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 (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2025 was filed after the filing date of this application on 01/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heat equalizing members” in claims 6-7.
“cooling conduction members” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“heat equalizing members” correspond to “a metal or other thermal conductor … in the form of a plate” as described in paragraph [0049] of the specification.
“cooling conduction members” correspond to “a metal or other thermal conductor … in the form of a plate” as described in paragraph [0054] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “an operation stop process to stop operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” will be interpreted as -- an operation stop process to stop an operation of the cryogenic refrigerator --
Claim 1 recites the limitation “operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “an operation start process to start operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” will be interpreted as -- an operation start process to start the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator --
Claim 1 recites the limitation “operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “while operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped” will be interpreted as -- while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped --
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the conditional step of “to perform an operation stop process to stop an operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors drops to a predetermined target cooling temperature” may never occur. In particular, claim 1 does not positively recite the condition precedent (i.e. the temperature dropping to a predetermined target cooling temperature while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in a case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of performing an operation stop process to stop an operation of the cryogenic refrigerator need not occur to satisfy the claim. As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in a case” step of claim 1, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the conditional step of “to perform … an operation start process to start the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors rises to a predetermined operation start temperature that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature” may never occur. In particular, claim 1 does not positively recite the condition precedent (i.e. the temperature rising to a predetermined operation start temperature that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in a case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of performing an operation start process to start the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator need not occur to satisfy the claim. As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in a case” step of claim 1, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the term “maximum” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 3 indefinite because it is unclear what a “maximum temperature” is. Thus, as used to qualify the temperature at which the high-temperature superconducting wire can be made superconducting, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claims 9-10, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claims 9-10 indefinite because it is unclear what a “substantially C-shaped” or “substantially U-shaped” is. Thus, as used to qualify the shape of the yoke, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claims (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a predetermined target cooling temperature” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 from which claim 11 depends already discloses “a predetermined target cooling temperature”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “predetermined target cooling temperature” of claim 11 is referencing the previously disclosed “predetermined target cooling temperature” or an entirely different target cooling temperature. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors drops to a predetermined target cooling temperature” will be interpreted as -- the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors drops to the predetermined target cooling temperature --
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a predetermined operation start temperature” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 from which claim 11 depends already discloses “a predetermined operation start temperature”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “predetermined operation start temperature” of claim 11 is referencing the previously disclosed “predetermined operation start temperature” or an entirely operation start temperature. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors rises to a predetermined operation start temperature” will be interpreted as -- the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors rises to the predetermined operation start temperature --
Claim 11 recites the limitation “operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “stopping, by the controller, operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” will be interpreted as -- stopping, by the controller, the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator --
Claim 11 recites the limitation “operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “starting, by the controller, operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” will be interpreted as -- starting, by the controller, the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator --
Claim 11 recites the limitation “operation of the cryogenic refrigerator” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “while operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped” will be interpreted as -- while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped --
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that the conditional step of “stopping, by the controller, the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors drops to the predetermined target cooling temperature” may never occur. In particular, claim 11 does not positively recite the condition precedent (i.e. the temperature dropping to a predetermined target cooling temperature while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in a case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of stopping by the controller an operation of the cryogenic refrigerator need not occur to satisfy the claim. As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in a case” step of claim 11, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that the conditional step of “starting, by the controller, the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors rises to the predetermined operation start temperature that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature” may never occur. In particular, claim 11 does not positively recite the condition precedent (i.e. the temperature rising to a predetermined operation start temperature that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in a case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of starting by the controller the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator need not occur to satisfy the claim. As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in a case” step of claim 11, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are also rejected due to dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “a magnetic field generator comprising: the cooling system; and a yoke that is substantially C-shaped or substantially U-shaped, wherein the cooling system comprises one or a pair of the vacuum insulation containers, the cooling system comprises a pair of superconducting coils, each superconducting coil being the object to be cooled, the cooling system comprises a pair of split cores, each split core being the cold storage body, the pair of split cores are configured separately from the yoke, are located inside the yoke, and are arranged facing each other with a working space therebetween, in each split core, each superconducting coil is wound along a circumferential direction centering on an axis parallel to a direction in which the pair of split cores face each other, a split core coil assembly comprising the split core and the superconducting coil wound around the split core is housed in the one or pair of the vacuum insulation containers, and the yoke is arranged outside of the one or pair of vacuum insulation containers”.
However, claim 9 already discloses “wherein the cooling system is configured for use in a magnetic field generator, the magnetic field generator comprises the cooling system, and a yoke that is substantially C-shaped or substantially U-shaped, the cooling system comprises one or a pair of the vacuum insulation containers, the cooling system comprises a pair of superconducting coils, each superconducting coil being the object to be cooled, the cooling system comprises a pair of split cores, each split core being the cold storage body, the pair of split cores are configured separately from the yoke, are located inside the yoke, and are arranged facing each other with a working space therebetween, in each split core, each superconducting coil is wound along a circumferential direction centering on an axis parallel to a direction in which the pair of split cores face each other, a split core coil assembly comprising the split core and the superconducting coil wound around the split core is housed in the one or pair of the vacuum insulation containers, and the yoke is arranged outside of the one or pair of vacuum insulation containers”.
Therefore, it is unclear how claim 4 is further limited.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda (WO2014199793A1) in view of Hanawa (JPH11354317A).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuda teaches a cooling system (the system illustrated in Fig. 2 excluding iron yoke 104) comprising: a vacuum insulation container (vacuum container 107 Fig. 2); an object (superconducting coils 105 Fig. 2 and paragraph [29]) to be cooled (paragraph [12]), arranged in the vacuum insulation container (Fig. 2); a cryogenic refrigerator (refrigerator 108 Fig. 2) comprising a cold stage (cooling portions 206-207 Fig. 2) configured to generate cold (paragraph [54]); a thermal conduction connector (heat conducting member 208 Fig. 2) connecting the cold stage and the object to be cooled in a thermally conductive manner (Fig. 2 and paragraph [50]); one or more temperature sensors (temperature sensor 212 Fig. 2 and paragraph [26]); a current lead (lead wires 209a-209b Fig. 2) arranged in the vacuum insulation container (Fig. 2); and a controller (computer 115 Fig. 1), wherein the one or more temperature sensors are each configured to detect a temperature of the object to be cooled (paragraph [26]), and a predetermined target cooling temperature (disclosed “20 Kelvin” in paragraph [50]).
Tsuda teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the controller is configured to perform an operation stop process to stop an operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors drops to the predetermined target cooling temperature, and an operation start process to start the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors rises to a predetermined operation start temperature that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature”.
However, Hanawa teaches a controller (computer 42 Fig. 1 corresponds to the controller of Tsuda) is configured to perform an operation stop process (the stop process described in paragraph [0048]) to stop an operation of a cryogenic refrigerator (paragraph [0048] and Fig. 4 where cryocooler 33 corresponds to the cryogenic refrigerator of Tsuda) in a case in which, while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating (corresponds to the period between o and t1 Fig. 4), a temperature (temperature T Fig. 4 and paragraph [0047]) detected by one temperature sensor (paragraph [0047] and Fig. 1 where temperature sensor 40 corresponds to the temperature sensor of Tsuda) drops to a predetermined target cooling temperature (temperature T2 Fig. 4 corresponds to the predetermined target cooling temperature of Tsuda), and an operation start process (the start process described in paragraph [0049]) to start the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator (Fig. 4) in a case in which, while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped (corresponds to the time period that extends between t1 and t2 Fig. 4), the temperature detected by the temperature sensor rises to a predetermined operation start temperature (preset temperature T1 Fig. 4 and paragraph [0049]) that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature (Fig. 4) to provide a large energy saving effect and a quiet magnetic field environment (paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Tsuda to include “the controller is configured to perform an operation stop process to stop an operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors drops to the predetermined target cooling temperature, and an operation start process to start the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped, the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors rises to a predetermined operation start temperature that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature” in view of the teachings of Hanawa to provide a large energy saving effect and a quiet magnetic field environment.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the predetermined target cooling temperature is equal to a temperature of the cold stage (disclosed “20 Kelvin” in paragraph [54] of Tsuda) when a cooling load of the cold stage is 5W (disclosed “cooling capacity of 6W” in paragraph [54] of Tsuda).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the object to be cooled is configured to include a high-temperature superconducting wire (paragraph [49] of Tsuda), and the predetermined operation start temperature is equal to a maximum temperature (disclosed “transition temperature” in paragraph [0049] of Hanawa) at which the high-temperature superconducting wire can be made superconducting (paragraph [0049] of Hanawa).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the thermal conduction connector comprises a cold storage body (coil bobbin 202 Fig. 2 and paragraph [49] of Tsuda).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the cold storage body has a greater heat capacity (referring to paragraph [51] of Tsuda, a person skilled in the art would recognize that coil bobbin 202 which is described to have “a large heat capacity” would have a greater heat capacity than the disclosed Magnesium Diboride which has a low heat capacity) than the object to be cooled (paragraph [51] of Tsuda).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the cold storage body is a core member (paragraph [49] of Tsuda where coil bobbin 202 is used as a support to wind the superconducting coils 105), the object to be cooled is a superconducting coil (paragraph [49] of Tsuda), and the superconducting coil is wound around the core member (paragraph [49] of Tsuda).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the cooling system is configured for use in a magnetic field generator (superconducting magnet 103 Fig. 2 and paragraph [12] of Tsuda), the magnetic field generator comprises the cooling system (Fig. 2 of Tsuda), and a yoke (iron yoke 104 Fig. 2 of Tsuda) that is C-shaped (Fig. 1 of Tsuda), the cooling system comprises one vacuum insulation container (vacuum vessel 107 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), the cooling system comprises a pair of superconducting coils (superconducting coils 105 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), each superconducting coil being the object to be cooled (paragraph [50] of Tsuda), the cooling system comprises a pair of split cores (coil bobbins 202 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), each split core being the cold storage body (paragraph [49] of Tsuda), the pair of split cores are configured separately from the yoke (Fig. 2 of Tsuda), are located inside the yoke (Fig. 2 of Tsuda), and are arranged facing each other with a working space therebetween (corresponds to the space that accommodates magnetic pole 201 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), in each split core, each superconducting coil is wound along a circumferential direction (the circumferential winding direction illustrated in Fig. 3 of Tsuda) centering on an axis (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Tsuda) parallel to a direction (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Tsuda) in which the pair of split cores face each other (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Tsuda), a split core coil assembly (the combination of superconducting coil 105 and coil bobbin 202 Fig. 2 of Tsuda) comprising the split core and the superconducting coil wound around the split core (Fig. 2 and paragraph [49] of Tuda) is housed in the one vacuum insulation container (Fig. 2 of Tsuda), and the yoke is arranged outside of the one vacuum insulation container (Fig. 2 of Tsuda).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach a magnetic field generator (superconducting magnet 103 Fig. 2 and paragraph [12] of Tsuda) comprising: the cooling system (Fig. 2 of Tsuda); and a yoke (iron yoke 104 Fig. 2 of Tsuda) that is C-shaped (Fig. 1 of Tsuda), wherein the cooling system comprises one vacuum insulation container (vacuum vessel 107 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), the cooling system comprises a pair of superconducting coils (superconducting coils 105 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), each superconducting coil being the object to be cooled (paragraph [50] of Tsuda), the cooling system comprises a pair of split cores (coil bobbins 202 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), each split core being the cold storage body (paragraph [49] of Tsuda), the pair of split cores are configured separately from the yoke (Fig. 2 of Tsuda), are located inside the yoke (Fig. 2 of Tsuda), and are arranged facing each other with a working space therebetween (corresponds to the space that accommodates magnetic pole 201 Fig. 2 of Tsuda), in each split core, each superconducting coil is wound along a circumferential direction (the circumferential winding direction illustrated in Fig. 3 of Tsuda) centering on an axis (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Tsuda) parallel to a direction (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Tsuda) in which the pair of split cores face each other (see below annotated Fig. 3 of Tsuda), a split core coil assembly (the combination of superconducting coil 105 and coil bobbin 202 Fig. 2 of Tsuda) comprising the split core and the superconducting coil wound around the split core (Fig. 2 and paragraph [49] of Tuda) is housed in the one vacuum insulation container (Fig. 2 of Tsuda), and the yoke is arranged outside of the one vacuum insulation container (Fig. 2 of Tsuda).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach a method (the method disclosed in paragraphs [0047] to [0051] of Hanawa) of operation for the cooling system (paragraphs [0047] to [0051] of Hanawa), the method comprising: stopping, by the controller, the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator (paragraph [0048] of Hanawa) in a case in which, while the cryogenic refrigerator is operating (Fig. 4 of Hanawa), the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors drops to the predetermined target cooling temperature (Fig. 4 of Hanawa); and starting, by the controller (paragraph [0049] of Hanawa), the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator in a case in which, while the operation of the cryogenic refrigerator is stopped (Fig. 4 of Hanawa), the temperature detected by any one of the one or more temperature sensors rises to the predetermined operation start temperature (Fig. 4 of Hanawa) that is higher than the predetermined target cooling temperature (Fig. 4 of Hanawa).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda and Hanawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwai et al. (JP2015179791A, herein after referred to as Iwai).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the thermal conduction connector comprises one or more heat equalizing members, and the one or more heat equalizing members are in contact with the cold storage body over an entire outer circumferential surface of the cold storage body”.
However, Iwai teaches wherein a thermal conduction connector (heat transfer plate 6 Fig. 2 corresponds to the thermal conduction connector of Tsuda) comprises one or more heat equalizing members (heat equalizing member 4a Fig. 2), and the one or more heat equalizing members are in contact with a cold storage body (Fig. 2 where coil case 3 corresponds to the cold storage body of Tsuda) over an entire outer circumferential surface of the cold storage body (to and bottom surfaces of coil case 3 Fig. 2) to equalize the temperature of the coil storage body as a whole (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the thermal conduction connector comprises one or more heat equalizing members, and the one or more heat equalizing members are in contact with the cold storage body over an entire outer circumferential surface of the cold storage body” in view of the teachings of Iwai to equalize the temperature of the coil storage body as a whole.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda, Hanawa, and Iwai as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yazawa et al. (JP2001244109A, herein after referred to as Yazawa).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the thermal conduction connector comprises one or more cooling conduction members, and the one or more cooling conduction members are in contact with the one or more heat equalizing members and the object to be cooled”.
However, Yazawa teaches wherein a thermal conduction connector (heat transport bodies 5a-5b Fig. 12 correspond to the thermal conduction connector of Tsuda) comprises one or more cooling conduction members (heat transfer plates 6a-6c Fig. 12), and one cooling conduction member (heat transfer plate 15 Fig. 12 corresponds to the cooling conduction member of Iwai) is in contact with the one or more heat equalizing members and an object to be cooled (Fig. 12 where superconducting coils 2 correspond to the object to be cooled of Tsuda) to suppress the temperature rise of the superconducting coils and always maintain the superconducting state (paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the thermal conduction connector comprises one or more cooling conduction members, and the one or more cooling conduction members are in contact with the one or more heat equalizing members and the object to be cooled” in view of the teachings of Yazawa to suppress the temperature rise of the superconducting coils and always maintain the superconducting state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights