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 .
The claims received 3/23/2026 are entered. Claim 14 is new.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites “an extremely low temperature”. Claim 14 recites that the extremely low temperature is 30 K or less. The specification describes “cryogenic temperature” as being 30K or less. It is thus understood that the extremely low temperature of claim 6 is 30 K or less.
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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (US 9,556,374), in view of Tokai et al (US 6,022,486), and in further view of Yamashita et al (US 2020/0087558).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses a magnetic cold storage material particle composed of an intermetallic compound containing a rare earth element and at least one metal element (4:33-48), wherein an area percentage of voids present in a cross-section of the magnetic cold storage material particle is 0.0001% or more and 15% or less (5:48-6:35; the example of figure 2 is taken as simplicity with a hole shaped depression thus the area ratio of the void is
A
r
e
a
o
f
h
o
l
e
s
h
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
o
f
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
a
l
p
a
r
t
i
c
a
l
or
1
4
π
R
2
π
D
2
w
h
e
r
e
R
i
s
1
10
D
t
o
1
3
D
which yields 0.0025 to 0.0277 or 0.25% to 2.7%) .
Yamada lacks the ratio RMz. Tokai discloses a magnetic cold storage material particle composed of an intermetallic compound containing a rare earth element represented by RMz, wherein: R is at least one rare earth element selected from Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm ,and Yb; M is at least one metal element selected from Ni, Co, Cu, Ag, Ga, Bi, Si, Al, and Ru; and z is number in a range from 0.001 to 9.0 (2:55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yamada with the composition as taught by Tokai in order to realize a great specific heat at extremely low temperatures (1:13-15).
Yamada lacks “the cross-section being a particle-cross section having an equivalent circle diameter of +/- 10% of the median value of a particle size distribution of the magnetic cold storage material” rather the voids of Yamada are on the surface. Yamashita discloses a magnetic cold storage material particle composed of an intermetallic compound containing a rare earth element and at least one metal element ([0003]), wherein an area percentage of voids existing in the magnetic cold storage material particle, present in a cross-section of the magnetic cold storage material particle is 0.0001% or more and 15% or less ([0091]), the cross-section being a particle-cross section having an equivalent circle diameter of +/- 10% of the median value of a particle size distribution of the magnetic cold storage material (the voids are within the near center of the particle as the porosity is throughout the particle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yamada with an area percentage void at +/-10% of the equivalent circle diameter (in other words near the center of the particle) of less than 15% in order to have a high heat regenerating function ([0091]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses the magnetic cold storage material particle is a grain with a particle size of 50 μm or more and 3 mm or less (3:5).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses an aspect ratio is in a range from 1 to 5 (5:24-25).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada discloses a cold storage device including a plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles represented by the RMz, wherein the magnetic cold storage material particle according to claim 1 occupies 70% or more of the plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles represented by the RMz and included in the cold storage device (6:56).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada discloses, when a peripheral length of a projected image of the plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles is defined as L; and an actual area of the projected image is defined as A; and a circularity R is defined as 4πA/L2, a proportion of magnetic cold storage material particles with a circularity R of 0.4 or less is 15% or less (Yamada describes the particles as spherical and have a circularity of greater than 0.4).
Claim(s) 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (US 9,556,374), in view of Tokai et al (US 6,022,486), in view of Yamashita et al (US 2020/0087558), and in further view of Okamura et al (US 6,197,127).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Yamada discloses a refrigerator comprising the cold storage device according to claim 4 (figure 5). Yamada discusses vibrations (6:1-11) having a deleterious effect). The examiner notes that the claim is directed to the result of the vibration test not the vibration test taking place. Thus it follows as Yamada, as modified, provides all features of claim 1 that the resultant magnetic cold storage material performs in the same way. None the less Okamura is provided who discloses magnetic cold storage material for use in GM or Stirling refrigerators where the amount of material particles destroyed is less than 1% when subjected to 1x106 vibrations (3:21 to 4:39). It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance retaining capacity after a high number of vibrations is shown to be desirable. Therefor because number of vibrations is recognized as effecting the result of capacity retention; the values of 2x109, 400 m/s2, and 91-100% are not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and are obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Yamada discloses a cryopump comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 (figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses a superconducting magnet comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 (1:37-42).
Regarding claims 9-11, Yamada discloses a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 (1:37-42).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada discloses a helium re-condensation apparatus comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 (1:37-42).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada discloses (references made to figure 5) a vacuum container (31) in which a large-diameter first cylinder (32) and a small-diameter second cylinder (33) coaxially connected to the first cylinder are installed, a first cold storage device (36) being disposed in the first cylinder so as to be reciprocable, a second cold storage device (1c) being disposed in the second cylinder so as to be reciprocable, the second cold storage device being the cold storage device including the plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles; a first seal ring (38) disposed between the first cylinder and the first regenerator; a second seal ring (39) disposed between the second cylinder and the second regenerator; a first expansion chamber (40) provided between the first cold storage device and the second cold storage device; a second expansion chamber (41) provided between the second cold storage device and a distal end wall of the second cylinder; a first cooling stage (42) provided at the bottom of the first expansion chamber; a second cooling stage (43) formed at the bottom of the second expansion chamber, the second cooling stage being lower in temperature than the first cooling stage; and a compressor (37) supplying a high-pressure working medium.
Further regarding claims 6-13, it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Yamada as modified provides for the cold storage device. Merely applying the known cold storage device to the known purposes of a refrigerator, cryopump, superconducting magnets, MRI, NMR, magnetic-field-application-type single crystal puller, and helium re-condensation apparatus is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al (US 2020/0087558) in view of Tokai et al (US 6,022,486).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a magnetic cold storage material particle composed of an intermetallic compound containing a rare earth element and at least one metal element ([0003]), wherein an area percentage of voids existing in the magnetic cold storage material particle, present in a cross-section of the magnetic cold storage material particle is 0.0001% or more and 15% or less ([0091]), the cross-section being a particle-cross section having an equivalent circle diameter of +/- 10% of the median value of a particle size distribution of the magnetic cold storage material (the voids are within the near center of the particle as the porosity is throughout the particle).
Yamashita lacks the ratio RMz. Tokai discloses a magnetic cold storage material particle composed of an intermetallic compound containing a rare earth element represented by RMz, wherein: R is at least one rare earth element selected from Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm ,and Yb; M is at least one metal element selected from Ni, Co, Cu, Ag, Ga, Bi, Si, Al, and Ru; and z is number in a range from 0.001 to 9.0 (2:55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yamashita with the composition as taught by Tokai in order to realize a great specific heat at extremely low temperatures (1:13-15).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita discloses the magnetic cold storage material particle is a grain with a particle size of 50 μm or more and 3 mm or less ([0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita discloses an aspect ratio is in a range from 1 to 5 ([0024] a circle includes an aspect ratio of 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita discloses a cold storage device including a plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles represented by the RMz, wherein the magnetic cold storage material particle according to claim 1 occupies 70% or more of the plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles represented by the RMz and included in the cold storage device ([0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita discloses, when a peripheral length of a projected image of the plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles is defined as L; and an actual area of the projected image is defined as A; and a circularity R is defined as 4πA/L2, a proportion of magnetic cold storage material particles with a circularity R of 0.4 or less is 15% or less (Yamashita describes the particles as spherical [0022], ).
Claim(s) 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al (US 2020/0087558), in view of Tokai et al (US 6,022,486), and in further view of Okamura et al (US 6,197,127).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Yamashita discloses a refrigerator comprising the cold storage device according to claim 4 ([0002]). Yamashita discusses vibrations ([0081]) having a deleterious effect). The examiner notes that the claim is directed to the result of the vibration test not the vibration test taking place. Thus it follows as Yamashita, as modified, provides all features of claim 1 that the resultant magnetic cold storage material performs in the same way. None the less Okamura is provided who discloses magnetic cold storage material for use in GM or Stirling refrigerators where the amount of material particles destroyed is less than 1% when subjected to 1x106 vibrations (3:21 to 4:39). It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance retaining capacity after a high number of vibrations is shown to be desirable. Therefor because number of vibrations is recognized as effecting the result of capacity retention; the values of 2x109, 400 m/s2, and 91-100% are not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and are obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita discloses a cryopump comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 ([0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita discloses a superconducting magnet comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 ([0002]).
Regarding claims 9-11, Yamashita discloses a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 ([0002]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamashita discloses a helium re-condensation apparatus comprising the refrigerator according to claim 6 ([0002], [0109]).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita discloses (references made to figure 8) a vacuum container (113) in which a large-diameter first cylinder (111) and a small-diameter second cylinder (112) coaxially connected to the first cylinder are installed, a first cold storage device (118) being disposed in the first cylinder so as to be reciprocable, a second cold storage device (119) being disposed in the second cylinder so as to be reciprocable, the second cold storage device being the cold storage device including the plurality of magnetic cold storage material particles; a first seal ring (116) disposed between the first cylinder and the first regenerator; a second seal ring (117) disposed between the second cylinder and the second regenerator; a first expansion chamber (120) provided between the first cold storage device and the second cold storage device; a second expansion chamber (121) provided between the second cold storage device and a distal end wall of the second cylinder; a first cooling stage (122) provided at the bottom of the first expansion chamber; a second cooling stage (123) formed at the bottom of the second expansion chamber, the second cooling stage being lower in temperature than the first cooling stage; and a compressor (124) supplying a high-pressure working medium.
Further regarding claims 6-13, it has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Yamashita as modified provides for the cold storage device. Merely applying the known cold storage device to the known purposes of a refrigerator, cryopump, superconducting magnets, MRI, NMR, magnetic-field-application-type single crystal puller, and helium re-condensation apparatus is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have looked to Tokai for modification. However as discussed above Tokai teaches that the feature realizes a great specific heat at extremely low temperatures (1:13-15).
Applicant argues that the voids of Yamashita are different than those of the instant invention. However applicant does not point out specific claim language that the rejection above fails to meet. While there may exist distinctions between the cited prior art and the instant invention, the prior art is applied to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okamura et al (US 6,334,909),
Yagi et al (US 6,030,468).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799