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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters: - "19", “32” and “36” have all been used to designate microholes . -“23”, “24”, “25” have all been used to designate expansion valve. -“26”, “27” and “28” have all been used to designate path. -“41”, “42”, “43” and “44” have all been used to designate temperature sensor. 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. 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: -Examiner recommends removal of all reference characters in 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). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: -[0025] recites “Th refrigerator control circuit” should possibly read –The refrigerator control circuit— Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: -Claim 4 recites “control valve whose degree of opening is controlled, ” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –control valve with a degree of opening , wherein the degree of opening is controlled — Appropriate correction is required. 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 5 recites “ a control device ” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to control the degree of opening of the control valve . According to the specification the control device includes the refrigerator control circuit [ 0025 ] and equivalents thereof. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is 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 5 recites “the degree of opening” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. -Claim 5 recites “the control valve” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 , 3 , 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherbeck (U.S. 20160238265). Regarding Claim 1, Sherbeck teaches a magnetic field generating apparatus [0044]—generates an electromagnetic field when energized, comprising: a compressor [Fig. 1, element 110] , a condenser [Fig. 1, element 120] , an expansion valve [Fig. 1, element 1 6 0] , and an evaporator [Fig. 1, element 130] , which are connected in such a manner as to circulate a cooling fluid therethrough [0021; “During energy consumption…may direct the refrigerant to evaporator coil 130.”], wherein the evaporator includes a coil formed by being wound into a solenoid [0021]—reference to evaporator coil , the coil having a plurality of through-holes where the cooling fluid flows [Fig. 1, element 155] and [0025]—TES and evaporator coil forming a thermosyphon , the coil is connected to a resonant circuit including a capacitor that causes the coil to resonate, and the coil and the capacitor are cooled with the cooling fluid [0062]—reference to Farad capacitor used for frequency of actuation and actuation force . Regarding Claim 3, Sherbeck teaches comprising a circulation circuit configured to be capable of passing the cooling fluid through cooling parts of the coil and the capacitor in parallel [0026]—describes the thermosyphon configuration with circulation of the refrigerant without a mechanical pump and [0062]—describes the coils powered by a transformer with a capacitor . Regarding Claim 4, Sherbeck teaches wherein a path for passing the cooling fluid through the capacitor is provided with a control valve whose degree of opening is controlled, independently of the expansion valve [0027]—reference to a throttle valve that is used to control the rate of circulation of refrigerant 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. Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherbeck (U.S. 20160238265) in view of Marchitto (U.S. 20110077451). Regarding Claim 2, Sherbeck is silent on wherein a hydrofluorocarbon-based refrigerant, a hydrofluoroolefin -based refrigerant, a single refrigerant of carbon dioxide, or a mixed refrigerant thereof is used as the cooling fluid. Marchitto teaches wherein a hydrofluorocarbon-based refrigerant, a hydrofluoroolefin -based refrigerant, a single refrigerant of carbon dioxide [0059]—reference to the use of gas such as carbon dioxide used for the purpose of cooling , or a mixed refrigerant thereof is used as the cooling fluid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use carbon dioxide as a means of cooling fluid as taught by Marchitto to cool the magnetic field generating device as suggested by Sherbeck as Sherbeck discusses the need to develop a cooling system that is easily added, cost effective and scalable [0003] with Marchitto because Marchitto teaches the need for the fluid to maintain an ambient temperature [00 59 ]. Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherbeck (U.S. 20160238265) in view of Garside (U.S. 20150196221). Regarding Claim 5, Sherbeck is silent on comprising a control device configured to control the degree of opening of the control valve in such a manner that the capacitor is at a predetermined temperature. Garside teaches comprising a control device configured to control the degree of opening of the control valve in such a manner that the capacitor is at a predetermined temperature [0122]—describes a rotary valve being controlled by the system controller also shown in Fig. 3 step 202 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a valve to control the temperature via a valve mechanism and controller as taught by Garside to control the temperature of the refrigerant as suggested by Sherbeck as Sherbeck discusses the decreases and increases of the refrigerant in the cooling cool [0023] with Garside because Garside teaches the use of thermal links to cool the apparatus when necessary [0 159 ]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. -Cline (U.S. 5490398)- includes heating and cooling system for a generator chamber - Popielarski (U.S. 20210236328)- references a fluid circulation means to control temperature of the system - Owada (JP2003139460)- describes a cooling system containing an electromagnetic coil with a compressor, condenser, expansion valve and evaporator. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5583 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Marmor II can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4730 . 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. /B.N.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791