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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent publication number 2007/0125094 Iwasaki et al. (hereinafter Iwasaki).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses (figures 1A, 1B, 2A-C) a magnetic refrigerator comprising: a plurality of magnetic working substances 13-16 repeated circumferentially (see figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 12 #1 and 12 #2 for example) arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction; and a magnetic field application unit (21, 22-27, 43)configured to cause a relative movement with respect to the magnetic working substances in the circumferential direction and apply a magnetic field to the magnetic working substances, the magnetic field application unit including a first member (Yoke 43) spaced from the magnetic working substances only on one end side in an axial direction, and a first magnet (22 for example) and a second magnet (23 for example) that are arranged between the first member 43 and the magnetic working substances 13-16 and apply a magnetic field so that a magnetic flux flows in an in-plane direction of the magnetic working substances, the first magnet and the second magnet being configured to move relative to the magnetic working substances in the circumferential direction (see rotation arrow D and 2 connected to 43/21 in figure 1B).
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki further discloses wherein when the magnetic working substance through which the magnetic flux is flowing is viewed in the axial direction, the first magnet and the second magnet are arranged along both sides of the magnetic working substance in the circumferential direction (during rotation, multiple magnets, for example 22 and 23 will both overlap a set slice of magnetic working substances for example 12 (#11, 13-16).
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki further discloses wherein each of the first magnet and the second magnet has a radially outer side wider than a radially inner side thereof (see figures 2A/2B).
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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki discloses claim 1 and further discloses wherein each of the magnetic working substances (12 #1 13-16, 12 #2 13-16) is provided with yokes 41 and 42 arranged along both sides of the magnetic working substance overlapping with the first magnet and the second magnet when viewed in the axial direction (when rotated in the position described in the rejection of claim 3 above, multiple magnets will overlap the outside lateral perimeter edges of a single grouping of magnetic working substances, the Yokes 41 and 42 fully cover the entire face of the magnetic working substances and therefore are overlapping both edges under the two magnets while the magnets are rotated in certain positions. Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose the yokes having a higher magnetic permeability than the magnetic working substance, however the specific materials of both the magnetic working substance and the surrounding housing or yoke and the respective magnetic permeability are both result effective variables that can be optimized for heat exchange provided by the magnetic refrigerator. Examiner further goes on official notice that providing a Yoke of higher permeability is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing in order to allow and direct the magnetic fields in the proper direction and allow magnetic fields to flow through the yoke to complete circuits.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PCT/JP2018/046912 Yamaguchi et al. (hereinafter Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose the refrigeration apparatus further comprising: a heating medium circuit configured to exchange heat with the magnetic refrigerator. This is disclosed by Yamaguchi (paragraph 2, heat exchange medium flows). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize heat exchange medium circuits in order to further flow cooling and/or heating from the conductive plates of Iwasaki to other locations away from the Magnetic refrigerator. The examiner goes on official notice further that AMR refrigeration schemes with magnetic refrigerators are well known in the art (see paragraphs 5-10 of Iwasaki further).
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 Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights