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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on October 28, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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, 11, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Astra et al (GB 2,528,919; hereinafter Astra; cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Astra discloses a cryogenic cooling system (see figure 1) comprising a medium (10) to be cooled; a liquid channel (12) for carrying a liquid cryogen (14) and arranged such that the medium (10) is in thermal communication with the liquid cryogen (see figure 1); at least one vapour channel (22) adjacent the liquid channel (12); and a plurality of spray generators communicating between the liquid channel (12) and the at least one vapour channel (22) and operable to effect cooling of the medium (10) by effecting evaporation of the liquid cryogen (14) in response to passage through the spray generators into the at least one vapour channel (page 2 lines 19-34).
Regarding claim 6, Astra discloses the cryogenic cooling system in which the spray generators (see figure 1; page 2 lines 19-34) are formed integrally with a liquid conduit defining the liquid channel (12, see figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Astra discloses the cryogenic cooling system (see figure 1) in which the medium (10) is arranged for sensible heat transfer with the liquid cryogen (14; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Astra discloses the cooling system (see figure 1) in which the medium (10) comprises an extended length of a superconductor extending longitudinally of the liquid channel (12; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Astra discloses a method of cryogenically cooling a medium (10) over an extended distance, the method comprising locating the medium (10) in thermal communication with a liquid channel (12) carrying a supply of liquid cryogen (14); effecting evaporation of the liquid cryogen (14) into or within at least one vapour channel (22) adjacent the liquid channel (12) via a plurality of spray generators communicating between the liquid channel and the at least one vapour channel (22) in order to absorb heat through the latent heat of vaporization of the liquid cryogen (page 2 lines 19-34).
Regarding claim 18, Astra discloses the method comprising the step of effecting sensible heat transfer between the medium (10) and the cryogen (14; see figure 1).
4. Claims 1, 3, 11, 12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wulffers et al (WO 2011/133025; hereinafter Wulffers; cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Wulffers discloses a cryogenic cooling system (see figure 1) comprising a medium (2) to be cooled; a liquid channel (5) for carrying a liquid cryogen (cryogen medium) and arranged such that the medium (2) is in thermal communication with the liquid cryogen (see page 8 lines 23-25); at least one vapour channel (7) adjacent the liquid channel (5); and a plurality of spray generators communicating between the liquid channel (5) and the at least one vapour channel (7; page 9 lines 7-8) and operable to effect cooling of the medium by effecting evaporation of the liquid cryogen in response to passage through the spray generators into the at least one vapour channel (page 9 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 3, Wulffers discloses the cryogenic cooling system (see figure 1) comprising a pressure generator operable to establish and control a pressure differential between the liquid channel and the at least one vapour channel to drive the liquid cryogen through the spray generators (page 9 lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 11, Wulffers discloses the cryogenic cooling system (see figure 1) in which the medium (2) is arranged for sensible heat transfer with the liquid cryogen (pages 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 12, Wulffers discloses the cooling system (see figure 1) in which the medium (2) comprises an extended length of a superconductor extending longitudinally of the liquid channel (see figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Wulffers discloses a method of cryogenically cooling a medium over an extended distance, the method comprising locating the medium in thermal communication with a liquid channel (5) carrying a supply of liquid cryogen (cryogen medium) effecting evaporation of the liquid cryogen (page 8 lines 23-25) into or within at least one vapour channel (7) adjacent the liquid channel (5) via a plurality of spray generators communicating between the liquid channel and the at least one vapour channel (7; page 9 lines 7-8) in order to absorb heat through the latent heat of vaporization of the liquid cryogen (page 9 lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 18, Wulffers discloses the method comprising the step of effecting sensible heat transfer between the medium (2) and the cryogen (page 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 19, Wulffers discloses a method (see figure 1) comprising providing the spray generators as nozzles and effecting evaporation of the liquid cryogen in response to transit through the nozzles into the at least one vapour channel (page 9 lines 4-30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astra et al (GB 2,528,919; hereinafter Astra; cited in the IDS) in view of Willen et al (US 8,623,787; hereinafter Willen).
Regarding claim 7, Astra discloses the claimed invention except for cryogenic cooling system comprising one or more layers of insulation surrounding the at least one vapour channel and/or the liquid channel. Willen teaches a cryogenic cooling system (see figures 1 -4) comprising one or more layers of insulation surrounding the at least one vapour channel and/or the liquid channel (see figures 1-4 or abstract; column 5 line 64-column 6 line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide to Astra’s cooling system with one or more layers of insulation surrounding the at least one vapour channel and/or the liquid channel as taught by Willen to reduce the transfer of heat between the channels and improve thermal efficiency. Furthermore, the specification states, “It is also to be understood that additional or alternative layers or forms of insulation may be provided as part of the cryogenic cooling system 10 as are well known in the art (page 7 line 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 13-16 and 20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of claims 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 13-16 and 20-22 are:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations the cryogenic cooling system wherein the liquid channel comprises a primary liquid channel and a secondary liquid channel surrounding and in fluid communication with the primary liquid channel.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations the cryogenic cooling system in which the spray generators comprise nozzles operable to eject cryogen into the at least one vapour channel.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations the cryogenic cooling system in which the at least one vapour channel is located radially outwardly of the liquid channel.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations the cryogenic cooling system in which the at least one vapour channel surrounds and encloses the liquid channel.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations comprising a pressure release system operable to facilitate pressure release from the liquid channel into the at least one vapour channel or the environment.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations the cryogenic cooling system comprising an outer cryostat surrounding and enclosing the at least one vapour channel.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations the cryogenic cooling system comprising at least one radiation shield in thermal communication with the at least one vapour channel.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations the cryogenic cooling system in which the at least one radiation shield comprises a conductive sleeve surrounding and thermally contacting the at least one vapour channel.
Regarding claims 20, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations a method comprising the step of establishing a pressure differential between the liquid channel and the at least one vapour channel to drive the liquid cryogen through the spray generators.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations a method comprising the step of controlling heat absorption by modulating the mass flow rate of liquid cryogen within the liquid channel.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest in combination with the other claimed limitations a method according comprising the steps of withdrawing vaporised cryogen from the at least one vapour channel, condensing the vaporised cryogen, and recirculating the condensed cryogen into the liquid channel.
These limitations are found in claims 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 13-16 and 20-22, and are neither disclosed nor taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Manninen (US 11,742,584), Crook et al (US 8,809,679), Ladie et al (US 6,730,851) and Bahder et al (US 4,394,534) disclose a cooling system.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Angel R. Estrada at telephone number (571) 272-1973. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30am -5:00pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. 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 USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) OR 571-272-1000.
July 15, 2026
/ANGEL R ESTRADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights