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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10; the limitation, “causing or allowing” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present disclosure does not provide details on what constitutes these limitations for one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
Claims 2-9 and 11-19 are rejected based upon their dependency from claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blecher et al. (U.S. Patent No.: 5,586,437), hereinafter referred to as Blecher et al. ‘437.
Regarding claim 1, Blecher et al. ‘437 disclose a method, comprising: causing or allowing a cryogen (liquid refrigerant) within a core (20) of a cryogenic cell (10) to vaporize, forming a vaporized cryogen, in response to a thermal load in a pressurizable space of the cryogenic cell, the pressurizable space being in at least partial thermal communication with the core according to a pressure within the pressurizable space {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 2, line 63 - Col 3, line 65}; removing (40) the vaporized cryogen from the core {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 3, line 25-35}; and regenerating the vaporized cryogen external to the cryogenic cell {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 3, line 36-56; wherein the refrigerant loop from 40 to 34 constitutes regenerating the vaporized cryogen external to the cryogenic cell}.
Regarding claim 2, Blecher et al. ‘437 disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising returning the regenerated cryogen to the core {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 3, lines 40-56; wherein put 34 depicts returning of the regenerated cryogen to the core}.
Regarding claim 3, Blecher et al. ‘437 disclose the method of claim 2, wherein said returning comprises returning the regenerated cryogen to the core in liquid phase {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 3, lines 50-56; wherein after compression (41) and aftercooler (43), the gaseous state refrigerant is condensed into liquid phase and return to the core via input port 34}.
Regarding claim 4, Blecher et al. ‘437 disclose the method of claim 2, wherein said regenerating comprises compressing the vaporized cryogen {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 3, lines 49-56}.
Regarding claim 5, Blecher et al. ‘437 disclose the method of claim 2, wherein said removing comprises withdrawing the vaporized cryogen from a first port (40) in the core {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 3, lines 41-49}.
Regarding claim 6, Blecher et al. ‘437 disclose the method of claim 5, wherein said returning comprises returning the regenerated cryogen to a second port (34) in the core {as shown in Fig. 1: Col 3, lines 51-55}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blecher et al. ‘437, in view of BARJHOUX et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2017/0219265 A1), hereinafter referred to as BARJHOUX et al ‘265. 20
Regarding claims 7-9, Blecher et al. ‘437 disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising a parameter indicative of the thermal load, and wherein the parameter comprises pressure and temperature {see Col 3, lines 11-55}.
However, Blecher et al. ‘437 fail to further disclose the limitations of measuring a parameter indicative of the thermal load and adjusting a rate of said removing and said returning in accordance with the measured parameter.
BARJHOUX et al ‘265 teach: the concept of measuring (13, 15, 16, 28) a parameter indicative of the thermal load and adjusting a rate (30) of said removing and said returning in accordance with the measured parameter {see ¶¶ [0010], [0012-0014], [0017], [0033], [0043], [0046], [0048], [0055], [0058], [0063-0065], [0072] and [0076]; wherein the controller (50) is configured to perform the measurement via sensors}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Blecher et al. ‘437 method in view of BARJHOUX et al ‘265 to measuring a parameter indicative of the thermal load and adjusting a rate of said removing and said returning in accordance with the measured parameter, in order to makes it possible to get as close as possible to predetermined optimum operation {BARJHOUX et al ‘265 – ¶ [0018]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Blecher et al. ‘437 in view of BARJHOUX et al ‘265 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7-9.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11448459-B1 to Barker; Donald Wade.
US-7474099-B2 to Boesel; Johannes.
US-6107905-A to Itoh; Koji.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, 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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
04/04//2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights