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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8-10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 “an other” should read “another”. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-7, 11-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/26/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “magnetic gaps” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). While there appear to be magnetic gaps in the drawings, as they are not pointed to specifically by the specification or in the drawings it is unclear if they are present. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 8-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “cause a relative movement” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what movement and what is it moving relative to. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the magnetic field application unit has a component that moves relative to the magnetic working substance.
Claim 1 recites “a first core provide closer to one magnetic pole of the magnetic field generator” and “a second core provides closer to an other magnetic pole of the magnetic field generator” which is considered indefinite as the clams have not provided the presence of magnetic poles and as such it is unclear if they are a required part of the invention or only how the first and second core are configured, nor is it clear to what the cores are “closer to” in comparison. Further, applicant’s specification defines the cores both being separate from but also having poles which renders it unclear what is required by the limitation. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that there are at least two magnetic poles present in the invention separate from the cores and the first core is closer to one of the magnetic poles than the second core, and the second core is closer to the other magnetic pole than first core.
Claim 1 recites “arranged at second intervals that are twice or more the first intervals in the first direction” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if this means that the second intervals are in the first direction or if the comparison of the two intervals is the gaps are twice or more than the intervals that exist in the first direction of the plurality of magnetic working substances. For the purpose of examination, the latter configuration is configured to be required. Further the limitation is indefinite as what type of “interval” is required unclear. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood that the physical spacing of the second interval is twice or more the physical spacing of the first interval such that as long as the gaps are all spaced from each other in that way the limitations are met.
Claim 3 recites “the magnetic gap is provided” which is considered indefinite as the claims require “three or more magnetic gaps” which result in the claims being indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that at least one of the gaps is located between the protrusions.
Claim 3 recites “facing the first protrusion” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what is required for the second protrusion to face the first protrusion. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the first protrusion has a face that faces the second protrusion.
Claim 8 recites “the magnetic working substances are disposed at a position with a minimum magnetic resistance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion” which is considered indefinite. First, it is unclear what would be required for a minimum magnetic resistance to be present, and second based on the way the claims are written it is clear that the protrusions do not cover the entirety of the first direction which means that only some of the magnetic working substances would be between the first and second protrusion. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that at least sone of the magnetic working substances are disposed between the first and second protrusion the limitations are met and considered to have minimum magnetic resistance. Claim 9 recites “the magnetic working substances are disposed to face distal ends of the first protrusion and the second protrusion” which is considered indefinite. First it is unclear what is required for the limitations of “to face” to be met and second based on the way the claims are written it is clear that the protrusions do not cover the entirety of the first direction which means that only some of the magnetic working substances would be between the first and second protrusion and could face the protrusions. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that at least some of the magnetic working substances have to have a face are facing faces of the first and second protrusions
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US PG Pub 20170336108), hereinafter referred to as Muller.
With respect to claim 1, Muller teaches a magnetic refrigerator (Figures 4A/4B, 5), comprising:
a plurality of magnetic working substances arranged at predetermined first intervals in a first direction (the plurality of magnetocaloric elements 2, Seen in Figures 4A and 4B arranged at intervals circumferentially on a base structure S1, paragraph 38, an element made of magnetocaloric material would be a magnetic working substance);
and a magnetic field application unit configured to cause a relative movement with respect to the magnetic working substances in the first direction and apply a magnetic field to the magnetic working substances (the combination of SM1, SM2, SM3, and bases 6, 7, 8 of ferromagnetic material paragraph 43 where SM1, SM2 and SM3 are brought into rotation about the longitudinal axis) compared to fixed S1 paragraph 65)
the magnetic field application unit including one magnetic field generator (the three magnetizing structures SM1, SM2, SM3 together provide the magnetic field generator),
a first core provided closer to one magnetic pole of the magnetic field generator (6 which is made of a ferromagnetic material, paragraph 43 is closer to pole P12, paragraph 43 than 8, which as a ferromagnetic material would be a magnetic core as it is a magnetic material that guides a magnetic field, a seen in Figure 5 as it guides the magnetic flux B, paragraph 45), and a second core provided closer to another magnetic pole of the magnetic field generator (8 is closer to pole P32, paragraph 43, than 6, 8 can be seen in Figure 5 to perform the same function at 6 of guiding the magnetic flux), and three or more magnetic gaps being provided between the first core and the second core and (as seen in annotated Figure 5, at least four gaps exist, two formed in the top part of annotated Figure 5, the first two between 6 and 7 in the space between P11 and P21, and in the space between P12 and P22 and the third and fourth between 7 and 8 where the spacing is shown present between P23 and P31, and between P24 and P32, all formed in the gaps with the magnetocaloric element, see annotated Figure 5, which would be where magnetic gaps are formed as there is no magnetic material present).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Muller does not teach the three or more magnetic gaps are arranged at second intervals that are twice or more the first intervals in the first direction. It should be noted, that based on the drawings it does appear that the spacing of the gaps axially is significantly larger than the radial spacing of the magnetocaloric elements; however, this is not discussed explicitly in the prior art. It can also be noted that Muller is designed for a device to have reduced space requirements (paragraph 84).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the magnetic gaps of Muller to have been arranged at second intervals that are twice or more the first intervals in the first direction since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Muller would not operate differently with the claimed spacing since the spacing is based on the structural configuration and sizing of the respective components and the device would function appropriately with the claimed spacing. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing is “twice or more”. Thus, the spacing between each gap to another is obvious to be at least twice of the circumferential spacing of the magnetocaloric elements.
With respect to claim 2, Muller teaches wherein the relative movement is a relative rotational movement about a predetermined axis, and the first direction is a circumferentially direction (the relative movement is rotational relative movement about the longitudinal axis, and the first direction for the intervals is circumferential as shown in claim 1).
With respect to claim 3, Muller teaches wherein the magnetic field generator is configured to generate a magnetic field in an axial direction (as seen in Figure 5, the magnetic flux B extends axially through the structure, paragraph 45), the first core includes a first protrusion extending in a radial direction (one of the two protrusion extending from the center of 6, see annotated Figure 4), the second core includes a second protrusion extending in the radial direction and facing the first protrusion (the parallel protrusion from the center of 8, which can has a face that faces 6), and the magnetic gap is provided between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (the gaps are formed in the space between 6 and 8 and specifically between the protrusions as shown in Figures 4A and 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4A
With respect to claim 8, Muller teaches wherein the magnetic working substances are disposed at a position with a minimum magnetic resistance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (there is no component provided to cause magnetic resistance so the limitation is met as best understood).
With respect to claim 9, Muller as modified teaches wherein the magnetic working substances are disposed to face distal ends of the first protrusion and the second protrusion (the top and the bottom of some of the magnetocaloric elements along the vertical axis of Figure 4A face the protrusions respectively at the end of said protrusions).
With respect to claim 10, Muller as modified teaches a refrigeration apparatus including the magnetic refrigerator of claim 1, the refrigeration apparatus further comprising:
a heating medium circuit configure to exchange heat with the magnetic refrigerator (a heat transfer fluid not shown in the figures can be provide through the magnetocaloric elements to perform heat exchange with the environment or an external application, paragraph 38m which would make the device of the figures part of an overall refrigeration apparatus).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schroeder (US PG Pub 20190346186) which teaches a radially configured magnet and thermal structure for a magneto-caloric system that can be used as a refrigerator (paragraph 6, Figures 3-8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights