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 .
The claims received 6/25/2026 have been entered. Claims 4, 6, 16, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 10, 14-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9,146,047), in view of Kitamura et al (US 2008/0282694), in view of Gery (US 6,841,910), and as further evidenced by Shepherd (US 9,028,228).
Regarding claim 1, Huang (US 9,146,047) discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
an expander comprising:
an expander cylinder head (see annotated figure below) configured to receive a working gas;
a cold finger (5); and
an expander housing (see annotated figure below) between the expander cylinder head and the cold finger; and
an annular linear compressor configured to generate a compression wave of the working gas for the refrigeration system, wherein the annular linear compressor comprises:
an annular cylinder head (3) comprising a pressure plate (compression cavity 3 is arranged in an annular manner about the expander and is bound by a plate structure);
a compressor housing configured to mate with at least the pressure plate to form a sealed cavity; and
an annular cylinder assembly disposed within the sealed cavity (see annotated figure below) and about the expander housing of the expander, wherein the annular cylinder assembly comprises an annular piston assembly (assembly about pistons 4);
wherein the annular piston assembly comprises:
a piston ring (4)
PNG
media_image1.png
612
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang lacks that the annular piston includes a magnet and inductive windings. However, Huang teaches plate/leaf springs 8 to support a reciprocating movement of the fixed piston to compress gas; which is a known alternative of inductive windings to effect the reciprocating movement. Further, they are known to be used together as taught by Kitamura who also provides that using both together provides for “smooth sinusoidal reciprocating movement” [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use inductive windings and magnet instead of or in addition to the leaf/plate spring in Huang as they are known means for maintaining reciprocating movement in sterling cryocoolers, where they are used individually or in combination, as discussed above.
Huang lacks the inn and outer split piston heads acting as seals. Huang lacks details of the piston, albeit it is understood that the piston seals to the walls by one of ordinary skill in the art. Shepherd evidences sealing of a annular ring shaped piston (52) with seal (52c). Gery discloses an inner and outer split head (64 and 65) in order to container a ring shaped magnet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Huang with the inner and outer split seal as taught by Gery and evidenced by Shepherd in order to prevent gas leakage during operation.
Regarding claims 3, Huang further teaches that the annular piston cylinder assembly is disposed about the expander housing of the expander (7, shown in annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Huang further discloses wherein: the piston magnet ring comprises a plurality of arcuate magnet segments (Gery Fig 5 magnetized segments 70, 72, 74) arranged in a partial or full magnet ring within the annular piston assembly (Huang ring-shaped magnet 9; see also Gery Fig 5 arranged in ring).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9,146,047), in view of Kitamura et al (US 2008/0282694), in view of Gery (US 6,841,910), as further evidenced by Shepherd (US 9,028,228) and further in view of Heuchling et al (US 3,220,201).
Regarding claim 7, Huang does not teach the annular linear compressor comprises a gas transfer plate coupled to the pressure plate of the annular cylinder head and configured to mechanically couple to the expander of the refrigeration system and form at least part of a gas transfer line between the annular cylinder head and the expander.
In the same field of endeavor of sterling cyrocoolers, Heuchling teaches a gas transfer plate (64) coupled to the pressure plate (20) of the annular cylinder head and configured to mechanically couple to the expander of the refrigeration system (figs. 1, 2, etc.) and form at least part of a gas transfer line (55, 60, 61, etc.) between the annular cylinder head and the expander.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Huang with a separate gas transfer plate to coordinate with the pressure plate, as taught by Heuchling for accommodating different expander design (Heuchling teaches an expander with auxiliary housing 22 to accommodate additional expansion volume) so as to increase the expansion volume such that additional expander volume can be outside the shell of the annular compressor (shown in fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8-9, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9,146,047), in view of Kitamura et al (US 2008/0282694), in view of Gery (US 6,841,910), as further evidenced by Shepherd (US 9,028,228) and further in view of Lavietes (US-6131394-A).
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses a cryocooler comprising the annular linear compressor of the refrigeration system (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Huang does not disclose further comprising a cryocooler controller, the cryocooler controller comprising: a motor driver controller configured to receive operational parameters corresponding to operation of a cryocooler of the refrigeration system controlled by the cryocooler controller and generate motor driver control signals based, at least in part, on the received operational parameters, wherein the cryocooler comprises the annular linear compressor of the refrigeration system; and a motor driver configured to receive the motor driver control signals from the motor driver controller and generate drive signals based, at least in part, on the motor driver control signals, to drive the annular linear compressor of the cryocooler.
Lavietes teaches a cryocooler controller (Lavietes Fig 1), the cryocooler controller comprising:
a motor driver controller (Lavietes active vibration controller 110, col 4 line 8) configured to receive operational parameters corresponding to operation of a cryocooler of a refrigeration system (Lavietes Fig 1 depicts Stirling cycle cooler 104, considered a cryocooler) controlled by the cryocooler controller and generate motor driver control signals based (Lavietes controller receives signals from temperature sensor 112 to control the drive motor of the compressor 116, col 4 lines 57-58), at least in part, on the received operational parameters (Lavietes, the operational parameters control the controller); and
a motor driver configured to receive the motor driver control signals from the motor driver controller and generate drive signals based, at least in part, on the motor driver control signals, to drive a motor (Lavietes driver 118 receives signal from the active vibration controller and provides control, which would be via a signal to the compressor motor, col 4 lines 29-30, see Lavietes Fig 1: information goes from 110 to 118 to 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Huang with a cryocooler controller, the cryocooler controller comprising: a motor driver controller configured to receive operational parameters corresponding to operation of a cryocooler of the refrigeration system controlled by the cryocooler controller and generate motor driver control signals based, at least in part, on the received operational parameters, wherein the cryocooler comprises the annular linear compressor of the refrigeration system; and a motor driver configured to receive the motor driver control signals from the motor driver controller and generate drive signals based, at least in part, on the motor driver control signals, to drive the annular linear compressor of the cryocooler, as taught by Lavietes, as doing so would benefit the system of Huang by ensuring efficient control of vibrations of the cryocooler which can help minimize disturbances to objects to be cooled such as sensitive electrical components and to reduce noise during experiments.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Huang further discloses a feedback interface configured to receive one or more sensor signals and generate feedback data corresponding to operation of the cryocooler controlled by the cryocooler controller (Lavietes, the signal from the temperature sensors are input into the controller, when they input into the controller they would provide data to the controller, which would be where the feedback interface is), wherein the motor driver controller is configured to receive the feedback data from the feedback interface (Lavietes, the controller receives the information from the inputs) and generate the motor driver control signals (Lavietes, the feedback interface creates the actual control signal based on the input sensor data when it arrives at the controller which would produce the operation) based, at least in part, on the feedback data and the operational parameters (Lavietes, the overall data for operating the controller is based on the operational parameters sent from the sensors and received at the controller as feedback data).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Huang further discloses wherein: the annular linear compressor (see claim 1 rejection) of the cryocooler controlled by the cryocooler controller (Lavietes controller in Fig 1) comprises inductive windings (coil 21) disposed about an exterior of the annular cylinder and configured to be driven by the drive signals generated by the motor driver of the cryocooler controller (Lavietes driver 118 receives signal from the active vibration controller and provides control, which would be via a signal to the compressor motor.
Regarding claim 13, Modified Huang teaches an electronic device (sensor) thermally coupled to and at least partially cooled by the cryocooler controlled by the cryocooler controller, wherein the electronic device comprises at least a part of a sensor system or an infrared camera (Huang, col. 1, lines 62-65: a cryocooler assembly integrating a Dewar with a sensor).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 9,146,047) in view of Diederichs et al (US 9,671,159)
Regarding claim 11, Huang (US 9,146,047) discloses a refrigeration system comprising:
an expander comprising:
an expander cylinder head (see annotated figure below) configured to receive a working gas;
a cold finger (5); and
an expander housing (see annotated figure below) between the expander cylinder head and the cold finger; and
an annular linear compressor configured to generate a compression wave of the working gas for the refrigeration system, wherein the annular linear compressor comprises:
an annular cylinder head (3) comprising a pressure plate (compression cavity 3 is arranged in an annular manner about the expander and is bound by a plate structure);
a compressor housing configured to mate with at least the pressure plate to form a sealed cavity; and
an annular cylinder assembly disposed within the sealed cavity (see annotated figure below) and about the expander housing of the expander, wherein the annular cylinder assembly comprises an annular piston assembly (assembly about pistons 4); and
a dewar enclosure a dewar enclosure (an integrated Dewar cryocooler assembly) comprising a neck that houses the expander (an inner cylinder of the Dewar is directly produced as a cylinder sleeve of the displacer) and comprising a main body wider than the neck (it is known that a dewar generally has a neck narrower than its main body) and housing an element (sensor) to be cooled
PNG
media_image1.png
612
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang does not explicitly disclose “the annular linear compressor is radially spaced from the dewar enclosure by less than a maximum radial dimension of the main body”. Huang does not explicitly illustrate the Dewar vessel but does state that the “groove at the center of the compressor needs to be sized enough to embed a commonly used micro-Dewar component” and that the arrangement is “compacter structure” compared to an ordinary Stirling cryocooler. It is understood that cooler of Huang integrates at the neck of a Dewar. The examiner previously took official notice that large Dewar vessels are old and well known, e.g. greater than 200mm radius at a main body. Applicant challenged the spatial relationship between the compressor and dewar main body. Diedrichs discloses a refrigeration system for a dewar where the compressor (110) is radially spaced from the dewar enclosure (202) by less than a maximum radial dimension of the main body (shown in at least figure 4) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Huang with a large body Dewar flask in order to increase storage and provide a high level of insulation. Further as the arrangement of Huang is smaller than the prior art solutions discloses, e.g. 200mm (bottom of column 2) and the radial spacing is a mere subset of that measurement that the spacing is far smaller than the radius of the Dewar main body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 includes all features of claim 1 and further describes the arrangement of the inductive windings and annular linear compressor relative to the dewar main body. While individual features are known to the prior art as evidenced above, when taken as a whole, no known reference whether alone or in proper combination would yield the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 8-9 applicant argues that Gery is non-analogous art. The above combination relies on Huang as the primary reference who utilizes a magnetic drive in combination with a plate spring for driving the piston 4. Huang is silent concerning sealing with an inner and outer split piston.
Shepherd evidences sealing of a annular ring shaped piston (52) with seal (52c). Gery discloses an inner and outer split head (64 and 65) in order to container a ring shaped magnet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Huang with the inner and outer split seal as taught by Gery and evidenced by Shepherd in order to prevent gas leakage during operation.
Because said references are concerned with sealing moving parts relative to non-moving parts they are reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved.
Further regarding pages 9-10 and operability. Applicant proposes a difference combination than the combination relied upon and then argues against it. It does not follow to supply a magnet arrangement in the manner proposed.
At pages 10-11 applicant discusses hindsight. Huang provides for some support of the annular piston within the figures as pointed out by applicant. However it is convention within the drafting of patent applications that features “not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail.” MPEP 608.01(a). Here while the feature is shown it is understood that actual implementation of the device may include additional practical features, e.g. a seal. Like that taught by Shepherd and Gery.
Moreover Prior art is presumed operable (MPEP 716.07 and 2121). The argument that Huang already produces it's desired objective and therefor renders modification unnecessary frustrates the concept of obviousness under 35 USC §103 and in effect precludes any modification. Rather modification of a prior art reference is properly supported by an explanation as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights