Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/961,128

ANNULAR CRYOCOOLER COMPRESSOR SYSTEMS AND METHODS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 06, 2022
Examiner
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Teledyne Flir Commercial Systems Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
360 granted / 749 resolved
-21.9% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
802
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
51.7%
+11.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 749 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 12/24/2025 have been entered. Claims 4, 6, 16, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 14 and 18-20 are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites a part between the expander cylinder heat and the cold finger. It is not clear to what said part is referring. Claim 1 recites “the second part” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites “inductive windings” which lack antecedent basis to the same in claim 1. Claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim. 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, 5, and 11 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 a part (see annotated figure below) between the first part 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 second part (no antecedent basis, limitation unclear) 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 557 858 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 claim 2, Huang as modified further discloses the annular cylinder assembly comprises inductive windings configured to couple inductively with the annular piston assembly (provided by Kitamura above) the refrigeration system further comprises 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. Further regarding “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 takes official notice that large Dewar vessels are old and well known, e.g. greater than 200mm radius at a main body. 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. Regarding claims 3, Huang further teaches that the annular piston cylinder assembly is disposed about the second part 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). Regarding claim 11, Limitations of Claim 11 are addressed in the above discussion of claim 2 (including claim 1). 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). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner notes that issues were raised in regard to “a first part” and “ a second part”. The instant amendment replaces “a first part” with “an expanded cylinder head” but replaces “a second part” with simply “a part”. It remains unclear to what the “part” refers. Nowhere in the remarks is this clarified. Regarding the rotational vs axial displacement of the magnets. Kitamura is relied upon to teach using a magnet for axial displacement of the piston. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 Monday-Friday 9-5. 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. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 06, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Jul 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 22, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 09, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 18, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578119
HOT WATER SUPPLY TANK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558952
VEHICLE COOLING USING EXTERNAL FLUID SOURCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560338
AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM USING HEAT PUMP AND AIR HEATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553640
AIR CONDITIONER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546491
A BUFFERED BALANCED TYPE MOBILE PRIMARY-SECONDARY AIR CONDITIONER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 749 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month