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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to gas replacement method and cryocooler, classified in F25B 9/06.
II. Claim 10, drawn to gas replacement pipe, classified in F25J 1/0298.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination, respectively. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination (Invention I) does not require a gas replacement pipe. The subcombination has separate utility such as a purge gas system for cryogenic gas liquefaction plant.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or
electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Timothy Cain on February 04th, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US Patent No. 10,551,093), hereinafter Mizuno in view of Strobel (US 20080115520), hereinafter Strobel and Sumitomo Heavy Industries Operation Manual SRDK Series CRYOCOOLER (Manual Number: CD32ZZ-063I), hereinafter NPL-1.
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno discloses an expander of a cryocooler, the expander including an expander cylinder, a pressure switching valve that switches a pressure inside the expander cylinder, a connection flow path from the pressure switching valve to the expander cylinder, and an expander motor that drives the pressure switching valve (Fig. 1, expander 14, cryocooler 10, cylinder 28, valve portion 34, gas expansion chamber 40, housing gas flow path 36, drive mechanism 48, motor 4a, scotch yoke mechanism 48b; Col. 6, lines 28-35, Although it is described below in detail, the valve portion 34 is configured to control the pressure of the gas expansion chamber 40 to be synchronized with the reciprocation of the displacer 24. The valve portion 34 functions as a portion of a supply path for supplying a high-pressure gas to the gas expansion chamber 40, and function as a portion of a discharging path for discharging a low-pressure gas from the gas expansion chamber 40).
However, Mizuno does not disclose a gas replacement method for an expander of a cryocooler the gas replacement method comprising:
connecting a nonflammable gas source to the connection flow path or the expander cylinder; and
purging a residual gas in the expander cylinder with a nonflammable gas from the nonflammable gas source.
Strobel teaches a gas replacement method for a cryocooler (Fig. 2, rinsing line 22, cold head 20; Pg. 2, paragraph 38, In the rinsing state, a rinsing gas (in the present case highly pure helium, purity 5.9 or more), which is stored e.g. in a compressed gas bottle (not shown), can be guided through the first rinsing line 22 through the coldhead 20 (see arrows). For rinsing, a high rinsing gas throughput is preferably selected (a considerably higher gas turnover compared to the time average in the feed line 4 in one direction in cooling operation). With high throughput, the rinsing gas is not cooled down to the temperature of the cooling stage K during passage through the cooling stage K, such that the cold head 20 in the area of the cooling stage K can be sufficiently heated on the inner sides of the gas lines, although the cold head 20 is still installed in the cryostat and is therefore cooled from the outside by the liquid helium stored in the tank) the gas replacement method comprising:
connecting a nonflammable gas source to the connection flow path or the expander cylinder (Fig. 2, first reversing valve 21; Pg. 2, paragraph 38, In the rinsing state, a rinsing gas (in the present case highly pure helium, purity 5.9 or more), which is stored e.g. in a compressed gas bottle (not shown), can be guided through the first rinsing line 22 through the coldhead20 (see arrows)); and
purging a residual gas in the expander cylinder with a nonflammable gas from the nonflammable gas source (Fig. 2, second reversing valve 23, second rinsing line 24; Pg. 2-3, paragraph 38, In the rinsing state, a rinsing gas (in the present case highly pure helium, purity 5.9 or more), which is stored e.g. in a compressed gas bottle (not shown), can be guided through the first rinsing line 22 through the coldhead20 (see arrows). For rinsing, a high rinsing gas throughput is preferably selected (a considerably higher gas turnover compared to the time average in the feed line 4 in one direction in cooling operation). With high throughput, the rinsing gas is not cooled down to the temperature of the cooling stage K during passage through the cooling stage K, such that the cold head 20 in the area of the cooling stage K can be sufficiently heated on the inner sides of the gas lines, although the cold head 20 is still installed in the cryostat and is therefore cooled from the outside by the liquid helium stored in the tank. Foreign gas is carried along in the working gas lines of the cold head 20 during passage of rinsing gas, thereby cleaning the cold head 20; Pg. 3, paragraph 41, Within the scope of the invention, the rinsing gas may flow from the refrigerator tube 5 to the pulse tube 6 or vice versa. In the latter case, the pressure-relief valve 25 must be connected to the first rinsing line 22 in contrast to FIG. 2, and the bottles containing compressed helium must be connected to the second rinsing line 24).
Mizuno fails to teach a gas replacement method for an expander of a cryocooler the gas replacement method comprising: connecting a nonflammable gas source to the connection flow path or the expander cylinder; and purging a residual gas in the expander cylinder with a nonflammable gas from the nonflammable gas source, however Strobel teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include a gas replacement method for a cryocooler the gas replacement method comprising: connecting a nonflammable gas source to the connection flow path or the expander cylinder; and purging a residual gas in the expander cylinder with a nonflammable gas from the nonflammable gas source. This is strong evidence that modifying Mizuno as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. blowing foreign gases out of the cold head (Strobel, Pg. 2, paragraph 21)). 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 Mizuno by Strobel 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 blowing foreign gases out of the cold head (Strobel, Pg. 2, paragraph 21).
Further, Mizuno as modified does not explicitly disclose the purging to be done while the expander motor is stopped.
NPL-1 teaches gas charging operations to be done while the expander motor is stopped (Pg. 46, 5-4, Helium Gas Charging, Make sure the cryocooler is powered off and compressor and coldhead temperatures are almost same as room temperature before adjusting the helium gas pressure).
Mizuno as modified fails to teach the purging to be done while the expander motor is stopped, however NPL-1 teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include gas charging operations to be done while the expander motor is stopped. This is strong evidence that modifying Mizuno as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring user safety). 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 Mizuno as modified by NPL-1 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 ensuring user safety.
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno as modified discloses the gas replacement method according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the connecting includes connecting the nonflammable gas source to a gas receiving port of the connection flow path via a gas replacement pipe (Strobel, Fig. 2, first reversing valve 21, rinsing line 22; Pg. 2, paragraph 38, In the rinsing state, a rinsing gas (in the present case highly pure helium, purity 5.9 or more), which is stored e.g. in a compressed gas bottle (not shown), can be guided through the first rinsing line 22 through the coldhead20 (see arrows)), and
the purging includes supplying the nonflammable gas from the nonflammable gas source to the expander cylinder from the gas replacement pipe through the gas receiving port and exhausting the residual gas from a gas outlet port of the gas replacement pipe or of the expander (Strobel, Fig. 2, second reversing valve 23, second rinsing line 24; Pg. 2-3, paragraph 38, In the rinsing state, a rinsing gas (in the present case highly pure helium, purity 5.9 or more), which is stored e.g. in a compressed gas bottle (not shown), can be guided through the first rinsing line 22 through the coldhead 20 (see arrows). For rinsing, a high rinsing gas throughput is preferably selected (a considerably higher gas turnover compared to the time average in the feed line 4 in one direction in cooling operation). With high throughput, the rinsing gas is not cooled down to the temperature of the cooling stage K during passage through the cooling stage K, such that the cold head 20 in the area of the cooling stage K can be sufficiently heated on the inner sides of the gas lines, although the cold head 20 is still installed in the cryostat and is therefore cooled from the outside by the liquid helium stored in the tank. Foreign gas is carried along in the working gas lines of the cold head 20 during passage of rinsing gas, thereby cleaning the cold head 20; Pg. 3, paragraph 39, Rinsing gas that has passed through the cold head 20 flows out via the pressure-relief valve 25; Pg. 3, paragraph 41, Within the scope of the invention, the rinsing gas may flow from the refrigerator tube 5 to the pulse tube 6 or vice versa. In the latter case, the pressure-relief valve 25 must be connected to the first rinsing line 22 in contrast to FIG. 2, and the bottles containing compressed helium must be connected to the second rinsing line 24). Further, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references sued in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Mizuno as modified discloses the gas replacement method according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above),
wherein the expander includes a high pressure port and a low pressure port connected to the expander cylinder via the pressure switching valve (Fig. 1, port connected to first pipe 18a, port connected to second pipe 18b; Col. 8, lines 11-14, The valve stator 34b is configured so as to receive the high-pressure gas which enters the drive mechanism housing 30 from the first pipe 18a), and
the purging includes supplying the nonflammable gas to the expander from the high pressure port and the low pressure port (Strobel, Pg. 3, paragraph 41, Within the scope of the invention, the rinsing gas may flow from the refrigerator tube 5 to the pulse tube 6 or vice versa. In the latter case, the pressure-relief valve 25 must be connected to the first rinsing line 22 in contrast to FIG. 2, and the bottles containing compressed helium must be connected to the second rinsing line 24). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references sued in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno as modified discloses the gas replacement method according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the nonflammable gas is a working gas of the cryocooler (Mizuno, Col. 4, lines 13-14, For example, the working gas is helium gas; Strobel, Pg. 2, paragraph 29, A compressor 2 pumps a working gas, which is at room-temperature, in the present case highly pure helium, from a low pressure side ND to a high pressure side HD; Pg. 2, paragraph 38, In the rinsing state, a rinsing gas (in the present case highly pure helium, purity 5.9 or more), which is stored e.g. in a compressed gas bottle (not shown), can be guided through the first rinsing line 22 through the coldhead20 (see arrows)). Further, the limitations of claim 4 are the result of the modification of references sued in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US Patent No. 10,551,093), hereinafter Mizuno in view of Strobel (US 20080115520), hereinafter Strobel
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno discloses a cryocooler (Fig. 1, cryocooler 10) comprising:
an expander cylinder (Fig. 1, expander 14);
a pressure switching valve that switches a pressure inside the expander cylinder (Fig. 1, valve portion 34; Col. 6, lines 28-35, Although it is described below in detail, the valve portion 34 is configured to control the pressure of the gas expansion chamber 40 to be synchronized with the reciprocation of the displacer 24. The valve portion 34 functions as a portion of a supply path for supplying a high-pressure gas to the gas expansion chamber 40, and function as a portion of a discharging path for discharging a low-pressure gas from the gas expansion chamber 40);
a high pressure port and a low pressure port connected to the expander cylinder via the pressure switching valve (Fig. 1, port connected to first pipe 18a, port connected to second pipe 18b; Col. 8, lines 11-14, The valve stator 34b is configured so as to receive the high-pressure gas which enters the drive mechanism housing 30 from the first pipe 18a);
a connection flow path from the pressure switching valve to the expander cylinder (Fig. 1, housing gas flow path 36).
However, Mizuno does not disclose a gas receiving port that is different from the high pressure port and the low pressure port and is connected to the connection flow path to allow a gas to flow into the connection flow path.
Strobel teaches a gas receiving port that is different from the high pressure port and the low pressure port and is connected to the connection flow path to allow a gas to flow into the connection flow path (Fig. 2, first reversing valve 21, rinsing line 22; Pg. 2, paragraph 38, In the rinsing state, a rinsing gas (in the present case highly pure helium, purity 5.9 or more), which is stored e.g. in a compressed gas bottle (not shown), can be guided through the first rinsing line 22 through the coldhead20 (see arrows)).
Mizuno fails to teach a gas receiving port that is different from the high pressure port and the low pressure port and is connected to the connection flow path to allow a gas to flow into the connection flow path, however Strobel teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include a gas receiving port that is different from the high pressure port and the low pressure port and is connected to the connection flow path to allow a gas to flow into the connection flow path. This is strong evidence that modifying Mizuno as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. blowing foreign gases out of the cold head (Strobel, Pg. 2, paragraph 21)). 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 Mizuno by Strobel 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 blowing foreign gases out of the cold head (Strobel, Pg. 2, paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 9, Mizuno as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above).
While Mizuno as modified may not expressly teach wherein a flow path cross-sectional area of the gas receiving port is smaller than a flow path cross-sectional area of the connection flow path of the instant claim, Mizuno as modified teaches a gas receiving port and a connection flow path. The courts have held the following: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A. Therefore, the cryocooler of Mizuno as modified is capable of operating in the manner claimed and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as modified by Strobel as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sarcia (US Patent No. 4,391,103), hereinafter Sarcia.
Regarding claim 6, Mizuno as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), further comprising:
an expander housing that is coupled to the expander cylinder and accommodates the pressure switching valve (Mizuno, Fig. 1, expander stationary portion 22, drive mechanism housing 30, cylinder 28).
However, Mizuno as modified does not disclose wherein the gas receiving port is provided in the expander housing.
Sarcia teaches wherein the gas receiving port is provided in the expander housing (Fig. 1, housing 38, conduit 108).
Mizuno as modified fails to teach wherein the gas receiving port is provided in the expander housing, however Sarcia teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include wherein the gas receiving port is provided in the expander housing. This is strong evidence that modifying Mizuno as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing gas to the cryocooler for performing system operations). 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 Mizuno as modified by Sarcia 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 providing gas to the cryocooler for performing system operations.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as modified by Strobel and Sarcia as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Park (WO 2007066852), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 6, Mizuno as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above).
However, Mizuno as modified does not disclose wherein a gas outlet port is provided in the expander housing in addition to the high pressure port, the low pressure port, and the gas receiving port.
Park teaches wherein a gas outlet port is provided in the expander housing in addition to the high pressure port, the low pressure port (Fig. 2, supply line 7, discharge line 8, relief valve 9).
Mizuno as modified fails to teach wherein a gas outlet port is provided in the expander housing in addition to the high pressure port, the low pressure port, and the gas receiving port, however Park teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include wherein a gas outlet port is provided in the expander housing in addition to the high pressure port, the low pressure port. This is strong evidence that modifying Mizuno as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. allowing for depressurization of the housing to improve overall user safety). 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 Mizuno as modified by Park 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 allowing for depressurization of the housing to improve overall user safety.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as modified by Strobel as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Otto (DE 2912856), hereinafter Otto.
Regarding claim 8, Mizuno as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Mizuno as modified does not disclose wherein the gas receiving port has a size different from sizes of the high pressure port and the low pressure port.
Otto teaches ports of a cryocooler to have different sizes (See annotated Fig. 1 of Otto below, ports A, B, and C each have a different size).
Mizuno as modified fails to teach wherein the gas receiving port has a size different from sizes of the high pressure port and the low pressure port, however Otto teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include different size ports. This is strong evidence that modifying Mizuno as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. preventing conduits from being connected to incorrect ports during assembly and maintenance operations to improve user friendliness). 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 Mizuno as modified by Otto 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 preventing conduits from being connected to incorrect ports during assembly and maintenance operations to improve user friendliness.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Otto
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sarcia (US 4,389,850) discloses a similar cryocooler with a gas receiving port provided in the expander housing.
Morie et al. (US 20170184328) discloses a similar cryocooler with a connection flow path.
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 February 17th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763