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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner contents that the filling amount from the vacuum container is able to be determined such that vacuum in the vacuum container goes from high to medium but that Kawashima does not teach decreasing in vacuum from high vacuum to medium vacuum.
However, Kawashima is relied upon to teach that the apparatus is able to decrease from high vacuum to medium vacuum as evidenced by Kawashima apparatus in a state of vacuum and then breaking the vacuum (i.e. necessitating that the vacuum pass through medium vacuum for at least a certain amount of time). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114 (II). In the instant case, applicant argues that Kawashima does not teach reducing the vacuum from high vacuum to medium vacuum, but instead teaches completely breaking the vacuum to atmospheric pressure. However, it appears that the structure of Kawashima is able to carry out reducing vacuum from high vacuum to medium vacuum absent a showing to the contrary. Indeed, applicant has not argued a structural difference between the instant invention and Kawashima.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kawashima to be operable at pressures overlapping with the claim range as described below in the rejection.
Applicant argues that the 107 reference does not teach reducing the vacuum from high vacuum to medium vacuum of less than 3000 Pa.
However, the 107 reference is only relied upon to teach a gas supply source (cylinder) is provided for introducing gas into the vacuum vessel as described below. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 8-9, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US 2011/0130293) in view of JP 2017-044107 and Yamashiro (US 2022/0310294) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572).
Kawashima teaches a superconducting magnet device (abstract) comprising a superconducting coil (para. 0043-0044), a vacuum container that accommodates the superconducting coil (vacuum adiabatic vessel (para. 0043), and a gas introduction line connecting a dry gas source such that a gas is capable of being introduced to the vacuum container (injecting port and line 40; para. 0037).
Kawashima fails to teach a gas cylinder disposed outside the vacuum container and having a filling amount determined so as to decrease a degree of vacuum of the vacuum container from high vacuum to medium vacuum.
Kawashima, however, teaches that dry gas injecting port is to provide a decrease in vacuum (break the vacuum; para. 0039).
107 teaches a vacuum system (abstract) wherein a gas supply source (cylinder) is provided for introducing gas into the vacuum vessel (para. 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a gas supply source (cylinder) in Kawashima in order to provide a source for introducing the gas into the vacuum vessel as taught by 107 and because Kawashima teaches that dry gas injecting port is to provide a decrease in vacuum (break the vacuum).
Regarding the limitation of the vacuum container having a gas filling amount determined so as to decrease a degree of vacuum of the vacuum container, Kawashima teaches that the vacuum is broken (going from high vacuum to medium vacuum). Therefore, it appears that the filling amount from the vacuum container is able to be determined such that the vacuum in the vacuum container goes from high to medium.
Regarding the limitation of from high vacuum to a medium vacuum of less than 3000 Pa, Yamashiro teaches a superconducting magnet (abstract) wherein the vacuum container is operated at a pressure of high pressure for the purpose of improving heat insulation of the refrigerant container (para. 0018).
Yamazaki teaches that high pressure is in the range of 0.1-1x10-7 Pa (para. 0129).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a Kawashima operable to a high vacuum of 0.1-1x10-7 Pa in in order to improve heat insulation of the refrigerant container as taught by Yamashiro and because Yamazaki teaches that high pressure is in the range of 0.1-1x10-7 Pa.
As the prior art teaches that the container is able to operate at a pressure of 0.1-1x10-7 Pa, breaking the vacuum to less than that value would necessarily include operability at a range of less than 3000 Pa (claim 1, 9) or less than 100 Pa (claim 11, 12). Additionally, it is noted that the medium pressure is not required to be maintained for any specific time period (or that the apparatus is required to be able to) but that it is maintained. It appears that this limitation is so broad that any time period would meet the limitation of being maintained.
Regarding claim 2, 107 teaches a valve controlling gas introduction into a vacuum vessel from a gas container (para. 0028). Additionally, Kawashima teaches a port that is connected to the gas introduction line (40; para. 0037-0039).
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to provide another additional cylinder able to be filled with a different gas as a mere duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B). Additionally, the second tank is able to be filled with a different gas than the first. The material worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 9, Kawashima teaches a method including raising the temperature of a superconducting magnet device including (abstract, para. 0039) comprising a superconducting coil (para. 0043-0044), the method including connecting a vacuum container that accommodates the superconducting coil (vacuum adiabatic vessel (para. 0043) to a gas introduction line connecting a dry gas and introducing a gas to the vacuum container (injecting port and line 40; para. 0037).
Kawashima fails to teach a gas cylinder disposed outside the vacuum container and having a filling amount determined so as to decrease a degree of vacuum of the vacuum container from high vacuum to medium vacuum.
Kawashima, however, teaches that dry gas injecting port is to provide a decrease in vacuum high vacuum to medium vacuum (break the vacuum; para. 0039).
107 teaches a vacuum system (abstract) wherein a gas supply source (cylinder) is provided for introducing gas into the vacuum vessel (para. 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a gas supply source (cylinder) in Kawashima in order to provide a source for introducing the gas into the vacuum vessel as taught by 107 and because Kawashima teaches that dry gas injecting port is to provide a decrease in vacuum high vacuum to medium vacuum (break the vacuum).
Regarding the limitation of the vacuum container having a gas filling amount determined so as to decrease a degree of vacuum of the vacuum container, Kawashima teaches that the vacuum is broken (going from high vacuum to medium vacuum). Therefore, it appears that the filling amount from the vacuum container is able to be determined such that the vacuum in the vacuum container goes from high to medium absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, ‘107 teaches a gas cylinder as described above. It appears that any cylinder (or piece of equipment) meets the limitation of being ‘disposable’ as parts are replaced as a matter of routine operation/maintenance. Additionally, the shape and volume of the cylinder can be modified based on the desired end use of the product.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima in view of JP 2017-044107 and Ayala (US 2018/0017181) and Yamashiro (US 2022/0310294) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572).
Kawashima teaches a apparatus as described above in claim 2, but fails to teach a restrictor that restricts access to the valve when the superconducting coil is in operation.
Ayala, however, teaches a valve lockout device (abstract) comprising a restrictor that restricts access to a valve in industrial situations to prevent damage to equipment (para. 0004, 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a restrictor that restricts access to the valve of Kawashima in order to prevent damage to equipment as taught by Ayala.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima and JP 2017-044107 and KR 20090071436 and Yamashiro (US 2022/0310294) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572).
Kawashima teaches a apparatus as described above in claim 2, but fails to teach a flow path resistance portion suppressing a flow velocity of the gas flowing to the vacuum container from the gas introduction port.
436, however, teaches a vacuum system (abstract) wherein the piping flowing the gas from a gas source to a vacuum chamber has a large flow path resistance for the purpose of avoiding sudden pressure changes within the vacuum chamber (para. 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the gas introduction line having a large flow path resistance in Kawashima in order to avoid sudden pressure changes within the vacuum chamber as taught by 436.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima and JP 2017-044107 and KR 20090071436 and CN 209926686 and Yamashiro (US 2022/0310294) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572).
Kawashima teaches an apparatus as described above in claim 4 but fails to teach a multilayer insulation disposed facing the gas introduction port within the vacuum container.
686, however, teaches a low temperature vacuum shell (abstract) including multilayer insulation disposed on the inner side of the wall of the vacuum chamber (para. 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multilayer insulation disposed on the inner side of the vacuum chamber in Kawashima in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by 686.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the insulation facing the introduction port as rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima and JP 2017-044107 and JP 2020-145371 and Yamashiro (US 2022/0310294) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572).
Kawashima teaches a apparatus as described above in claim 2, but fails to teach the gas introduction port includes an additional gas introduction valve for opening/closing the port.
371, however, teaches a superconductor magnet device (abstract) wherein a vacuum valve is provided at a connection port for the purpose of maintaining a vacuum inside the vacuum chamber (para. 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a vacuum valve provided on the port of Kawashima in order to maintain a vacuum as taught by 371.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima and JP 2017-044107 and JP 2020-145371 and WO 2017/057760 and Yamashiro (US 2022/0310294) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572).
Kawashima teaches a apparatus as described above in claim 6, but fails to teach an evacuation valve branch connected between the gas introduction valve of the line and the valve of the port.
760, however, teaches a superconducting magnet device (abstract) including an evacuation valve branch connected to an introduction line to a cover body (vacuum chamber) for the purpose of evacuating the vacuum chamber (para. 0055-0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an evacuation valve branch connected to the introduction line to the vacuum chamber in Kawashima in order to evacuate the vacuum chamber as taught by 760.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the evacuation valve branch between the two valves as the other valve is at the port and the first valve controls the gas inlet from the cylinder.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima (US 2011/0130293) in view of JP 2017-044107 and Yamashiro (US 2022/0310294) and Yamazaki (US 2017/0256572) and Mills (US 2021/0285274).
Kawashima teaches a product as described above in claim 1.
If Kawashima fails to teach that the cylinder is disposable, Mills will be relied upon herein.
Mills teaches a mechanical system (abstract) wherein a disposable nitrogen gas cylinder is known for dispensing nitrogen (para. 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a disposable nitrogen gas cylinder in Kawashima in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Mills. Additionally, the shape and volume of the cylinder can be modified based on the desired end use of the product.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735