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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 May, 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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:
“optical elements” which are claimed to focus infrared radiation in claim 2. The limitation is interpreted as the structural elements recited in paragraph 16 of the originally-filed specification, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 and 15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STUBBS (US 5,598,711 – published 4 February, 1997).
As to claim 8, STUBBS discloses a cryo-adapter(71) comprising:
an endcap(79) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter(figure 2-3);
tubing(29) comprising a nozzle (opening at end of 29) that extends through the end cap (figure 2-3; through opening, 89; col. 6, line 54- col.7, line 2)into the interior of the cryo-adapter (figure 2-3),the nozzle configured to disperse liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter(col.4, lines 40-42; figure 3); and
an exit port (101) configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17)
As to claim 10, STUBBS discloses the tubing is coiled about an outside of the cryo-adapter (figure 2-3, wherein the tubing, 29, includes a portion that extends in a coiled manner about an outside of the cryo-adapter).
As to claim 11, STUBBS discloses wherein the exit port (101) is configured to disperse the liquefied cryogen along an outside surface of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
As to claim 12, STUBBS disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Joule-Thomson cryostat configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (23; col. 4, lines 1-8; col.4, lines 12-18).
As to claim 15, STUBBS discloses a method comprising:
removing heat(col. 4, lines 35-42) through an end cap(79) forming an interior for a cryo-adapter(figure 2-3);
dispersing(col.4, lines 40-42), using a nozzle (opening at end of 29) that extends through the endcap (figures 2-3; through opening, 89; col.6, line 54-col. 7, line 2) into the interior of the cryo-adapter, liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter through tubing(col.4, lines 40-42; figure 3); and
releasing, using the exit port (101), the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter to an exterior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17)
As to claim 17, STUBBS discloses releasing the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17) allows for continuous application of the liquefied cryogen to be applied to the cryo-adapter (col.4, lines 30-42).
As to claim 18, STUBBS discloses releasing, using the exit port (101), the liquefied cryogen along an outside surface of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STUBBS (US 5,598,711 – published 4 February, 1997), in view of SCHULTZ (NPL: Digital-Pixel Focal Plane Array Technology – Schultz et al. -- published 2014.)
As to claim 1, STUBBS discloses a seeker comprising:
a housing (51; col. 4, lines 9-11);
a focal plane array (FPA)(41; col.5, lines 30-32) positioned within the housing (figure 1, in view of col.5, line 67-col.6, line 6); and
a cryo-adapter(71) positioned in the housing adjacent to the FPA(figure 2) and configured to remove heat from the FPA(col.5, line 65-col.6, line 10), the cryo-adapter comprising:
an endcap(79) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter(figure 2-3);
tubing(29) comprising a nozzle (opening at end of 29) that extends through the end cap (figure 2-3; through opening, 89; col. 6, line 54- col.7, line 2)into the interior of the cryo-adapter (figure 2-3),the nozzle configured to disperse liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter(col.4, lines 40-42; figure 3); and
an exit port (101) configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
However, STUBBS does not disclose wherein the focal plane array is necessarily a digital focal plane array.
SCHULTZ, however, is within the relevant field of endeavor of focal plane arrays and digital focal plane arrays. SCHULTZ teaches wherein digital focal plane arrays (DFPA) were developed to address the shortfalls of conventional focal plane arrays (FPA). Specifically, FPA’s have limited data range, dynamic range, and on-chip capabilities, of which DFPA’s were developed to overcome. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS to incorporate a digital focal plane array, in place of a focal plane array, to overcome these shortfalls recognized and associated with focal plane arrays.
As to claim 3, STUBBS, as modified, discloses the tubing is coiled about an outside of the cryo-adapter (figure 2-3, wherein the tubing, 29, includes a portion that extends in a coiled manner about an outside of the cryo-adapter).
As to claim 4, STUBBS, as modified, discloses wherein the exit port (101) is configured to disperse the liquefied cryogen along an outside of the cryo-adapter ((figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
As to claim 5, STUBBS, as modified, disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Joule-Thomson cryostat configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (23; col. 4, lines 1-8; col.4, lines 12-18).
As to claim 9, STUBBS discloses wherein the cryo-adapter is configured to remove heat from a focal plane array (41) positioned adjacent to the cryo-adapter (figures 2-3; col.5, lines 3-22).
However, STUBBS does not disclose wherein the focal plane array is necessarily a digital focal plane array.
SCHULTZ, however, is within the relevant field of endeavor of focal plane arrays and digital focal plane arrays. SCHULTZ teaches wherein digital focal plane arrays (DFPA) were developed to address the shortfalls of conventional focal plane arrays (FPA). Specifically, FPA’s have limited data range, dynamic range, and on-chip capabilities, of which DFPA’s were developed to overcome. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS to incorporate a digital focal plane array, in place of a focal plane array, to overcome these shortfalls recognized and associated with focal plane arrays.
As to claim 16, STUBBS discloses wherein the cryo-adapter is configured to remove heat from a focal plane array (41) positioned adjacent to the cryo-adapter (figures 2-3; col.5, lines 3-22).
However, STUBBS does not disclose wherein the focal plane array is necessarily a digital focal plane array.
SCHULTZ, however, is within the relevant field of endeavor of focal plane arrays and digital focal plane arrays. SCHULTZ teaches wherein digital focal plane arrays (DFPA) were developed to address the shortfalls of conventional focal plane arrays (FPA). Specifically, FPA’s have limited data range, dynamic range, and on-chip capabilities, of which DFPA’s were developed to overcome. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS to incorporate a digital focal plane array, in place of a focal plane array, to overcome these shortfalls recognized and associated with focal plane arrays.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STUBBS (US 5,598,711 – published 4 February, 1997), in view of SCHULTZ (NPL: Digital-Pixel Focal Plane Array Technology – Schultz et al. -- published 2014.) and LYONS (US 2017/0108248 A1 – published 20 April, 2017).
As to claim 6, STUBBS, as modified, does not further disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Stirling cryo-engine configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter.
LYONS, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a seeker (abstract; figure 2). LYONS teaches a cryo-adapter (212) positioned adjacent to a focal plane array (par. 27-28, in view of claim 7), with an end cap (202) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter (par. 28; figure 2). More so, LYONS teaches wherein cryo-adapter comprises a Stirling cryo-engine(221; par. 30) configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (par. 30). Notably, LYONS indicates utilizing both a Joule-Thomson cryostat, such as disclosed by STUBBS, in addition to the Stirling cryo-engine for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25). More so, the combination allows for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS further with the teachings of LYONS, for the purpose of for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25) and allowing for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25).
As to claim 7, STUBBS, as modified, previously taught wherein the liquefied cryogen dispersed within the interior of the cryo-adapter is used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat (col.4, line 57-col.5, line2).
Further, the teachings of STUBBS, as modified by LYONS, provided the integration of the Stirling cryo-engine with the Joule-Thomson cryostat (see rejection of claim 7).
LYONS, further, teaches, wherein the Joule-Thomson cryostat is used to cool the Stirling cryo-engine (par.25).
As such, providing the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat, necessarily provides the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Stirling cryo-engine, as well, by cooling through the Joule-Thomson cryostat. For this, the prior art effectively teaches the requirement of the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as the heat transfer medium for both the Joule-Thomson cryostat and Stirling cryo-engine.
As to claim 13, STUBBS does not further disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Stirling cryo-engine configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter.
LYONS, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a seeker (abstract; figure 2). LYONS teaches a cryo-adapter (212) positioned adjacent to a focal plane array (par. 27-28, in view of claim 7), with an end cap (202) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter (par. 28; figure 2). More so, LYONS teaches wherein cryo-adapter comprises a Stirling cryo-engine(221; par. 30) configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (par. 30). Notably, LYONS indicates utilizing both a Joule-Thomson cryostat, such as disclosed by STUBBS, in addition to the Stirling cryo-engine for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25). More so, the combination allows for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS with the teachings of LYSON, for the purpose of for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25) and allowing for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25).
As to claim 14, STUBBS previously taught wherein the liquefied cryogen dispersed within the interior of the cryo-adapter is used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat (col.4, line 57-col.5, line2).
Further, the teachings of STUBBS, as modified by LYONS, provided the integration of the Stirling cryo-engine with the Joule-Thomson cryostat (see rejection of claim 7).
LYONS, further, teaches, wherein the Joule-Thomson cryostat is used to cool the Stirling cryo-engine (par.25).
As such, providing the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat, necessarily provides the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Stirling cryo-engine, as well, by cooling through the Joule-Thomson cryostat. For this, the prior art effectively teaches the requirement of the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as the heat transfer medium for both the Joule-Thomson cryostat and Stirling cryo-engine.
As to claim 19, STUBBS discloses transferring, using a Joule-Thomson cryostat, heat from the cryo-adapter (23; col. 4, lines 1-8; col.4, lines 12-18).
However, STUBBS does not further disclose transferring, using a Stirling cryo-engine, heat from the cryo-adapter.
LYONS, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a seeker (abstract; figure 2). LYONS teaches a cryo-adapter (212) positioned adjacent to a focal plane array (par. 27-28, in view of claim 7), with an end cap (202) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter (par. 28; figure 2). More so, LYONS teaches wherein cryo-adapter comprises a Stirling cryo-engine(221; par. 30) configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (par. 30). Notably, LYONS indicates utilizing both a Joule-Thomson cryostat, such as disclosed by STUBBS, in addition to the Stirling cryo-engine for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25). More so, the combination allows for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS with the teachings of LYONS, for the purpose of for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25) and allowing for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25).
As to claim 20, STUBBS previously taught wherein the liquefied cryogen dispersed within the interior of the cryo-adapter is used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat (col.4, line 57-col.5, line2).
Further, the teachings of STUBBS, as modified by LYONS, provided the integration of the Stirling cryo-engine with the Joule-Thomson cryostat (see rejection of claim 7).
LYONS, further, teaches, wherein the Joule-Thomson cryostat is used to cool the Stirling cryo-engine (par.25).
As such, providing the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat, necessarily provides the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Stirling cryo-engine, as well, by cooling through the Joule-Thomson cryostat. For this, the prior art effectively teaches the requirement of the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as the heat transfer medium for both the Joule-Thomson cryostat and Stirling cryo-engine.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STUBBS (US 5,598,711 – published 4 February, 1997), in view of SCHULTZ (NPL: Digital-Pixel Focal Plane Array Technology – Schultz et al. -- published 2014) and DUNN (GB 2186741 A – published 19 August, 1987).
As to claim 2, STUBBS, as modified, previously taught the focal plane array being specifically a digital focal plane array (see rejection of claim 1).
STUBBS discloses, in addition to the focal plane array(41; col.5, lines 30-32) positioned within the housing (figure 1, in view of col.5, line 67-col.6, line 6), an optical element (63) intended to receive operational wavelengths (col. 5,lines 33-39).
However, STUBBS does not expressly disclose wherein there is more than one optical element and wherein the optical element necessarily focuses infrared radiation to the DFPA.
DUNN, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a seeker (figure 1) which includes a focal plane array (2) and optical elements (11 and 12). DUNN teaches wherein the structure of a seeker is known to operate such that the optical elements infrared radiation (50) onto the focal plane array during operation (pg. 2, line 129 – pg. 3, line 16). As such, the claimed invention appears to be directed the manner of operation of the claimed invention, and STUBBS would operate in such a manner. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). See MPEP § 2114 – II. In addition, providing STUBBS to include more than one optical element (element 63 of STUBBS), such as taught by DUNN, is merely a duplication of parts which has been held by the courts to hold not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 – VI(B). See paragraph 16 of the originally-filed specification of the instant application, which places no criticality on the inclusion more than one optical element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS, in view of the teachings provided by DUNN, to include more than one optical element by duplication of parts. In addition, it is understood through the teachings of STUBBS and DUNN that the working principle of such devices include focusing of an applied infrared radiation through optical elements on the focal plane arrays.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed 18 May, 2026, with respect to the objection(s) of claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the claim amendments. The objection(s) of claim 2 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-9, filed 18 May, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the claim amendments at page 2. The rejections(s) of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 9-11, Applicant alleges STUBBS fails to disclose the requirements of claim 8, amended to include the language "an exit port configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter" previously presented within dependent claim 10. However, the arguments presented are not persuasive, in view of Applicant failing to provide evidence or structural difference between the invention of STUBBS and the claimed present invention. See MPEP § 2131 and § 2114 -- structural differences. The interior of the cryo-adapter is defined by an endcap (claim 8 - "an endcap forming an interior for the cryo-adapter"). STUBBS provides an endcap as structure "79" shown in figure 3 reproduced by Applicant at page 10 of the filed 18 May, 2026. The interior of the cryo-adapter is understood to be the interior defined by such structure, "79", as shown in figures 2-3, so as to provide the defining structure of the cryo-adapter's interior set forth by claim 8. As such, STUBBS necessarily provides wherein the exit port, reference character "101", releases liquefied cryogen from this defined interior of the cryo-adapter as expressly defined by the claim to be delimited by the structure of the endcap (i.e., "79" of STUBBS). For this, the argument is not persuasive, as the argument is not commensurate with the scope and requirements of the claim as set forth, and Applicant fails to provide evidence of a structural difference between the prior art and the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 11-12, Applicant alleges STUBBS fails to disclose the requirements of claim 1, amended to include the language "an exit port configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter" from dependent claim 3. However, for the same reasons presented with regards to the arguments of pages 9-11 of Applicant's reply filed on 18 May, 2026, the argument is not persuasive, as the argument is not commensurate with the scope and requirements of the claim as set forth, and Applicant fails to provide evidence of a structural difference between the prior art and the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 6/8/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights