DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4, 6, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyo (JP 2020/193726) in view of Takizawa (JP 2000055491) and Corey (US 2019/137163).
In regard to claim(s) 1, 9, Kyo teaches a method and a pulse tube cryocooler (see whole disclosure, including page 2) comprising: a cold head (as identified herein; hereafter “identified assembly”) including a top flange (36), a cooling stage (28, 30), a pulse tube (18, 24) connected to and extending from the top flange (36; page 5) to the cooling stage (28, 30), and a radiator (18a, 24a) thermally coupled to the pulse tube (18, 24), wherein the radiator (18a, 24a); a valve unit (40) including a rotary valve (page 8 “rotary valve”), and valve motor (56) that rotates the rotary valve (rotary valve) disposed separately (page 5 “valve portion arranged separately from cold head”) from the cold head (identified assembly) and connected to the pulse tube (18, 24); note that Kyo does teach that the cooling stage (28, 30) is configured to cool-down from an ambient temperature (before starting) to a cryogenic temperature (page 4-5 low temperature of superconducting structures).
Kyo does not explicitly teach a radiating fin extending in an axial direction of the pulse tube (18, 24) on a side opposite to the pulse tube (18, 24) with respect to the top flange (36) and a cooling fan disposed upward of the radiating fin, as claimed. However, this is routine and well known as taught by Takizawa. Takizawa teaches a radiating fin (24) extending in an axial direction of a pulse tube (13) on a side opposite to a pulse tube (13) with respect to a flange (11a). Takizawa explicitly teaches that the radiating fin improves refrigeration capacity (page 3).
In addition, it is ordinary and routine to provide increased heat rejection by using a cooling fan. Corey explicitly teaches providing a cooling fan (104ab) disposed upward of a radiating fin (102ab) providing heat rejection of a pulse tube cryocooler (100, para. 29-31). Further, Corey fully teaches operating the cooling fan (104ab) in a cool-down operation of the cryocooler, where the cryocooler is cooled from an ambient temperature (before cooldown) to a cryogenic temperature (para. 4, 7, 10, 39). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kyo with the radiating fin of Takizawa and a cooling fan disposed upward of the radiating fin, as taught by Corey for the purpose of improving refrigeration capacity and heat rejection via greater convection heat exchange as needed.
In regard to claim 2, Kyo, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 since Corey teaches that the cooling fan is configured to stop the forced cooling of the radiating fin (190) after the cool-down operation (see fully capable of stopping when cooling is not required), and the pulse tube cryocooler (of Kyo) is configured to continue cooling after the cool-down operation with the cooling fan stopped (note that all that is required is that after the cool-down operation has stopped that the cryocooler is able to continue cooling - see that after some time of stopped operation that the cryocooler of Kyo as modified can continue cooling - Corey - para. 39, 41). Note that this provides the obvious benefit of performing cooling later during steady state operation. In the alternative or in addition, it is well known that cool down operations require greater refrigeration rates that steady state operations, therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the operation of the cooling fan to operate only during cooldown when larger capacity of operation is needed and to turn off the fan during steady state for the purpose of saving on power and operational costs when the higher refrigeration rate is not as necessary.
In regard to claim 3, Kyo, as modified, does not teach a sensor and controller as claimed. However, the teachings of Corey make these limitations obvious. Corey teaches a sensor (para. 35, 36) that detects a state of the pulse tube cryocooler (cryocooler), the cooling fan (104ab), and a controller (system controller, para. 39-40) configured to: determine whether the pulse tube cryocooler (100) is in the cool-down operation or not based on an output of the sensor (sensors, para. 35, 36)(controller is able to determine if within a cooling down operation or not), and operate the cooling fan (104ab) in the cool-down operation (cooling fan operates while the cryocooler is cooling down). Note that this provides the obvious benefit of providing automatic refrigeration control. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kyo with the sensor and controller of Corey for the purpose of providing automatic control of the cooling fan and to provide all of the benefits already discussed in an automatic fashion.
In regard to claim 4, Kyo, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 since
Corey teaches that the sensor (sensors) includes a temperature sensor (para. 36) provided in the cold head (100, 96, 90, 78), and wherein the controller (system controller) is configured to: compare a measured temperature of the cold head (100, 96, 90, 78) measured by the temperature sensor (para. 36) with a temperature threshold (para. 41 pre-selected setpoint temperature), and operate the air-cooled cooler (104) in a case where the measured temperature of the cold head exceeds the temperature threshold (para. 41, page 6, see claim 21). Note that this provides the obvious benefit of ensuring that the use of the cooling fan is tied to the thermal need for the added heat rejection capacity of operating the cooling fan.
In regard to claim 6, Kyo teaches that at most 1/4 of a total length of the pulse tube (18, 24) in an axial direction extends inside the radiator (18) (see figures and note less than ¼ of length extends in 18).
In regard to claim 10, Kyo, as modified, teaches the limitations of the claim since Takizawa teaches that the radiator (24) comprises a bottom plate (bottom part of 24 or 24b) in contact with a top flange (11a), and the radiating fin (24a) protrudes upward from the bottom plate (bottom part of 24 or 24b) of the radiator (27, 24) to provide heat rejection from a vacuum insulated container (11). Note that the extended surface shape and structure of the extending fin improves heat rejection through the radiating fin from the bottom plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
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 JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571) 272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights