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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/02/2026. Claims 44-47, 49-52, 54, 56-60 and 64-69 are pending while claims 1-43, 48, 53, 55 and 61-63 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, second paragraph, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims 44-67 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, last paragraph and page 14, first paragraph, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 44, 51 and 58 under 102 or 103, over Harper or Light have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cory, as described in detail below.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the applicant’s argument regarding the interpretation of the limitation “liquid cryogen atomizing nozzle, page 14, second paragraph, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harper explicitly teaches delivering liquid cryogen via openings in the main header (112a, FIG. 1) in a spraying manner (par 0013). Since the upper end of the conduit which delivers liquid cryogen sprays said liquid (par 0036), it inherently comprises an atomizing nozzle as it comprises openings which break down the liquid into misting, spraying particles.
In reference to the applicant’s argument regarding the interpretation of the limitation “freezing system”, page 14, third paragraph, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that both Harper and Light disclose a cryogen system inherently associates the cryogen-filled tanks with systems used to keep temperature below freezing; the phase state of the cryogen used in both Harper and Light is meaningless in context.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 44, 45, 51 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0134693 to Harper et al. (Harper) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0023822 to Corey (Corey).
In reference to claim 44, Harper teaches a cryogenic freezer system (FIG. 1-3) comprising a liquid cryogen supply system comprising a supply of liquid cryogen (from 114, FIG. 1; par 0035); and a freezer supply control valve (114, FIG. 1); a freezer (100, FIG. 1) comprising an inner vessel (102, FIG. 1) defining a storage space (104, FIG. 1) and a vapor space (above 150, FIG. 1; par 0034); an outer shell (106, FIG. 1) that surrounds and is separated from the inner vessel to define an insulation space (109, FIG. 1) between the outer shell (106, FIG. 1) and the inner vessel (102, FIG. 1); and a liquid cryogen atomizing nozzle (112a, FIG. 1) positioned within the vapor space and configured to receive a flow of liquid cryogen (from 112, FIG. 1) from the freezer supply control valve (114, FIG. 1) to produce a flow of atomized liquid cryogen that vaporizes within and cools the vapor space (par 0013 and 0036); but does not teach a temperature sensor within the vapor space, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to generate a vapor space temperature signal base on a current temperature of the vapor space and a controller configured to generate an output command to cause the freezer supply control valve to open and close based on the vapor space temperature signal received from the vapor space temperature sensor. Corey teaches a dual mode ultralow cryogenic temperature storage device (FIG. 1) comprising a temperature sensor (7, FIG. 1) within the vapor space (ullage of 2, FIG. 1), wherein the temperature sensor is configured to generate a vapor space temperature signal base on a current temperature of the vapor space (par 0021, last three sentences) and a controller (111, FIG. 1) configured to generate an output command to cause the freezer supply control valve (9, FIG. 1) to open and close based on the vapor space temperature signal received from the vapor space temperature sensor (par 0022, last sentence and par 0023) in order to precisely control the cooling to minimize damage to living cells as they form internal ices within the storage (par 0020, last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harper, to add a temperature sensor within the vapor space, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to generate a vapor space temperature signal base on a current temperature of the vapor space and a controller configured to generate an output command to cause the freezer supply control valve to open and close based on the vapor space temperature signal received from the vapor space temperature sensor, as taught by Corey, in order to precisely control the cooling to minimize damage to living cells as they form internal ices within the storage.
In reference to claim 45, Harper and Corey teach the freezer system as explained in the rejection of claim 44 above, and Harper additionally teaches a bottom fill control valve (116, FIG. 1) configured to operatively control the flow of liquid cryogen to a bottom portion of the inner vessel (at 150, FIG. 1).
In reference to claim 51, said claim claims the same limitations as claimed in claim 44; thus, said claim 51 is rejected in the same manner as claim 44, as described in detail above.
In reference to claims 58, it claims the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claim 44, thus, it is rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 44 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 46, 47, 50, 54, 56, 57, 60 and 64-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Corey, as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0160530 to Light et al. (Light).
In reference to claim 46, Harper and Corey disclose the freezer systems as explained in the rejection of claim 45, but does not teach wherein the bottom fill control valve is disposed in parallel with the freezer supply control valve. Light shows a method for supplying liquid cryogen to multiple cryogen storage vessels installed at different locations (FIG. 11) wherein the bottom fill control valve (bottom valve in FIG. 11) is disposed in parallel with the freezer supply control valve (left valve in FIG. 11) in order to minimize or prevent the addition of heat and conserve the cold of the cryogenic liquid (par 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harper and Corey, to include the bottom fill control valve disposed in parallel with the freezer supply control valve, as taught by Light, in order to minimize or prevent the addition of heat and conserve the cold of the cryogenic liquid.
In reference to claim 47, Harper and Corey teach the freezer system as explained in the rejection of claim 45 above, but they do not teach wherein the freezer further comprises a liquid level sensor configured to generate a liquid level signal based on a level of the liquid cryogen in the inner vessel, and wherein the controller is configured to generate an output command to cause the bottom fill control valve to open and close based on the liquid level signal received from the liquid level sensor. Light teaches a method for supplying liquid cryogen to multiple cryogen storage vessels installed at different locations (FIG. 11) comprising a liquid level sensor configured to generate a liquid level signal based on a level of the liquid cryogen in the inner vessel, and wherein the controller is configured to generate an output command to cause the bottom fill control valve to open and close based on the liquid level signal received from the liquid level sensor (par 0212, 0270 and 0278) in order to provide cryogen delivery safer and faster by reducing tasks for the driver (par 0212).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harper and Corey, to include a liquid level sensor configured to generate a liquid level signal based on a level of the liquid cryogen in the inner vessel, and wherein the controller is configured to generate an output command to cause the bottom fill control valve to open and close based on the liquid level signal received from the liquid level sensor, as taught by Light, in order to provide cryogen delivery safer and faster by reducing tasks for the driver.
In reference to claim 50, Harper and Corey disclose the freezer system as explained in the rejection of claim 44 above, but do not teach a second freezer, comprising the same features as the freezer, as claimed above. Light teaches a method for supplying liquid cryogen to multiple cryogen storage vessels installed at different locations (FIG. 11) comprising a second freezer (par 0074) in order to increase the capacity of the system at different locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harper and Corey, to include a second freezer, comprising the same features as the freezer, as claimed above, as taught by Light, in order to increase the capacity of the system at different locations.
In reference to claims 54, 56 and 57, said claims claim the same limitations as claimed in claims 46, 47 and 50; thus, said claims 54, 56 and 57 are rejected in the same manner as claims 46, 47 and 50, as described in detail above.
In reference to claim 60, it claims the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claim 47, thus, it is rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 47 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
In reference to claims 64-69, said claims claim the same limitations as claimed in claim 50; thus, said claims 64-69 are rejected in the same manner as claim 50, as described in detail above.
Claim(s) 49, 52 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Corey, as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,390,646 to Swenson (Swenson).
In reference to claim 49, Harper and Corey teach the freezer system as explained in the rejection of claim 44 above, and Harper additionally teaches a gas bypass control valve (120, FIG. 1) configured to vent warm gas to an atmosphere (134, FIG. 1) upstream from the freezer supply control valve (114, FIG. 1), but they do not teach a gas bypass temperature sensor in fluid communication with the supply of liquid cryogen, wherein the gas bypass temperature sensor is configured to generate a gas bypass temperature signal based on a gas bypass temperature of the supply liquid cryogen; wherein the controller is configured to generate an output command to cause the gas bypass control valve to open and close based on the gas bypass temperature sensor signal received from the gas bypass temperature sensor. Swenson teaches a second stage intercooling with phase change heat transfer fluid (FIG. 1) comprising a gas bypass temperature sensor (51, 52, FIG. 1) in fluid communication with the supply of liquid cryogen (interpreted as delivered air temperature; col 3, lines 45-50), wherein the gas bypass temperature sensor is configured to generate a gas bypass temperature signal based on a gas bypass temperature of the supply liquid cryogen (col 3, lines 45-62); wherein the controller (within valve 48, FIG. 1) is configured to generate an output command to cause the gas bypass control valve (48, FIG. 1) to open and close based on the gas bypass temperature sensor signal received from the gas bypass temperature sensor (col 3, lines 52-58) in order to facilitate further work done by the refrigerant, downstream (col 3, lines 58-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Harper and Corey, to include a gas bypass temperature sensor in fluid communication with the supply of liquid cryogen, wherein the gas bypass temperature sensor is configured to generate a gas bypass temperature signal based on a gas bypass temperature of the supply liquid cryogen; wherein the controller is configured to generate an output command to cause the gas bypass control valve to open and close based on the gas bypass temperature sensor signal received from the gas bypass temperature sensor, as taught by Swenson, in order to facilitate further work done by the refrigerant, downstream.
In reference to claim 52, said claim claims the same limitations as claimed in claim 49; thus, said claim 52 is rejected in the same manner as claim 49, as described in detail above.
In reference to claim 59, it claims the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claim 49, thus, it is rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 49 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
2/19/2026
Prosecution Insights