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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumura (US20200027633A1).
In re Claim 1, Matsumura discloses a cryocooler (Fig. 1: 1) comprising:
- a cylinder (51) that has a first thermal conductivity ([0043]: thermal conductivity of stainless steel) and that extends in an axial direction (See Fig. 1: 51 extending in the axial direction);
- a cooling stage (72) that has a second thermal conductivity ([0043]: the thermal conductivity of copper) higher than the first thermal conductivity (See [0043]; the thermal conductivity of copper is necessarily higher than stainless steel) and that includes a stage end portion (72a) and a stage tubular portion (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 5A: axial tube portion of 72; [0041] and [0103]: a tubular magnetic shield which is provided in the second-stage cooling stage 72) connecting the stage end portion (72a) to the cylinder (51) in the axial direction (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 5a; [0103]);
- a displacer (52) that is capable of reciprocating in the axial direction (Q) in the cylinder (51), that forms an expansion space (55) with the stage end portion (72a), and in which the expansion space (55) takes a maximum volume at a top dead center ([0029]) of the displacer (52); and
- a ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material (60b; [0030] and [0104]) that is accommodated in the displacer (52) and of which an axial position in the displacer (Q direction of 52) is determined to overlap the stage tubular portion (axial tube portion of 72) in the axial direction (Q) when the displacer (52) is at the top dead center ([0029]).
In re Claim 2, Matsumura discloses - a metal-based magnetic regenerator material (60a; See [0030]) that is accommodated in the displacer (52) and of which an axial position (Q) in the displacer (52) is determined not to overlap the stage tubular portion (axial tube portion of 72) in the axial direction (Q) when the displacer (52) is at the top dead center ([0029] and [0031]).
In re Claim 3, Matsumura discloses wherein the displacer (52) includes a displacer cap (See Annotated Fig. 1: displacer cap of 52)) that faces the stage end portion (72a) with the expansion space (55) interposed therebetween (See Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
911
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 4, Matsumura discloses wherein the displacer cap (See Annotated Fig. 1: displacer cap of 52) is formed of a material ([0029]: the second-stage displacer 52 is a container which accommodates the second-stage regenerator material) having a high electrical resistivity (Gd2O2S necessarily has a higher electric resistivity, i.e., the inverse of electric conductivity, since it has a lower conductivity than copper) compared to the cooling stage ([0043]: electric resistivity of copper).
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 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.
Claims 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US20200027633A1).
In re Claim 5, Matsumura discloses wherein the displacer cap (See Annotated Fig. 1: displacer cap of 52) includes a regenerator body ([0029])
However, Matsumura (Fig.1) does not explicitly teach, formed of the ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material.
On the other hand, Matsumura (Fig. 11) teaches formed of the ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material (118; See [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Matsumura and to have modified them by having a regenerator body formed of the ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material as taught by Matsumura Fig. 11, in order to balance the magnetization of the magnetic shield (See Matsumura [0107]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 6, Modified Matsumura teaches the regenerator body (118) is exposed to the expansion space (55).
In re Claim 7, Matsumura discloses wherein the ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material (60b)
is disposed adjacent to the displacer cap (See Annotated Fig. 1: displacer cap) in the axial direction (Q) in the displacer (52), and
when a stroke length ([0044]: movement stroke length, hereinafter SL) of reciprocation of the displacer (52; See [0044]) in the axial direction (q) is denoted by S ([0044]: SL),
an axial height of the displacer cap (See Annotated Fig. 1: the height of the displacer cap in the axial direction Q) is denoted by Hc, and
an axial height from the displacer cap to an upper end of the ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material (See top of 60b) is denoted by Hs,
the axial position (Q) of the ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material (60b) in the displacer (52)
Matsumura is silent regarding determined to satisfy Hs > S − Hc.
However, in the further alternative, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the height of the displacer cap with respect to the expansion space, and thus changing the height of the displacer to be height to be greater that a gap between the displacer and the expansion space cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where Huang teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
In re Claim 8, Modified Matsumura teaches wherein the axial position (Q) of the ceramic-based magnetic regenerator material (60b) in the displacer (52) is determined to satisfy Hs > (3/4)S – Hc (See modification supra).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights