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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/15/2026 has been entered.
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 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 “each outer layer” and “each inner layer” being formed of fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with resin as part of the bottomed cylindrical container but the claims have already required the inner container to be formed of the fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with resin which renders the metes and bounds of the claims unclear as the claims appear to restate limitations present. For the purpose of examination, the layers being formed of the fiber reinforced plastics as claimed is considered to be understood to only repeat the limitations previously recited and only the specific fiber types for the layers is considered limiting.
Claim 1 refers to three components have an and outer layer and then interchangeably uses the phrases “each outer layer” and “the outer layer” which is considered indefinite as it unclear if this is require of each outer layer or only some of the things are required as such. For the purpose of examination, the glass or alumina fibers are understood to be present in each outer layer.
Claim 1 refers to three components have an and inner layer and then interchangeably uses the phrases “each inner layer” and “the inner layer” which is considered indefinite as it unclear if this is require of each outer layer or only some of the things are required as such. For the purpose of examination, the alumina fibers are understood to be present in each inner layer.
Claim 5 recites specifics about the types of fibers the resin is impregnated with including limitations that are already present in claim 1, with the only further limiting limitation being that the fibers can include carbon fiber which renders the limitations indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood only to further limit the claims that the fibers could include but are not required to also include carbon fiber.
Claim 7 recites “the refrigerant stored in the bottomed cylindrical container” which is considered indefinite as the claims do not require any refrigerant stored or any refrigerant actually being present in the invention, but only what the container is configure to do. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the squid device is configured to be able to be stored in refrigerant that the bottomed cylindrical container is capable of storing.
Claim 11 recites “the refrigerant stored in the housing portion of the cylindrical container” which is considered indefinite as the claims do not require any refrigerant stored or any refrigerant actually being present in the invention, but only what the container is configure to do. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the squid device is configured to be able to be in the refrigerant that the second container is capable of storing.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-11 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, 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 Ochiai et al. (US PG Pub 20210246307), hereinafter referred to as Ochiai.
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 126, 122, 128 and outer vessel can be formed of glass-fiber reinforced plastic cylinders made of epoxy, paragraph 31)
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 bottomed cylindrical container and configured to inject a refrigerant into the bottomed 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),
the bottomed cylindrical container having an upper face, a cylindrical portion, and a bottom face (as seen the figure, the main tank 122 has a bottom face attached to 128, and upper face attached to 126 and has the center cylindrical portion),
the upper face, the cylindrical portion, and the bottom face each having a two-layer structure of an inner layer and an outer layer (the inner layer can be formed of two plastic cylinders of the base which can be boxed within another, paragraph 31, which means there would be two of the overall structure of 120 nested within itself, and thus an inner layer and an outer layer)
each outer layer formed of fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with resin, the fibers of the outer layer being formed of glass fibers (the inner vessel can be formed of epoxy reinforced fibers, paragraph 31),
each inner layer being formed of fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with resin (the inner vessel can be formed wholly of glass fiber reinforced epoxy, paragraph 31).
Erne does not teach in which fibers constituting the refrigerant injection pipe are wound in a spiral manner at an angle of 50 to 70 degrees relative 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 vessel 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.
Further, 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 50 to 70 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).
Erne does not teach the fibers of the inner layer are formed from alumina fibers.
Ochiai teaches that when creating a container (paragraph 66) the resin can be blended with different fibers including glass fibers or alumina fibers (paragraph 46).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of using glass fibers in the inner layer (inner cylindrical container of the two that form the overall inner vessel) of Erne as modified to have been alumina instead of glass based on the teaching of Ochiai since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known fibers that can be used with resin to form containers and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution with the reasonably predictable result of providing a fiber reinforced epoxy container capable of providing the necessary structure for the fiber reinforced plastic inner vessel of Erne.
With respect to claim 5, Erne as modified teaches wherein the bottomed cylindrical container is formed of fiber reinforced plastics in which fibers are impregnated with the resin, the fibers formed of at last one type of fiber selected from a group including glass fiber and alumina fiber (as modified the fibers are formed of glass and alumina fiber in the layers of the inner container).
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 bottomed cylindrical container while being dipped in a refrigerant stored in the bottomed cylindrical container (112 is within the liquid helium in the finger, which can be considered the cylindrical container instead of 122, 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 128 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 glass fiber reinforced epoxy as well as the inner vessel is wholly formed of glass reinforced epoxy, paragraphs 31 and 39).
With respect to claim 9, Erne as modified teaches wherein the fibers constituting the second cylindrical container are formed of glass fiber (the inner container is wholly formed of epoxy reinforced fibers that include glass fibers, paragraphs 31 and 39, which 128).
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 the 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/Ochiai 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 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the amendments overcame the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and the drawing objection, they have also resulted in new rejections under 35 USC 112 as provided above.
Applicant argues that the features of the amened claim are to “achieve the technical effects of slowing heat conduction from the outside of the container to the entire inner container via the refrigerant injection pipe and suppressing evaporation of a refrigerant” and “Erne does not describe any content evaporation of refrigerant caused by heat conduction from outside to the entire inner vessel via the refrigerant pipe, or any structure of the refrigerant injection pipe”. This is not persuasive.
First, the neck tube of Erne can be considered a refrigerant injection pipe, which is not addressed in the arguments, which neck tube is part of the overall inner vessel of Erne . Further, in response to applicant's argument that the invention is focused on preventing evaporation caused by heat conduction, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the case above, as it has been shown that the invention is obvious, that the inventor recognized that doing so would result in reduction in conduction does not change that it would have been obvious to have constructed applicant’s invention as such.
Applicant further argues that Erne does not teach a two-layer structure, the fibers of the outer layer formed of glass fibers or alumina fibers, the fibers of the inner layer are formed of alumina fibers. This is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument above, does not take into account the full teachings of Erne, except for the lack of a teaching of alumina fibers. While it is agreed that Erne does not teach the presence of alumina fibers in a resin, Erne does teach (paragraph 31) that the inner vessel can be formed of two or more plastic cylinders made of glass reinforced epoxy boxed in one another such that the inner vessel would thus be at least two layers of glass reinforced epoxy, and outer layer and an inner layer. Due to the amended limitation, the additional reference provided above of Ochiai shows that when using fibers with resin, many different types of fibers are known including both glass and alumina fiber, and as such, for the inner layer of Erne it would have been obvious to have used alumina fibers instead of glass fibers.
Applicant’s remaining argument are moot as Daiki and the rest of the presented prior art is not relied upon for the amended limitations.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights