DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 26 June 2025. Claims 1, 4 – 10 and 15 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
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 without traverse of Species D (Figure 4) in the reply filed on 06 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 3 and 11 – 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06 July 2026. Claims 1, 4 – 10 and 15 – 20 will be examined on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 6, 10 and 15 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham (US Patent 6,305,265 B1) in view of Wulff (PG Pub US 20260078765 A1) and further in view of Thomas (PG Pub US 20090014163 A1) and as evidenced by Fromson (US Patent 3,201,861 A) and Dobak (US Patent 5,901,783 A).
In Re Claim 1, Bingham discloses a thermal insulation structure (“insulating jacket 32” – Column 11, Lines 60 – 61) of a cryogenic canned pump (10), comprising an outer pump casing (32, 39, 33), an inner casing (76); wherein each of the outer pump casing (32, 39, 33) and the inner pump casing (76) is a tubular casing (39 and 33 are described as annular which implies a tubular shape for the walls of the annulus), an outer diameter of the inner pump casing (76) is less than an inner diameter of the outer pump casing (32, 39, 33), the outer pump casing (32, 39) is sleeved outside the inner pump casing (76), and the outer pump casing (32, 39, 33) is connected with the inner pump casing (76) in a sealing manner (otherwise the coolant 30 would leak) to form a pump casing (32, 39, 33, 76); a cooling flow channel (33) is formed in a space (where coolant 30 is) in the pump casing (32, 39, 33, 76) to cool the pump casing (32, 39, 33, 76), and a vacuum interlayer (39; Column 11, Lines 65 – 66: “annulus 39 may then be evacuated” – which creates a “vacuum chamber” – Column 12, Line 3) is also formed in the pump casing (32, 39, 33, 76), a cooling fluid (30) is configured to be introduced into the cooling flow channel to cool the pump casing (32, 39, 76); and the vacuum interlayer (39) is configured to reduce heat leakage (since the walls of 39/32 are described as an “insulating jacket 32”; a vacuum jacket by definition provides thermal isolation) from an outside to the pump casing (32, 39, 33, 76); (Column 3, Lines 59 – 65; Column 11, Lines 60 – 66; Figure 1).
Bingham does not disclose a plurality of supports distributed circumferentially in the pump casing, thus forming a plurality of cooling flow channels and a plurality of vacuum interlayers (only one cooling flow channel and one vacuum interlayer is disclosed).
However, Figure 5 of Wulff discloses an inner pump casing (54, 56), an outer pump casing (34, 36), a plurality of supports (68; paragraphs [0096],[0097]) distributed circumferentially which form a plurality of cooling flow channels (70; paragraph [0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the plurality of supports (68) as taught by Wulff in the cooling channel (33) of Bingham, because 1) because they insure that the inner and outer casing are concentrically arranged (paragraph [0097] of Wulff) so that heat is removed evenly across the surface to be cooled thus reducing temperature gradients that can cause internal stress due to local hotspots which can cause warping and differential shrinkage, and because 2) the supports serve as reinforcing ribs / props to resist inward collapse of the outer casing onto the inner casing by resisting buckling forces by providing reinforcement to maintain structural integrity as evidenced by Fromson’s supports (52, 53) in Column 4, Lines 60 – 68: “These fins 52 and 53 extend radially from the outside of the inner tubular component 41 and reach the inner periphery of the outer tubular component 40 to serve (1) as spacers by which the inner tubular component 41 is centrally held inside the outer tubular component, (2) as reinforcing ribs for the inner tubular component, and (3) as props for the opposite sections of the outer tubular component 40 to resist inward collapse of the latter sections”; see also Fromson’s intended use in Column 1, Lines 15 – 19: “annular space between the inner and outer tubular components serve as a passage for heat transfer fluid there-along, and thereby may operate as a heat exchanger tube”.
Bingham and Wulff do not disclose a plurality of vacuum interlayers (only one vacuum interlayer 39 is disclosed by Bingham).
However, Thomas discloses a vacuum / insulating jacket (210; Figures 4A, 4B; paragraphs [0028],[0029],[0030]) for a pipe (230) that transports a cryogenic liquid (paragraph [0003]), the vacuum / insulating jacket (210) has a plurality of supports (278, 268, 258, 248) which define vacuum interlayers (275, 265, 255, 245).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the plurality of supports (278, 268, 258, 248) as taught by Thomas in the vacuum / insulating jacket (32, 39) of Bingham because 1) the supports serve as reinforcing ribs / props to resist inward collapse of the outer casing onto the inner casing by resisting buckling forces by providing reinforcement to maintain structural integrity as evidenced by Fromson’s supports (52, 53) in Column 4, Lines 60 – 68: “These fins 52 and 53 extend radially from the outside of the inner tubular component 41 and reach the inner periphery of the outer tubular component 40 to serve (1) as spacers by which the inner tubular component 41 is centrally held inside the outer tubular component, (2) as reinforcing ribs for the inner tubular component, and (3) as props for the opposite sections of the outer tubular component 40 to resist inward collapse of the latter sections”; see also Fromson’s intended use in Column 1, Lines 20 – 22: “or may have its space {e}vacuated .. .. to serve as a flue or an insulated tube”, and because 2) it is known to form an annular evacuation channel in segments {separated by supports} as evidenced by Dobak in Column 12, Lines 56 – 57: “As shown, the annular channel 282 may be formed as two or more substantially annular channel segments”; see also Dobak’s intended use in Column 23, Lines 8 – 11: “Application of a vacuum to the stack also can evacuate the vacuum jacket formed by the annular channels 282, where present, to insure the optimum insulation of the heat exchanger”, therefore forming the annulus (39) of Bingham in two or more segments {separated by support plates} yields predictable results (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and both Wulff and Thomas disclose plurality of supports (more than three).
In Re Claim 5, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Wulff discloses that the plurality of supports comprise a plurality of rib plates (68; Figures 6a, 6b) and partition plates (circumferential portions of 34/36 between adjacent rib plates 68), the plurality of rib plates (68) are disposed at intervals in the circumferential direction of the casing (54, 56, 34, 36), each of the partition plates is connected between adjacent rib plates of the plurality of rib plates (68) to form an H-shaped structure, Thomas discloses that the plurality of supports comprise a plurality of rib plates (278, 268, 258, 248) and partition plates (circumferential portions of 240/250/260 between adjacent rib plates 278, 268, 258, 248), the plurality of rib plates (278, 268, 258, 248) are disposed at intervals in the circumferential direction of the casing (230, 270), each of the partition plates is connected between adjacent rib plates of the plurality of rib plates (278, 268, 258, 248) to form an H-shaped structure, Thomas discloses that spaces (275, 265, 255, 245) between the partition plates (circumferential portions of 240/250/260 between adjacent rib plates 278, 268, 258, 248) and the outer casing (270) are the vacuum interlayers, and Wulff discloses that spaces (70) between the partition plates (circumferential portions of 34/36 between adjacent rib plates 68) and the inner casing (54/56) are the cooling flow channels.
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and although they do not explicitly disclose a segmented cylinder (where the partition plates are connected with each other to form a cylinder), it has been held that formerly integral structure (one piece cylinder) in separate arcuate partition plate segments that are then joined together would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention – MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C. The plurality of rib plates (Wulff and Thomas modification) are disposed between the cylinder (outer cylindrical wall of 28 of Bingham) and the outer (pump) casing (outer cylindrical wall 32 of Bingham) and between the cylinder (outer cylindrical wall of 28 of Bingham) and the inner (pump) casing (outer cylindrical wall of 76), spaces (39 of Bingham modified by supports of Thomas) between the cylinder and the outer pump casing are the vacuum interlayers, and spaces (33 of Bingham modified by supports of Wulff) between the cylinder and the inner pump casing are the cooling flow channels.
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Bingham discloses a cryogenic canned pump (10; Column 5, Lines 38 – 39).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, and both Wulff and Thomas disclose plurality of supports (more than three).
In Re Claim 16, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 10, and Wulff discloses that the plurality of supports comprise a plurality of rib plates (68; Figures 6a, 6b) and partition plates (circumferential portions of 34/36 between adjacent rib plates 68), the plurality of rib plates (68) are disposed at intervals in the circumferential direction of the casing (54, 56, 34, 36), each of the partition plates is connected between adjacent rib plates of the plurality of rib plates (68) to form an H-shaped structure, Thomas discloses that the plurality of supports comprise a plurality of rib plates (278, 268, 258, 248) and partition plates (circumferential portions of 240/250/260 between adjacent rib plates 278, 268, 258, 248), the plurality of rib plates (278, 268, 258, 248) are disposed at intervals in the circumferential direction of the casing (230, 270), each of the partition plates is connected between adjacent rib plates of the plurality of rib plates (278, 268, 258, 248) to form an H-shaped structure, Thomas discloses that spaces (275, 265, 255, 245) between the partition plates (circumferential portions of 240/250/260 between adjacent rib plates 278, 268, 258, 248) and the outer casing (270) are the vacuum interlayers, and Wulff discloses that spaces (70) between the partition plates (circumferential portions of 34/36 between adjacent rib plates 68) and the inner casing (54/56) are the cooling flow channels.
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, and although they do not explicitly disclose a segmented cylinder (where the partition plates are connected with each other to form a cylinder), it has been held that formerly integral structure (one piece cylinder) in separate arcuate partition plate segments that are then joined together would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention – MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C. The plurality of rib plates (Wulff and Thomas modification) are disposed between the cylinder (outer cylindrical wall of 28 of Bingham) and the outer (pump) casing (outer cylindrical wall 32 of Bingham) and between the cylinder (outer cylindrical wall of 28 of Bingham) and the inner (pump) casing (outer cylindrical wall of 76), spaces (39 of Bingham modified by supports of Thomas) between the cylinder and the outer pump casing are the vacuum interlayers, and spaces (33 of Bingham modified by supports of Wulff) between the cylinder and the inner pump casing are the cooling flow channels.
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham (US Patent 6,305,265 B1) in view of Wulff (PG Pub US 20260078765 A1) and in view of Thomas (PG Pub US 20090014163 A1) and further in view of Brown (US Patent 2,703,921 A) and as evidenced by Fromson (US Patent 3,201,861 A) and Dobak (US Patent 5,901,783 A).
In Re Claims 7 and 18, Bingham, Wulff, Thomas, Fromson and Dobak disclose all the limitations of Claims 6 and 17 respectively, and although some of the supports related to the vacuum interlayers of Thomas are misaligned, the supports related to the cooling channels of Wulff are not necessarily misaligned with the supports of Thomas.
However, Brown discloses a cooling channel (represented by the composite tube in Figure 8; Column 1, Lines 16 – 19: “Such tubes, referred to herein as internally finned tubes, have widespread usefulness in many different arts, as, for example, in heat exchangers”) having a plurality of supports (41/42). The supports (41/42) between partition plates (46) and (39) are misaligned with the supports (41/42) between partition plates (39) and (32) (Column 4, Line 62 – Column 5, Line 3; Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the cooling channel/supports of Wulff in the device of Bingham / Wulff / Thomas / Fromson / Dobak such that the supports are misaligned as taught by Brown because it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is routine skill in the art – MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-C. In the modified apparatus, since the supports in the vacuum / insulating jacket of Thomas are misaligned, and the supports in the cooling channel of Brown are misaligned, at least some of the supports in the cooling channel of Brown would be misaligned with at least some of the supports in the vacuum / insulating jacket of Thomas.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 18 of Dobak
Note also as evidenced by annotated Figure 18 Dobak above, that it is known to misalign the supports adjacent the vacuum interlayers (282) with the supports adjacent the cooling channels (182).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham (US Patent 6,305,265 B1) in view of Wulff (PG Pub US 20260078765 A1) and in view of Thomas (PG Pub US 20090014163 A1) and further in view of Dobak (US Patent 5,901,783 A) and as evidenced by Fromson (US Patent 3,201,861 A).
In Re Claims 8 and 19, Bingham, Wulff and Thomas disclose all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 respectively, and Thomas discloses a left half casing (to the left of 38a/38b in Figures 1A,1B) and a right half casing (to the right of 38a/38b in Figures 1A,1B) and connecting structures (38a/38b), Wulff also disclose a left half casing (36, 56), right half casing (34, 54) and connecting structures (132). the limitation “in a 3D printing manner” is a product by process limitation which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2113, however, it is not disclose assembly in a vacuum diffusion welding process (diffusion welding may create a unique product).
However, Dobak discloses that a cryogenic heat exchanger (title) is assembled integrally in a vacuum environment by means of a vacuum diffusion welding process (Column 5, Lines 48 – 52; “diffusion bonding” is also known as diffusion welding).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to assemble the connecting structures, supports, left half casing and right half casing of Bingham / Wulff / Thomas integrally in a vacuum environment by means of a vacuum diffusion welding process as taught by Dobak because no extra filler or solder materials are needed, which creates a precise, high integrity assembly which retains the full chemical and mechanical properties of the parent materials that are being bonded.
In Re Claims 9 and 20, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claims 8 and 19 respectively, and the limitation “are integrally welded in a carbon dioxide environment” is a product by process limitation which does not make a structural distinction over the prior art – MPEP 2113, and the limitation “vacuum interlayers are filled with carbon dioxide” does not make a structural distinction over the prior art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is not being relied upon, it is being made of record because it is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Khazanov (US Patent 5,616,973 A) discloses a pump (Figure 2) having cooling flow channels (81, 82). Mount (US Patent 3,618,337 A) discloses a structure of a cryogenic canned pump (13, the compressor pumps refrigerant), comprising an outer pump casing (10) and a plurality of supports (16); wherein each of the outer pump casing and the inner pump casing (17) is a tubular casing (any conventional motor discloses this), an outer diameter of the inner pump casing (17) is less than an inner diameter of the outer pump casing (10), the outer pump casing (10) is sleeved outside the inner pump casing (17), and the outer pump casing (10) is connected with the inner pump casing (17) in a sealing manner (due to press fit) to form a pump casing (10, 17); and the plurality of supports (16) are supported between the outer pump casing (10) and the inner pump casing (17), the plurality of supports (16) are distributed in a circumferential direction of the pump casing (Column 2, Line 5), cooling flow channels (see depicted arrows at the opposite ends of 16) are formed in a space in the pump casing (between adjacent ribs 16), a cooling fluid (liquid refrigerant) is configured to be introduced into the cooling flow channels to cool the pump casing (10, 17); (Column 2, Lines 1 – 34; Figure 1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights