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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) and Species A2 (Fig. 6, claims 1-4 and 7-8) and B1 (Fig. 8A, claim 6) in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that according to MPEP if the search and examination of all claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine all the claims on merit. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the apparatus of Group III (claim 10) includes structural features that corresponds to and are used in the method of claim 2 of Group I. This is not found persuasive because the method of claim 1 does not, in fact, include the limitations of “gripper” and “lifter” of apparatus claim 11, as explained in the Office Action dated 11/12/2025. A complete search for the apparatus of claim 11 thus requires a divergent search for its structure, compared to the structure of the apparatus used in method claim 1.
Furthermore, Applicant cannot overcome the fact that searching the method is not required for the apparatus as claimed. To keep the groups together would be a burden to the examiner. Regarding Applicant’s argument that examination of the entire application would not place a serious burden on the examiner, this is not found persuasive because Applicant has not provided any evidence or showing to support such a conclusion. Clearly, consideration of additional claims drawn to one or more distinct groups of inventions in diverse categories (product and methods) mandates different fields of search with the associated concomitant hundreds to thousands of patents and time-consuming evaluation of those patents which gives rise to a sizeable burden on the examiner.
Regarding the Species requirement, Applicant fails to submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. The examiner has clearly identified the species to have different design and mode of operation.
Claims 1-10 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 1-4 and 7-8 are elected and claims 5-6 and 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form (multiple short sentences). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DISASSEMBLY METHOD FOR TWO-STAGE COLD HEAD.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ridings et al. (Liris cold head Removal, Cleaning and Replacement, hereinafter “Ridings” ).
As applied to claim 1, Plotz teaches a disassembly method for a two-stage cold head, the method comprising steps of attaching a displacer removal jig (considering the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, users hands and arms are considered as removal jigs) to a second-stage displacer remaining in the two-stage cold head (cold head includes first and second displacers connected to the cold head held by the user’s hands); and operating the displacer removal jig such that the second-stage displacer is pulled out from the two-stage cold head (by disconnecting first stage from second stage displacer as seen in Figure 16).
As applied to claim 2, Ridings teaches the invention cited including wherein the displacer removal jig includes a gripper (users hands are considered as work-holders that grip the work) engageable with the second-stage displacer, and a lifter configured to raise and lower the gripper (the arms of the user are considered as lifters that lift the hands of the user), the attaching includes engaging the gripper with the second-stage displacer, and the operating includes operating the lifter to raise the gripper (see the hands and arms of the user handling the displacer in Figs. 1-16).
As applied to claim 3, Ridings teaches the invention cited including wherein the gripper includes a gripping pin (screwdriver pushing out the locking pins in Figs. 14 and 15) that is inserted into a pin hole of the second-stage displacer.
As applied to claim 4, Ridings teaches the invention cited including wherein the gripping pin is replaceable (the screwdriver in Figs. 14 and 15 is replaceable with another tool or another screwdriver).
As applied to claim 8, Ridings teaches the invention cited including further step of deploying the displacer removal jig before attaching the displacer removal jig to the second-stage displacer (moving the hand and arm of the user before handling and holding the displacer).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishio et al. (US 20200262013A1, hereinafter “Nishio”).
As applied to claim 1, Nishio teaches a disassembly method for a two-stage cold head (paragraph [0029]), the method comprising steps of attaching a displacer removal jig (two jigs 70, Figs. 6 and 9) to a second-stage displacer remaining in the two-stage cold head (second displacer remains in two-stage cold head as the first displacer is removed, Fig. 9, S21); and operating the displacer removal jig such that the second-stage displacer is pulled out from the two-stage cold head (paragraph [0077] and [0078], Fig. 9, S22).
As applied to claim 2, Nishio teaches the invention cited including wherein the displacer removal jig includes a gripper (the pair of main bodies 71 of the pair of jigs 70 grip the displacer by gripping the drive, Fig. 9) engageable with the second-stage displacer, and a lifter configured to raise and lower the gripper (lifting-up bolts 72), the attaching includes engaging the gripper with the second-stage displacer, and the operating includes operating the lifter to raise the gripper (rotating the bolts 72, paragraph [0077]).
As applied to claim 8, Nishio teaches the invention cited including further step of deploying the displacer removal jig before attaching the displacer removal jig to the second-stage displacer (the pair of jigs 70 are deployed and moved near the cold head before being attached to the displacer drive unit and the displacer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitsubori (US 7,000,408) teaches a superconducting magnet apparatus and maintenance method of refrigerator for the same (title). Maintenance of the GM refrigerator R is required whenever the GM refrigerator R is used for a long time (about 10,000-hour operation) for cooling the superconducting magnet apparatus used with the single crystal pulling device. Normal maintenance includes replacement and inspection of parts constantly in motion. Performing the maintenance operation requires the motor drive M and the displacers D1, D2 connected thereto be pulled out and removed from the first and second-stage cooling cylinders C1, C2 (paragraph bridging cols. 1 and 2, Figs 2-3 and 10).
Miyata et al. (US 20210356176A1) teaches a cryogenic apparatus wherein displacer 42 is detached and removed from the refrigerator 16 (paragraphs [0087] and [0088]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 03/18/2026