DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2007078310 to Saho et al. (Saho).
In reference to claim 1, Saho teaches a cryostat (FIG. 1-7), comprising a vacuum enclosure (12, FIG. 7), inside said vacuum enclosure a plurality of nested radiation shields (15 and 16, FIG. 7), and a cryogen-free cooling system (17, FIG. 7), stages of which (28 and 32, FIG. 7) are thermally coupled with and configured to cool respective ones of said plurality of nested radiation shields (15 and 16, FIG. 7), inside said vacuum enclosure (12, FIG. 7), at least partly surrounding said plurality of nested radiation shields (par 0081 and FIG. 7), a thermally conductive layer (86, FIG. 7), and a compressor-driven refrigerator (inherent in the structure of cooler 87, FIG. 7) thermally coupled with said thermally conductive layer (86, FIG. 7) and configured to cool said thermally conductive layer (86, FIG. 7).
In reference to claim 2, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Saho additionally teaches wherein said compressor-driven refrigerator (87, FIG. 7) is configured to cool said thermally conductive layer (86, FIG. 7) to a temperature between 173 K and 273 K (par 0075).
In reference to claim 3, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Saho additionally teaches wherein at least a part of said thermally conductive layer (86, FIG. 7) is attached to and mechanically supported by the vacuum enclosure (via supports 13 and 14, FIG. 7).
In reference to claim 4, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Saho additionally teaches wherein a part (50, FIG. 7) of said vacuum enclosure (12, FIG. 7) is openable, constituting a door or hatch (port 50, FIG. 7) for giving access to inside the vacuum enclosure (12, FIG. 7), and a door part or hatch part (46, FIG. 7) of said thermally conductive layer (86, FIG. 7) is attached to and mechanically supported by the openable part (50) of the vacuum enclosure.
In reference to claims 10 and 11, they claim the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claims 1-2, thus, they are rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claims 1-2 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saho.
In reference to claim 5, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, but Saho does not explicitly teach wherein the thermally conductive layer comprises a thermal coupling gasket for thermally coupling said door or hatch part to the rest of the thermally conductive layer when the openable part of the vacuum enclosure is closed.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various cooling systems comprising doors to have gaskets to be obvious in order to prevent heat loss.
In reference to claim 6, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, but Saho does not explicitly teach wherein said compressor-driven refrigerator is a first compressor-driven refrigerator thermally coupled with that portion of said thermally conductive layer that remains within the vacuum enclosure when said openable part of the vacuum enclosure is opened, and the cryostat comprises a second compressor-driven refrigerator thermally coupled with the door or hatch part.
Although Saho did not disclose a plurality of compressors, the court holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the cooling capacity of the system is increased by the addition of a compressor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cryostat of Saho, to include a first compressor-driven refrigerator thermally coupled with that portion of said thermally conductive layer that remains within the vacuum enclosure when said openable part of the vacuum enclosure is opened, and the cryostat comprises a second compressor-driven refrigerator thermally coupled with the door or hatch part in order to increase the capacity of the cooling system.
In reference to claim 7, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but Saho does not explicitly teach wherein the thermally conductive layer has an opening for allowing a plurality of wired connections between respective feedthroughs in the vacuum enclosure and the plurality of nested radiation shields to go through.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various cooling systems comprising thermally conductive layers, vacuum insulations and nested radiation shields to have openings for wiring to be obvious in order to allow for electrical connection for elements located within the cryostat.
In reference to claim 8, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but Saho does not explicitly teach the vacuum enclosure consists of two or more modules, each with at least one opening on a surface thereof for interconnecting with the other modules, and said thermally conductive layer consists of module-specific portions, each such portion covering at least a part of the inner walls of the respective module.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various cooling systems being modular to be obvious in order to allow for easy access and maintenance.
In reference to claim 9, Saho teaches the cryostat as explained in the rejection of claim 8 above, but Saho does not explicitly teach as many compressor-driven refrigerators as there are modules, each compressor-driven refrigerator being thermally coupled with the thermally conductive layer of the respective module.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various cooling systems being modular to be obvious in order to allow for easy access and maintenance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 form for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights