DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species 3 - Fig. 3, subspecies C (compressor with a rotary valve), subspecies 6 (the cooling characteristic is a combination of temperature and cooling rate), subspecies 23.5 (combination of drive frequency and resistance) in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the would be no serious burden to search for all of the species and subspecies. This is not found persuasive because as the election requirement has demonstrated a search and examination burden on page 12 of the requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 13, 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim(s) 7, 14 do not read on the elected species since the elected species is a single stage pulse tube refrigerator not a multiple stage refrigerator. In addition, claims 4, 6, and 13 do not describe the elected species, since the elected species is a single stage pulse tube refrigerator that reaches 30-50 K (pg. pub. para. 50) not less than 6K which is a feature of multi-stage non-elected species (pg. pub. para. 63, 78).
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-12, 15, 16 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “that optimizes a rate of cooling” is indefinite as optimizing is a relative term that has no absolute meaning. Optimization that has no definite meaning without defined objectives and boundary conditions. “Optimizes” is as indefinite as saying that the applicant’s cooling rate is “simply the best!”. However, there is no way to determine what the rate must be better than and no way to determine what contextual limitations should be considered to determine in what way the rate of cooling is the best. The recitation is entirely indefinite and indiscernible.
In regard to claim(s) 3-6, the recitation, “dynamically optimizes” is indefinite as it is unclear for the reasons above relative to “optimizing” and further it is unclear what is required to qualify as dynamic. Does this require a mere plurality of optimizations or dos this require a particular number of optimizations per unit time? It is unclear what structure is required to make the controller capable of the recited function since the function is unclear.
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.
No claim limitations are interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 5, 8-12, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (Kim)(cited on IDS dated 5/16/2025) in view of Rampersad (US 2008/0072608)(cited on the IDS dated 5/16/2025). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Kim teaches a cryocooling system (see whole disclosure) comprising: a compressor (rotary valve compressor) configured to be driven at a drive frequency (page 37); a refrigerator (pulse tube refrigerator) coupled to the compressor (rotary valve compressor) via a first fluid path (from compressor) and including a cold heat exchanger (4), an output (at 5), a reservoir (7), and a flow resistor (6) that controls fluid flow along a second fluid path (line having 6) between the output (at 5) and the reservoir (7).
Also Kim teaches that the flow resistor (6) includes an orifice valve (“orifice valve”, Fig. 1).
Also Kim teaches that the refrigerator (pulse tube refrigerator) receives an oscillatory fluid flow (pulsating pressure, page 36) from the compressor (rotary valve compressor).
Also Kim teaches the refrigerator comprising a regenerator (2), a thermal buffer tube (3), and an input (inlet) coupled to the compressor (rotary valve compressor) via the first fluid path (path from rotary valve compressor).
Kim does not appear to explicitly teach a controller coupled to the compressor and the refrigerator, the controller dynamically adjusting both a drive frequency of the compressor and a resistance of the flow resistor to achieve a rate of cooling of the cold heat exchanger that is at least better than others as a temperature of the cold heat exchanger changes. However, Kim does suggest controlling an opening of the flow resistor (6) to obtain an “optimized” performance providing “more rapid cooldown” than what is possible with a fixed flow resistor (page 39) and this suggests at least controlling a resistance of the flow resistor to permit automatic improved cooldown performance.
In addition, Rampersad teaches a controller (36; para. 36) coupled to a compressor (10) and a pulse tube refrigerator (1), the controller (36) dynamically adjusting (para. 11, 12, 30, adjusts over time) both a drive frequency (para. 11, 12) of the compressor (10) and a resistance (para. 15, 16, 31) of a flow resistor (24) to achieve an rate of cooling of a cold heat exchanger (16) that is at least better than other rates as a temperature of the cold heat exchanger changes (para. 38, see temperature is sensed and therefore as temperature changes and used to determine how to modulate both the power input control signal 66 and the inertance network control signal 70; also see para. 11 when the “cryocooler has just been started” temperature changes during cooldown and the controller adjusts both the operation of the compressor and a resistance of the flow resistor 24 to achieve a cooling rate - para. 41 “maximum cooling power will be produced” due to the dynamic adjusting via the power control signal 66 and the inertance control signal 70). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kim with a controller as outlined above by Rampersad for the purpose of providing automatic control that achieves more effective and efficient cooldown operation at all of the temperatures from ambient to a steady state target temperature and not just at the steady state temperature alone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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 a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights