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 § 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 1-3 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(s) 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.
Claim 1 uses the term “cold storage device” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) but the specification does not provide sufficient written description for such a limitation.
Claims 2-3 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-3 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 limitation “cold storage device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides no specific structure to define what the cold storage device is. For the purpose of examination, as long as there is any component capable of such a structure, the limitation is considered met. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “in the refrigerator cylinder into which a coolant gas is introduced” which is considered indefinite. The claims have not positively recited the presence of any coolant gas or introduction of any coolant gas and it is unclear if this is a method step or only referring to what the refrigerator cylinder is capable of. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the refrigerator cylinder is configured to receive a coolant gas.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “that is cooled by the refrigerator and condenses or adsorbs” in lines 3-4 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the cooling plate is configured to be cooled by the refrigerator and is configured to condense or adsorb the gas.
Claim 3 recites “the gas” in line 3 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, there is understood that there is gas inside the chamber.
Claim 2 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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: cold storage device in claim 1,
reciprocating mechanism in claim 1 motor and a rod,
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.
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.
Diamond-like carbon is understood to be a term of art and is not considered indefinite for the use of the word “like”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20150276274), hereinafter referred to as Xu and Ishizuka et al. (US PG Pub 20110061404), hereinafter referred to as Ishizuka and Adachi (US PG Pub 20210254718), hereinafter referred to as Adachi.
With respect to claim 1, Xu (Figure 1) teaches a refrigerator (overall device is a Gifford-McMahon or GM refrigerator, paragraph 19), comprising
a refrigerator cylinder (combination of 7 and 8 which can be integrated, paragraph 20) including a cylindrical first-stage cylinder (7, Paragraph 20) and a cylindrical second-stage cylinder (8, paragraph 20), the second-stage cylinder being configured to have a smaller inner diameter than the first-stage cylinder and being coupled to the first-stage cylinder (8 has a smaller diameter than 7 and as they are integrated they can be said to be coupled, paragraph 20);
a cylindrical first-stage displacer disposed inside the first-stage cylinder; a first-stage cold storage device disposed inside the first-stage displacer (displacer 2 with cylindrical outer surface, paragraph 23, which can be seen in the figure ins inside cylinder 7);
a cylindrical second-stage displacer configured to have a smaller outer diameter than the first-stage displacer, disposed inside the second-stage cylinder, and coupled to the first-stage displacer (displacer 3 with cylindrical outer surface, paragraph 26, which as seen in the figure is inside cylinder 8);
a second-stage cold storage device disposed inside the second-stage displacer (second regenerator 34, paragraph 27);
and a reciprocating mechanism that reciprocates the first-stage displacer and the second- stage displacer in a direction along a central axis line of the refrigerator cylinder (scotch yoke mechanism reciprocates the displacers, paragraph 22, which based on their placement would be along the central axis), of the overall cylinder in the refrigerator cylinder into which a coolant gas is introduced (gas is introduced to the cylinders via 13, paragraph 23), wherein a coating layer is formed on an outer circumferential surface of the second- stage displacer (a coating film of fluorine resin is on the outer circumference of 3, paragraph 21), and a clearance is provided between the coating layer and the second-stage cylinder (second clearance between 3 outer surface of 3 and 8, paragraph 28, whereas the clearance is necessary for operation, it would be understood that such clearance as shown includes the film being present and the clearance ultimately being between the film and the cylinder).
Xu does not teach coating layer is non-fluorine.
Ishizuka teaches in a cryogenic refrigerator system (paragraph 4) that abrasion resistance on a surface can be provided by a film of diamond-like carbon (paragraph 57).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Ishizuka to have utilized diamond-like carbon as the film used on the second displacer of Xu instead of the fluorine resin since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known techniques of providing abrasion resistance it would have been obvious to have utilized diamond-like carbon as the film to have provided a suitable material known to have abrasion resistance.
While Xu teaches the use of a reciprocating mechanism, it is not explicit in the teaching of Xu that the reciprocating mechanism includes a motor and rod as understood in view of 35 USC 112(f).
Adachi (figure 1) teaches that a scotch yoke mechanism is used to drive a displacer using a connecting rod and is driven by a motor (paragraph 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Adachi provided a motor and a connecting rod as part of the overall reciprocating mechanism that includes the Scotch Yoke of Xu since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a motor and a connecting rod would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of the components that are used to move the displacer as desired.
With respect to claim 2, Xu as modified teaches the coating layer includes diamond-like carbon (as modified above diamond-like carbon is used).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu/Ishizuka/Adachi and further in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US PG Pub 20220163025), hereinafter referred to as Sekiguchi.
With respect to claim 3, Xu as modified does not teach a cryopump that evacuates gas inside a vacuum chamber, comprising: the refrigerator according to claim 1, and a cooling plate that is cooled by the refrigerator and condenses or adsorbs the gas inside the vacuum chamber to remove the gas.
Sekiguchi teaches (Figure 1) that a two stages GM refrigerator (paragraph 23) can be used to provide cooling in a cryo pump where the second stage cylinder is connected to cool cryopanels (paragraphs 19-23). A cryopanel condense gas (paragraph 31) and a cryopump is for evacuating gases form a vacuum chamber (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed have utilized the refrigerator of Xu such that the refrigerator is used in a cryopump which is for evacuating gases form a vacuum chamber by being configured to cool cryopanels (a cooling plate) in the cryopump to evacuate and condense the gases from the vacuum chamber based on the teaching of Sekiguchi since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would have been common knowledge in the art that when determining the specific purpose for which the GM refrigerator of Xu would be used, it would have been obvious to have used it in a cryopump to provide the cooling necessary for the cryopanels to aide in evacuating of gases from a vacuum chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morie (US PG Pub 20150068221) which teaches a two-stage cryogenic refrigerator similar to that of the present invention and discusses resins for lubrication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights