Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: In both claims 5 and 20 the word “of” is needed between “disposition” and “a” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore the:
condensing line integrated with the still pumping line by disposition in a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a conducive heat block,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-20 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.
Claim 1 recites one or more thermalization plates held at respective temperatures during operation of the regenerative cryogenic system, each of the one or more thermalization plates comprising a respective flange coupled to the cryocooler and configured to provide a vacuum interface and/or thermalization between the cryocooler and the thermalization plate” which is considered to be new matter. The specification describes the use of “one or more flanges to provide vacuum interface and/or thermalization, the one or more flanges coupled to the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures” and then shows flanges (2156a/2156b/2156c) in regards to Figure 2C but then does not clearly show how these flanges relate to the thermalization plates. Later the specification mentions that there are detachable connections (540d) referred to as “e.g., flanges” but they do not appear to be the same flanges nor do the plates as described meet what would be understood in this context to be thermalization plates. Further, the use of “thermalization plate comprising a flange” makes it appear that the flanges are additional to the thermalization plate but this is not clear because the only component labeled as a flange after Figure 2C is not connected to and plate. Further, the thermalization plates extend beyond where the cryocooler extends into the overall dilution refrigerator and as such there is not support for each of the thermalization plates being coupled to the cryocooler as there are more thermalization plates than there are cryocooler stages (2156a-c appear to be part of the cryocooler). Additionally, while there is support for the flanges that is integrated with the still pumping line being coupled to the cryocooler, such combination with a thermalization plate does not have support and is not shown. As such the entirety of the limitation is not supported by the specification and is considered new matter.
Claim 11 recites “each of the one or more flanges coupled to a respective thermalization plate configured to be held at one of a plurality of temperatures, each of the one or more flanges configured to provide a vacuum interface and/or thermalization between the cryocooler and the respective thermalization plate” which is considered to be new matter. The specification describes the use of “one or more flanges to provide vacuum interface and/or thermalization, the one or more flanges coupled to the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures” and then shows flanges (2156a/2156b/2156c) in regards to Figure 2C but then does not clearly show how these flanges relate to the thermalization plates. Later the specification mentions that there are detachable connections (540d) referred to as “e.g., flanges” but they do not appear to be the same flanges nor do the plates as described meet what would be understood in this context to be thermalization plates. Further, the use of “thermalization plate comprising a flange” makes it appear that the flanges are additional to the thermalization plate but this is not clear because the only component labeled as a flange after Figure 2C is not connected to and plate. Further, the thermalization plates extend beyond where the cryocooler extends into the overall dilution refrigerator and as such there is not support for each of the thermalization plates being coupled to the cryocooler as there are more thermalization plates than there are cryocooler stages (2156a-c appear to be part of the cryocooler). Additionally, while there is support for the flanges that is integrated with the still pumping line being coupled to the cryocooler, such combination with a thermalization plate does not have support and is not shown. Finally, there are not “flanges of the dilution refrigerator” recited in the specification, there are flanges recited that are part of the cryocooler, but not part of the dilution refrigerator as bets understood. As such the entirety of the limitation is not supported by the specification and is considered new matter.
Claim 17 recites “one or more flanges, each of the one or more flanges configured to provide vacuum interface and/or thermalization between the means for generating cryogenic temperatures and a respective thermalization plate of the one more thermalization plates, each of the one or more flanges coupled between the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures and the respective thermalization plate”. The specification describes the use of “one or more flanges to provide vacuum interface and/or thermalization, the one or more flanges coupled to the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures” and then shows flanges (2156a/2156b/2156c) in regards to Figure 2C but then does not clearly show how these flanges relate to the thermalization plates. Later the specification mentions that there are detachable connections (540d) referred to as “e.g., flanges” but they do not appear to be the same flanges nor do the plates as described meet what would be understood in this context to be thermalization plates. Further, the use of “thermalization plate comprising a flange” makes it appear that the flanges are additional to the thermalization plate but this is not clear because the only component labeled as a flange after Figure 2C is not connected to and plate. Further, the thermalization plates extend beyond where the cryocooler extends into the overall dilution refrigerator and as such there is not support for each of the thermalization plates being coupled to the cryocooler as there are more thermalization plates than there are cryocooler stages (2156a-c appear to be part of the cryocooler). Additionally, while there is support for the flanges that is integrated with the still pumping line being coupled to the cryocooler, such combination with a thermalization plate does not have support and is not shown. As such the entirety of the limitation is not supported by the specification and is considered new matter.
Claims 2, 4-8, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 4-8, 11-16, 20 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 1 recites one or more thermalization plates held at respective temperatures during operation of the regenerative cryogenic system, each of the one or more thermalization plates comprising a respective flange coupled to the cryocooler and configured to provide a vacuum interface and/or thermalization between the cryocooler and the thermalization plate” which is considered indefinite. First it is unclear if “held at respective temperatures” is a method step or an apparatus limitation and as such is indefinite. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” Additionally “the thermalization plate” is indefinite as it is unclear which of the “one or more thermalization plates” is being referred to. Further, it is unclear how a thermalization plate would have a flange as part of it. For the purpose of examination, the thermalization plates are understood to be configured to be held at respective temperatures and that each thermalization plate is connected to the cryocooler by a respective flange.
Claim 1 recites “each respective flange” which is considered indefinite as the amount of flanges have not been and as such there is no previous recitation of “each” flange being required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there are one or more flanges that the one or more thermalization plates are connected to each of the one or more flanges.
Claim 5 recites “the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator is integrated with the cryocooler and still pumping line by wrapping, brazing, or disposition a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a heat conductive block” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required by this limitation as it appears to be reciting that first the condensing line is integrated with the cryocooler and that it can be done by “wrapping, brazing, or disposition a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a heat conductive block” and it is unclear how the cryocooler would be integrated with the condensing line via any components of the still pumping line. Additionally, the use of multiple or statements makes it unclear if the or is applied to wrapping, brazing, and disposition or if the or is referring to where the conduit is disposed. For the purpose of examination, the cryocooler and the condensing line integration is understood as being by wrapping or brazing, whereas the still pumping line is integrated with the condensing line separately by wrapping, brazing, or disposition of a conduit of the still pumping line that is within gas flow or within a heat conductive block.
Claim 7 recites “to provide heat exchange between the dilution refrigerator and the cryocooler’ which is considered indefinite. The claims have not positively recited the present of the dilution refrigerator as a whole, only with respect to claim 7, the still pumping line and as such it is unclear this is a required component of the claim or only what the heat exchanger is use for. For the purpose of examination, no additional parts of the dilution refrigerator are required to be part of the invention as claimed, only that the heat exchanger has to be able to exchange heat with part of the dilution refrigerator that the still pumping line which is part of the claimed invention is part of.
Claim 11 recites “the still pumping line integrated with one or more flanges of the dilution refrigerator” and later “each of the one more flanges configured to provide a vacuum and/or thermalization between the cryocooler and the respective thermalization plate” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear how the still pumping line being integrated would be limiting as if they are both part of the dilution refrigerator the still pumping line and the flanges would already be integrated. Further it is unclear if they are integrated as claimed how the flanges would also provide the thermalization between the cryocooler and thermalization plate. For eth purpose of examination, the flanges are not considered to be required to be part of the dilution refrigerator, only integrated with the still pumping line.
Claim 11 recites “one or more flanges of the dilution refrigerator” which is considered indefinite as the claims have not positively recited that the dilution refrigerator has flanges and that is not an inherent characteristic of a dilution refrigerator. For the purpose of examination, there are understood to be flanges that are part of the dilution refrigerator.
Claim 20 recites “the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator is integrated with the cryocooler and still pumping line by wrapping, brazing, or disposition a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a heat conductive block” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required by this limitation as it appears to be reciting that first the condensing line is integrated with the cryocooler and that it can be done by “wrapping, brazing, or disposition a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a heat conductive block” and it is unclear how the cryocooler would be integrated with the condensing line via any components of the still pumping line. Additionally, the use of multiple or statements makes it unclear if the or is applied to wrapping, brazing, and disposition or if the or is referring to where the conduit is disposed. For the purpose of examination, the cryocooler and the condensing line integration is understood as being by wrapping or brazing, whereas the still pumping line is integrated with the condensing line separately by wrapping, brazing, or disposition of a conduit of the still pumping line that is within gas flow or within a heat conductive block.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 12-16, 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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:
Means for generating the cryogenic temperatures in claim 17 is understood to be a cryocooler.
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 § 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) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (US PG Pub 20240191913), hereinafter referred to as Nakano and further in view and Matthews (US PG Pub 20230088083), hereinafter referred to as Matthews and Liu et al. (US PG Pub 20240102701) hereinafter referred to as Liu.
With respect to claim 1, Nakano teaches (Figures 1 and 3) a regenerative cryogenic system comprising:a cryocooler configured to generate cryogenic temperatures (pulse tube cryocooler 100, paragraph 41),
one or more components held at a respective temperature during operation of the regenerative cryogenic system, each of the one or more components comprising a respective flange coupled to the cryocooler (first and second cooling stage 114a/114b which would be understood to be flanges, and are in the same configuration as the flanges as disclosed in the instant specification, are coupled to the respective shields 14/16, paragraph 18), the still pumping line configured to provide a flow path for still gas of a dilution refrigerator (return pipe 26 from the distillation chamber 27 to pump 21, paragraph 20).
Nakano does not teach the component that is held at the respective temperature during operation is a thermalization plate which comprises the flange that is coupled to the cryocooler such that the flange provides thermalization between the cryocooler and the thermalization plate.
Matthews teaches that between the cryocooler stages (10/11) and the respective shields (15/16), thermal stages made of a highly conductive material are used which stages can be cooled plates (2, paragraphs 6 and 29), seen in the figure to extend along the entirety of the shields.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided between the respective first and second cooling stages (flanges) of Nakano and the shield to have provided cooled plates based on the teaching of Matthews along the shield and are thermally connected between the cooling stages and the shield since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the cooled plates, which would be the same as thermalization plates, would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of providing a good thermal connection between the shield and the flange as well as being able to spread the cooling out better over the shield with the plates extending beyond the flange themselves. This would result in both physically and thermally the flanges being between the thermalization plates as modified and the cryocooler.
While it appears in the figure that the still pumping line (26) is in heat exchange with both the shields (and thus with the flanges of the cryocooler) this is not taught explicitly in Nakano and as such Nakano does not teach the still pumping line integrated with each respective flange.
Liu (Figure 1) teaches that both the incoming and outgoing lines of (4.2) of the circulating pipe of a dilution refrigerator are in heat exchange (via 4.3.2, 4.3.1) with the respective heat exchangers (1.5 and 1.7) of the cold screens (1.14, 1.15) of an overall refrigerator (paragraphs 34-35).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Liu to have had the return tube (26) of Nakano as modified be in heat exchange with the cooled plates that are connected to the flanges as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that by connecting the return tube (still pumping line) thermally to the cooling plates (and thus the shield) would reduce the amount of other cooling needed and allow for recovery of remaining cold in the returning fluid. As both the flange and return tube are thermally connected the cooling plates (thermalization plates) they can be considered integrated with respect to each other.
With respect to claim 2, Nakano as modified teaches wherein the cryocooler is configured to generate cryogenic temperatures below 4.2 Kelvin (the pulse tube second stage is as low as 3 K, paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 4, Nakano as modified teaches a condensing line of the dilution refrigerator integrated with and configured to exchange heat with the cryocooler and the still pumping line (the overall outward-side flow path 20a that extends from 21 to 31 where helium condensed in 24 forms a condensing line, which would be against the still pumping line as it is located within it, where the flowpath is first precooled in 23 by the pulse tube cryocooler and then afterward in the condenser liquefied against the return tube, paragraphs 19-21), wherein the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator is configured to condense the still gas of the dilution refrigerator (condensing happens in 24 which is part of the condensing line); and wherein the cryocooler is configured to provide cooling to the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator (the cryocooler provides the cooling in the precooling heat exchanger, paragraph 20).
With respect to claim 6, Nakano as modified teaches the still pumping line is configured to cool the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator (the return tube provides cooling to the condensing line in 24, paragraph 20).
With respect to claim 7, Nakano as modified teaches one heat exchanger integrated between the dilution refrigerator and the cryocooler, wherein the one heat exchanger is configured to provide heat exchange between the dilution refrigerator and the cryocooler (precooling heat exchanger provides heat exchanger between the outward-side flow path of the dilution refrigerator and the second stage of the cryocooler, paragraph 20).
With respect to claim 8, Nakano as modified teaches wherein the cryocooler comprises one or more pulse tubes (pulse tubes 110a and 110b, paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 11, Nakano (Figures 1, 3) teaches a method of operating a cryogenic system comprising a cryocooler (pulse tube cryocooler 100, paragraph 41), a still pumping line of a dilution refrigerator (vacuum chamber 12 surrounds the casing of a dilution refrigerator, paragraph 17, which includes return pipe 26 from the distillation chamber 27 to pump 21, paragraph 20 and thus return pipe 26 as it is connected to the top of the distillation chamber where gas would be located is a still pumping line which is returning still gas from the dilution refrigerator back to the pump), and a condensing line of the dilution refrigerator (the overall outward-side flow path 20a that extends from 21 to 31 where helium condensed in 24 forms a condensing line), the method comprising:
generating cryogenic temperatures using the cryocooler (the pulse tube second stage is as low as 3 K, paragraph 18);
exchanging heat between the condensing line and the cryocooler (in the precooling heat exchanger 23, the fluid flowing in the condensing line is cooled, paragraphs 19-21);
and exchanging heat between the condensing line and the still pumping line (helium in 24 is condensed within the return pipe, paragraph 20, which means the condenser is surrounded by and heat exchanges with the return pipe for cooling the helium).
While it appears in the figure that the still pumping line (26) is in heat exchange with both the shields (and thus with the flanges which are the first and second cooling stages 114a/114b of the cryocooler, which would be understood to be flanges, and are in the same configuration as the flanges as disclosed in the instant specification), Nakano does not teach the still pumping line integrated with one or more flanges of the dilution refrigerator.
Liu (Figure 1) teaches that both the incoming and outgoing lines of (4.2) of the circulating pipe of a dilution refrigerator are in heat exchange (via 4.3.2, 4.3.1) with the respective heat exchangers (1.5 and 1.7) of the cold screens (1.14, 1.15) of an overall refrigerator (paragraphs 34-35).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Liu to have had the return tube (26) of Nakano as modified be in heat exchange with the shields that are also in heat exchange with the flanges (114a/114b) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that by connecting the return tube (still pumping line) thermally to the shields would reduce the amount of other cooling needed and allow for recovery of remaining cold in the returning fluid. As both the flange and return tube are thermally connected the shields they can be considered integrated with respect to each other.
Nakano as modified does not teach each of the one or more flanges coupled to a respective thermalization plate configured to be held at one of a plurality of temperatures, each of the one or more flanges configured to provide a vacuum interface and/or thermalization between the cryocooler and the respective thermalization plate.
Matthews teaches that between the cryocooler stages (10/11) and the respective shields (15/16), thermal stages made of a highly conductive material are used which stages can be cooled plates (2, paragraphs 6 and 29), seen in the figure to extend along the entirety of the shields.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided between the respective first and second cooling stages (flanges) of Nakano as modified and the shield to have provided cooled plates as taught by Matthews along the shield and are thermally connected between the cooling stages and the shield since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the cooled plates, which would be the same as thermalization plates, would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of providing a good thermal connection between the shield and the flange as well as being able to spread the cooling out better over the shield with the plates extending beyond the flange themselves. This would result in both physically and thermally the flanges being between the thermalization plates as modified and the cryocooler.
With respect to claim 12, Nakano teaches generating cryogenic temperatures using the cryocooler comprises: generating cryogenic temperatures below 4.2 Kelvin (the cryocooler provides temperatures as low as 3K).
With respect to claim 13, Nakano teaches condensing still gas of the dilution refrigerator using the condensing line (helium is condensed in 24, paragraph 20, which is part of the condensing line).
With respect to claim 14, Nakano teaches exchanging heat between the condensing line and the cryocooler comprises: cooling the condensing line using the cryocooler (the cryocooler cools the outward-flow path that is the condensing line via 23, paragraphs 19-21).
With respect to claim 15, Nakano teaches wherein exchanging heat between the condensing line and the still pumping line comprises: cooling the condensing line using the still pumping line (the return tube that is the still pumping line cools the condensing line that is the outward-flow path at the condenser 24, paragraphs 19-21).
With respect to claim 17, Nakano teaches a cryogenic system (Figures 1 and 3) comprising:
means generating cryogenic temperatures (pulse tube cryocooler 100, paragraph 41);
one or me flanges, each of the one or more flanges configured to provide thermalization (first and second cooling stage 114a/114b which would be understood to be flanges, and are in the same configuration as the flanges as disclosed in the instant specification, are coupled to the respective shields 14/16, paragraph 18, and would provide thermalization by maintaining the shield at the require temperature)
one flange configured to provided thermalization, the one or more flanges coupled to the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures (top flange 116 is connected to the first cooling stage 114a of the cryocooler, paragraphs 27 and 41, which would result in it having thermalization as the active cooling by the cryocooler would thermalize the temperature of the flange);
a still pumping line configured to provide a flow path for still gas of a dilution refrigerator (vacuum chamber 12 surrounds the casing of a dilution refrigerator, paragraph 17, which includes return pipe 26 from the distillation chamber 27 to pump 21, paragraph 20 and thus return pipe 26 as it is connected to the top of the distillation chamber where gas would be located is a still pumping line which is returning still gas from the dilution refrigerator back to the pump).
One or more thermalization plates where the flanges are between the means for generating cryogenic temperatures and a respective thermalization plate of the one or more thermalization plates, each of the one or more flanges coupled between the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures and the respective thermalization plate.
Matthews teaches that between the cryocooler stages (10/11) and the respective shields (15/16), thermal stages made of a highly conductive material are used which stages can be cooled plates (2, paragraphs 6 and 29), seen in the figure to extend along the entirety of the shields.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided between the respective first and second cooling stages (flanges) of Nakano and the shield to have provided cooled plates as taught by Matthews along the shield and are thermally connected between the cooling stages and the shield since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the cooled plates, which would be the same as thermalization plates, would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of providing a good thermal connection between the shield and the flange as well as being able to spread the cooling out better over the shield with the plates extending beyond the flange themselves. This would result in both physically and thermally the flanges being between the thermalization plates as modified and the cryocooler.
While it appears in the figure that the still pumping line (26) is in heat exchange with both the shields (and thus with the flanges of the cryocooler) this is not taught explicitly in Nakano and as such Nakano does not teach the still pumping line integrated with the one or more flanges
Liu (Figure 1) teahces that both the incoming and outgoing lines of (4.2) of the circulating pipe of a dilution refrigerator are in heat exchange (via 4.3.2, 4.3.1) with the respective heat exchangers (1.5 and 1.7) of the cold screens (1.14, 1.15) of an overall refrigerator (paragraphs 34-35).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Liu to have had the return tube (26) of Nakano as modified be in heat exchange with the cooled plates that are connected to the flanges as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that by connecting the return tube (still pumping line) thermally to the cooling plates (and thus the shield) would reduce the amount of other cooling needed and allow for recovery of remaining cold in the returning fluid. As both the flange and return tube are thermally connected the cooling plates (thermalization plates) they can be considered integrated with respect to each other.
With respect to claim 18, Nakano teaches a condensing line of a dilution refrigerator, wherein the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator is configured to: exchange heat with the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures and the still pumping line (the overall outward-side flow path 20a that extends from 21 to 31 where helium condensed in 24 forms a condensing line, which would be against the still pumping line as it is located within it, where the flowpath is first precooled in 23 by the pulse tube cryocooler and then afterward in the condenser liquefied against the return tube, paragraphs 19-21);
and condense the still gas of the dilution refrigerator (the still gas which was returned and cycled to 20a is condensed 24).
With respect to claim 19, Nakano as modified teaches the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator comprises: a first portion integrated with and configured to exchange heat with the still pumping line (the portion of the line passing through heat exchanger 23); and a second portion integrated with and configured to exchange heat with the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures (the portion of the line at condenser 24), the still pumping line is configured to cool the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator (the return tube cools 24).
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano/Matthews/Liu and further in view of Sasano (US PG Pub 20250277607), hereinafter referred to as Sasano.
With respect to claim 5, Nakano does not teach wherein the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator is integrated with the cryocooler and the still pumping line by wrapping, brazing, or disposition a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a heat conductive block.
Sasano teaches that to provide cooling to a refrigerant pipe it can be wound around the outer peripheral surface of the cooling stage (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sasano to have when providing heat exchange between the condensing line and the cryocooler and the condensing line and the still pumping line to have wound the condensing line around the cryocooler second stage and around where the heat exchange is made with the still pumping line respectively in Nakano since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchanger wound around the respective cooling stages would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a large surface area for heat exchange while also providing the ability to extend the length of the heat exchangers or modify the surface area based on how the winding is provided.
With respect to claim 20, Nakano does not teach wherein the condensing line of the dilution refrigerator is integrated with the means for generating the cryogenic temperatures and the still pumping line by wrapping, brazing, or disposition a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a heat conductive block.
Sasano teaches that to provide cooling to a refrigerant pipe it can be wound around the outer peripheral surface of the cooling stage (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Sasano to have when providing heat exchange between the condensing line and the cryocooler and the condensing line and the still pumping line to have wound the condensing line around the cryocooler second stage and around where the heat exchange is made with the still pumping line respectively in Nakano since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchanger wound around the respective cooling stages would provide what would be common knowledge in the art
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to the maintained rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and the drawing objections.
Applicant argues that the limitations objected to with respect to the drawings are shown in Figure 2A-2C and described in the specification. This is not persuasive. While it is agreed that the wrapping is showed in the drawings, none of the other limitations in the maintained objections above that are in the claims are shown in the drawings, and the recitation in the specification is not sufficient to overcome a drawing objection. For the amended or cancelled claims, those drawings objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argue that the limitations in the indefinite rejections of claims 5, 7 or 20 are shown in the specification but makes no specific arguments to how those limitations are definite and a such the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 USC 102(a) and 1 and 17 under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matthews and Liu.
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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights