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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed November 13th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 remain pending in the application. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 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 1, lines 27-28 recite, “characterized in that the pressure tank is connected to the vacuum pump for liquefaction of the working fluid” which is not supported by the present disclosure as no liquefaction is disclosed to take place within the pressure tank. Further, the specification does not describe the vacuum pump to aid in any liquefaction of the working fluid within the pressure tank. The best support for the use of the vacuum pump in connection with the pressure tank are as follows and only describe the use of the vacuum pump when a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure is required: “When the required temperature is lower than the current temperature, gas is discharged through the gas exhaust line 511 connected to the pressure tank 400. In this case, when a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure is required, a vacuum pump may be arranged (Pg. 10, paragraph 51)” and “In the depressurization step, gas-phase working fluid is discharged to the outside through the exhaust valve, and if necessary, the pressure in the closed system is decreased by using a pump (Pg. 13, paragraph 64)”. The specification does not provide adequate support for “characterized in that the pressure tank is connected to the vacuum pump for liquefaction of the working fluid”, see 112(b) rejections below.
Claims 2 and 6 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 3 and 11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claims 7-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
Claims 12-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 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 the limitation "the temperature of the working fluid" in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the temperature of the working fluid" in lines 22-23 of claim 1 to “a temperature of the working fluid”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the triple point temperature" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the triple point temperature" in lines 23-24 of claim 1 to “a triple point temperature”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the critical temperature" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the critical temperature" in line 24 of claim 1 to “a critical temperature”.
Claim 1, line 26 recites, “such that the vacuum container is formed at a temperature of -210°C to -146.96°C” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the vacuum container is formed with a particular temperature. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require the vacuum container to be maintained at a temperature within the claimed range.
Claim 1, lines 27-28 recite, “characterized in that the pressure tank is connected to the vacuum pump for liquefaction of the working fluid” which is unclear to the Examiner as per the present disclosure no liquefaction is disclosed to take place within the pressure tank. Further, the specification does not describe the vacuum pump to aid in any liquefaction of the working fluid within the pressure tank. The best support for the use of the vacuum pump in connection with the pressure tank are as follows and only describe the use of the vacuum pump when a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure is required: “When the required temperature is lower than the current temperature, gas is discharged through the gas exhaust line 511 connected to the pressure tank 400. In this case, when a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure is required, a vacuum pump may be arranged (Pg. 10, paragraph 51)” and “In the depressurization step, gas-phase working fluid is discharged to the outside through the exhaust valve, and if necessary, the pressure in the closed system is decreased by using a pump (Pg. 13, paragraph 64)”. Further, the phrase “the pressure tank is connected to the vacuum pump” is very broad and unclear the Examiner as to how the pressure tank and the vacuum pump are physically connected (i.e., electrical connection, controller-based connection, fluid connection). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the recitation to simply require a vacuum pump to be used in any capacity in the liquefaction process of a cryogen.
Claims 2 and 6 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 3 and 11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claims 7-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
Claims 12-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
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 1-3, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US Patent No. 10,580,555), hereinafter Ito in view of Murphy et al. (US Patent No. 4,625,521), hereinafter Murphy, Drube et al. (US 20210404604), hereinafter Drube, and Nakanou et al. (US Patent No. 6,443,225), hereinafter Nakanou.
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a device (Fig. 1, superconducting magnet apparatus 1), the device comprising:
a vacuum container maintaining a vacuum state (Fig. 1, vacuum case 40; Col. 4, lines 5-6, The inside of the vacuum case 40 is maintained in a vacuum state);
a shroud disposed inside the vacuum container to exchange heat between working fluid supplied into the shroud and the inside of the vacuum container (Fig. 1, helium tank 20; Col. 4, lines 51-58, In the process of flowing from the inside of the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 into the tank body 22 through the passage 55a, the helium gas comes into contact with the first cooling stage 51 and the second cooling stage 52, thereby being cooled by the cooling stages 51 and 52, and comes into contact with the superconducting coil 10 in the tank body 22 to cool the superconducting coil 10);
a liquefaction tank connected to both ends of the shroud and including multiple cryogenic refrigerators liquefying working fluid (Fig. 1, refrigerator surrounding tube 24, refrigerator 50; Col. 3, lines 54-63, refrigerator surrounding tube 24 extending upward from an upper portion of the tank body 22 and surrounding the refrigerator 50, and a communicating tube 26 which extends upward from the upper portion of the tank body 22 and through which the inside of the tank body 22 and the outside communicate with each other. The tubes 24 and 26 are connected to the upper portion of the tank body 22 in postures orthogonal to the central axis of the tank body 22 and at positions separated from each other; Further, regarding the recitation of “multiple cryogenic refrigerators”, “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.);
a pressure tank connected to an upper end of the liquefaction tank to supply or discharge gas-phase working fluid to or from the liquefaction tank (Fig. 1, storage vessel 91; Col. 5, lines 29-34, The replenishing unit 90 is configured to replenish the return flow path 70 with helium gas when the amount of helium gas supplied into the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 (in this embodiment, the circulating volume of the helium gas circulating through the return flow path 70, the supply flow path 61, and the helium tank 20) is insufficient);
a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, pressure sensor 95);
a control device including a calculation unit (Fig. 1, opening degree adjustment unit 83, replenishing valve adjustment unit 94); and
a valve in a pipe through which gaseous working fluid flows to or from the pressure tank to supply or discharge working fluid to or from the pressure tank (Fig. 1, replenishing valve V4, replenishment flow path 92; Col. 5, lines 34-45, The replenishing unit 90 includes a storage vessel 91 that stores the helium gas, a replenishment flow path 92 connecting the storage vessel 91 and the return flow path 70 to each other, a replenishment valve V 4 provided in the replenishment flow path 92, and a replenishment valve adjustment unit 94 configured to adjust the opening degree of the replenishment valve V4. When the pressure in the helium tank 20 falls below a threshold value, the replenishment valve adjustment unit 94 opens the replenishment valve V 4 so that the pressure in the helium tank 20 becomes equal to or higher than the threshold value);
controlling a number of cryogenic refrigerators of the multiple cryogenic refrigerators that are operating in response to determining a desired temperature of the working fluid and a time to reach the desired temperature (Col. 5, lines 5-28, The flow rate adjustment unit 80 is configured to adjust the flow rate of the helium gas to be supplied into the refrigerator surrounding tube 24. In this embodiment, the flow rate adjustment unit 80 includes a flow rate adjustment valve V3 provided in the supply flow path 61, and an opening degree adjustment unit 83 configured to adjust the opening degree of the flow rate adjustment valve V3. The flow rate adjustment valve V3 is configured to adjust the flow rate of the helium gas flowing through the supply flow path 61. The opening degree adjustment unit 83 is configured to adjust the opening degree of the flow rate adjustment valve V3 so that the flow rate of the helium gas to be supplied into the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 is a set flow rate that is set in accordance with the temperature of the refrigerator 50 (the refrigeration capacity of the refrigerator 50). The temperature of the refrigerator 50 is detected by a temperature sensor 81 mounted on the first cooling stage 51 and a temperature sensor 82 mounted on the second cooling stage 52, and the flow rate of the helium gas flowing through the supply flow path 61 is detected by a flow rate sensor F provided in a part in the supply flow path 61 that is located on the upstream side of a part in which the flow rate adjustment valve V3 is provided);
wherein a closed system is maintained inside the shroud (the device of Ito as modified is considered to be a closed system as only fluid within the system is introduced into the helium tank 20).
However, Ito does not disclose the device to be used for implementing a space environment; and
the vacuum container maintaining a vacuum state through a vacuum pump.
Murphy teaches a similar device to be used for implementing a space environment (Fig. 2, abstract, Apparatus for providing a simulated space environment for the testing of articles under low temperature conditions); and
the vacuum container maintaining a vacuum state through a vacuum pump (Col. 3, lines 14-18, other components applicable to a thermal vacuum facility as depicted in FIG. 1 are not shown herein but are a part of this invention, as follows: vacuum pumping system to evacuate the vacuum chamber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito of claim 1 to be utilized for implementing a space environment and to include a vacuum pump for maintain the vacuum state as taught by Murphy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to simulate temperatures of outer space in the test envelope (Murphy, Col. 2, lines 24-34). Further, in addition to structural limitations, claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “a device for implementing a space environment.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus 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), and (2) 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Further, Ito as modified does not disclose the pressure sensor to be connected to and configured to measure a pressure level within the pressure tank; and
the control device including a calculation unit for calculating a saturation temperature of the working fluid using data from the pressure sensor, the control device further configured to adjust a saturation temperature of the working fluid by:
controlling a pressure of the pressure tank in response to data from the pressure sensor by controlling the valve in the pipe through which gaseous working fluid flows to or from the pressure tank to supply or discharge working fluid to or from the pressure tank.
Drube teaches the pressure sensor to be connected to and configured to measure a pressure level within the pressure tank (Fig. 1, pressure sensor 38; Pg. 2, paragraph 20, The sump may also be provided with a pressure sensor 38 that detects and indicates the pressure in the headspace of the sump 30); and
calculating a saturation temperature of the working fluid using data from the pressure sensor, the control device further configured to adjust a saturation temperature of the working fluid (Pg. 3, paragraph 26, The pressure increase in the sump above the liquid, and thus the amount of subcool of the liquid hydrogen within the sump 30, can be determined and controlled by using the temperature sensor 42 to determine the saturation temperature (Tsat) of the hydrogen liquid in the sump. As is known in the art, the corresponding saturation pressure of the liquid hydrogen (Psat) at that temperature may be determined. The pressure (Psump) within the sump over the liquid hydrogen may be determined using pressure sensor 38. As a result, Subcool=Psump-Psat gives the pressure increase, and thus the subcool, of the liquid hydrogen within the sump) by:
controlling a pressure of the pressure tank in response to data from the pressure sensor by controlling the valve in the pipe through which gaseous working fluid flows to or from the pressure tank to supply or discharge working fluid to or from the pressure tank (Fig. 1, valve 24; Pg. 3, paragraph 28, If the pressure within the headspace of sump 30 becomes too great, valve 24 may be opened for venting or pressure safety valves (not shown) may be provided and opened to relieve pressure within the sump).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reprogram the controller of Ito as modified to calculate a saturation temperature of the working fluid using data from the pressure sensor, the control device further configured to adjust a saturation temperature of the working fluid by controlling a pressure of the pressure tank in response to data from the pressure sensor by controlling the valve in a pipe through which gaseous working fluid flows to or from the pressure tank to supply or discharge working fluid to or from the pressure tank as taught by Drube. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for precise thermal control of the system to improve overall system efficiency.
Further, Ito as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the temperature of the working fluid is controlled within a range between the triple point temperature and the critical temperature, and the working fluid is liquefied in the liquefaction tank at a pressure between 12.53 kPa and 3.3978 MPa,
such that the vacuum container is formed at a temperature of -210°C to -146.96°C, characterized in that the pressure tank is connected to the vacuum pump for liquefaction of the working fluid.
Nakanou teaches its known in the art that the boiling point of a fluid on a pressure-temperature diagram is between the triple point and the critical point and pressure and temperature can be adjusted to raise or lower the boiling point as desired, specifically to the claimed ranges when using liquid nitrogen as the working fluid (Fig. 2; Col 2-3, lines 62-67 and 1, Thus, as shown in the phase diagram in FIG. 2, by shifting a state from gas-liquid two-phase coexisting state 1 to a gas-phase state 2 in the phase diagram, and then by quickly reducing pressure in the heat pipe 2 and exhausting the heat pipe 2 of the air by using the vacuum pump 18, the inside of the heat pipe 2 is brought into a vacuum heat-insulated state); and
characterized in that the pressure tank is connected to the vacuum pump for liquefaction of the working fluid (Fig. 1, vacuum pump 18, buffer tank 17; Col 2-3, lines 62-67 and 1, Thus, as shown in the phase diagram in FIG. 2, by shifting a state from gas-liquid two-phase coexisting state 1 to a gas-phase state 2 in the phase diagram, and then by quickly reducing pressure in the heat pipe 2 and exhausting the heat pipe 2 of the air by using the vacuum pump 18, the inside of the heat pipe 2 is brought into a vacuum heat-insulated state; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito as modified wherein the shroud maintains a temperature of the working fluid in a range between a triple point temperature and a critical temperature by adjusting a saturation pressure of the working fluid in the closed system and wherein the pressure tank is connected to the vacuum pump such that the working fluid is liquefied in the liquefaction tank under a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure as taught by Nakanou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for liquefaction of the working fluid at a variety of pressure and temperature conditions to improve overall system efficiencies.
Moreover, Ito as modified teaches the claimed invention except for “the working fluid is liquefied in the liquefaction tank at a pressure between 12.53 kPa and 3.3978 MPa, such that the vacuum container is formed at a temperature of -210°C to -146.96°C”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “the working fluid is liquefied in the liquefaction tank at a pressure between 12.53 kPa and 3.3978 MPa, such that the vacuum container is formed at a temperature of -210°C to -146.96°C”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [ or optimum value ] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “the working fluid is liquefied in the liquefaction tank at a pressure between 12.53 kPa and 3.3978 MPa, such that the vacuum container is formed at a temperature of -210°C to -146.96°C”, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Ito as modified discloses the device of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), radiant heat is exchanged between the working fluid supplied into the shroud and the inside of the vacuum container (Ito, Col. 4, lines 51-58, In the process of flowing from the inside of the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 into the tank body 22 through the passage 55a, the helium gas comes into contact with the first cooling stage 51 and the second cooling stage 52, thereby being cooled by the cooling stages 51 and 52, and comes into contact with the super conducting coil 10 in the tank body 22 to cool the super conducting coil 10; Further, Ito includes a radiation shield 30 which implies there is radiant heat being transferred within the system).
Regarding claim 3, Ito as modified discloses the device of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the liquefaction tank is connected to both ends of the shroud (Col. 3, lines 54-63, refrigerator surrounding tube 24 extending upward from an upper portion of the tank body 22 and surrounding the refrigerator 50, and a communicating tube 26 which extends upward from the upper portion of the tank body 22 and through which the inside of the tank body 22 and the outside communicate with each other. The tubes 24 and 26 are connected to the upper portion of the tank body 22 in postures orthogonal to the central axis of the tank body 22 and at positions separated from each other), including:
a gas line connected to the upper end of the shroud to supply vaporized working fluid from the shroud to the liquefaction tank (Ito, Fig. 1, return flow path 70, supply flow path 61; Col. 4-5, lines 59-67 and 1-3, The return flow path 70 is a flow path configured to return the helium gas discharged out of the vacuum case 40 through the communicating tube 26 to the supply flow path 61. That is, an end portion of the return flow path 70 on the upstream side thereof is connected to an upper end portion (port) of the communicating tube 26, and an end portion of the return flow path 70 on the downstream side thereof is connected to an end portion of the supply flow path 61 on the upstream side thereof. As a result, the helium gas discharged out of the vacuum case 40 through the communicating tube 26 is supplied into the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 again by the pump 62 through the supply flow path 61); and
a liquid line connected to a lower end of the liquefaction tank to supply liquefied working fluid from the liquefaction tank to the shroud (Col. 3, lines54-56, vacuum case 40 through the communicating tube 26 is supplied into the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 again by the pump 62 through the supply flow path 61),
the liquefaction tank is disposed above the shroud (Fig. 1 of Ito depicts the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 to be disposed about the helium tank 20), and
the liquefied working fluid moves in a gravity direction and is injected into the shroud (Col. 6, lines 10-22, flow in which the helium gas flows through the passage 55a in the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 toward the tank body 22 is formed. This corresponds to the cooling step. That is, in the cooling step, the superconducting coil 10 is cooled in the tank body 22 by the helium gas that is cooled in the first cooling stage 51 and is further cooled in the second cooling stage 52 after passing through the passage 55a. Specifically, in the cooling step, the helium gas cooled in the cooling stages 51 and 52 flows downward in the tank body 22 because the specific gravity thereof is larger than the specific gravity of other helium gas in the helium tank 20).
However, Ito as modified does not disclose the gas line connected to the upper end of the liquefaction tank to supply vaporized working fluid from the shroud to the liquefaction tank.
Murphy teaches the gas line connected to the upper end of the liquefaction tank to supply vaporized working fluid from the shroud to the liquefaction tank (Fig. 1 of Murphy depicts conduit M to be connected to the upper end of the LN2 head tank D via conduit S from the main thermal shroud F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas line of Ito as modified to be connected to the upper end of the liquefaction tank to supply vaporized working fluid from the shroud to the liquefaction tank as taught by Murphy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a more direct flow path back to the liquefaction tank to reduce heat loss and improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 11, Ito as modified discloses the method for implementing a space environment using the device of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), the method comprising:
a pressure control step in which the control device controls a pressure of the closed system by supplying or discharging fluid to or from the pressure tank (Ito, Col. 6, lines 46-50, When the pressure in the helium tank 20 falls below a threshold value, the return flow path 70 is replenished with helium gas from the storage vessel 91 until the pressure becomes equal to or higher than the threshold value);
after the pressure control step, a liquefaction step in which the cryogenic refrigerator liquefies the supplied working fluid (Ito, Col. 6, lines 10-18, a flow in which the helium gas flows through the passage 55a in the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 toward the tank body 22 is formed. This corresponds to the cooling step. That is, in the cooling step, the superconducting coil 10 is cooled in the tank body 22 by the helium gas that is cooled in the first cooling stage 51 and is further cooled in the second cooling stage 52 after passing through the passage 55a);
after the liquefaction step, an inflow step in which the liquefied working fluid moves in a gravity direction and flows into the shroud (Ito, Col. 6, lines 18-22, Specifically, in the cooling step, the helium gas cooled in the cooling stages 51 and 52 flows downward in the tank body 22 because the specific gravity thereof is larger than the specific gravity of other helium gas in the helium tank 20); and
after the inflow step, a heat exchange step in which radiant heat is exchanged between the shroud and the inside of the vacuum container (Ito, Col. 6, lines 13-18, This corresponds to the cooling step. That is, in the cooling step, the superconducting coil 10 is cooled in the tank body 22 by the helium gas that is cooled in the first cooling stage 51 and is further cooled in the second cooling stage 52 after passing through the passage 55a).
Regarding claim 13, Ito as modified discloses the method of claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above), wherein in the liquefaction step, the saturation temperature of the working fluid is changed according to the pressure adjusted in the pressure control step (Although, Ito as modified does not explicitly disclose "the saturation temperature of the working fluid is changed according to the pressure adjusted in the pressure control step", per the Ideal Gas Law (PV = nRT), saturation temperature is inherently changed in accordance with pressure adjustments).
Regarding claim 14, Ito as modified discloses the method of claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above), further comprising, after the heat exchange step, a recycling step in which the working fluid subjected to the heat exchange is vaporized, the vaporized working fluid moves to the liquefaction tank, and then the liquefaction step is repeated (Ito, Col. 6, lines 22-32, The helium gas that has cooled the superconducting coil 10 flows toward the outside of the vacuum case 40 through the communicating tube 26 above the tank body 22 because the specific gravity thereof decreases due to temperature rising. This corresponds to the discharging step. In this embodiment, the helium gas discharged out of the vacuum case 40 through the communicating tube 26 is sucked into the pump 62 through the return flow path 70, and is supplied into the refrigerator surrounding tube 24 again through the supply flow path 61).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as modified by Murphy, Drube, and Nakanou as applied to claims 3 above, and further in view of Iarocci et al. (US Patent No. 6,988,370), hereinafter Iarocci.
Regarding claim 4, Ito as modified discloses the device of claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Ito as modified does not disclose herein a plurality of temperature sensors are disposed along the shroud in the vacuum container, and
the plurality of temperature sensors are disposed to be spaced apart from one another at predetermined intervals from the liquid line to a lower side of the shroud to measure a location-based change in temperature of working fluid.
Iarocci teaches a plurality of temperature sensors are disposed along the shroud in the vacuum container (Fig. 1, T6, T7, T9, T11, T13, T15, T17, T19), and
the plurality of temperature sensors are disposed to be spaced apart from one another at predetermined intervals from the liquid line to a lower side of the shroud to measure a location-based change in temperature of working fluid (Col. 8, lines 20-21, Referring additionally to FIG. 1, T1-T20 represent selected temperature analysis points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito as modified include a plurality of temperature sensors spaced apart from one another at predetermined intervals from the liquid line to a lower side of the shroud as taught by Iarocci. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved temperature control for the cryogenic system (Iarocci, Col. 1, lines 53-54).
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as modified by Murphy, Drube, and Nakanou as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Fujita (JP 2019043461), hereinafter Fujita.
Regarding claim 6, Ito as modified discloses the device of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Ito as modified does not disclose wherein gas-phase working fluid is supplied from a bombe to the pressure tank to increase an internal pressure of the pressure tank.
Fujita teaches wherein gas-phase working fluid is supplied from a bombe to the pressure tank to increase an internal pressure of the pressure tank (Fig. 1; Paragraph 34, The gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19 can connect a nitrogen cylinder (not shown) or the like to the gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19a. Then, when pressurizing the inside of the reservoir 9, the gaseous nitrogen release valve 23 is closed and the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19b is opened, and the pressurized gaseous nitrogen is discharged from the nitrogen cylinder. By supplying the reservoir 9, the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 is pressurized. When gaseous nitrogen is supplied by the gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19, it is preferable that the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19 b be capable of controlling the opening degree so that the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 has a predetermined pressure constant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito as modified wherein gas-phase working fluid is supplied from a bombe to the pressure tank to increase an internal pressure of the pressure tank as taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a predetermined constant pressure to the tank (Fujita, Paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 7, Ito as modified discloses the device of claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above).
However, Ito as modified does not disclose wherein the pressure tank is connected to an exhaust line connected to the outside and a supply line connected to the bombe, and
the pressure of the pressure tank is input to the control device, and the control device outputs whether to open or close an exhaust valve of the exhaust line and a supply valve of the supply line.
Fujita teaches wherein the pressure tank is connected to an exhaust line connected to the outside (Fig.1, gas nitrogen discharge pipe 21; Paragraph 28, The discharge reservoir 9 is provided with a gas nitrogen discharge pipe 21 and a gas nitrogen discharge valve 23 in order to discharge the gas nitrogen discharged from the shroud 7 to the atmosphere) and a supply line connected to the bombe (Fig. 1, gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19a; Paragraph 34, The gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19 can connect a nitrogen cylinder (not shown) or the like to the gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19a. Then, when pressurizing the inside of the reservoir 9, the gaseous nitrogen release valve 23 is closed and the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19b is opened, and the pressurized gaseous nitrogen is discharged from the nitrogen cylinder. By supplying the reservoir 9, the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 is pressurized. When gaseous nitrogen is supplied by the gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19, it is preferable that the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19 b be capable of controlling the opening degree so that the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 has a predetermined pressure constant), and
the pressure of the pressure tank is input to the control device, and the control device outputs whether to open or close an exhaust valve of the exhaust line (Fig. 1, nitrogen release valve 23) and a supply valve of the supply line (Fig. 1, valve 19b; Paragraph 34-35, The gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19 can connect a nitrogen cylinder (not shown) or the like to the gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19a. Then, when pressurizing the inside of the reservoir 9, the gaseous nitrogen release valve 23 is closed and the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19b is opened, and the pressurized gaseous nitrogen is discharged from the nitrogen cylinder. By supplying the reservoir 9, the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 is pressurized. When gaseous nitrogen is supplied by the gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19, it is preferable that the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19 b be capable of controlling the opening degree so that the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 has a predetermined pressure constant. The gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19a may be connected to the gaseous nitrogen discharge pipe 21. The gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19 may pressurize the liquid reservoir 9 with the gaseous nitrogen release valve 23 closed. It may be any one that can supply gaseous nitrogen to pressurize the inside of the drainage reservoir 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure tank of the device of Ito as modified to include an exhaust line, an exhaust valve, a supply line, and a supply valve as taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a predetermined constant pressure to the tank (Fujita, Paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 12, Ito as modified discloses the method of claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the pressure control step includes:
a depressurization step in which the working fluid is discharged to the outside to decrease the pressure in the closed system (Ito, Col. 6, lines 51-54, The helium gas is discharged from the discharge flow path 96 when the pressure in the helium tank 20 becomes equal to or higher than a reference value during the cooling of the superconducting coil 10).
However, Ito as modified does not disclose wherein the pressure control step includes:
a pressurization step in which working fluid for pressurization is supplied from a bombe containing the working fluid at room temperature to increase the pressure in the closed system.
Fujita teaches wherein the pressure control step includes:
a pressurization step in which working fluid for pressurization is supplied from a bombe containing the working fluid at room temperature to increase the pressure in the closed system (Paragraph 34-35, The gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19 can connect a nitrogen cylinder (not shown) or the like to the gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19a. Then, when pressurizing the inside of the reservoir 9, the gaseous nitrogen release valve 23 is closed and the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19b is opened, and the pressurized gaseous nitrogen is discharged from the nitrogen cylinder. By supplying the reservoir 9, the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 is pressurized. When gaseous nitrogen is supplied by the gaseous nitrogen supply unit 19, it is preferable that the gaseous nitrogen supply valve 19 b be capable of controlling the opening degree so that the inside of the drainage reservoir 9 has a predetermined pressure constant. The gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19a may be connected to the gaseous nitrogen discharge pipe 21. The gaseous nitrogen supply pipe 19 may pressurize the liquid reservoir 9 with the gaseous nitrogen release valve 23 closed. It may be any one that can supply gaseous nitrogen to pressurize the inside of the drainage reservoir 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of Ito as modified to include a pressurization step as taught by Fujita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a predetermined constant pressure to the tank (Fujita, Paragraph 34).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as modified by Murphy, Drube, Nakanou, and Fujita as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Air Products Safetygram 2 Gaseous nitrogen, hereinafter NPL-2.
Regarding claim 8, Ito as modified discloses the device of claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above).
However, Ito as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the bombe contains cryogenic gas at room temperature.
NPL-2 teaches wherein the bombe contains cryogenic gas at room temperature (Pg. 3, Handlining and storage, No part of a cylinder should ever be allowed to exceed 125°F (52°C) and areas should be free of combustible materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the bombe containing whatever cryogenic gas that is used within the system of the device of Ito as modified at room temperature as taught by NPL-1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the gas is stored in a way that is consistent with known safety standards.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8-9 of the response “However, upon examining the liquefaction process under a low-pressure environment, it is believed that the vacuum pump operates in the "off' state, which prevents heat exchange. In this "off' state, it is difficult to assume that liquefaction continuously occurs inside the heat pipe. Furthermore, the state change in Figure 2 occurs due to depressurization, transitioning from the saturated state to the gas phase, and does not include the process of liquefaction under low pressure. It is therefore considered challenging to derive the feature of liquefying the heat transfer medium in a low-pressure environment based solely on the configuration of the heat pipe and vacuum pump, and the formation of vacuum insulation.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the teachings of Nakanou show it is well known in the art to maintain pressure and temperature between a triple point and a critical point of the working fluid and to use a vacuum pump to control pressure for the liquefaction of the working fluid (Nakanou, Fig. 1, vacuum pump 18, buffer tank 17; Fig. 2; Col 2-3, lines 62-67 and 1, Thus, as shown in the phase diagram in FIG. 2, by shifting a state from gas-liquid two-phase coexisting state 1 to a gas-phase state 2 in the phase diagram, and then by quickly reducing pressure in the heat pipe 2 and exhausting the heat pipe 2 of the air by using the vacuum pump 18, the inside of the heat pipe 2 is brought into a vacuum heat-insulated state; Col 2-3, lines 62-67 and 1, Thus, as shown in the phase diagram in FIG. 2, by shifting a state from gas-liquid two-phase coexisting state 1 to a gas-phase state 2 in the phase diagram, and then by quickly reducing pressure in the heat pipe 2 and exhausting the heat pipe 2 of the air by using the vacuum pump 18, the inside of the heat pipe 2 is brought into a vacuum heat-insulated state). Further, being that the heat pipe 2 is vacuum insulated, it is not likely there is still liquefaction of any boil off gas of the working fluid even when heat transmission is interrupted. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
The rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-14 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
C. B. Hood, Jr. (US Patent No. 3,209,815) discloses a similar device for implementing a space environment.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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.
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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 November 26th, 2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763