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 cryocooler by brazing must be shown,
condensing line integrated with the still pumping line by brazing or disposition in a conduit of the still pumping line within gas flow or within a conducive heat block,
4K helium compressor
adsorber replacement system,
helium battery
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 uses the term “adsorber replacement system” which uses the functional language of “adsorber replacement” with the nonce term “system” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) but there is not sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function and as such the specification lacks written description to show that at the time the application was filed, applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
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 5, 7, 9, and 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 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 9 recites “4K helium compressor”. A 4K helium compressor is not a recognized term of art and it is unclear how it would differ from any other helium compressor as the specification only refers to it as a 4K helium compressor and does not provide any elaboration on what is meant by 4K in this context. For the purpose of examination, the 4K before helium compressor is not considered to further limit the term “helium compressor”.
Claim limitation “adsorber replacement system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. An “adsorber replacement system” is not a term of art and applicant has not provided any structure, material or acts to the function and the components that may qualify as adsorber replacement system would not be considered known within the art. It is unclear what would actually be required for the “adsorber replacement system” to be present as one having ordinary skill in the art would not recognize what structure, material or acts it could or would include. This results in a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, and as such it is not proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art, see MPEP 2173.06. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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:
Adsorber replacement system in claim 9,
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.
Helium battery in claim 10 is understood to be a storage system for helium.
Means for generating the cryogenic temperatures in claim 17 is understood to be a cryocooler.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (US PG Pub 20240191913), hereinafter referred to as Nakano.
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).
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano and further in view and Kelly et al. (US PG Pub 20030126886).
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 flange coupled to the cryocooler (top flange 116 is connected to the first cooling stage 114a, paragraphs 27 and 41);
and 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).
Nakano does not teach the still pumping line integrated with the one or more flanges.
Kelly teaches that a still pumping line can extend through a support flange (10) to communicate with a port (paragraph 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the still pumping line of Nakano to have when passing the still pumping line out of the cryostat to have passed it through the flange based on the teaching of Kelly as modified based since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an opening in the flange would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known passageway that would allow the still pumping line to pass through to outside of the cryostat to cycle the helium as desired. As the still pumping line passes through the flange it can be said to be integrated, though it can also be noted that as they are both in and connected to the same cryostat, they can also be said to be integrated in this way.
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 3, Nakano as modified teaches wherein the one or more flanges are configured to provide the vacuum interface (the flanges are actively cooled by the cryocooler and thus would be configured to provide thermalization as the pulse tube cryocooler would be able provide them at a state of thermal equilibrium with the pulse tube cryocooler).
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).
Claim 9 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
With respect to claim 16, Nakano teaches the cryogenic system further comprises one flange configured to provide thermalization, the one or more flanges are coupled to the cryocooler (top flange 116 is connected to the first cooling stage of the cryocooler 114a, 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).
Nakano does not teach the still pumping line is integrated with the one flange.
Kelly teaches that a still pumping line can extend through a support flange (10) to communicate with a port (paragraph 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the still pumping line of Nakano to have when passing the still pumping line out of the cryostat to have passed it through the flange based on the teaching of Kelly as modified based since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an opening in the flange would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known passageway that would allow the still pumping line to pass through to outside of the cryostat to cycle the helium as desired. As the still pumping line passes through the flange it can be said to be integrated, though it can also be noted that as they are both in and connected to the same cryostat, they can also be said to be integrated in this way.
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 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).
Nakano does not teach the still pumping line integrated with the one or more flanges.
Kelly teaches that a still pumping line can extend through a support flange (10) to communicate with a port (paragraph 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the still pumping line of Nakano to have when passing the still pumping line out of the cryostat to have passed it through the flange based on the teaching of Kelly as modified based since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an opening in the flange would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known passageway that would allow the still pumping line to pass through to outside of the cryostat to cycle the helium as desired. As the still pumping line passes through the flange it can be said to be integrated, though it can also be noted that as they are both in and connected to the same cryostat, they can also be said to be integrated in this way.
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/Kelly 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
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano/Kelly and further in view of Batey (US PG Pub 20140202179), hereinafter referred to as Batey.
With respect to claim 10, Nakano does not teach wherein the helium battery is configured to storage and release helium gas to maintain operation of the regenerative cryogenic system.
Batey (Figure 1) teaches that a vacuum vessel (5) which has a dilution refrigerator and a pulse tube cooler (paragraphs 33-34, 37) has an external storage vessel (32, paragraph 46 which is connected to a pre-cool circuit vi aa pump for cooling helium with the pulse tube which is then cooled used to provide a pre-cool circuit to the target region that the dilution refrigerator cools (paragraph 18).
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 in Nakano an external storage vessel that is able to provide helium to a pre-cool circuit based on the teaching of Batey in order to be provide safe loading of the sample by pre-cooling the sample that the dilution refrigerator is used for as it moves from room temperature to the cold mounting body and prevent a catastrophic failure of the dilution refrigerator that would be caused by providing a significant heat load when the sample is provided (paragraphs 4-6 of Batey).
Conclusion
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