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 Amendment
The amendments filed June 24, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-16 are currently pending.
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 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) 1-5, 7-8, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katter (US 20100037625 A1).
In re Claim 1, Katter discloses a member for magnetic refrigeration ([0106]) comprising:
a tape for magnetic refrigeration (1; See [0097]: tape form) having a heat dissipation sheath (5), and
a magnetic refrigeration material (4) charged inside the heat dissipation sheath (5),
wherein a plurality of spacers (7; See [0054], [0114] and Claim 50) are provided on the surface of the tape for magnetic refrigeration (surface of 7), and
wherein the tape for magnetic refrigeration (1; See [0097]) has a concentric multi-layer structure ([0109]: several of these pancake coils may be stacked together to provide a cylindrical component); and
wherein the concentric multi-layer structure ([0109]) has a concentric circle shape ([0109]: Several of these pancake coils may be stacked together to provide a cylindrical component) in the cross section of the member for magnetic refrigeration (See Fig. 1 and [0109]: when stacked the cross-section would reveal concentric circle shape).
In re Claim 3, Katter discloses wherein the heat dissipation sheath (5) includes one or more kinds consisting of metal ([0089]: made of metal) and high thermal conductive filler ([0042]: material packed into 5).
In re Claim 4, Katter discloses wherein the metal includes one or more kinds selected from the group consisting of Fe ([0089]: made of iron).
In re Claim 5, Katter discloses wherein the high thermal conductive filler (filler of 5; See [0042]) includes aluminum ([0043]: has aluminum).
In re Claim 7, Katter discloses wherein the tape for magnetic refrigeration has a thickness of 0.01 mm to 1 mm ([0099]: 1 mm or less thickness).
In re Claim 8, Katter discloses wherein the magnetic refrigeration material includes one or more kinds selected from the group consisting of a La(Fe,Si)13H-based compound (See [0036]: magnetocalorically active material can be La(Fe,Si)13H).
In re Claim 11, Katter discloses wherein the magnetic refrigeration material is included in the tape for magnetic refrigeration (1) in a multi-core structure (6).
In re Claim 12, Katter discloses wherein when the magnetic refrigeration material is included in the tape for magnetic refrigeration (1) in a multi-core structure (6), and wherein the magnetic refrigeration material of each core is independently different from or identical to each other ([0012] and [0022]).
In re Claim 14, Katter discloses wherein there are a plurality of the spacers (10) provided on part of the surface of the tape for magnetic refrigeration (surface of 1).
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katter (US 20100037625 A1) in view of Kondo (US20180306470A1)
.
In re Claim 6, Katter does not explicitly teach, wherein the polymer includes one or more kinds selected from the group consisting of epoxy resin, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl alcohol, silicone elastomer, polyimide, polystyrene, and polyvinylidene fluoride.
On the other hand, Kondo teaches wherein the polymer ([0046]) includes one or more kinds selected from the group polyethylene ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Katter and to have modified them by the polymer includes polyethylene, in order to improve the heat exchange efficiency (See Kondo [0020]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katter (US 20100037625 A1) in view of Nakamura (US 20200400352 A1).
In re Claim 9, Katter discloses wherein there are the tape for magnetic refrigeration (1), each of which is charged with the magnetic refrigeration material having a different transition temperature (Tc) (See [0033].
However, Katter does not explicitly teach wherein there are a plurality of the tapes for magnetic refrigeration (1), each of which is charged with the magnetic refrigeration material having a different transition temperature (Tc) (See [0033])
On the other hand, Nakamura teaches a plurality of the tapes for magnetic refrigeration (2a-2j) and along more than one section in the axial direction of the member for magnetic refrigeration (Fig. 4-5; See [0012] and [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Katter and to have modified them by having a plurality of the tapes for magnetic refrigeration and the transition temperature along more than one section in the axial direction of the member for magnetic refrigeration as taught by Nakamura, in order to expand the temperature gradient to improve the efficiency of cooling, without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 10, Katter discloses wherein the tape for magnetic refrigeration is charged with the magnetic refrigeration material (1) whose transition temperature (Tc) ([0033]).
However, Katter does not explicitly teach, transition temperature (Tc) continuously varies in the axial direction of the member for magnetic refrigeration.
On the other hand, Nakamura teaches transition temperature (Tc) continuously varies in the axial direction of the member for magnetic refrigeration (Fig. 4-5; See [0012] and [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Katter and to have modified them by having the transition temperature (Tc) of Katter continuously varies in the axial direction of the member for magnetic refrigeration of Katter as taught by Nakamura, in order to expand the temperature gradient to improve the efficiency of cooling, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katter (US 20100037625 A1).
In re Claim 13, Katter does not explicitly teach, wherein the spacer (10) has a height of 0.01 mm to 1 mm.
However, the invention is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the thickness of the tape varies the height of spacers. the thickness of the pipe provides channels enabling the heat exchange medium to flow therein and the thickness of the tape can be varied depending on the cross section area and size of the desired channels (See [0123-0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of modified Katter to have the spacer (10) has a height of 0.01 mm to 1 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katter (US 20100037625 A1) in view of Oezcan (US20190145672A1)
In re Claim 15, Katter teaches the member for magnetic refrigeration of claim 1.
However, Katter does not explicitly teach, a bed for an active magnetocaloric regenerator (AMR).
On the other hand, Oezcan teaches a bed for an active magnetocaloric regenerator (AMR) (1; See [0118-0122])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Katter and to have modified them by having a bed for an active magnetocaloric regenerator as taught by Oezcan, in order to increase the temperature span and efficiency of the cooling of the magnetic refrigeration, without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 16, Modified Katter teaches wherein the AMR bed includes the member for magnetic refrigeration.
However, Modified Katter does not disclose for plurality of members for magnetic refrigeration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of members of magnetic refrigeration (Oezcan 2; See [0118-0122]), since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of June 24, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 5 ¶5-Page 7¶5 of the Remarks, that the examiner has not shown that claims 1 is anticipated by Katter because there is allegedly no basis in the prior art for the “specific concentric multi-layer structure” required by the claims. Applicant appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize from the teaching of Katter that the claimed concentric closed-loops because they are different from Katter's “spiral and stacking arrangements.” Applicant asserts that because Katter does not form separate closed loops, and thus does not possess a concentric structure in its cross section analogous to the cross section of an onion or a bullseye target it fails to teach the claimed structure. This is not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Katter. Contrary to Applicant' s assertion that pancake coils stacked together fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., concentric, nested closed-loop layers in the radial plane of the cross section of the member) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.1 As currently recited, claim 1 requires concentric multi-layer structure has a concentric circle shape, a concentric ellipse shape or a concentric polygon shape in the cross section of the member for magnetic refrigeration, but does not necessarily require concentric, nested closed-loop layers in the radial plane of the cross section of the member. Nonetheless, assuming arguendo, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Katter at least suggests the stacking of spirals which necessarily create a concentric and circular shape when flattened the stacking of internally are visually and metrically indistinguishable such that stacking multiple spiral disks reproduce a multilayer concentric structure. Since spirals are routinely circles in radial segments “multilayer concentric” and “stacked spiral disks,” a person with ordinary skill in the art would consider these disclosures as interchangeable for design and performance. Therefore, Katter anticipates the claimed invention and the rejection is maintained.
On Page 7 ¶6-8 ¶3 of the Remarks, that Katter fails to teach the unexpected and technical effects of the claimed invention. Applicant argues the claimed invention achieves a broadened temperature range for cooling regulation (ATFWHM) without deteriorating the overall relative cooling capacity (RCP). Applicant asserts Katter contains no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion regarding such an improvement in ATFWHM while maintaining RCP, let alone achieving this dual benefit by configuring a heat-dissipation sheath-enclosed tape into a concentric closed-loop structure. This is not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant' s assertion that Katter fails to teach the advantages of the claimed invention, 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).
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 IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Prosecution Insights