DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 22 June 2026 in response to the non-final Office action mailed 19 March 2026, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claims 1-6, 8-9 and12-23 are pending, wherein: claims 1-6, 8-9 and 12-13 have been amended, claims 14-19 are as originally filed, claims 20-23 are new, and claims 7 and 10-11 have been cancelled by this and/or prior amendment(s).
Applicant’s specification amendments have been fully considered by the Examiner and have been accepted.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 22 June 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Nos 18/584152 and 19/320798 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 May 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 19 March 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 22 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is indefinite as it is not clear what is meant by “includes a gel” (includes a gel phase, is in the form of a gel, is suspended in a gel, the alginate is in the form of a gel, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-6, 8, 11-13, 15-17, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagimi et al. (US PGPub 2004/0013593) in view of Nath (US 3,878,119).
Regarding claims 1-2, Takagimi teaches rare earth metal oxysulfide materials of general formula R2O2S, where R denotes one or more rare earth elements selected from La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu and Y (abstract; [0008]). Takagimi teaches the rare earth metal oxysulfide materials are suitable for use as regenerative materials (instant cold storage materials) ([0001]) for refrigerators, superconducting magnets, sensors, MRI machines, etc. ([0002]-[0003]; [0020]). Takagimi further teaches the rare earth metal oxysulfide materials have a maximum volume specific heat occurring in the range of 2 to 7 K ([0011]) and demonstrates values greater than 0.5 J/cm3K (see Figures). Takagimi further teaches the regenerative materials may be granulated ([0011]; [0023]) to obtain preferably spherical granules having an aspect ratio of 3 or less, preferably of 1 ([0011]; [0023]), and a mean particle size in the range of 0.05 to 1 mm ([0011]; [0024]).
Takagimi teaches the rare earth metal oxysulfide materials may further contain 0.05-30 wt% of additives including oxides, carbides or nitrides of alkaline-earth metals, transition metals, and group 3b and 4b elements ([0012]). Takagimi teaches the inclusion of additive materials for toughening of the regenerative material but does not specifically teach inclusion of a first group element (alkali metals (claim 1)) of Li, Na or K (claim 2). However, Nath teaches similar rare earth oxysulfide materials of general formula Ln(2-x)Ln’xO2S, were Ln and Ln’ are rare earth elements, and teaches it is advantageous to include alkali metal ions in combination with oxides (abstract; col 1 ln 55-60; col 2 ln 49-52; col 3 ln 32-60) as a fluxing and recrystallization agent in the preparation of rare earth oxysulfide materials for the purpose of obtaining uniform crystal growth and particle size (col 1 ln 50-65; col 3-col 4). Nath further teaches the alkali metal ions are selected from lithium, sodium and potassium, and teaches the amount of fluxing medium is from 0.1 wt% up to 7 wt% with respect to the wt% of the rare earth oxysulfide (col 3 ln 1-12) at a ratio of alkali metal ion to oxide of from 0.5 to 1 (col 1 ln 66 to col 2 ln 2) (instant 0.001 atom% or more and 10 atom% or less). Nath and Takagimi are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely rare-earth oxysulfide materials having additive components. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the alkali metal ions as taught by Nath in the materials of Takagimi and would have been motivated to do so as Takigimi invites the inclusion of toughening additives including oxides and further as Nath teaches alkali metal ions with oxides in the manufacture of rare-earth oxysulfide materials will advantageously result in uniform crystal growth and particle sizes.
Regarding claims 3-5, Takagimi in view of Nath renders obvious the regenerative materials as set forth above. As noted, Takagimi teaches the rare earth metal oxysulfide materials may further contain 0.05-30 wt% of additives (instant 0 atom% or more and 10 atom% or less (claim 3); instant 0.001 atom% or more and 10 atom% or less (claim 4)) including oxides, carbides or nitrides of alkaline-earth metals (instant second group elements), transition metals, and group 3b and 4b elements ([0012]; [0068]-[0072]). Takagimi teaches the alkaline-earth metals include Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba ([0014]; [0070]).
Regarding claim 6, Takagimi in view of Nath renders obvious the regenerative materials as set forth above. As noted, Takagimi teaches the rare earth metal oxysulfide materials may further contain 0.05-30 wt% of additives (instant 0.01 atom% or more and 20 atom% or less) including oxides, carbides or nitrides of alkaline-earth metals (instant second group elements), transition metals, and group 3b and 4b elements ([0012]; [0068]-[0072]). Takagimi teaches the transition metals, group 3b and group 4b tougheners preferably include compounds of aluminum, boron, zirconium, etc. ([0013]; [0015]; [0070]).
Regarding claims 11-13, 15-17 and 19, Takagimi in view of Nath renders obvious the regenerative materials as set forth above. Takagimi further teaches use of the regenerative materials in superconducting magnets and sensors, refrigerators, MRI machines, cooling utilizing compression and liquifying of He gas, etc. ([0001]-[0003]) (instant cold storage device (claim 12); instant refrigerator (claim 13); instant superconducting magnet (claim 15); instant MRI apparatus (claims 16-17); instant helium re-condenser (claim 19)). Takagimi further teaches use of plural types ([0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 23, Takagimi in view of Nath renders obvious the regenerative materials as set forth above. As taught by Nath, the addition of the vitreous flux materials forms a glassy coating on the oxysulfide phosphor crystal particles (col 4) which meets the instant claim recitations, at least, of at a crystal grain boundary, crystal grains other than, etc.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagimi et al. (US PGPub 2004/0013593) in view of Nath (US 3,878,119) as set forth in claim 13 above and further in view of Yamada et al (US PGPub 2017/0275176).
Takagimi in view of Nath renders obvious the regenerative materials as set forth in claim 1 above and further render obvious the apparatuses utilizing such materials as set forth in claims 11 and 13 above. Takagimi does not specifically teach a cryopump (claim 14) or a single crystal pulling apparatus (claim 18). However, Yamada teaches that rare earth oxysulfide regenerative materials are known to be suitable for use in cryopumps and single crystal pulling up apparatuses in magnetic field applications ([0002]; [0013]) in addition to the apparatuses including NMRs, MRIs, small size refrigarators, superconductive magnets, etc. as similarly taught by Takagimi (see [0001]-[0003]). Yamada and Takagimi are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely devise/apparatuses utilizing rare-earth oxysulfides as regenerative/cooling material. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to manufacture the devices of Yamada using the regenerative materials of Takagimi and would have been motivated to do so as Takagimi teaches common small refrigerator type apparatuses utilizing the materials and further as Yamada teaches cryopumps and single crystal pulling up apparatuses are also well-known small refrigeration apparatuses utilizing rare earth oxysulfide materials as regenerative refrigeration materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20-21 allowed over the cited arts of record.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The specification objection is withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed specification amendments correcting the typographical error previously noted.
The objections to claims 1-5 and 9-10 are withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 as anticipated by Nath (US 3,878,119) is withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-8, 11-13, 15-17 and 19 as unpatentable over Takagimi (US PGPub 2004/0013593) in view of Nath (US 3,878,119) and of claims 14 and 18 as unpatentable over Takagimi in view of Nath and further in view of Yamada (US PGPub 2017/0275176) are maintained. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 10-12) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that combining Nath with Takagimi would render the product of Takagimi unsuitable for its intended purpose. Applicant argues that the particles of Nath are too small and ‘far below’ the minimum particle size required by Takagimi. The Examiner notes that the particle sizes discussed by Nath are i) after the product has been ground and ii) sieved with a 400 mesh (col 5), which is indicative of larger particle sizes being formed. Nath further teaches growth is compared on the basis of 1 wt% sintering media being used for testing, which is not an amount Nath is limited to nor is such a teaching by Nath that particle sizes are restricted (col 3 ln 60-63). Further, the primary reference of Takagimi teaches the mean particle sizes of the regenerative materials, including those having further additives present therein, will be in the range of 0.05 to 1 mm ([0011]; [0024]) upon being physically granulated ([0011]; [0023]; i.e. particles are granulated to a selected size). Addition of the flux materials of Nath into the regenerative materials of Takagimi, which are then granulated to the specifications of Takagimi, does not result in Takagimi being unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Applicant argues that the combination of Takagimi and Nath would not arrive at the composition claimed, specifically would not result in (1) a Group 1 element of 0.001 or more and 10 atom% or less and (2) a particle size of 50 µm or more and 3 mm or less. Takagimi in view of Nath renders obvious both of (1) and (2) as set forth in the above maintained rejection. Applicant’s (2) argument has been addressed above and again it is noted that the particle size limitation is met by the primary reference of Takagimi. Applicant provides no specific argument in support of the allegation of (1). As noted, Takagimi invites 0.05 to 30 wt% additives ([0012]) and Nath teaches 0.1 up to 7 wt% of flux with respect to the wt% of rare earth oxysulfide at a ratio of alkali metal ion to oxide of from 0.5 to 1 (col1-2; see above rejection). Applicant further asserts that the combination of Takagimi and Nath would not result in the claimed property of a volume specific heat of 0.5 J/(cm3·K) or more in the temperature range of 2 K to 10 K. This property limitation was met by the primary reference of Takagimi as noted in the above maintained rejection. Applicant provides no evidence that the property taught by Takagimi would not occur.
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections of the instant claims over those of copending Application Nos. 18/584152 and 19/320798 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s properly filed and accepted terminal disclaimer (see above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights