Claim 33 is written in Markush format, reciting "a magnetic cooler, an adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator, a barocaloric refrigerator, a multi-stage cooling device or a thermoelectric cooler" as alternative second cooling devices. Under MPEP § 2117, it is sufficient to establish that the prior art teaches any one alternative of a Markush group to render the claim unpatentable. Batey expressly teaches the second cooling device as a multi-stage cooling device (dilution refrigerator, ¶ 0037), which is one of the recited alternatives.. Additionally, Lonzarich teaches the second cooling device as an adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator and magnetic cooler (FIG. 10; ¶ 0073), rendering Claim 33 obvious as to those alternatives as well.
In regard to Claim 34, Batey teaches the sample stage (20) includes an electrical connector, an optical connector, at least one magnetic field sensor, at least one temperature sensor, or a heater (¶ 0022, 0038, 0041, 0044).
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (US 2014/0202179 A1) in view of Lonzarich et al. (US 2015/0292782 A1) and further in view of Martinis (US 5,934,077).
In regard to Claim 17, Batey teaches a sample stage in the vacuum chamber but does not explicitly teach a first mechanical suspension of low thermal conductivity holding the sample stage.
Martinis teaches that ADR stages in cryogenic apparatus are suspended using Kevlar strings of low thermal conductivity to thermally isolate them from warmer stages (col. 2, lines 8-51; col. 3, line 3-30; FIG. 1: Kevlar strings 50). Martinis teaches the pill is supported by low thermal conductivity material to isolate it thermally. Typically this is done with Kevlar strings, which are very thin and of low thermal conductivity, thus minimizing the heat leak. At the same time the Kevlar strings are strong enough to support the pill (col. 1, lines 43-50). Martinis further teaches planar support modules with Kevlar threads (type 29 Kevlar string) connecting three thermally-staged members at 4K, 1K, and 50 mK respectively, with set screw and capstan hardware to tension and lock the Kevlar strings in place (col. 4, lines 1-30; col. 7, lines 40-65; col. 8, lines 1-30; FIGS. 5A-5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement a first mechanical suspension of low thermal conductivity to hold the sample stage in the modified Batey apparatus, in view of the teachings of Martinis, for the purpose of providing mechanical support to the sample stage while minimizing the parasitic heat leak between the thermal bath and the sample stage. This modification does not change the basic function of Batey's apparatus. See MPEP § 2144.07.
In regard to Claim 18, the modified Batey teaches a first mechanical suspension with low thermal conductivity, but does not explicitly teach that the first mechanical suspension has a thermal conductivity of less than 0.1 W/(Km).
However, Martinis explicitly teaches that Kevlar strings used for ADR pill suspension are "of low thermal conductivity, thus minimizing the heat leak" (col. 1, lines 44-47), and the type 29 Kevlar strings specifically referenced by Martinis (col. 4, line 12; col. 8, lines 50-55) have thermal conductivity at cryogenic temperatures well below 0.1 W/(Km). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a suspension material having a thermal conductivity of less than 0.1 W/(Km), in view of the teachings of Martinis, for the purpose of minimizing parasitic heat leak through the mechanical suspension to the sample stage. See MPEP § 2144.07.
In regard to Claim 19, the modified Batey teaches a first mechanical suspension with low thermal conductivity, but does not explicitly teach that the first mechanical suspension is provided by a plurality of first fibers or wires.
However, Martinis explicitly teaches suspending ADR stages using a plurality of Kevlar strings of low thermal conductivity, specifically the planar support modules strung with multiple Kevlar threads connecting the base, guard, and ground members (col. 1, lines 43-50; col. 4, lines 1-15; FIGS. 5A-5B: plurality of Kevlar strings visible in assembled support module).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the mechanical suspension using a plurality of first fibers or wires, in view of the teachings of Martinis, for the purpose of providing mechanical support to the sample stage while achieving the lowest possible thermal conductance through the suspension. See MPEP § 2144.07.
In regard to Claim 20, the modified Batey teaches a plurality of first fibers or wires, but does not explicitly teach fibers or wires having a thickness of less than 0.1 mm.
However, Martinis explicitly teaches the use of "very thin" Kevlar strings for ADR suspension (col. 1, lines 44-45), specifically type 29 Kevlar string (col. 4, line 12; col. 8, lines 50-55), which has a diameter well below 0.1 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select fibers having a thickness of less than 0.1 mm, in view of the teachings of Martinis, for the purpose of minimizing the cross-sectional area of the suspension fibers and thereby minimizing parasitic heat leak to the sample stage. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV).
In regard to Claim 21, the modified Batey teaches a plurality of first fibers or wires, but does not explicitly teach a spring washer configured to apply tension to the plurality of first fibers or wires.
However, Lonzarich teaches, in connection with the mechanical suspension of FIG. 9, the use of bolts and washers configured to maintain tension in the low thermal conductivity suspension rods 903 (FIG. 9; ¶ 0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a spring washer to maintain tension in the plurality of fibers of the modified Batey apparatus, in view of the teachings of Lonzarich, for the purpose of maintaining proper mechanical tension in the fiber suspension to ensure stable thermal and mechanical performance of the sample stage suspension. See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Batey and Lonzarich as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Muller et al. (US 5,220,800).
In regard to Claim 27, the modified Batey teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 14 with a sample radiation shield surrounding the sample stage, but does not explicitly teach a second mechanical suspension of low thermal conductivity provided by a plurality of second fibers holding the sample radiation shield.
Muller teach a cryostat system wherein radiation shields (120, 121, 122) are suspended by connecting elements comprising bundles of centering rods (126) made of glass-reinforced plastic, which have extremely low thermal conductivity and high tensile strength (see col. 12, line 52 to col. 13, line 2; fig. 4). It would have been obvious to implement a plurality of second low thermal conductivity mechanical suspension fibers holding the sample radiation shield, in view of Muller, for the purpose of supporting the radiation shield while minimizing heat penetration to allow operation with very low heat losses.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lonzarich et al. (US 2015/0292782 A1) in view of Hagmann and Richards ("Adiabatic demagnetization refrigerators for small laboratory experiments and space astronomy," Cryogenics 35(5):303-309 (1995), hereinafter "Hagmann 1995").
In regard to Claim 41, Lonzarich teaches the cooling apparatus of Claim 37, but does not explicitly identify the solid-state refrigeration device as an "orbital ADR" or a "nuclear ADR."
However, Hagmann 1995 teaches compact ADR systems employing orbital ADR stages using paramagnetic salts with electronic orbital magnetic moments as the working substance, specifically ferric ammonium alum (FAA, J=5/2) and chromic caesium alum (CCA, J=3/2) as the paramagnetic salt for the ADR stage, operating from a reservoir temperature of approximately 1.5K to 4K provided by a mechanical refrigerator (see p. 303: "ADRs are normally operated from a high temperature reservoir at T ≈ 1.5K. Reservoir temperatures around 4K, which can be provided by an unpumped liquid helium bath or a mechanical refrigerator, require an additional stage of refrigeration"; p. 304: "We use the paramagnetic salts ferric ammonium alum (FAA) with J=5/2 or chromic caesium alum (CCA) (J=3/2) as our working substance"; FIG. 1: schematic of SIRTF ADR showing salt pill, 1.5K thermal bus, heat switch, and 0.1K stage). These are orbital ADR stages employing electronic orbital spin systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the ADR stage of Lonzarich as an orbital ADR using paramagnetic salts such as FAA or CCA with electronic orbital magnetic moments as the refrigerant, in view of the teachings of Hagmann 1995, for the purpose of providing a compact ADR stage capable of cooling from a 1K-4K reservoir to milli-Kelvin temperatures using well-established orbital ADR materials. The selection of orbital ADR refrigerant materials for ADR stages operating between 1K-4K and 50-100 mK was a routine engineering expedient well-documented in the art as demonstrated by Hagmann 1995. See MPEP § 2143; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, unless otherwise noted below.
Applicant argued that the prior § 103 combination of Batey and Lonzarich was defective because: (a) Batey's connection mechanism 52/53 operates between the mixing chamber/thermal bath and the sample stage, not between the first and second cooling devices; and (b) adding Lonzarich's heat switch at that location would be redundant and would constitute a re-architecting of Batey's thermal management.
In response, based on the amended claim 14, the § 103 rejection is reconstituted on a materially different and stronger basis. The corrected combination locates the heat switch at the interface between Batey's first cooling device (PTR 2) and Batey's second cooling device (dilution refrigerator 15) — the location required by amended Claim 14. This is an entirely different structural location from the one previously proposed, and it does not interact with Batey's existing connection mechanism 52/53 in any way. The motivation set forth above is independent of whether the second stage is an ADR (as in Lonzarich) or a dilution refrigerator (as in Batey) — the use of a heat switch at the first/second cooling device interface is a standard architectural practice in cryogen-free multi-stage cryogenic systems for pre-cooling efficiency, thermal isolation, and base temperature stability. Applicant's arguments against the prior rejection's proposed modification have no application to this reconstituted combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights