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 Amendment
The amendment filed May 04th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-17 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed December 04th, 2025. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, line 4 “refrigerating device” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “The refrigerating device 10 comprises a plurality of (here, for example, three) valve groups 74 (Pg. 12, paragraph 50)”, or equivalents.
Claim 11, line 6 “refrigerating device” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “The refrigerating device 10 comprises a plurality of (here, for example, three) valve groups 74 (Pg. 12, paragraph 50)”, or equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8, lines 2-3 recite, “a plurality of consumers to be cooled” which is unclear how the plurality of consumers to be cooled of claim 8 relates to the previously claimed at least one consumer to be cooled of claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a plurality of the at least one consumer to be cooled”. The Examiner recommends changing the claim to read as interpreted herein.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “wherein the second cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region”, and the claim also recites “wherein a second equilibrium pressure is preferably in the range from 0.4 bar to 0.65 bar” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation to be merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano (JP 2964055), hereinafter Fukano in view of Inai et al. (US Patent No. 4,209,657), hereinafter Inai and Born et al. (US Patent No. 3,557,566), hereinafter Born.
Regarding claim 1, Fukano discloses a pre-cooling circuit for supplying helium refrigeration for at least one consumer to be cooled (Fig. 1, cooling path 37; Pg. 1, paragraph 1, The present invention relates to an apparatus for generating supercritical helium, and more particularly to an apparatus for efficiently generating supercritical helium for cooling a superconducting magnet or the like to a very low temperature; Pg. 3, paragraph 1, a cooling path 37 for cooling a cooled object such as a superconducting magnet), comprising
a feed line and a return line, which are connected to one another via the at least one consumer to be cooled to exchange heat with the at least one consumer to be cooled (See annotated Fig. 1 of Fukano below, feed line A, return line B; Pg. 3, paragraph 18, a cooling path 37 for cooling a cooled object such as a superconducting magnet);
a helium cooling system, which is designed to dissipate heat to an environment, to compress returning helium, and to feed the compressed helium into the feed line (Fig. 1, heat exchanger group 35; Pg. 3, paragraph 18, the high-pressure low-temperature helium supplied from the pipe 36 through the heat exchanger group 35…a pipe 44 for returning to the compressor via the Since the helium refrigerator including the heat exchanger group 35 can be configured in the same manner as the conventional one);
a first cooling bath container and a second cooling bath container, wherein the feed line runs through a first heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the first cooling bath container and subsequently in the direction of the refrigerating device through a second heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the second cooling bath container, and wherein a top region of the first cooling bath container is connected to the helium cooling system via a recirculation line to supply the returning helium to said helium cooling system (Fig. 1, liquid helium storage tanks 31 and 32, first heat exchanger 33, second heat exchanger 34, pipe 44);
an ejector having a drive flow opening, an intake opening and an ejection opening, wherein the drive flow opening is connected to the return line, the intake opening is connected to a top region of the second cooling bath container, and the ejection opening is connected to the top region of the first cooling bath container, wherein the ejector is designed to use helium returning from the refrigerating device as a drive flow to draw in helium vapor from the second cooling bath container and to raise the helium vapor to a pressure of the first cooling bath container (Fig. 1, ejector 40; See annotated Fig. 1 of Fukano below, ejector 40 has a drive flow opening 40-1 connected to the return line B, an intake opening 40-2 connected to a top region of the liquid helium storage tank 32, and an ejection opening connected to a top region of the liquid helium storage tank 31; Pg. 3, paragraph 18, An ejector 40 for sucking the helium gas in the low-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 32 through a pipe 39, and a pipe 41 for introducing helium, which is a gas-liquid multiphase flow after the ejector 40 is introduced, to the high-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 31 And a part of the supercritical high-pressure low-temperature helium in which the first heat exchanger 33 in the high-pressure-side liquid helium storage tank 31 is led out).
However, Fukano does not disclose a refrigerating device wherein the refrigerating device is designed to exchange heat with the at least one consumer to be cooled.
Inai teaches a refrigerating device wherein the refrigerating device is designed to exchange heat with the at least one consumer to be cooled (Fig. 1, cryostat 2, flow rate control valve 34, pressure control valve 46; Further, the valves of Inai have the same structure as the claimed refrigerating device and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-cooling circuit of Fukano of claim 1 to replace the cooling path 37 with the valves and cryostat 2 of Inai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide an immersion cooled superconductor with very good cooling capacity (Inai, Col. 1, lines 64-66).
Further, Fukano as modified does not disclose wherein a secondary return line, which is branched off from the return line downstream of the consumer, runs through a fourth heat exchanger arranged in the bottom region of the first cooling bath container, and opens into the return line upstream of the drive flow opening of the ejector.
Born teaches an drive flow opening of an ejector to have a bypass flow path that either flow through a heat exchanger of a cooling bath on the way into the drive flow opening of the ejector or flow directly into the drive flow opening of the ejector without passing though the heat exchanger of the cooling bath (Fig. 4, ejector 16, jet nozzle 15, reservoir 19, heat exchanger 25, duct 32, control cock 34; Col. 4, lines 69-74, By regulating the cock 34 part of the high-pressure helium stream flows via the duct 32 to the area 14. This portion of the helium stream has a higher temperature than the other portion of the helium stream which has completely passed through the heat exchanger 10 and is further cooled in the heat exchanger 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-cooling circuit of Fukano as modified wherein a secondary return line, which is branched off from the return line downstream of the consumer, runs through a fourth heat exchanger arranged in the bottom region of the first cooling bath container, and opens into the return line upstream of the drive flow opening of the ejector as taught by Born. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to obtain a desired temperature at the drive flow opening of the ejector (Born, Col. 4-5, lines 74-75 and 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Fukano
Regarding claim 2, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein at least one valve is arranged in the secondary return line and/or in the return line parallel to the secondary return line for controlling the flow through the secondary return line (Born, Fig. 4, control cock 34; Col. 4, lines 69-74, By regulating the cock 34 part of the high-pressure helium stream flows via the duct 32 to the area 14. This portion of the helium stream has a higher temperature than the other portion of the helium stream which has completely passed through the heat exchanger 10 and is further cooled in the heat exchanger 25). Further, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the first cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region of the first cooling bath container, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region of the first cooling bath container, wherein a first equilibrium pressure is in the range from 1.0 bar to 1.5 bar (Fig. 1 of Fukano depicts the liquid helium storage tank 31 to have liquid in a bottom region and vapor in a top region; Pg. 3, paragraph 22, the saturation pressure in the tank 31 is, for example 1.28 atm; Further, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I), and
wherein the second cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region of the second cooling bath container, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region of the second cooling bath container, wherein a second equilibrium pressure is preferably in the range from 0.4 bar to 0.65 bar (Fig. 1 of Fukano depicts the liquid helium storage tank 32 to have liquid in a bottom region and vapor in a top region; Pg. 3, paragraph 22, the low-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 32 can be filled to 0.93 atm; Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Regarding claim 7, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose wherein the refrigerating device comprises a shield circuit; and
wherein the helium cooling system is designed to provide a helium shield flow, wherein the helium shield flow is fed from the helium cooling system to the shield circuit and is fed back from said shield circuit to the helium cooling system.
Inai teaches wherein the refrigerating device comprises a shield circuit (Fig. 1, inlet 10, outlet 10, envelope 4); and
wherein the helium cooling system is designed to provide a helium shield flow, wherein the helium shield flow is fed from the helium cooling system to the shield circuit and is fed back from said shield circuit to the helium cooling system (Fig. 1, liquid helium 8; Col. 2, lines 49-55, The envelope 4 is filled with liquid helium 8 having, for example, one atmospheric unit of pressure and an absolute temperature of 4.2° K. The interior vessel 6 is fully immersed in the liquid helium 8. The upper part of the envelope 4 is provided with an inlet 10 of the liquid helium 8 and an outlet 12 of helium vapor resulting from the vaporization of the liquid helium 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-cooling circuit of Fukano of claim 1 to include a shield circuit; and
wherein the helium cooling system is designed to provide a helium shield flow, wherein the helium shield flow is fed from the helium cooling system to the shield circuit and is fed back from said shield circuit to the helium cooling system as taught by Inai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide an immersion cooled superconductor with very good cooling capacity (Inai, Col. 1, lines 64-66).
Regarding claim 9, Fukano as modified discloses a cryogenic system comprising the closed pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above) and at least one dilution cryostat, which is connected to the refrigerating device as the at least one consumer to be cooled (Inai, Fig. 1, cryostat 2, flow rate control valve 34, pressure control valve 46). Further, the limitations of claim 9 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Fukano discloses a method for supplying helium refrigeration for at least one consumer to be cooled (Fig. 1, cooling path 37; Pg. 1, paragraph 1, The present invention relates to an apparatus for generating supercritical helium, and more particularly to an apparatus for efficiently generating supercritical helium for cooling a superconducting magnet or the like to a very low temperature; Pg. 3, paragraph 1, a cooling path 37 for cooling a cooled object such as a superconducting magnet), comprising
compressing returning helium (Pg. 3, paragraph 18, a pipe 44 for returning to the compressor via the Since the helium refrigerator including the heat exchanger group 35 can be configured in the same manner as the conventional one);
leading the compressed helium through a first cooling bath and a subsequent second cooling bath to obtain the helium in a supercritical state (Fig. 1, liquid helium storage tanks 31 and 32; Pg. 3, paragraph 18, An ejector 40 for sucking the helium gas in the low-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 32 through a pipe 39, and a pipe 41 for introducing helium, which is a gas-liquid multiphase flow after the ejector 40 is introduced, to the high-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 31 And a part of the supercritical high-pressure low-temperature helium in which the first heat exchanger 33 in the high-pressure-side liquid helium storage tank 31 is led out);
feeding the supercritical helium to a cooling flow path, which is in heat exchange with the at least one consumer to be cooled (Pg. 3, paragraph 1, In the supercritical helium generator configured as described above, the circulating helium compressed by the compressor of the helium refrigerator described above is cooled by being cooled by the heat exchanger group 35 and the expansion turbine, and is cooled. A supercritical state or a state close to supercritical state is passed through the final-stage heat exchanger of the heat exchanger group 35. For example, the low-temperature helium gas supplied from the pipe 36 at a pressure of 14 kg / cm .sup.2 G and a temperature of 6K is subjected to the first heat exchange. Is cooled sequentially in the heat exchanger 33 and the second heat exchanger 34 to generate, for example, supercritical helium at a temperature of about 4.2 K, 8 to a cooling path 37 for cooling a cooled object such as a superconducting magnet);
feeding a return flow of the helium from cooling flow path to a drive flow opening of an ejector (See annotated Fig. 1 of Fukano below, return line B is connected to drive flow opening 40-1 of the ejector 40);
drawing in a second helium vapor, which is in equilibrium with the second cooling bath, via the ejector and supplying the second helium vapor to a first helium vapor, which is in equilibrium with the first cooling bath (Pg. 3, paragraph 18, An ejector 40 for sucking the helium gas in the low-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 32 through a pipe 39, and a pipe 41 for introducing helium, which is a gas-liquid multiphase flow after the ejector 40 is introduced, to the high-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 31 And a part of the supercritical high-pressure low-temperature helium in which the first heat exchanger 33 in the high-pressure-side liquid helium storage tank 31 is led out);
dissipating the first helium vapor to obtain the returning helium (Fig. 1, pipe 44; Pg. 3, paragraph 18, a pipe 44 for returning to the compressor via the Since the helium refrigerator including the heat exchanger group 35 can be configured in the same manner as the conventional one).
However, Fukano does not disclose a refrigerating device wherein the refrigerating device is in exchange heat with the at least one consumer to be cooled.
Inai teaches a refrigerating device wherein the refrigerating device is in exchange heat with the at least one consumer to be cooled (Fig. 1, cryostat 2, flow rate control valve 34, pressure control valve 46; Further, the valves of Inai have the same structure as the claimed refrigerating device and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-cooling circuit of Fukano of claim 1 to replace the cooling path 37 with the valves and cryostat 2 of Inai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide an immersion cooled superconductor with very good cooling capacity (Inai, Col. 1, lines 64-66).
Further, Fukano as modified does not disclose branching-off at least a portion of the return flow to form a secondary return flow of the helium; and
leading the secondary return flow of the helium through the first cooling bath and subsequently into the return flow of the helium.
Born teaches an drive flow opening of an ejector to have a bypass flow path that either flow through a heat exchanger of a cooling bath on the way into the drive flow opening of the ejector or flow directly into the drive flow opening of the ejector without passing though the heat exchanger of the cooling bath (Fig. 4, ejector 16, jet nozzle 15, reservoir 19, heat exchanger 25, duct 32; Col. 4, lines 69-74, By regulating the cock 34 part of the high-pressure helium stream flows via the duct 32 to the area 14. This portion of the helium stream has a higher temperature than the other portion of the helium stream which has completely passed through the heat exchanger 10 and is further cooled in the heat exchanger 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fukano as modified to include the steps or limitations of branching-off at least a portion of the return flow to form a secondary return flow of the helium and leading the secondary return flow of the helium through the first cooling bath and subsequently into the return flow of the helium as taught by Born. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to obtain a desired temperature at the drive flow opening of the ejector (Born, Col. 45, lines 74-75 and 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Fukano
Regarding claim 17, Fukano as modified discloses a cryogenic system comprising the closed pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above) and at least one dilution cryostat, which is connected to the refrigerating device as the at least one consumer to be cooled wherein the refrigerating device is designed so that the feed line and the return line are connected to at least one helium bath of the at least one dilution cryostat (Inai, Fig. 1, cryostat 2, flow rate control valve 34, pressure control valve 46; Further, the lines of the refrigerating deice of Inai are depicted to connect to the inlet 10 and the outlet 12 of the liquid helium bath 8 of the cryostat 2 of Inai and would maintain the same configuration when modified as described herein). Further, the limitations of claim 9 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano as modified by Inai and Born as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petrovich et al. (SU 918717), hereinafter Petrovich and Staas et al. (US Patent No. 3,922,881), hereinafter Staas.
Regarding claim 3, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose a third cooling bath container, wherein the feed line, downstream of the second cooling bath container, runs through a third heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the third cooling bath container.
Petrovich teaches a third cooling bath container, wherein the feed line, downstream of the second cooling bath container, runs through a third heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the third cooling bath container (Fig. 1 of Petrovich depicts directing helium through a subcooler 10 in a separator 5 before directing the helium to subcooler 9 in the collection 7).
Fukano as modified fails to teach a third cooling bath container, wherein the feed line, downstream of the second cooling bath container, runs through a third heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the third cooling bath container, however Petrovich teaches that it is a known method in the art of helium pre-cooling to include leading the compressed helium through a third cooling bath downstream of the second cooling bath. This is strong evidence that modifying Fukano as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukano by Petrovich and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations.
Fukano as modified further does not disclose wherein a top region of the third cooling bath container is connected to a vacuum pump, which is designed to pump helium vapor out of the top region of the third cooling bath container and supply the helium cooling system.
Staas teaches the use of a vacuum pump connected to a top region of a helium cooling bath which is designed to pump helium vapor out of the top region of the third cooling bath container and supply the helium cooling system, (Fig. 1, distillation chamber 4, outlet 5, suction line 6, diffusion pump 7, rotary pump 8, pipe 10; Col. 4, lines 6-17, Referring now to FIG. 1, reference numeral 1 denotes a supply pipe which opens in a mixing chamber 2, which chamber is connected by a connection or return pipe 3 to a distillation chamber 4 having an outlet 5. The outlet 5 is connected by a suction pipe 6 to a diffusion pump 7 which in turn is connected to a rotary pump 8. A delivery outlet 9 of the rotary pump 8 is connected by a pipe 10 to the supply pipe 1. The pipe 10 includes heat exchangers 11, 12, 13 and 14 which are accommodated in containers 15, 16, 17 and distillation chamber 4 respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the precooling circuit of Fukano as modified wherein a top region of the third cooling bath container is connected to a vacuum pump, which is designed to pump helium vapor out of the top region of the third cooling bath container and supply the helium cooling system as taught by Staas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure sufficient flow is provided to the helium cooling system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 14, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a compressor is provided (Fukano, Pg. 3, paragraph 18, And a pipe 44 for returning to the compressor via the Since the helium refrigerator including the heat exchanger group 35 can be configured in the same manner as the conventional one, detailed illustration and description thereof are omitted. In the supercritical helium generator configured as described above, the circulating helium compressed by the compressor of the helium refrigerator described above is cooled by being cooled by the heat exchanger group 35 and the expansion turbine, and is cooled; Further, the teachings of Fuakno at least imply a compressor since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose a third cooling bath container, wherein the feed line, downstream of the second cooling bath container, runs through a third heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the third cooling bath container.
Petrovich teaches a third cooling bath container, wherein the feed line, downstream of the second cooling bath container, runs through a third heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the third cooling bath container (Fig. 1 of Petrovich depicts directing helium through a subcooler 10 in a separator 5 before directing the helium to subcooler 9 in the collection 7).
Fukano as modified fails to teach a third cooling bath container, wherein the feed line, downstream of the second cooling bath container, runs through a third heat exchanger arranged in a bottom region of the third cooling bath container, however Petrovich teaches that it is a known method in the art of helium pre-cooling to include leading the compressed helium through a third cooling bath downstream of the second cooling bath. This is strong evidence that modifying Fukano as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukano by Petrovich and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations.
Fukano as modified further does not disclose wherein a top region of the third cooling bath container is connected to a vacuum pump, which is designed to pump helium vapor out of the top region and supply the helium cooling system, wherein the compressor is provided, which raises a pressure level of the pumped-out helium to a pressure level of the helium cooling system.
Staas teaches the use of a vacuum pump connected to a top region of a helium cooling bath which is designed to pump helium vapor out of the top region and supply the helium cooling system, wherein the compressor is provided, which raises a pressure level of the pumped-out helium to a pressure level of the helium cooling system (Fig. 1, distillation chamber 4, outlet 5, suction line 6, diffusion pump 7, rotary pump 8, pipe 10; Col. 4, lines 6-17, Referring now to FIG. 1, reference numeral 1 denotes a supply pipe which opens in a mixing chamber 2, which chamber is connected by a connection or return pipe 3 to a distillation chamber 4 having an outlet 5. The outlet 5 is connected by a suction pipe 6 to a diffusion pump 7 which in turn is connected to a rotary pump 8. A delivery outlet 9 of the rotary pump 8 is connected by a pipe 10 to the supply pipe 1. The pipe 10 includes heat exchangers 11, 12, 13 and 14 which are accommodated in containers 15, 16, 17 and distillation chamber 4 respectively; Further, the rotary pump 8 of Stass is said to move fluid in a gas phase which corresponds to the compressors of Fukano).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the precooling circuit of Fukano as modified wherein a top region of the third cooling bath container is connected to a vacuum pump, which is designed to pump helium vapor out of the top region and supply the helium cooling system, wherein the compressor is preferably provided, which raises a pressure level of the pumped-out helium to a pressure level of the helium cooling system as taught by Staas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure sufficient flow is provided to the helium cooling system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 15, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 3 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above),
wherein the first cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region, wherein a is in the range from 1.0 bar to 1.5 bar (Fig. 1 of Fukano depicts the liquid helium storage tank 31 to have liquid in a bottom region and vapor in a top region; Pg. 3, paragraph 22, the saturation pressure in the tank 31 is, for example 1.28 atm; Further, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above), and
wherein the second cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region, wherein a second equilibrium pressure is preferably in the range from 0.4 bar to 0.65 bar (Fig. 1 of Fukano depicts the liquid helium storage tank 32 to have liquid in a bottom region and vapor in a top region; Pg. 3, paragraph 22, the low-pressure side liquid helium storage tank 32 can be filled to 0.93 atm; Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I; Further, the recitation “wherein a second equilibrium pressure is preferably in the range from 0.4 bar to 0.65 bar” is not a required limitation of the claims as best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose wherein, the third cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region, wherein a third equilibrium pressure is preferably in the range from 0.1 bar to 0.3 bar.
Petrovich teaches wherein, the third cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region, wherein a third equilibrium pressure is preferably in the range from 0.1 bar to 0.3 bar (Fig. 1 of Petrovich depicts the collection 7 to have liquid in a bottom region and vapor in a top region; Further, the recitation “wherein a third equilibrium pressure is preferably in the range from 0.1 bar to 0.3 bar” is not a required limitation of the claims as best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Fukano as modified fails to teach a third cooling bath container is designed to receive liquid helium in the bottom region, which is in equilibrium with helium vapor in the top region, however Petrovich teaches that it is a known method in the art of helium pre-cooling to include leading the compressed helium through a third cooling bath downstream of the second cooling bath. This is strong evidence that modifying Fukano as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukano by Petrovich and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations.
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano as modified by Inai and Born as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saji et al. (US Patent No. 5,347,819), hereinafter Saji.
Regarding claim 5, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the helium cooling system comprises at least one compressor (Fukano, Pg. 3, paragraph 18pipe 44 for returning to the compressor via the Since the helium refrigerator including the heat exchanger group 35 can be configured in the same manner as the conventional one).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose the compressor to be designed to compress helium to a pressure in the range from 7 bar to 18 bar.
Saji teaches the compressor to be designed to compress helium to a pressure in the range from 7 bar to 18 bar (Fig. 1, compressor 11; Col. 5, lines 15-17, The circuit 10 pressurizes 4He gas of nearly standard 15 temperature and pressure (1 atm and 300K) to 10-20 atm with compressor 11; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of the pre-cooling circuit of Fukano as modified to be designed to compress helium to a pressure in the range from 7 bar to 18 bar as taught by Saji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure sufficient flow is provided to the helium cooling system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 6, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 5 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the helium cooling system comprises a heat exchanger system, wherein the returning helium is fed through the heat exchanger system in counterflow to the compressed helium (Fig. 1 of Fukano depicts the helium to be fed through the heat exchanger group 35 through pipe 44 in counterflow to the returning compressed helium in line 36).
Regarding claim 16, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the helium cooling system comprises at least one compressor (Fukano, Pg. 3, paragraph 18pipe 44 for returning to the compressor via the Since the helium refrigerator including the heat exchanger group 35 can be configured in the same manner as the conventional one).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose the compressor to be designed to compress helium to a pressure in the range from 7 bar to 18 bar.
Saji teaches the compressor to be designed to compress helium to a pressure in the range from 10 bar to 15 bar (Fig. 1, compressor 11; Col. 5, lines 15-17, The circuit 10 pressurizes 4He gas of nearly standard 15 temperature and pressure (1 atm and 300K) to 10-20 atm with compressor 11; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of the pre-cooling circuit of Fukano as modified to be designed to compress helium to a pressure in the range from 10 bar to 15 bar as taught by Saji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure sufficient flow is provided to the helium cooling system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano as modified by Inai and Born as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crispel et al. (US 20230107973), hereinafter Crispel.
Regarding claim 8, Fukano as modified discloses the pre-cooling circuit according to Claim 1 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose wherein the refrigerating device is designed to exchange heat with a plurality of consumers to be cooled, wherein the consumers can be independently of one another connected to and disconnected from the feed line and the return line.
Crispel teaches wherein the refrigerating device is designed to exchange heat with a plurality of consumers to be cooled, wherein the consumers can be independently of one another connected to and disconnected from the feed line and the return line (Fig. 7, transfer pipes 21, valve 2, return pipes 121; Pg. 5, paragraph 103, FIG. 7 shows the possible arrangement of the fluidic connections of the different dilution loops to the common refrigerator. Shown in the upper part are six transfer pipes 21 that respectively supply the reserves 18 of six liquefying loops in order to pre-cool them and the six respective return pipes 121 that return the liquefied cryogenic fluid that has been used to pre-cool six dilution loops. As schematically shown on two lines, the transfer pipes 21 may each comprise a valve 28 for controlling or stopping the flow; Pg. 5, paragraph 108, Thus, the device 1 according to the invention allows a distributed architecture comprising a plurality of (six in this example, although it could be any other number, for example ten or more) separate dilution loops that produce cold and are cooled by a central member 12 or cryostat for pre-cooling cycle fluids from ambient temperature to a target cryogenic temperature (for example 4K and/or 1.8K)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-cooling circuit of Fukano as modified wherein the refrigerating device is designed to exchange heat with a plurality of consumers to be cooled, wherein the consumers can be independently of one another connected to and disconnected from the feed line and the return line as taught by Crispel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to insulate one or more loops for repairs while the other dilution loops are active (Crispel, Pg. 6, paragraph 110).
Claim 10 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano as modified by Inai as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Garside et al. (US Patent No. 10, 942, 234), hereinafter Garside.
Regarding claim 10, Fukano as modified discloses a cryogenic method for the cryogenic system according to Claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose the cryogenic method comprising:
placing at least one sample in the at least one dilution cryostat of the cryogenic system, and
cooling the at least one sample to a temperature below 1 K.
Garside teaches the cryogenic method comprising:
placing at least one sample in the at least one dilution cryostat of the cryogenic system, and
cooling the at least one sample to a temperature below 1 K (Col. 1, lines 42-45, Following the expansion, there is thermal exchange with the sample to be cooled, and the working fluid is returned to the pump or compressor at room temperature to re-start the cycle; Col. 4, lines 1-4, If He-4 is used as the coolant fluid, this process can cool the coolant fluid to typically below 1.5K, and if He-3 is used, the expansion can cool the fluid down to typically below 0.3K).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cryogenic method of Fukano as modified to include the steps or limitations of placing at least one sample in the at least one dilution cryostat of the cryogenic system, and cooling the at least one sample to a temperature below 1 K as taught by Garside. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a closed-cycle refrigeration system for used in medical purposes such as MRI systems (Garside, Col. 1, lines 45-47).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukano as modified by Inai and Born as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Petrovich et al. (SU 918717), hereinafter Petrovich.
Regarding claim 13, Fukano as modified discloses the method according to Claim 11 (See the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Fukano as modified does not disclose further comprising leading the compressed helium through a third cooling bath downstream of the second cooling bath.
Petrovich teaches further comprising leading the compressed helium through a third cooling bath downstream of the second cooling bath (Fig. 1 of Petrovich depicts directing helium through a subcooler 10 in a separator 5 before directing the helium to subcooler 9 in the collection 7).
Fukano as modified fails to teach leading the compressed helium through a third cooling bath downstream of the second cooling bath, however Petrovich teaches that it is a known method in the art of helium pre-cooling to include leading the compressed helium through a third cooling bath downstream of the second cooling bath. This is strong evidence that modifying Fukano as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukano by Petrovich and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 04th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “Regarding claim 8, the recitation "a plurality of consumers to be cooled" is clearly a subset of "at least one consumer to be cooled" as recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize "at least one consumer to be cooled" includes both a single consumer and a plurality of consumers. Thus, "a plurality of consumers to be cooled" further defines "at least one consumer to be cooled."” However, this argument is not persuasive as the “plurality of consumers to be cooled” of claim 8 is not clearly linked to the “at least one consumer to be cooled” of claim 1 from which it depends and is therefore indefinite and unclear as to if the plurality of consumers to be cooled are included in the at least one consumer to be cooled of claim 1 or in addition to the at least one consumer to be cooled of claim 1. See 112(b) rejections above.
Applicant argues on Pg. Pg. 11 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “In any event, the systems of Fukano and Born et al. are quite different. The stream that Fukano sends to ejector 40 is a stream that has been used for cooling an object. Conversely, Born et al. do not disclose using their stream (line 32 or the stream passing through heat exchanger 25) to cool an object and thus provide no suggestion of how to modify the operation of the stream in line 38 of Fukano. Compare also applicants claim 1 which recites that the secondary return line is branched off from the return line downstream of the consumer. Further, the stream used in duct 32 of Born et al. is removed from an intermediate point of the heat exchanger group 3, 5, 7, 8, 10. At best this duct might suggest removing a stream of compressed helium from an intermediate point of Fukano's heat exchanger group 35. However, since Fukano do not use the stream of compressed helium as it is discharged from heat exchanger group 35 in an ejector, it is unclear for what purpose one of ordinary skill in the art would use a stream from an intermediate point of Fukano' s heat exchanger group 35, i.e., there would be no stream to combine it with as in the case of the stream in line 32 of Born et al.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the teachings of Born are used as a general teaching that it is known in the art to include a bypass line downstream of a heat exchanger (which corresponds to the object to be cooled heat exchanger 37 of Fukano) for a drive flow opening of an ejector that can flow through a heat exchanger of a cooling bath before entering the ejector for the purpose of obtaining a desired temperature at the drive flow opening of the ejector (Born, Col. 4-5, lines 69-75 and 1-2, Col. 4, lines 69-74, By regulating the cock 34 part of the high-pressure helium stream flows via the duct 32 to the area 14. This portion of the helium stream has a higher temperature than the other portion of the helium stream which has completely passed through the heat exchanger 10 and is further cooled in the heat exchanger 25. By an appropriate adjustment of the cock 34 such a quantity will pass through the circulation duct 32 that at the area 14 the desired temperature is again attained). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. Pg. 13-14 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the Remarks, “However, the systems of Fukano and Petrovich et al. operate in substantially different manners. In Fukano, the ejector 40 uses the helium flow downstream of the consumer as the drive flow. Conversely, Petrovich et al. uses the helium gas immediately after it is removed from being cooled in cooling stage 1 as the drive force in both ejectors 14 and 15. It is a fluid stream down stream of ejector 14 that is sent to the heat exchangers of separator 5 and liquid collector 7. Petrovich et al. provide no suggestion regarding subjecting a stream upstream of the ejectors and downstream of cooling stage 1 to heat exchange, such as the stream in line 38 of Fukano (i.e., the stream that has already passed through heat exchangers in first and second cooling bath containers).” However, this argument is not persuasive as Petrovich shows it is known in the art to send a flow of helium through a third heat exchanger in a third cooling bath container to yield the predictable result of obtaining the cooling capacity necessary for system operations. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See the rejection of claims 3, 14, and 15 above.
The rejections of independent claims 1 and 11 are maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-10 and 13 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein. See the rejections of new dependent claims 14-17 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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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 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 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 July 13th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights