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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1: “a cryocooler” should read “the cryocooler”
Claim 3, line 1: “a cryocooler” should read “the cryocooler”
Claim 4, line 1: “a cryocooler” should read “the cryocooler”
Claim 5, line 1: “a cryocooler” should read “the cryocooler”
Claim 6, line 1: “a cryocooler” should read “the cryocooler”
Claim 2, line 1: “a cryocooler” should read “the cryocooler”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al. (JP 2004225920), hereinafter Yagi in view of Spinelli et al. (The use of a directional solidification technique to investigate the interrelationship of thermal parameters, microstructure and microhardness of Bi–Ag solder alloys), hereinafter Spinelli.
Regarding claim 1, Yagi discloses a regenerator material for a cryocooler (Pg. 1, paragraph 1, The present invention relates to a regenerator filled with a regenerator material having a low specific heat at a low temperature, and more particularly to a regenerator used for a Stirling type, a GM (Giffrod McMahon) type, a pulse tube type or the like; Fig. 5, GM refrigerator 10, second regenerator 30, cold storage material 34) comprising:
bismuth as a main component (Abstract, To provide a cool accumulator applying a Pb-free cold storage material…In this cool accumulator for a very low temperature refrigeration machine in which the cold storage material 34 is packed, the cold storage material 34 includes one or both of In and Bi as its main components); and
silver as an additive (Abstract, and at least one of Sn, Ag, Au, Pt, Nb, Zr, Sr, Al, Si, B, C, O, Ca, Ba, La and other materials of low environmental load as additives).
However, Yagi does not explicitly disclose the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight.
Spinelli teaches the use of Bismuth-silver alloys as a replacement for led alloys with as low as 1.5% wt of silver (Abstract, Bi–Ag alloys have been stressed as possible alternatives to replace Pb-based solder alloys; Pg. 116, Bi–1.5 wt.%Ag, Bi–2.5 wt.%Ag and Bi–4.0 wt.%Ag alloys).
Yagi fails to teach the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight, however Spinelli teaches that it is a known method in the art of Bismuth-silver alloys to include the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight. This is strong evidence that modifying Yagi as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yagi by Spinelli and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys. Further, the Examiner would like to note it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Regarding claim 2, Yagi as modified discloses the regenerator material for a cryocooler according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein
at most, 5% by weight of silver is provided as the additive (Spinelli, Abstract, Bi–Ag alloys have been stressed as possible alternatives to replace Pb-based solder alloys; Pg. 116, Bi–1.5 wt.%Ag, Bi–2.5 wt.%Ag and Bi–4.0 wt.%Ag alloys). Further, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Yagi as modified discloses the regenerator material for a cryocooler according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein
at most, 2% by weight of silver is provided as the additive (Spinelli, Abstract, Bi–Ag alloys have been stressed as possible alternatives to replace Pb-based solder alloys; Pg. 116, Bi–1.5 wt.%Ag, Bi–2.5 wt.%Ag and Bi–4.0 wt.%Ag alloys). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Yagi as modified discloses the regenerator material for a cryocooler according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein
at most, 1% by weight of silver is provided as the additive (Spinelli, Abstract, Bi–Ag alloys have been stressed as possible alternatives to replace Pb-based solder alloys; Pg. 116, Bi–1.5 wt.%Ag, Bi–2.5 wt.%Ag and Bi–4.0 wt.%Ag alloys). Further, the Examiner would like to not it has been held a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). (MPEP § 2144.05-I.). Moreover, the limitations of claim 4 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Yagi as modified discloses the regenerator material for a cryocooler according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein
only silver is provided as the additive (Yagi, Abstract, and at least one of Sn, Ag, Au, Pt, Nb, Zr, Sr, Al, Si, B, C, O, Ca, Ba, La and other materials of low environmental load as additives; Further, the teachings of Yagi at least imply silver can be the only additive as it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi as modified by Spinelli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US Patent No. 11,906,228), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 6, Yagi as modified discloses the regenerator material for a cryocooler according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Yagi as modified does not explicitly disclose the regenerator material is granular.
Zhou teaches the use of granular bismuth as a regenerator material (Col. 5, lines 61-63, It has been verified that granular bismuth is used as the cold storage material, and is used in the cryogenic refrigerator).
Yagi as modified fails to teach the regenerator material is granular, however Zhou teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic regenerator materials to include the regenerator material is granular. This is strong evidence that modifying Yagi as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. enabling high packing density to increase effective volumetric heat capacity to improve overall system efficacies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yagi as modified by Zhou and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of enabling high packing density to increase effective volumetric heat capacity to improve overall system efficacies.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent No. 10,281,175), hereinafter Xu in view of Yagi et al. (JP 2004225920), hereinafter Yagi and Spinelli et al. (The use of a directional solidification technique to investigate the interrelationship of thermal parameters, microstructure and microhardness of Bi–Ag solder alloys), hereinafter Spinelli.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses a regenerator for a cryocooler (Fig. 1, second stage regenerator 60, GM refrigerator 1; Fig. 7, second stage regenerator 160; Col. 10, lines 34-45, FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram showing the structure of a second stage regenerator 160 according to an embodiment of the present invention… (e.g., the GM refrigerator 1)) comprising:
a bismuth-based regenerator material containing bismuth as a main component (Fig. 7, second block 170; Col. 10, lines 52-54, The second block 170 includes a non-magnetic regenerator material different from a zinc based regenerator material… The non-magnetic regenerator material is exemplified by bismuth); and
a magnetic regenerator material disposed at a location different from a location of the bismuth-based regenerator material in an axial direction of the regenerator (Fig. 7, low temperature regenerator part 164, third block 174, fourth block 176; Col. 10-11, lines 65-67 and 1-8, The low temperature regenerator part 164 is provided with a boundary 178 between the third block 174 and the fourth block 176. A magnetic regenerator material fills the third block 174 and the fourth block 176. A first magnetic regenerator material (e.g., HoC2) is used to fill the third block 174 and a second magnetic regenerator material (e.g., Gd2O2S(GOS)) different from the first magnetic regenerator material is used to fill the fourth block 176. In one embodiment, one type of magnetic regenerator material may be used to fill the low temperature regenerator part 164).
However, Xu does not explicitly disclose the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive.
Yagi teaches the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive (Abstract, To provide a cool accumulator applying a Pb-free cold storage material…In this cool accumulator for a very low temperature refrigeration machine in which the cold storage material 34 is packed, the cold storage material 34 includes one or both of In and Bi as its main components, and at least one of Sn, Ag, Au, Pt, Nb, Zr, Sr, Al, Si, B, C, O, Ca, Ba, La and other materials of low environmental load as additives).
Xu fails to teach the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive feature, however Yagi teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic regenerator materials to include the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive. This is strong evidence that modifying Xu as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu by Yagi and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys.
However, Xu as modified does not explicitly disclose the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight.
Spinelli teaches the use of Bismuth-silver alloys as a replacement for led alloys with as low as 1.5% wt of silver (Abstract, Bi–Ag alloys have been stressed as possible alternatives to replace Pb-based solder alloys; Pg. 116, Bi–1.5 wt.%Ag, Bi–2.5 wt.%Ag and Bi–4.0 wt.%Ag alloys).
Xu as modified fails to teach the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight, however Spinelli teaches that it is a known method in the art of Bismuth-silver alloys to include the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight. This is strong evidence that modifying Xu as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu as modified by Spinelli and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys. Further, the Examiner would like to note it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Regarding claim 8, Xu as modified discloses the regenerator for a cryocooler according to claim 7 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 7 above), further comprising:
a zinc-based regenerator material disposed on a side opposite to the magnetic regenerator material with respect to the bismuth silver-based regenerator material in the axial direction of the regenerator (Xu, Fig. 7, first block 168; Col. 10, lines 50-52, The first block 168 includes a zinc based regenerator material (e.g., zinc based metal such as zinc)).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses a cryocooler (Fig. 1, GM refrigerator 1) comprising:
a cryocooler regenerator (Fig. 1, second stage regenerator 60; Fig. 7, second stage regenerator 160; Col. 10, lines 34-45, FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram showing the structure of a second stage regenerator 160 according to an embodiment of the present invention… (e.g., the GM refrigerator 1)) comprising:
a bismuth-based regenerator material containing bismuth as a main component (Fig. 7, second block 170; Col. 10, lines 52-54, The second block 170 includes a non-magnetic regenerator material different from a zinc based regenerator material… The non-magnetic regenerator material is exemplified by bismuth); and
a magnetic regenerator material disposed at a location different from a location of the bismuth-based regenerator material in an axial direction of the regenerator (Fig. 7, low temperature regenerator part 164, third block 174, fourth block 176; Col. 10-11, lines 65-67 and 1-8, The low temperature regenerator part 164 is provided with a boundary 178 between the third block 174 and the fourth block 176. A magnetic regenerator material fills the third block 174 and the fourth block 176. A first magnetic regenerator material (e.g., HoC2) is used to fill the third block 174 and a second magnetic regenerator material (e.g., Gd2O2S(GOS)) different from the first magnetic regenerator material is used to fill the fourth block 176. In one embodiment, one type of magnetic regenerator material may be used to fill the low temperature regenerator part 164).
However, Xu does not explicitly disclose the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive.
Yagi teaches the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive (Abstract, To provide a cool accumulator applying a Pb-free cold storage material…In this cool accumulator for a very low temperature refrigeration machine in which the cold storage material 34 is packed, the cold storage material 34 includes one or both of In and Bi as its main components, and at least one of Sn, Ag, Au, Pt, Nb, Zr, Sr, Al, Si, B, C, O, Ca, Ba, La and other materials of low environmental load as additives).
Xu fails to teach the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive feature, however Yagi teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic regenerator materials to include the bismuth-based regenerator material to include silver as an additive. This is strong evidence that modifying Xu as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu by Yagi and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys.
However, Xu as modified does not explicitly disclose the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight.
Spinelli teaches the use of Bismuth-silver alloys as a replacement for led alloys with as low as 1.5% wt of silver (Abstract, Bi–Ag alloys have been stressed as possible alternatives to replace Pb-based solder alloys; Pg. 116, Bi–1.5 wt.%Ag, Bi–2.5 wt.%Ag and Bi–4.0 wt.%Ag alloys).
Xu as modified fails to teach the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight, however Spinelli teaches that it is a known method in the art of Bismuth-silver alloys to include the silver additive to be at most, 10% by weight. This is strong evidence that modifying Xu as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu as modified by Spinelli and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to provide non-toxic alloys with comparable characteristics to lead based alloys. Further, the Examiner would like to note it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lei et al. (US Patent No. 9,752,802) discloses a similar bismuth-based regenerator material for cryocoolers.
Satoh (US 20080104967) discloses a similar bismuth-based regenerator material for cryocoolers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 January 23rd, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763