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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “of an air-cooled or liquid-cooled cooler that cools the radiator” (line 1, page 4) in addition to the already recited cooling fan is entirely new matter as the applicant does not have any support for several coolers as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “A GM type pulse tube cryocooler” (page 3, line 1) and all other recitations of the same is/are indefinite for being unclear what feature, characteristics, or structures make the cryocooler of the recited “type”. There is no way to determine what structure the recitation requires that is not otherwise present in the claim. For present examination it is considered that any pulse tube cryocooler that has a valve unit as claimed may be considered of the recited type.
The recitation, “a forced cooler including a cooling fan disposed upward or obliquely upward of the radiating fin, and configured to forcibly cool the radiating fin in a cool-down operation of the GM type pulse tube cryocooler from an ambient temperature to a cryogenic temperature.” (page 3, lines 8-10) is indefinite since the recitation concerns cooling the radiating fin and it is unclear what is cooled from ambient temperature to a cryogenic temperature.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “of an air-cooled or liquid-cooled cooler that cools the radiator” (page 4, line 1) in addition to the already recited cooling fan is indefinite since the disclosure has no support for two separate coolers as claimed and it appears that the recitation mistakenly introduces a new cooler inconsistent with the cooling fan already recited in claim 1.
In regard to claim 9, the recitation, “A GM type pulse tube cryocooler” (page 5, line 1-2) is indefinite for being unclear what feature, characteristics, or structures make the cryocooler of the recited “type”. There is no way to determine what structure the recitation requires that is not otherwise present in the claim. For present examination it is considered that any pulse tube cryocooler that has a valve unit as claimed may be considered of the recited type.
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.
The applicant is commended for their amendment which has overcome several issues with 112(f) language.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 2006/0026968) in view of Corey (US 2019/137163). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Gao teaches a GM pulse tube cryocooler (100, see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1, 2abc) comprising: a cold head (as identified herein; hereafter identified assembly) including a top flange (215), a pulse tube (at least 175) extending from the top flange (215), and a radiator (195) thermally coupled to the pulse tube (175), wherein the radiator (195) includes a radiating fin (190) extending in an axial direction (up and down in Fig. 1) of the pulse tube (175) on a side (top side) opposite to the pulse tube (175) with respect to the top flange (215);
a valve unit (118) including a rotary valve (para. 30 “rotary valve”), and valve motor (implicit to para. 30) that rotates the rotary valve (“rotary valve”) disposed separately (see Fig. 2a; 118 has its own location separate from parts of the identified cold head) from the cold head (identified assembly) and connected to the pulse tube (175, fluidly); note that Gao does teach that the cryocooler is configured to cool-down from an ambient temperature (before starting) to a cryogenic temperature (para. 3, 6, 62).
Gao does not appear to teach a cooling fan upward of the radiating fin as claimed. However, 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 Gao with the cooling fan of Corey disposed upward of the radiating fin (190), and configured to forcibly cool the radiating fin (190) in a cool-down operation of the GM pulse tube cryocooler of Gao from an ambient temperature (at start up) to a cryogenic temperature for the purpose of providing increased heat rejection and thereby refrigeration capacity to Gao and for the purpose of providing the cooling fan in a location that is thermally useful.
In regard to claim 2, Gao, 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 GM pulse tube cryocooler (of Gao) 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 Xu as modified can continue cooling - 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, Gao, 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 air-cooled cooler (102, 104) in the cool-down operation (102, 104 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 Gao 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, Gao, 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 fan is tied to the thermal need for the added heat rejection capacity of operating the cooling fan.
In regard to claim 6, Gao teaches that at most 1/4 of a total length of the pulse tube (175) in an axial direction extends inside the radiator (195) (see Fig. 1, 2A).
In regard to claim 9, Gao teaches a method for cooling down a GM pulse tube cryocooler (100; interpreted as a cryocooler with a pulse tube and a valve; see whole disclosure including Fig. 1, 2abc), the GM pulse tube cryocooler (100) comprising a cold head (as identified herein; hereafter identified assembly) including a top flange (215), a pulse tube (at least 175) extending from the top flange (215), and a radiator (195) thermally coupled to the pulse tube (175), wherein the radiator (195) includes a radiating fin (190) extending in an axial direction (up and down in Fig. 1) of the pulse tube (175) on a side (top side) opposite to the pulse tube (175) with respect to the top flange (215);
a valve unit (118) including a rotary valve (para. 30 “rotary valve”), and valve motor (implicit to para. 30) that rotates the rotary valve (“rotary valve”) disposed separately (see Fig. 2a; 118 has its own location separate from parts of the identified cold head) from the cold head (identified assembly) and connected to the pulse tube (175, fluidly), the method comprising: performing cool-down of the GM pulse tube cryocooler (100) from an ambient temperature (before starting) to a cryogenic temperature (para. 3, 6, 62).
Gao does not explicitly teach forcedly cooling the radiator fin (190) in the cool-down of the GM pulse tube cryocooler (100) using a cooling fan disposed upward of the radiating fin (190). However, it is well known to provide forced cooling with a cooling fan to increase heat rejection. Corey teaches a method for cooling down a cryocooler (para. 29; cryocooler), including forcedly cooling the radiating fin (in 102) in a cool-down (para. 4, 7, 10) of the cryocooler (cryocooler)(air cooling is operated). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Gao with forced cooling using the cooling fan of Corey, the cooling fan being upwards of the radiating fin (190) for the purpose of providing improved heat rejection and increased refrigeration rates and for the purpose of providing the cooling fan in a location that is thermally useful.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (US 2006/0026968) in view of Corey (US 2019/137163) and Takizawa (JP 2000055491). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Gao, as modified, does not appear to explicitly teach that the that the radiator (195) comprises a bottom plate in contact with the top flange (215), and the radiating fin (190) protrudes upward from the bottom plate of the radiator (195), rather Gao only represents the radiating fin (190) diagrammatically. However, such fin structure is routine and ordinary for heat rejection from pulse tubes as taught by Takizawa. Takizawa teaches a pulse tube cryocooler (see 13) having a radiator (27, 24), the radiator (27, 24) comprising a bottom plate (bottom part of 24 or 24b) in contact with a top flange (11a), and a 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). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the radiating fin (190) of Gao with the structure of the fin of Takizawa for the purpose of providing heat rejection from a vacuum sealed pulse tube cryocooler and for the purpose of providing a well known extended surface shape and structure for improved heat rejection through the radiating fin from the bottom plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
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