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 .
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.
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:
“a control unit” in claim 13 and 25, is understood to be any art recognized controller;
“a non-transitory storage medium” in claim 20, is understood to be any art recognized controller.
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) 11, 12, 17, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US 4,877,153) in view of YU et al. (US 2022/0020516 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Varghese teaches a device comprising a cryogenic container (10) (col. 2, line 20-30; fig. 1), comprising an inner container (12) and an outer container (14) enclosing the inner container (see fig. 1), with a cooling layer (transient heat shield 34) being arranged between the inner container (12) and the outer container (14), the cooling layer (heat shield 34) enveloping the inner container (12) at least partially and being insulated with respect to both the inner container (12) and the outer container (14) (see fig, 1; col. 2, line 59-63),
with a removal line (22) being routed through the inner container (12) as well as through the cooling layer (34) and the outer container (14), thereby passing through them (see fig. 1, bottom section where it shows the removal line 22 passes through the cooling layer 34), and
wherein the device (10) comprises a thermal bridge (solid heat sinks 40 and 42) configured to establish a contact between the cooling layer (34) and the removal line (22) in a closed position so as to form a thermal bridge (col. 3. Line 1-11, 17-21, 27-45, col. 4, line 3-12; fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach thermal bridge switch is configured to separate the cooling layer from the removal line in an opened position so as to eliminate the thermal bridge.
However, YU teaches a thermal bridge switch (thermal switch 411) configured to establish a contact between radiation shield (312) and a cold head (331-1) in a closed position so as to form a thermal bridge and configured to separate the radiation shield from the cold head in an opened position so as to eliminate the thermal bridge (see Abstract; ¶ 0154-0161; fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal bridge of Varghese with the thermal bridge switch of YU, by contacting the cooling layer with the removal line during closed position and disconnecting the cooling layer with the removal line during an open position, in order to provide a controlled heat transfer between the cooling layer and the removal line so that to avoid an overcooling or overheating of the cooling layer.
In regard to claim 12, Varghese teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the cooling layer (34) is a rigid metal shield, or a single-layer or multi-layer metal foil (col. 3, line 59-68).
In regard to claims 17 and 23, Varghese teaches the device according to claim 11, furthermore comprising a boil-off line (44) comprising a valve (normal safety relief device) that opens at a predetermined overpressure, wherein the boil-off line (44) is in a heat-conducting connection with the cooling layer (34) (see col. 3, line 17-21; fig. 2), but does not explicitly teach the boil-off line is in a heat-conducting connection with the cooling layer at least over a length of 0.2 m, 0.5 m or 0.8 m, and has a cross-sectional area which corresponds to at most half of the cross-sectional area of the removal line, wherein the boil-off line has a diameter of a maximum of 10 mm, a maximum of 6 mm, or a maximum of 4 mm. However, while the reference does not explicitly disclose a specific heat conducting connection size between the boil-off line and the cooling layer (i.e., at least over a length of 0.2 m, 0.5 m or 0.8 m, and has a cross-sectional area which corresponds to at most half of the cross-sectional area of the removal line) and a specific diameter of the boil-off line (i.e., a diameter of a maximum of 10 mm, a maximum of 6 mm, or a maximum of 4 mm), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to the heat conducting connection length and the diameter of the boil-off line, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In regard to claim 18, Varghese teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the cryogenic container (10) has a longitudinal axis (y-axis of container 10), with the removal line (22) passing through an end cap arranged essentially normal to the longitudinal axis (see the top and bottom end caps of the container 10 arranged normal to the longitudinal axis) or through a jacket of the cryogenic container that is located between end caps (see fig. 1).
In regard to claim 23, See the rejection of claim 17 above.
Claim(s) 13, 14 and 19 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese and YU as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Brooks et al. (US 2020/0256513 A1).
In regard to claims 13 and 21, the modified Varghese teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein Varghese teaches the thermal bridge switch (solid heat sinks 40 and 42) is closed when cryogenic fluid (boil-off) is removed from the cryogenic container via the removal line (22) and boil-off gas escapes through the removal line (via conduit 44), and open soon as the removal of cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container via the removal line (22) is stopped (see the rejection of claim 11 above and see also col. 3, line 17-21; fig. 2), but does not explicitly teach a control unit configured to close and open the thermal bridge switch.
However, Brooks teaches a cryogenic liquid tank comprising a vapor shield (301) is configured with a switching device (321) configured to control and regulate the relative flow rates from the exits (307, 313) of the first and second passageways, such that the aircraft can controllably draw vapor from either source. A control system (323) controls the switching device (321) to control the boil-off rate of the tank based on the difference between a desired boil-off rate (i.e., a desired flow rate of the reactant) and the boil-off rate t (see ¶ 0056, 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Varghese by implanting a control unit to control the opening and closing the thermal bridge of Varghese, based on the teachings of Brooks, for the purpose of providing a precise temperature monitoring and control, ensuring that the thermal switch activates or deactivates at specific thresholds and minimize the risk of overheating or excessive cooling, protecting the thermal shield and associated components.
In regard to claim 14, the modified Varghese in view of Brooks teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein Varghese, as modified by Brooks teaches the control unit is configured to close the thermal bridge switch based on desired flow rate of the cryogenic fluid, but does not explicitly teach configuring the closing the thermal bridge switch based on after a predetermined period of time upon completion of the removal, and/or wherein the control unit is configured to determine a hold time of the cryogenic container, the hold time being a time span from an end of the removal until a point in time at which the pressure in the cryogenic container reaches a predefined threshold, with the control unit being configured to close the thermal bridge switch when the hold time is reached upon completion of the removal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control unit Varghese by configuring it to close the thermal bridge switch after a predetermined period of time upon completion of the removal, as an obvious routine skill in the art, in order give enough time to cool the cooling layer while avoid an overcooling.
In regard to claim 19, Varghese teaches a hydrogen container comprising a removal line, but does not explicitly teach a vehicle comprising an engine wherein the removal line is connected to an engine of the vehicle for supplying cryogenic fluid as a fuel for the engine.
However, Brooks teaches a hydrogen storage tank (103) for a hydrogen fueled aircraft, wherein the hydrogen gas that boils off from the tank (103) is piped to a power converter 105 (which is typically a fuel cell or internal combustion engine) (see fig. 1; ¶ 0023, 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Varghese by connecting the removal line to an engine for supplying cryogenic fluid as a fuel for the engine, based on the teachings of Brooks, for the purpose of providing fuel to the vehicle/aircraft engine.
In regard to claim 21, see the rejection of claim 13 above.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese, YU and Brooks as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Uraguchi et al. (US 2016/0341360).
In regard to claim 15, Varghese teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein a pressure relief valve (normal safety relief device) is provided in the removal line or in a boil-off line (44) connected to the removal line or routed into the cryogenic container (10) and the thermal bridge switch connected to the boil-off line (44) (see col. 3, line 17-21; fig. 2) and the control unit (as modified above in claim 13) is configured to close the thermal bridge switch when the pressure relief valve is opened and boil-off start passing through the boil-off line (44), but does not explicitly teach a control line is routed from the pressure relief valve to the control unit via which a triggering of the pressure relief valve can be indicated.
However, Uraguchi teaches a liquefied gas storage tank comprises an on-off valve (92- a relief valve), which opens when a pressure in the inner shell (3) of the tank has become higher than or equal to a first setting pressure (predetermined pressure)., the on-off valve (92) automatically opens in accordance with the pressure in the inner shell (3), wherein, when the pressure detected by a pressure gauge has become higher than or equal to the first setting pressure, a controller (7) open the on-off valve (92) (See ¶ 0044; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified control unit of Varghese by providing a control line routed from the pressure relief valve to the control unit via which a triggering of the pressure relief valve can be indicated, based on the teachings of Uraguchi, for purpose of providing an automatic control of the pressure of the cryogenic container and avoid any over pressurization and a possible burst.
Claim(s) 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese, YU and Brooks as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of in view of Laskaris et al. (US 6,246,308 B1).
In regard to claims 16 and 22, the modified Varghese teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the thermal bridge switch (solid heat sinks 40 and 42) comprises a connecting element (a pair of low heat conductive fiberglass supports 36 and 38), wherein the thermal bridge switch is connected to both the cooling layer (34) and the removal line (22), wherein the thermal bridge switch (heat sinks 40 and 42) fabricated from a metal and individual segments or cast as a solid piece depending upon the type of dewar being fabricated (col. 3, lines 1-11), wherein the thermal bridge switch is connected only to the cooling layer in the opened position of the thermal bridge switch and is connected to both the cooling layer and the removal line in the closed position, or vice versa (see the rejection of claim 11 in view of YU), but does not explicitly teach the connecting element made of metal, which comprises a copper mesh surrounding the removal line in the closed position of the thermal bridge switch.
However, Laskaris teaches a flexible, thermally-conductive strip (164) having a first end 166 in thermal contact with the first stage (160) of the first cryocooler coldhead (114) and having a second end (168) in thermal contact with the first thermal shield (152) of the first assembly (112), wherein the flexible, thermally-conductive strip (164) comprises a braided, OFC copper strip (see fig. 4; col. 7, line 5-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal bridge switch of Varghese by modifying the connecting element of the thermal bridge switch to be made of metal, comprises a copper mesh, based on the teachings of Laskaris, for the purpose of providing efficient heat transfer, low weight, and quick thermal response, and the mesh copper allow it to adapt to varying shapes or uneven surfaces without compromising thermal performance.
In regard to claim 22, see the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim(s) 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese and YU as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stautner (US 2022/0018920 A1).
In regard to claims 20 and 24, the modified Varghese teaches the device (10) comprises a thermal bridge switch (solid heat sinks 40 and 42) configured to establish a contact between the cooling layer (34) and the removal line (22) in a closed position so as to form a thermal bridge and further configured to separate the cooling layer (34) from the removal line (22) in an opened position so as to eliminate the thermal bridge (see the rejection of claim 11 above as modified by YU), but does not teach non-transitory storage medium for the device, and the non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising: opening the thermal bridge switch when no cryogenic fluid flows through the removal line, and closing when cryogenic fluid flows through the removal line, and also when cryogenic fluid is discharged from the cryogenic container through the removal line after a predetermined maximum pressure has been reached in the cryogenic container via the removal line.
However, it is well known in the art to use a controller that comprises one or more hardware processors to operate a thermal bridge switch, as taught by Stautner, wherein Stautner teaches a controller having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising: opening and closing of a thermal bridge switch based on a cryogenic fluid flows through fluid line, when the cryogenic fluid is discharged from the cryogenic container through the removal line after a predetermined maximum pressure has been reached in the cryogenic container via the removal line (see para 27-28, 30-32, 34-36, 39-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Varghese by implanting a controller to control the on and off operation of the thermal bridge of Varghese, based on the teachings of Stautner, for the purpose of providing a precise temperature monitoring and control, ensuring that the thermal switch activates or deactivates at specific thresholds and minimize the risk of overheating or excessive cooling, protecting the thermal shield and associated components.
Regarding limitations of performing operations comprising “opening the thermal bridge switch when no cryogenic fluid flows through the removal line; and closing the thermal bridge switch when cryogenic fluid flows through the removal line when cryogenic fluid is actively removed through the removal line” in claim 20 and “closing the thermal bridge switch when cryogenic fluid flows through the removal line when cryogenic fluid is discharged from the cryogenic container through the removal line after a predetermined maximum pressure has been reached in the cryogenic container via the removal line” which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed “thermal bridge switch”, it is noted the manner of operating a disclosed device do not further limit an apparatus claim. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
In regard to claim 24, see the rejection of claim 24 above.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US 4,877,153) in view of YU et al. (US 2022/0020516 A1) in view of Wang (US 2022/0163273 A1).
In regard to claim 25, Varghese teaches a device comprising a cryogenic container (10) (col. 2, line 20-30; fig. 1), comprising an inner container (12) and an outer container (14) enclosing the inner container (see fig. 1), with a cooling layer (transient heat shield 34) being arranged between the inner container (12) and the outer container (14), the cooling layer (heat shield 34) enveloping the inner container (12) at least partially and being insulated with respect to both the inner container (12) and the outer container (14) (see fig, 1; col. 2, line 59-63),
with a removal line (22) being routed through the inner container (12) as well as through the cooling layer (34) and the outer container (14), thereby passing through them (see fig. 1, bottom section where it shows the removal line 22 passes through the cooling layer 34), and
wherein the device (10) comprises a thermal bridge (solid heat sinks 40 and 42) configured to establish a contact between the cooling layer (34) and the removal line (22) in a closed position so as to form a thermal bridge (col. 3. Line 1-11, 17-21, 27-45, col. 4, line 3-12; fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach thermal bridge switch is configured to separate the cooling layer from the removal line in an opened position so as to eliminate the thermal bridge.
However, YU teaches a thermal bridge switch (thermal switch 411) configured to establish a contact between radiation shield (312) and a cold head (331-1) in a closed position so as to form a thermal bridge and configured to separate the radiation shield from the cold head in an opened position so as to eliminate the thermal bridge (see Abstract; ¶ 0154-0161; fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal bridge of Varghese with the thermal bridge switch of YU, by contacting the cooling layer with the removal line during closed position and disconnecting the cooling layer with the removal line during an open position, in order to provide a controlled heat transfer between the cooling layer and the removal line so that to avoid an overcooling or overheating of the cooling layer.
The modified Varghese teaches the thermal bridge switch (solid heat sinks 40 and 42) is closed when cryogenic fluid (boil-off) is removed from the cryogenic container via the removal line (22) and boil-off gas escapes through the removal line (via conduit 44), and open soon as the removal of cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container via the removal line (22) is stopped (see the rejection of claim 11 above and see also col. 3, line 17-21; fig. 2), wherein Varghese as modified by Yu discloses a thermal bridge switch configured to selectively establish and eliminate thermal contact between a radiation shield and a cold thermal sink, the thermal bridge switch having a closed position in which thermal contact is established and an open position in which thermal contact is eliminated (Yu, ¶ 0154–0161; Fig. 4, thermal switch 411). Yu therefore teaches the structural and functional aspects of a switchable thermal bridge, but does not explicitly teach a control unit which is configured to close the thermal bridge switch when cryogenic fluid is removed from the cryogenic container via the removal line and is further configured to open the thermal bridge switch as soon as the removal of cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container via the removal line is stopped.
However, wang discloses a control unit configured to control thermal coupling elements based on operating conditions of a thermal system. In particular, Wang teaches: wherein the controller configured to receive sensor inputs indicative of system operating state (e.g., temperature, heat load, or operational mode) (¶ 0029-0033); the controller being configured to selectively enable or disable thermal conduction paths between thermal nodes and heat sinks (¶ 0036-0042) and the controller outputting control signals to actively open or close thermal coupling elements to manage heat transfer depending on whether thermal coupling is desired (¶ 0043-0048; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Varghese’s fixed thermal bridge by incorporating the thermal bridge switch of Yu and further to control that switch using the control unit taught by Wang in order to enable thermal coupling only when cryogenic fluid is being withdrawn through the removal line and to eliminate parasitic heat transfer when withdrawal is stopped, which represents a predictable improvement in cryogenic thermal efficiency and operational control.
In the resulting combination: The control unit, as taught by Wang, is configured to close the thermal bridge switch (Yu) when cryogenic fluid is removed from the cryogenic container via the removal line, consistent with Varghese’s disclosure that the removal line functions as a heat sink during active withdrawal. The control unit is further configured to open the thermal bridge switch as soon as removal of cryogenic fluid via the removal line is stopped, thereby eliminating the thermal bridge when heat transfer is no longer beneficial, as taught by Yu’s open-state thermal isolation and Wang’s controller-based thermal path management.
The combination of Varghese, Yu, and Wang represents a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions—namely, using a known thermal bridge (Varghese), a known thermal switch (Yu), and a known thermal controller (Wang) to selectively manage heat transfer in a cryogenic system based on operational state. No undue experimentation would have been required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (Remarks page 8-9) that Varghese and Yu do not share the same field of endeavor. Varghese provides a passive efficiency enhancement for commodity storage tanks to solve an economic problem of chronic product loss. Yu provides an active, switchable protection device to solve a system-integrity problem unique to powered components within MRI machines. To suggest these references share a common field is to ignore the distinct problems they solve, the dissimilar nature of their solutions, and the vastly different technological contexts in which they operate. As such, "thermal coupling structures in cryogenic devices" - the analogy drawn in the Final OA - is an unduly narrow and superficial definition for the field of endeavor. This classification is reductive because it focuses on a generic description of a component part while completely ignoring the inventive purpose, function, and operational context that truly define each patent's contribution.
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant’s arguments that Prior Art B (Yu) is non-analogous art are not persuasive. Under MPEP §2141.01, a reference is analogous if it is either (1) from the same field of endeavor or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Yu satisfies both criteria. First, Yu and Varghese are from the same field of endeavor, namely thermal coupling and decoupling structures used in cryogenic systems. Both references disclose cryogenic devices employing thermal bridges between a cooled component (e.g., a radiation or heat shield) and a colder sink or removal path to manage heat transfer at cryogenic temperatures. Although the references are applied in different end-use environments, differences in application context (industrial storage versus medical equipment) do not negate a shared field of endeavor where the underlying technology—cryogenic thermal management using conductive coupling—is the same.
Second, even if the field of endeavor were construed narrowly, Yu is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention, which is controlling heat transfer between cryogenic components by selectively forming or eliminating a thermal bridge. Yu explicitly addresses this same technical problem by teaching a thermal switch that establishes a thermal contact in a closed position and eliminates that contact in an open position (paras. 154–161; Fig. 4). A person of ordinary skill seeking to modify Varghese’s fixed thermal bridge to provide selective thermal coupling would reasonably look to Yu for a known solution.
Applicant’s attempt to define the “field of endeavor” based on the commercial purpose or end-use objective of each invention is unavailing. The relevant field is defined by the technical problem and solution, not by whether the system is used for commodity storage or medical imaging. Case law consistently holds that references are analogous where they address similar technical challenges, even if they arise in different industries. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal bridge of Varghese by incorporating the thermal switch taught by Yu in order to selectively establish and eliminate thermal coupling, as claimed. The combination represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Therefore, the §103 rejection over Varghese in view of Yu is proper and is maintained.
Applicant's arguments (Remarks page 10-11) that it is noted further that neither document discloses a thermal switch connected to a removal line, as required by the claims. In particular, and shown in the snip below, the Examiner has already admitted under item 4. of the Final OA that Varghese does NOT disclose a thermal bridge switch configured to separate the cooling layer form the removal line in an opened position so as to eliminate the thermal bridge: fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach thermal bridge switch is configured to separate the cooling layer from the removal line in an opened position so as to eliminate the thermal bridge. Nonetheless, the Examiner continues to argue that Yu discloses a thermal bridge switch configured to establish a contact between the radiation shield and a cold head. However, the cold head may not be equated with a removal line. Rather, the disclosure of Yu is strictly limited to a thermal switch connected to an active, powered refrigeration component (a refrigerator), which is functionally and fundamentally distinct from a product removal line. In more detail, the invention in Yu is explicitly and repeatedly described as a system for managing the thermal connection to a refrigerator, specifically its "first stage cold head" and "second stage cold head." This refrigerator is an active, powered, component whose sole purpose is to generate cold and cool the superconducting magnet and radiation shield. The entire concept of Yu's thermal switch is to address the dual thermal nature of this active component. As such, Yu's thermal switch is designed to solve a problem that exists only for an active refrigerator, not for a passive removal line. In contrast, a removal line, as understood in Varghese, is a passive conduit for withdrawing vaporized product for customer use. Its coldness is not generated - the cold is merely a temporary byproduct of product flowing through the removal line. The removal line is, clearly, not a powered component and, as such, the state-dependent "heat leak" problem that motivates the entire invention in Yu simply does not exist for a passive removal line as disclosed in Varghese. The Examiner's argument incorrectly equates two fundamentally different components of a cryogenic system. Yu teaches the use of a switch to connect and disconnect an active cooling source to mitigate the specific danger it poses when powered down. Yu does not disclose, suggest, or motivate, the application of such a switch to a passive product removal line such as disclosed in Varghese, as the underlying respective technical challenges are entirely different. Therefore, Yu does not disclose a switch configured for a removal line.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. While Varghese does not expressly disclose a switchable thermal bridge, this deficiency is properly remedied by Yu. Yu teaches a thermal bridge switch configured to selectively establish and eliminate thermal contact between a cooled shield and a cold-side component. The claims do not require that the removal line itself be an “active” or “powered” component, nor do they exclude the use of a thermal switch originally developed for an actively cooled element.
Applicant’s attempt to distinguish Yu on the basis that its thermal switch is connected to a “cold head” rather than a “removal line” is unavailing. For purposes of obviousness, the relevant inquiry is functional equivalence, not nominal identity. Both Yu’s cold head and Varghese’s boil-off removal line function as cold thermal sinks capable of receiving heat from a shield. The claims broadly recite a thermal bridge switch configured to selectively couple a cooling layer or shield to a removal line, without requiring that the removal line itself generate cooling or be passive in nature.
Moreover, Applicant’s argument improperly imports limitations into the claims by requiring that the motivation for switching be tied to a specific failure mode unique to powered refrigerators. The claims are directed to the structural capability of selectively forming and eliminating a thermal bridge, not to the particular reason for doing so. Yu explicitly teaches this structural capability, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a switch could be applied to any cryogenic thermal sink, including a boil-off removal line, to control parasitic heat transfer. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Varghese’s fixed thermal bridge by incorporating the thermal switch of Yu to selectively establish and eliminate thermal contact with the removal line, as claimed. The combination represents a predictable use of known thermal switching technology to achieve controlled heat transfer in a cryogenic system. For at least these reasons, the rejection of claim 11 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763