DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 18-30), species 5A in the reply filed on 6/11/2026 with traverse is acknowledged. Claims 20, 22, 24, 31-34 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/11/2026. It is noted that in addition to the claims indicated as withdrawn by the applicant (claims 24, 31-34), Claim 20 does not read on the elected invention and species because the elected species does not have the first pumping member (80) directly connected to the eight inlet (22); further Claim 22 does not read on the elected invention and species because the second tank (100) of the elected species does not have an eleventh outlet (102) in fluidic communication with the eighth inlet (22).
The traversal is based on an allegation (p. 8-9) that “specific physical integration of a cryogenic pumping member inside the vacuum enclosure-specifically designed to increase volumetric pumping capacity at sub-Kelvin temperatures without upsizing the external compressor - is an innovative integration, not a “routine” housing choice. This is not found persuasive because the claims don’t require all of these alleged features, as the applicant is well aware. The allegation is fully unpersuasive. The traversal is that Davydov is not the same with respect to some disclosed but unclaimed features. The allegation is fully unpersuasive and fails to overcome the evidence of the lacking of unity showing. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(s) 18, 19, 21, 23, 25-30 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 18, the recitation, “the following elements” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis. Further it is unclear what features claimed thereafter are considered “elements”.
In regard to claim 19, the recitation, “the transfer member” is not consistent with the previously recited first transfer member.
The recitation, “from which first outlet” is indefinite for implying that there may be other first outlets. It is unclear why the recitation is not merely, --from the first outlet--.
The recitation, “a third outlet of the hot channel” is indefinite for being unclear what hot channel is being referenced.
The recitation, “the first expansion device” is indefinite for being inconsistent with the previously recitation and it is unclear why the recitation is not --the first Joule-Thomson expansion device--.
The recitation, “through which eighth inlet” is indefinite for implying that there may be other eighth inlets. It is unclear why the recitation is not merely, --through the eight inlet--.
In regard to claim 21, the recitation, “the seventh outlet” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “the third expansion device” is indefinite for not being consistent with the referenced recitation of the --third Joule-Thomson expansion device--.
The recitation, “for working fluid” is indefinite for not consistently referencing --the first working fluid--.
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.
Claim limitation “cooling unit” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph since the claim states that it comprises a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger.
Claim limitation “a first Joule-Thomson expansion device” 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. The application merely uses the term and never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the recitation of the term. 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. For present examination, this is presumed to be an expansion valve.
Claim limitation “a second Joule-Thomson expansion device” 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. The application merely uses the term and never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the recitation of the term. 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. For present examination, this is presumed to be an expansion valve.
Claim limitation “a third Joule-Thomson expansion device” 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. The application merely uses the term and never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the recitation of the term. 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. For present examination, this is presumed to be an expansion valve.
Claim limitation “first transfer member” 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. The application merely uses the term “transfer member” and never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the recitation of the term. 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. For present examination, this is presumed to be a compressor.
Claim limitation “pumping member” 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. The application merely recites “pumping member” and never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the recitation of the term. 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. For present examination, this is presumed to be a pump.
The recitation of a “first cold source” is interpreted to be a refrigerator or external cooling medium (pg. pub. para. 109).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aigouy (US 2013/0014518) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2016-176654). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 18, Aigouy teaches a refrigeration device (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 2) comprising a first working circuit (3) for circulating a first working fluid (helium, para. 75), the first working circuit (3) comprising elements in series by a first network of lines (lines of circuit), the elements comprising:
a first transfer member (8) for the working fluid (helium);
a cooling unit (first 10, second 10) comprising a first heat exchanger (first 10) comprising a first hot channel (see 3 through first 10) and a first cold channel (from 14 to first 10) that are connected to the first working circuit (3), the cooling unit (first 10, second 10) also comprising a second heat exchanger (second 10) comprising a second hot channel (see 3 through second 10) connected to the first working circuit (3) and a second cold channel (from 14 through second 10) connected to a first cold source (cooling from 211);
a third heat exchanger (third 10) comprising a third hot channel (3 through third 10) and a third cold channel (from 4 to third 10);
a first Joule-Thomson expansion device (upstream of 4 after third 10);
a first tank (4) configured to be in heat exchange with a second working circuit (circuit with 122) that is in heat exchange with an object to be cooled (1); and
wherein the first working circuit (3) comprises a first pumping member (14) connected to the first network of lines (lines of circuit).
Aigouy teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach a thermally insulated enclosure, as claimed. However, providing such an enclosure is routine and ordinary to insulate cryogenic equipment from the ambient environment. For example, Sakamoto teaches a refrigeration device (101) having an enclosure (120) containing refrigeration elements (see figure 1) and teaches a first transfer member (133) situated outside the enclosure (120). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Aigouy with an enclosure around all of the cold components of the refrigeration device of Aigouy and to situate the first transfer member (8) outside the enclosure for the purpose of insulating the refrigeration elements from the environment and providing effective rejection of heat from compression outside the enclosure. It is rehearsed that the modification would result in the first pumping member (14) being within the enclosure for the purpose of insulating the first pumping member (14) from the ambient.
In regard to claim 19, Aigouy teaches that the first network of lines (lines of 3) is configured to connect:
a first outlet (outlet of 8) of the first transfer member (8), the first working fluid (helium) is delivered from the first outlet (outlet of 8), to a first inlet (inlet of 3 through first 10) of the first hot channel (3 through first 10);
a second outlet (outlet of 3 through first 10) of the first hot channel (3 through first 10) to a second inlet (inlet of 3 through second 10) of the second hot channel (3 through second 10);
a third outlet (outlet of 3 through second 10) of the second hot channel (3 through second 10) to a third inlet (inlet of 3 through third 10) of the third hot channel (3 through third 10);
a fourth outlet (outlet of 3 through third 10) of the third hot channel (3 through third 10) to a fourth inlet (inlet of expansion valve before 4) of the first expansion device (just before 4);
a fifth outlet (outlet of the expansion valve before 4) of the first expansion device (expansion valve before 4) to a fifth inlet (inlet of 4) of the first tank (4);
a sixth outlet (outlet of 4 to 13) of the first tank (4) to a sixth inlet (inlet of third 10 from 13) of the third cold channel (third 10 from 13);
a seventh outlet (outlet of third 10 from 13) of the third cold channel (third 10 from 13) to an eighth inlet (inlet of 8) of the first transfer member (8), through the eighth inlet (inlet of 8) the first working fluid (helium) is drawn;
the first pumping member (14) being situated between the sixth outlet (outlet of 4 to 13) and the eighth inlet (inlet of 8).
Claim(s) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydo (US 4189930) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2016-176654). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 18, Davydo teaches a refrigeration device (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 3) comprising a first working circuit (loop) for circulating a first working fluid (helium, column 1, line 10-15), the first working circuit (loop) comprising elements in series by a first network of lines (lines of circuit), the elements comprising:
a first transfer member (1) for the working fluid (helium);
a cooling unit (3, 4) comprising a first heat exchanger (3) comprising a first hot channel (from a to c) and a first cold channel (through 3 to b) that are connected to the first working circuit (loop), the cooling unit (3, 4) also comprising a second heat exchanger (4) comprising a second hot channel (from c to 4) connected to the first working circuit (loop) and a second cold channel (up through 4) connected to a first cold source (cooling turbines);
a third heat exchanger (15) comprising a third hot channel (from 12 to 16) and a third cold channel (up through 15);
a first Joule-Thomson expansion device (19a);
a first tank (20) configured to be in heat exchange with a second working circuit (therein) that is in heat exchange with an object to be cooled (18); and
wherein the first working circuit (loop) comprises a first pumping member (17) connected to the first network of lines (lines of circuit).
Davydo teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach a thermally insulated enclosure, as claimed. However, providing such an enclosure is routine and ordinary to insulate cryogenic equipment from the ambient environment. For example, Sakamoto teaches a refrigeration device (101) having an enclosure (120) containing refrigeration elements (see figure 1) and teaches a first transfer member (133) situated outside the enclosure (120). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Davydo with an enclosure around all of the cold components of the refrigeration device of Davydo and to situate the first transfer member (1) outside the enclosure for the purpose of insulating the refrigeration elements from the environment and providing effective rejection of heat from compression outside the enclosure. It is rehearsed that the modification would result in the first pumping member (17) being within the enclosure for the purpose of insulating the first pumping member (17) from the ambient.
In regard to claim 19, Davydo teaches that the first network of lines (lines of circuit) is configured to connect:
a first outlet (outlet of 1) of the first transfer member (1), the first working fluid (helium) is delivered from the first outlet (outlet of 1), to a first inlet (inlet of 3) of the first hot channel (a to c);
a second outlet (outlet of a to c) of the first hot channel (a to c) to a second inlet (inlet of 4 from c) of the second hot channel (from c);
a third outlet (outlet of 4 toward 7) of the second hot channel (in 4 from c) to a third inlet (inlet of 15) of the third hot channel (from 12 to 16 through 15);
a fourth outlet (outlet of 15 toward 16) of the third hot channel (from 12 to 16 through 15) to a fourth inlet (inlet of 19a) of the first expansion device (19a);
a fifth outlet (outlet of 19a) of the first expansion device (19a) to a fifth inlet (inlet of 20) of the first tank (20);
a sixth outlet (outlet of 20 toward 17) of the first tank (20) to a sixth inlet (inlet of 15 from e) of the third cold channel (through 15 from e);
a seventh outlet (outlet of 15 toward 12) of the third cold channel (through 15 from e) to an eighth inlet (inlet of 1) of the first transfer member (1), through the eighth inlet (inlet of 1) the first working fluid (helium) is drawn;
the first pumping member (17) being situated between the sixth outlet (outlet of outlet of 20) and the eighth inlet (inlet of 1).
Claim(s) 18, 19, 26-27, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydo (US 4189930) in view of Narasaki (EP 3865789). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 18, Davydo teaches a refrigeration device (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 3) comprising a first working circuit (loop) for circulating a first working fluid (helium, column 1, line 10-15), the first working circuit (loop) comprising elements in series by a first network of lines (lines of circuit), the elements comprising:
a first transfer member (1) for the working fluid (helium);
a cooling unit (3, 4) comprising a first heat exchanger (3) comprising a first hot channel (from a to c) and a first cold channel (through 3 to b) that are connected to the first working circuit (loop), the cooling unit (3, 4) also comprising a second heat exchanger (4) comprising a second hot channel (from c to 4) connected to the first working circuit (loop) and a second cold channel (up through 4) connected to a first cold source (cooling turbines);
a third heat exchanger (15) comprising a third hot channel (from 12 to 16) and a third cold channel (up through 15);
a first Joule-Thomson expansion device (19a);
a first tank (20) configured to be in heat exchange with a second working circuit (therein) that is in heat exchange with an object to be cooled (18); and
wherein the first working circuit (loop) comprises a first pumping member (17) connected to the first network of lines (lines of circuit).
Davydo teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach a thermally insulated enclosure, as claimed. However, providing such an enclosure is routine and ordinary to insulate cryogenic equipment from the ambient environment. For example, Narasaki teaches a refrigeration device (100) having an enclosure (vacuum enclosure 16) containing refrigeration elements (see figure 1) and teaches a first transfer member (56) situated outside the enclosure (16). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Davydo with an enclosure around all of the cold components of the refrigeration device of Davydo and to situate the first transfer member (1) outside the enclosure for the purpose of insulating the refrigeration elements from the environment and providing effective rejection of heat from compression outside the enclosure. It is rehearsed that the modification would result in the first pumping member (17) being within the enclosure for the purpose of insulating the first pumping member (17) from the ambient.
In regard to claim 19, Davydo teaches that the first network of lines (lines of circuit) is configured to connect:
a first outlet (outlet of 1) of the first transfer member (1), the first working fluid (helium) is delivered from the first outlet (outlet of 1), to a first inlet (inlet of 3) of the first hot channel (a to c);
a second outlet (outlet of a to c) of the first hot channel (a to c) to a second inlet (inlet of 4 from c) of the second hot channel (from c);
a third outlet (outlet of 4 toward 7) of the second hot channel (in 4 from c) to a third inlet (inlet of 15) of the third hot channel (from 12 to 16 through 15);
a fourth outlet (outlet of 15 toward 16) of the third hot channel (from 12 to 16 through 15) to a fourth inlet (inlet of 19a) of the first expansion device (19a);
a fifth outlet (outlet of 19a) of the first expansion device (19a) to a fifth inlet (inlet of 20) of the first tank (20);
a sixth outlet (outlet of 20 toward 17) of the first tank (20) to a sixth inlet (inlet of 15 from e) of the third cold channel (through 15 from e);
a seventh outlet (outlet of 15 toward 12) of the third cold channel (through 15 from e) to an eighth inlet (inlet of 1) of the first transfer member (1), through the eighth inlet (inlet of 1) the first working fluid (helium) is drawn;
the first pumping member (17) being situated between the sixth outlet (outlet of outlet of 20) and the eighth inlet (inlet of 1).
In regard to claim 26, Davydo does not explicitly teach a second working circuit is configured to circulate a second working fluid by means of a second transfer member and a second cryogenic pump, the second working circuit comprising at least one first line portion in heat exchange with the first tank (20).
However, Narasaki shows that providing a plurality of Joule-thomson refrigeration circuits is known, including teaching a first working circuit (10a) and teaches a second working circuit (10b) that is configured to circulate a second working fluid (refrigerant therein) by means of a second transfer member (56 of 10b), the second working circuit (10b) comprising at least one first line portion (61 of 10b) in heat exchange with a cooled stage (20) that cools an object to be cooled (18). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the working circuit of Davydo to provide Davydo with a second working circuit is configured to circulate a second working fluid by means of a second transfer member and a second cryogenic pump, the second working circuit comprising at least one first line portion in heat exchange with the first tank (20 of Davydo) for the purpose of providing greater refrigeration robustness and capacity (para. 4 - Narasaki).
In regard to claim 25, Davydo teaches that the first working fluid is helium but does not explicitly teach that the first working fluid is 99.9% or more helium 4. However, Narasaki teaches that the refrigerant may be helium 4 (para. 12) and official notice is taken that employing a pure refrigerant is routine. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ 99.9% or more pure helium-4 as taught by Narasaki for the purpose of employing a helium that is common and easy to obtain.
In regard to claim 27, Davydo, as modified, teaches that the second transfer member (56 of 10b) is situated outside the enclosure (16).
In regard to claim 29, Davydo, as modified, teaches that the second working circuit also comprises a fifth Joule-Thomson expansion device (as suggested by 60 of 10b of Narasaki).
In regard to claim 30, Davydo, as modified, teaches that the second working fluid (of the second circuit as modified from Narasaki) is helium-3 (Narasaki - para. 12) but does not explicitly teach that the second working fluid is 99.9% or more helium 3. However, official notice is taken that employing a pure refrigerant is routine. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ 99.9% or more pure helium-3 for the second working fluid for the purpose of employing a helium has a lower temperature boiling point.
Claim(s) 18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 3613387) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2016-176654). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 18, Collins teaches a refrigeration device (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1) comprising a first working circuit (helium circuit) for circulating a first working fluid (helium, column 3, lines 40-50), the first working circuit (helium circuit) comprising elements in series by a first network of lines (lines of circuit), the elements comprising:
a first transfer member (at least 26) for the working fluid (helium);
a cooling unit (35, 45) comprising a first heat exchanger (35) comprising a first hot channel (37) and a first cold channel (38) that are connected to the first working circuit (helium circuit), the cooling unit (35, 45) also comprising a second heat exchanger (45) comprising a second hot channel (47) connected to the first working circuit (helium circuit) and a second cold channel (46) connected to a first cold source (Liquid nitrogen);
a third heat exchanger (61) comprising a third hot channel (62) and a third cold channel (63);
a first Joule-Thomson expansion device (64);
a first tank (65) configured to be in heat exchange with a second working circuit (68) that is in heat exchange with an object to be cooled (column 4, line 55-60); and
wherein the first working circuit (helium) comprises a first pumping member (15 and/or 85, 86, 87) connected to the first network of lines (lines of circuit);
wherein the first transfer member (at least 26) is situated outside an enclosure (143, 156);
Collins teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not appear at present to explicitly teach that the first pumping member (15 and/or 85, 86, 87) is inside the thermally insulated enclosure. However, providing cryogenic equipment inside a thermally insulated enclosure is routine and ordinary to insulate such from the ambient environment. For example, Sakamoto teaches a refrigeration device (101) having an enclosure (120) containing refrigeration elements (see figure 1) and teaches a first transfer member (133) situated outside the enclosure (120). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Collins with an enclosure around all of the cold components of the refrigeration device of Collins for the purpose of insulating the refrigeration elements from the environment. It is rehearsed that the modification would result in the first pumping member (14) being within the enclosure for the purpose of insulating the first pumping member (14) from the ambient.
In regard to claim 21, Collins teaches that first pumping member (15 and/or 85-87) is situated downstream of a seventh outlet (see outlet of 63 at least; other outlets qualify).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights