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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-16 & 18-19 are pending in the application. Claim 19 is withdrawn. Claims 8 & 17 are cancelled.
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 1-7, 9-16 & 18 are 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.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “the insert is made from an insert material having at least one of an insert thermal conductivity coefficient below a thermal conductivity threshold or an insert thermal expansion coefficient below a thermal expansion coefficient threshold”, in Lines 17-20, is indefinite. Both of a thermal conductivity threshold and a thermal expansion coefficient threshold were previously defined in Lines 13-15. It is not clear if the two thresholds defined in Lines 17-20 are the same thresholds defined in Lines 13-15, or if the thresholds are different from each other. It does not appear the original disclosure has support for determining whether the thresholds are the same or different. The specification only describes there are thresholds, but never compares the thresholds. As such, it is not clear how to interpret the respective thresholds.
The limitation “the one or more displacer rings and the insert direct a gas the displacer”, in Lines 20-21, should read --the one or more displacer rings and the insert direct a gas through the displacer.
As to Claim 10, the limitation “the insert is made from an insert material having at least one of an insert thermal conductivity coefficient below a thermal conductivity threshold or an insert thermal expansion coefficient below a thermal expansion coefficient threshold”, in Lines 21-24, is indefinite. Both of a thermal conductivity threshold and a thermal expansion coefficient threshold were previously defined in Lines 18-19. It is not clear if the two thresholds defined in Lines 21-24 are the same thresholds defined in Lines 18-19, or if the thresholds are different from each other. It does not appear the original disclosure has support for determining whether the thresholds are the same or different. The specification only describes there are thresholds, but never compares the thresholds. As such, it is not clear how to interpret the respective thresholds.
The limitation “the one or more displacer rings and the insert direct a gas the displacer”, in Lines 24-25, should read --the one or more displacer rings and the insert direct a gas through the displacer.
The phrase “the one or more bushing”, in Line 26, should read --the one or more bushings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections for Claims 1 & 10, the amendments to the claims did not overcome the previous rejections, as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights