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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2-10 and 21 are pending. Claims 1 and 11-20 are canceled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 2-10 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-10 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Note
For clarity of the rejection new independent claim 21 is rejected first.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bächler et al. (EP 0250613 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Bächler,” in view of Asami et al. (JPH 10318134 A, machine translation), hereafter referred as “Asami,” Patton et al. (6,104,934), hereafter referred to as “Patton,” and Chandler (US 2019/0093188 A1).
Regarding Claim 21: Bächler teaches a cryogenic platform system (title, Figure), comprising: a vacuum chamber (area 1 created by 14 and 18), wherein the vacuum chamber (area 1 created by 14 and 18) includes: a temperature stage attachment (6 and 10); a high temperature stage (5, 7), coupled to the temperature stage attachment ( area 1 created by 14 and 18) internal to the vacuum chamber (see Figure), wherein the high temperature stage (5,7) is configured to mount a first electronic device (43 or 44) internal to the vacuum chamber (see Figure); and a low temperature stage (the other of 5 or 7) coupled to the temperature stage attachment (6 and 10) internal to the vacuum chamber (see Figure), wherein the low temperature stage is configured to mount a second electronic device (the other of 43 or 44) internal to the vacuum chamber (see Figure); a computer processor (28), external to the vacuum chamber (see Figure).
Bächler fails to teach a motor, external to and coupled to the vacuum chamber, wherein: the motor is coupled to the high temperature stage and the low temperature stage via the temperature stage attachment, the motor is configured to move cooling fluid through the cryogenic platform system to set a high temperature range of the high temperature stage and a low temperature range of the low temperature stage, and the motor includes one or more feedthrough ports; wherein the computer processor is coupled to control the motor; and one or more cables that connect to the computer processor external to the vacuum chamber, pass through the one or more feedthrough ports, through the motor, and into the vacuum chamber to connect to the first electronic device and to the second electronic device internal to the vacuum chamber.
Asami teaches a motor (23, 24), external to and coupled to a vacuum chamber (3), wherein: the motor (23,24) is coupled to a high temperature stage (29, 30) and a low temperature stage (the other of 29, 30) via a temperature stage attachment (25, 26), the motor (23, 24) is configured to move cooling fluid through a cryogenic platform system (via 22 and 23) to set a high temperature range of the high temperature stage and a low temperature range of the low temperature stage (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a motor, external to and coupled to the vacuum chamber, wherein: the motor is coupled to the high temperature stage and the low temperature stage via the temperature stage attachment, the motor is configured to move cooling fluid through the cryogenic platform system to set a high temperature range of the high temperature stage and a low temperature range of the low temperature stage to the structure of Bächler as taught by Asami in order to advantageously provide drive the cryogenic system during pumping operations (see Asami, solution, page 1 of the machine translation).
Patton teaches one or more cables (Column 3, lines 54-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided one or more cables to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Patton in order to advantageously provide known cables that are able to connect to antennas (see Patton, Column 3, lines 54-65).
Chandler teaches a motor (30,32) includes one or more feedthrough ports (46); wherein a computer processor (48B) is coupled to control the motor (30,32); and one or more cables (48A) that connect to the computer processor (48B) external to a vacuum chamber (14), pass through the one or more feedthrough ports (46, see Figure 1), through the motor (30, 32), and into the vacuum chamber (14) to connect to a first electronic device (24A, see wire not labeled that connects to outside chamber) and to a second electronic device (24B, see wire not labeled that connects to outside chamber) internal to the vacuum chamber (14, see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the motor includes one or more feedthrough ports; wherein the computer processor is coupled to control the motor; and one or more cables that connect to the computer processor external to the vacuum chamber, pass through the one or more feedthrough ports, through the motor, and into the vacuum chamber to connect to the first electronic device and to the second electronic device internal to the vacuum chamber to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Chandler in order to advantageously provide power to the cryosystem and electrical control to the components within the vacuum (see Chandler, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 2: Bächler teaches wherein at least one of the first electronic device or the second electronic device (23, 24, 41, 43, 44, 45) comprises one or more superconducting electronic devices, one or more RF devices, one or more superconducting analog-to-digital converters, one or more RF filters, one or more RF superconducting filters, one or more sensors (41, 43, 44, 45 sensors), or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 10: Bächler modified supra fails to teach wherein the one or more cables are one or more coax cables, one or more single pair direct current cables, one or more twisted pair direct current cables, one or more optic cables, or a combination thereof.
Patton teaches wherein one or more cables are one or more coax cables (Column 3, lines 54-65), one or more single pair direct current cables, one or more twisted pair direct current cables, one or more optic cables, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the one or more cables are one or more coax cables, one or more single pair direct current cables, one or more twisted pair direct current cables, one or more optic cables, or a combination thereof to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Patton in order to advantageously provide known cables that are able to connect to antennas (see Patton, Column 3, lines 54-65).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bächler et al. (EP 0250613 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Bächler,” in view of Asami et al. (JPH 10318134 A, machine translation), hereafter referred as “Asami,” Patton et al. (6,104,934), hereafter referred to as “Patton,” and Chandler (US 2019/0093188 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bao et al. (US 2020/0003460 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bao.”
Regarding Claim 3: Bächler modified supra fails to teach wherein the high temperature stage and low temperature stage are the same or different material as each other with a thermal conductivity equal to or greater than 30 W/m·K.
Bao teaches wherein a high temperature stage and low temperature stage are the same or different material as each other with a thermal conductivity equal to or greater than 30 W/m·K (paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the high temperature stage and low temperature stage are the same or different material as each other with a thermal conductivity equal to or greater than 30 W/m·K to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Bao in order to advantageously provide high thermal conductivity (see Bao, paragraph [0022]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bächler et al. (EP 0250613 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Bächler,” in view of Asami et al. (JPH 10318134 A, machine translation), hereafter referred as “Asami,” Patton et al. (6,104,934), hereafter referred to as “Patton,” and Chandler (US 2019/0093188 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Mundinger (DE 19632123 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: Bächler modified supra teaches wherein the one or more cables (21, 22 of Bächler made cables as taught by Patton) attach to one of the one or more feedthrough ports (15 of Bächler).
Bächler modified supra fails to teach wherein the one or more connections wrap around the temperature stage attachment.
Mundinger teaches one or more connections (wires around the structure between 6 and 7) wrap around a temperature stage attachment (structure between 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the one or more connections wrap around the temperature stage attachment to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Mundinger in order to advantageously have the wires gathered to aid in placement for movement (see Mundinger, Figures 1 and 3).
Claims 5-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bächler et al. (EP 0250613 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Bächler,” in view of Asami et al. (JPH 10318134 A, machine translation), hereafter referred as “Asami,” Patton et al. (6,104,934), hereafter referred to as “Patton,” and Chandler (US 2019/0093188 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Sarwinski et al. (US 6,438,967 B1), hereafter referred to as “Sarwinski.”
Regarding Claim 5: Bächler modified supra fails to teach wherein the high temperature range is 40K to 70K.
Sarwinski teaches a high temperature range is 40K to 70K (stage 20, Column 5, lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the high temperature stage ranges from 40K to 70K to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Sarwinski in order to advantageously provide sufficient cooling for the cryocooler material (see Sarwinski, Column 3, lines 15-17).
Regarding Claim 6: Bächler modified supra fails to teach wherein the low temperature stage range is 3K to 5K.
Sarwinski teaches a low temperature stage range is 3K to 5K (stage 22, Column 5, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the low temperature stage range is 3K to 5K to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Sarwinski in order to advantageously provide sufficient cooling for the cryocooler material (see Sarwinski, Column 5, lines 15-17).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bächler et al. (EP 0250613 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Bächler,” in view of Asami et al. (JPH 10318134 A, machine translation), hereafter referred as “Asami,” Patton et al. (6,104,934), hereafter referred to as “Patton,” and Chandler (US 2019/0093188 A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of de Andrade et al. (US 9,464,993 B1), hereafter referred to as “de Andrade,” and Oosterbosch et al. (WO 2012/126885 A1), hereafter referred to as “Oosterbosch.”
Regarding Claim 7: Bächler modified supra fails to teach further including one or more radomes where each radome includes an antenna, one or more sensors, or a combination thereof enclosed in a radome wall.
de Andrade teaches a system (100) with a cryocooler (106) and a radome system (104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more radomes where each radome includes an antenna to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by de Andrade in order to advantageously provide for the system to be exposed to a radiation source and maintain the temperatures within the refrigeration system (de Andrade, Column 1, lines 64-67).
Oosterbosch teaches including one or more radomes (description, page 1 of machine translation) where each radome includes an antenna (paragraph, inflatable radome, page 1 of machine translation) and is enclosed in a radome wall (paragraph, inflatable radome, page 1 of machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided including one or more radomes where each radome includes an antenna and is enclosed in a radome wall to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Oosterbosch in order to advantageously provide a flexible radome to resistant against alterations from environmental factors (paragraph, summary of the invention, page 2 of machine translation).
Regarding Claim 8: Bächler modified supra further teaches wherein the antenna, one or more sensors (41, 43, 44, 45 of Bächler), or the combination thereof are connected to at least one of the first electronic device or the second electronic device (23, 24 heaters, sensors 41, 43, 44, 45 of Bächler) via one or more antenna or sensor connections (wires 42, 46, 47, 48 of Bächler) where the one or more antenna or sensor connections (wires connecting to 41, 43, 44, 45 of Bächler) pass along a cold finger, a vacuum chamber port (see wires in 14, 15 and lines into 1 in Figure of Bächler), or a combination thereof.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bächler et al. (EP 0250613 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Bächler,” in view of Asami et al. (JPH 10318134 A, machine translation), hereafter referred as “Asami,” Patton et al. (6,104,934), hereafter referred to as “Patton,” as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Gallagher et al. (5,552,608), hereafter referred to as “Gallagher.”
Regarding Claim 9: Bächler modified supra fails to teach further including one or more cold fingers that have a thermal conductivity equal to or greater than 30 W/m·K.
Gallagher teaches one or more cold fingers that have a thermal conductivity equal to or greater than 30 W/m·K (Column 8, lines 58-65, Copper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided including one or more cold fingers that have a thermal conductivity equal to or greater than 30 W/m·K to the structure of Bächler modified supra as taught by Gallagher in order to advantageously provide use of known materials to connect a cold finger to the cryo system (see Gallagher, Column 8, lines 58-65).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Durenec (4,206,609).
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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights