DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 04th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10 remain pending in the application. Claim 10 remains withdrawn from consideration as being direction to nonelected Invention II. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed June 04th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-8 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “The primary reference, Mizuno, fails to teach the claimed feature, and the Examiner relies on Strobel for "the gas receiving port." In the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that the claimed relative dimensions are not patentably distinct because "a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device," citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. and MPEP 2144.04-IV-A. Applicant respectfully disagree. Modifying the reference to have the claimed relative dimensions would fundamentally alter its performance and defeat its intended purpose. Strobel explicitly requires that "[f]or 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)" (Strobel, paragraph [0038]). According to Strobel, this high throughput is necessary so that the rinsing gas is not cooled down and can sufficiently heat the inner sides of the gas lines to thaw frozen gases. To achieve the "considerably higher gas turnover" required by Strobel, a person of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily design the first reversing valve 21 and rinsing line 22 (the alleged gas receiving port) to have a flow path cross-sectional area that is larger than, or at least equal to, that of the feed line 4 (the alleged connection flow path). Modifying Strobel 's rinsing line to have a smaller cross-sectional area than the connection flow path, as claimed, would severely restrict the gas throughput. Consequently, such a modification would cause the device to perform differently: it would prevent the high gas turnover required to thaw frozen gases, completely changing its basic principle of operation. Because the claimed relative dimensions cause the device to perform differently from the cited references (by reducing dead volume in the present invention, while simultaneously destroying the thawing capability in Strobel), the holding in Gardner does not apply. Therefore, Strobel provides no motivation to make the cross-sectional area of the gas receiving port smaller than that of the connection flow path, and rather teaches away from such a configuration. Accordingly, Claim 5 and its dependent claims are non-obvious.”
However, this argument is not persuasive as the Examiner has not suggested modifying the flow path cross-sectional area of the gas receiving port to be smaller than what is suggested by Strobel, but that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the relationship or relative dimensions between the cross-sectional area of the gas receiving port and the cross-sectional area of the connection flow path. Therefore, a PHOSITA would be motivated to make change the cross-sectional area of the connection flow path to be bigger in comparison to the cross-sectional area of the gas receiving port to maintain the high throughput required by Strobel. Such a modification would further improve the operation of Strobel which emphasizes the need for high throughput through rinsing line 22 therefore improving the operation the system described by Strobel, not diminishing it. See the rejection of claim 5 below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: “after the disassembling and reassembling” should read “after the disassembling and the reassembling”
Claims 2 and 4 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US Patent No. 10,551,093), hereinafter Mizuno in view Cryogenic Systems and Receiver Maintenance, hereinafter NPL-2 and CTI Decontamination Procedure, hereinafter NPL-3.
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:
disassembling and reassembling the expander under an ambient environment;
after the disassembling and reassembling, 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.
NPL-2 teaches a gas replacement method for a cryocooler (Pg. 36-37, Refrigerator Purging and Pressurization Procedure) the gas replacement method comprising:
the gas replacement method comprising:
disassembling and reassembling the expander under an ambient environment (Pg. 34-35; you can dismantle the cold head displacer from the cylinder: Important! Delicate task. Working with gloves, grease where necessary. You need some experience! When opening the cold head from cylinder there may lead dust be freed up! 1. Attach the charging adaptors to both helium ports. 2. Open both adaptor valves to discharge the pressure from the refrigerator. Remove charging cylinder. 3. Remove the four #10 Hex head screws securing the refrigerator to the cylinder and withdraw the refrigerator, thus removing the displacers from the cylinder. 4. Perform steps 1 through 3 on the replacement unit. 5. Carefully place the second stage seal suppressor over the seal on the replacement unit. 6. Clean the inside of the cylinder in the Dewar with a suitable solvent (petroleum ether is preferred, however, alcohol can be used). Make sure that the cylinder is completely clean and dry before proceeding. 7. Clean the “O” ring grove on top of the cylinder and install a new “O” ring coated very lightly with apiezon grease. 8. Carefully insert the displacers into the cylinder until the crosshead mates with the cylinder and bolt in place using a crossed pattern tightening procedure which insures that the bolts are tightened evenly);
after the disassembling and reassembling, connecting a nonflammable gas source to the connection flow path or the expander cylinder (Pg. 35, Step 9. Perform steps 1 through 6 of the system purging procedure); and
purging a residual gas in the expander cylinder with a nonflammable gas from the nonflammable gas source (Pg. 36-37, Read your manual of your cold head and compressor! Example procedure: 1. In order to get a successful purge of the system the helium lines must be removed from the refrigerator when the system is as cold as possible. Trapping the contamination in the refrigerator. Disconnect while running the supply line and then immediately the supply line to the compressor. 2. Allow the refrigerator to warm to room temperature before proceeding. 3. Attach purging and charging adaptors to both the supply and return helium lines on the refrigerator. 4. Attach a regulated supply of ultra pure helium to the charging adaptor on the supply side of the refrigerator and adjust the regulator pressure to 50 PSI. 5. Apply electrical power to the refrigerator by attaching the cable from the compressor and turning on both switches on compressor. 6. Open the valves on both charging adaptors and allow helium to flow through the refrigerator for at least one minute. 7. Close the exhaust valve on the return side of the refrigerator and allow the pressure in the refrigerator to equalize. 8. Close the valve on the supply side of the refrigerator, the supply valve on the helium tank and remove the charging adaptors. 9. Return the normal helium line connections to the refrigerator and begin a normal cool down cycle as the refrigerator is now ready for use).
Mizuno fails to teach a gas replacement method for an expander of a cryocooler the gas replacement method comprising: disassembling and reassembling the expander under an ambient environment; after the disassembling and reassembling, 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 NPL-2 teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include a gas replacement method for an expander of a cryocooler the gas replacement method comprising: disassembling and reassembling the expander under an ambient environment; after the disassembling and reassembling, 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. restoring a cold head to its intended operational capacity (NPL-2, Pg. 34-37)). 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 NPL-2 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 restoring a cold head to its intended operational capacity (NPL-2, Pg. 34-37).
Further, Mizuno as modified does not disclose the purging to be done while the expander motor is stopped.
However, NPL-2 directs the user to read the manual of the specific cold head before using their procedure.
NPL-3, which is a cryocooler operation manual teaches the purging to be done while the expander motor is stopped (Pg. 3-5, DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURE NO. 1… (2) Shut down the CRYO-TORR high-vacuum pump…. (7) Attach a helium bottle, regulator, and charging line to the evacuation
and charging adapter and purge the charging line and regulator of air… (8) Perform the following sequence of steps (a) through (d): (a) Pressurize the cold head with helium to the static charge
pressure (see Table 1). (b) Depressurize the cold head to 30 psig. (c) Perform flushing steps (a) and (b) four more times).
Mizuno as modified fails to teach the purging to be done while the expander motor is stopped, however NPL-3 teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocooler purging to include the purging 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. allowing for improved pressure control during the purging operation for precise pressure equalization). 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-3 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 improved pressure control during the purging operation for precise pressure equalization.
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; NPL-2, Pg. 37, 4. Attach a regulated supply of ultra pure helium to the charging adaptor on the supply side of the refrigerator and adjust the regulator pressure to 50 PSI.). Further, the limitations of claim 4 are the result of the modification of references sued in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as modified by NPL-2 and NPL-3 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strobel (US 20080115520), hereinafter Strobel.
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).
However, Mizuno as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the connecting includes connecting the nonflammable gas source to a gas receiving port of the connection flow path via a gas replacement pipe, 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 teaches 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).
Mizuno as modified fails to teach wherein the connecting includes connecting the on flammable gas source to a gas receiving port of the connection flow path via a gas replacement pipe, 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, however Strobel teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryocoolers to include wherein the connecting includes connecting the nonflammable gas source to a gas receiving port of the connection flow path via a gas replacement pipe, 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. This is strong evidence that modifying Mizuno as modified 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 as modified 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 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 (Mizuno, 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 (NPL-2, Pg. 36, 3. Attach purging and charging adaptors to both the supply and return helium lines on the refrigerator). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references sued in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 5 is 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).
Moreover, 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 7, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 July 29th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights