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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “Each main technical feature mentioned in the abstract and illustrated by a drawing in the international application shall be followed by a reference sign, placed between parentheses” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “outer container includes corner portions formed in shapes with curvature” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 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 “with a cavity in the vacuum state” which is considered indefinite. As written, it is unclear if the cavity is required to be in a vacuum state or only if the curvature is for reducing stresses caused if the cavity is in a vacuum state. For the purpose of examination, the vacuum state is not considered to further limit the claims and only refer to reasoning as to why the curvature is present.
Claims 2-11 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Although claims 7 and 11 both use the term “device” with “superconductive quantum interference” and the function “to detect a magnetic field”, the term “superconductive quantum interference device” has specific meaning in the art and is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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, 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erne et al (US PG 20110041520), hereinafter referred to as Erne in view of Daiki (JP2010265931), hereinafter referred to as Daiki and further in view of D’Urso (US PG Pub 2020047852), hereinafter referred to as D’Urso
With respect to claim 1, Erne (Figure 1) teaches an insulated container (cryostat 116, paragraph 36), comprising:
an inner container (inner container 120 includes 122 and finger 128, paragraph 36);
and an outer container surrounding the inner container with a cavity interposed between the outer container and the inner container (outer container 140 includes main tank 142 and finger 144, paragraph 37, and a gap between them can be seen in the figure),
the inner container and the outer container are formed of fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with resin (the inner vessel, which includes 128, 122, 128 and outer vessel can be formed of glass-fiber reinforced plastic cylinders made of epoxy)
the inner container includes a bottomed cylindrical container to store a refrigerant (main tank 122 is formed of a cylindrical base body, paragraph 39 which has a bottom on the sides surrounding the finger, which has helium 124, paragraph 36) and a refrigerant injection pipe attached to the cylindrical container and configured to inject a refrigerant into the cylindrical container (neck tube 126, paragraph 36 which is where refrigerant could pass into the cylinder as is the only opening), the refrigerant injection pipe formed of the fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with resin (the neck tube is part of the inner container and is thus formed of the same fiber reinforced plastics..
Erne does not teach in which fibers constituting the refrigerant injection pipe are wound in a spiral manner in an axial direction of the refrigerant injection pipe.
Daiki teaches that when forming resin reinforced with fibers that the fibers can be formed either by hoop or helical winding and helical winding (paragraph 27). Helical winding of the fibers can contribute to the strength and durability of the tank (paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the fibers of the inner container of Erne (which includes those of the neck tube) to have been formed in a helical manner as it is a way that can improve the strength and durability of the tank. If the fibers are aligned helically then they are wound in a spiral formed in the axial direction of the neck tube.
Erne does not teach the outer container includes corner portions formed in shapes with curvature, the curvature configured to reduce contraction stress from concentrating on a specific portion of the insulated container with the cavity in a vacuum state.
D’Urso teaches that an outer shell of a cryogenic tank can have an end cover which is curved in a dome shape (Paragraph 28, see Figure 2, 22’) and that when thickness of an end cover that is flat needs to be more than a dome-shaped structure (paragraph 32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of D’Urso to have in Erne provided the ends of the outer container as dome-shape structures (which means there is a curve at the corners on both sides of the tank where the dome meets the flat part as seen in the figure of D’Urso) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that a curved dome at the end of a tank provides a stronger structure than a flat end. A curved end by its nature would naturally handle stress better than a flat end and the presence of such a curved end would meet the limitation as claimed which is a desired benefit of said configuration.
With respect to claim 2, Erne as modified does not teach wherein fibers constituting the refrigerant injection pipe are wound in a spiral manner in such a way as to form an angle of 50 to 89 degrees with an axial direction of the refrigerant injection pipe.
Daiki teaches that for helical windings of fibers as part of a tank, the angle can 70 to 80 degrees (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have when providing the fibers of Daiki in a helical winding for them to have been 70 to 80 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating first that the angle is 50 to 80 degrees, and then alter that a more preferable angle is 55 to 70 degrees, Paragraph 35 of the instant application) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 3, Erne as modified teaches wherein fibers constituting the refrigerant injection pipe are formed of glass fiber (the fibers can be glass fibers, paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 5, Erne as modified teaches wherein fibers constituting the cylindrical container are formed of glass fiber (the fibers can be glass fibers, paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 6, Erne as modified teaches wherein the resin includes epoxy resin (the resin is epoxy, paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 7, Erne as modified teaches a magnetoencephalography (Figure 1), comprising: a superconducting quantum interference device to detect a magnetic field (SQUIDs 112, paragraph 35); and the insulated container according to claim 1 (Figure 1 includes the container and the SQUIDs), wherein the superconducting quantum interference device is housed in the cylindrical container while being dipped in a refrigerant stored in the cylindrical container (112 is within the liquid helium in the finger, which can be considered the cylindrical container, as it attached via the main tank to the neck tube).
With respect to claim 8, Erne as modified teaches wherein the inner container further includes a second cylindrical container (the finger is a second cylindrical container, the inner vessel is formed of cylindrical base bodies, paragraph 39), each of the cylindrical container and the second cylindrical container includes a housing portion to store a refrigerant inside the housing portion, the second cylindrical container is fixed to the cylindrical container while the housing portion of the second cylindrical container and the housing portion of the cylindrical container communicate with each other (the second container is connected to the first container and fluid can flow between them), and the second cylindrical container is formed of fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with resin (the finger is part of the inner vessel and is thus formed of fiber reinforced plastic as well).
With respect to claim 9, Erne as modified teaches wherein the fibers constituting the second cylindrical container are formed of glass fiber (the fibers are glass fibers, paragraph 39).
With respect to claim 10, Erne as modified teaches wherein resin constituting the second cylindrical container includes epoxy resin (the resin is epoxy).
With respect to claim 11, Erne as modified teaches a magnetoencephalography (Figure 1), comprising: a superconducting quantum interference device to detect a magnetic field (SQUIDs 112, paragraph 35); and the insulated container according to claim 1 (Figure 1 includes the container and the SQUIDs), wherein the superconducting quantum interference device is housed in the housing portion of the second cylinder while being dipped in a refrigerant stored in the housing portion of the second cylindrical container (112 is within the liquid helium in the finger).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erne/Daiki/D’Urso and further in view of Zgela (US PG Pub 20210316494), hereinafter referred to as Zgela.
With respect to claim 4, Erne does not teach wherein an amount of resin in fiber reinforced plastics that constitute the refrigerant injection pipe is 15 to 40 wt% of entire weight of the fiber reinforced plastics.
Zgela teaches that for an epoxy/fiber layer of a container that the weight ratio of fiber to epoxy can be 80:20 (paragraph 56, which would be 20 wt% of resin in the fiber reinforced plastic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Zgela to have constructed the inner container (including the neck tube) with resin constituting 20 wt% of the entire weight of the fiber reinforced plastic as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ratio (indicating the amount of the resin refrigerant pipe “may be 15 to 40 wt%”, paragraph 11 of the instant application) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the durability in the tank in Daiki does not come from the helical winding but from a hoop including a step suppression member (page 6) and thus it would not have been obvious to form the inner container of Erne in a helical manner to improve the strength and durability of the tank and that they are formed on the outside of the tank not used to receive refrigerant therein. This is not persuasive.
The helical layer of Daiki provides part of the necessary structurally durability to the tank. The tank as described have both a hoop and helical layer (paragraphs 2 of Daiki) and the hoop layer as argued and described by Daiki is providing additional durability beyond just the helical layer alone. This does not change that the presence of a helical layer is obvious as it is known to provide durability and strength itself even if a hop layer provides additional strength. As the neck tube is part or connected to the tank it would also receive the same configuration. Further, although a hoop layer may also be beneficial as taught by Daiki, it does not change that the presence of a helical layer as being beneficial to adding strength. The claims only require a showing of obviousness of a spiral configuration which is rendered obvious by Daiki.
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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763