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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/182878, filed 11/7/2018, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “prevents” recited in claims 1, 16, and 17 should be recited as “is adapted to prevent” for the sake of clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-15, 18-20 are objected to for depending on an objected to claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11788783. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the allowed claims entirely encompass the limitations of the present claims.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Present Claim Allowed Claim
1 and 18
2
3
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
19
21
17
1
1
1
3
17
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12313324. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the allowed claims entirely encompass the limitations of the present claims.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Present Claim Allowed Claim
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
18
1
1
1
18
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 1-16 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 recites “cryogen and a void space” which is considered new matter. This application is a continuation of application 16/182878 which does not use the term void space and refers to this part of the reservoir vessel as a headspace. While a void space could be understood to be an area where there is nothing except vapor, a void space can also be interpreted as a location where there is nothing present including vapor and thus the limitation as claimed is broader than the supported originally filed limitation resulting in the limitation being considered new matter.
Claim 16 recites “content monitoring apparatus” which is considered new matter. This application is a continuation of application 16/182878 which does not use the term “content monitoring apparatus”. And while the previously claimed sensors can be considered a content monitoring apparatus, the presence of such limitation can be read broader and more encompassing than the previously claimed sensors rendering the limitation new matter. Further, as the specification does not use this term it is also considered new matter because “content monitoring apparatus” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and as such the specification does recite the materials or acts as required for such a limitation in a way that makes it clear that there is support for a content monitoring apparatus.
Claims 2-15 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 1-20 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 “a reservoir vessel positioned within the storage space and configured to contain a cryogen” and “the wall of the reservoir vessel… prevent fluids communication between the storage space and the reservoir interior space”; however, the reservoir vessel is in the storage space, and thus so is the liquid so it’s unclear how the reservoir vessel could prevent fluid communication with the storage space and as such the limitation is considered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reservoir vessel isolates the liquid from the storage space that is exterior the reservoir.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools” in lines 15 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 “is configured to cool”.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation of “wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools” in lines 1 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 “is configured to cool”.
Claim 16 recites “a reservoir vessel positioned within the storage space and configured to contain a cryogen” and “the wall of the reservoir vessel… prevents fluid communication between the storage space and the reservoir interior space”; however, the reservoir vessel is in the storage space, and thus so is the liquid so it’s unclear how the reservoir vessel could prevent fluid communication with the storage space and as such the limitation is considered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reservoir vessel isolates the liquid from the storage space that is exterior the reservoir.
Claim limitation “content monitoring apparatus” 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 does not recite this term and as such there structure, material or acts to the function as claimed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is limited to what would best be understood referred to as a content monitoring apparatus which is the sensors as recited in the specification, although the specification does not link this term to the sensors. 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.
Regarding Claim 16, the recitation of “wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools” in lines 14 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 “is configured to cool”.
Regarding Claim 17, the recitation of “wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools” in lines 15 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 “is configured to cool”.
Claim 17 recites “a reservoir vessel positioned within the storage space and configured to contain a cryogen” and “the reservoir vessel… prevents fluid communication between the storage space and the reservoir interior space”; however, the reservoir vessel is in the storage space, and thus so is the liquid so it’s unclear how the reservoir vessel could prevent fluid communication with the storage space and as such the limitation is considered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the reservoir vessel isolates the liquid from the storage space that is exterior the reservoir.
Regarding Claim 20, the recitation of “wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools” in lines 1 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 “is configured to cool”.
Claims 2-14, 18-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected to 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:
Refrigeration module in claims 1, 16 and 17 understood to be a cryocooler.
content monitoring apparatus in claim 16
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gustfason (US PG Pub 20060010881), hereinafter referred to as Gustafson.
With respect to claim 16, Gufstafson (Figure 5) teaches a cryogenic freezer comprising:
a container (cryogenic dewar 90, paragraph 33) defining a storage space (although not labeled in Figure 5, it has the same construction seen in the figure as Figure 2, with inside of inner tank 44, paragraph 23),
a reservoir vessel (pressure vessel 92, paragraph 33) positioned within the storage space (it can be seen to be inside the space) and configured to contain a cryogen with a void space (liquid nitrogen fills the vessel, paragraph 33 and can be seen to not completely fill the vessel such that there is a void space, where the liquid is not present) in a reservoir interior space that is sealed with respect to the storage space by a wall of the reservoir vessel (the wall of the vessel would keep the nitrogen separate from the rest of the storage space, as the cryogen is contained inside the vessel, paragraph 29),
a refrigeration module (refrigeration device 100 which is used to cool liquid nitrogen, paragraph 33, which as it is capable of cooling liquid nitrogen would be understood as shown to be a cryocooler) including a cold tip that is in a heat exchange relationship with the reservoir vessel (the cold tip is the part 102 extending from 100 and provides cooling into the liquid, paragraph 33),
a content monitoring apparatus configured to monitor a characteristic of the reservoir interior space (pressure or temperature sensor 96, paragraph 33),
a system controller connected to the content monitoring apparatus and the refrigeration module and configured to control an amount of cooling to the cold tip in response to a change in the cryogenic in the reservoir interior space (the sensor is connected to microprocessor 98 which can turn on or off the power which would make it a controller in response to readings from the sensor, paragraph 33),
wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools the storage space by heat transfer through the wall of the reservoir vessel and prevents fluid communication between the storage space and the reservoir interior space (the pressure vessel communicates with the interior of the dewar, paragraph 34 and cools the interior, paragraph 15 which is how it would provide cooling through the wall of the vessel as the nitrogen is kept separate from the rest of the interior).
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 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.
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.
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, 10, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and further in view of Hoffman (US PG Pub 20040144101), hereinafter referred to as Hoffman.
With respect to claim 1, Gufstafson (Figure 5) teaches a cryogenic freezer comprising:
a container (cryogenic dewar 90, paragraph 33) defining a storage space (although not labeled in Figure 5, it has the same construction seen in the figure as Figure 2, with inside of inner tank 44, paragraph 23),
a reservoir vessel (pressure vessel 92, paragraph 33) positioned within the storage space (it can be seen to be inside the space) and configured to contain a cryogen with a void space (liquid nitrogen fills the vessel, paragraph 33 and can be seen to not completely fill the vessel such that there is a void space, where the liquid is not present) in a reservoir interior space that is sealed with respect to the storage space by a wall of the reservoir vessel (the wall of the vessel would keep the nitrogen separate from the rest of the storage space, as the cryogen is contained inside the vessel, paragraph 29),
a refrigeration module (refrigeration device 100 which is used to cool liquid nitrogen, paragraph 33, which as it is capable of cooling liquid nitrogen would be understood as shown to be a cryocooler),
wherein the refrigeration module includes a cold tip that is positioned in the upper end of a reservoir vessel (the cold tip is the part 102 extending from 100, paragraph 33),
a sensor configured to monitor a characteristic of the reservoir interior space (pressure or temperature sensor 96, paragraph 33),
a system controller connected to the sensor and the refrigeration module and configured to control an amount of cooling to the cold tip (the sensor is connected to microprocessor 98 which can turn on or off the power which would make it a controller in response to readings from the sensor, paragraph 33),
wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools the storage space by heat transfer through the wall of the reservoir vessel and prevents fluid communication between the storage space and the reservoir interior space (the pressure vessel communicates with the interior of the dewar, paragraph 34 and cools the interior, paragraph 15 which is how it would provide cooling through the wall of the vessel as the nitrogen is kept separate from the rest of the interior).
Gustafson does not teach that the refrigeration module is in a heat exchange relationship with a vapor in the headspace of the reservoir above the cryogenic liquid.
Hofmann teaches that the cold area of a cryocooler can be in the vapor space such that evaporating cryogen is condensed and returned back to the bath of cryogen (paragraph 27, Figure 3).
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 Hofmann have had the cold tip of the refrigeration module of Gustafson as modified in the head space instead of in the liquid since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (refrigeration device in the liquid) for another (refrigeration device in the headspace vapor) to obtain predictable results is obvious as they are both known ways of providing cooling to cryogen in a container they would be equally obvious to have applied in Gustfason as they are different ways of providing the same cooling and maintaining the temperature of a cryogen.
With respect to claim 3, Gustafson as modified teaches wherein the reservoir is secured within the dewar by a reservoir neck that is in fluid communication with the headspace (as can be seen in the figure the top of the pressure vessel has a neck which is where it is connected to the dewar to be held in place, the neck being open and thus connected to the headspace).
With respect to claim 10, Gustafson as modified teaches container comprises a dewar (the container is a cryogenic dewar) wherein the dewar includes an inner wall surrounded by an outer wall with a vacuum insulation space there between (the configuration as shown in Figure 5 is the same as figure 2, with an inner wall and an outer wall with vacuum insulation between them, paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 13, Gustafson as modified teaches claim 1 wherein the refrigeration module is configured to run at the steady-state running level to provide cooling to the headspace of the reservoir to balance heat leak to the reservoir from outside environment (this is a functional limitation, of which Gustafson as modified is capable of as the refrigeration module respond to sensor changes and can operate in a steady-stage when no changes are needed).
With respect to claim 14, Gustfason as modified teaches wherein the refrigeration module is configured to condense vapor in the headspace of the reservoir when the refrigeration module is configured to increase the amount of cooling to the headspace of the reservoir from the steady- state running level (the cold tip is positioned in the void space, which means under any conditions it can be configured to condense vapor in the head space).
With respect to claim 15, Gustafson teaches wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel further cools a stored material in the storage space by heat transfer through the wall of the reservoir vessel (the racks shown in Figure 5, but labeled in Figure 2, 64, paragraph 25 are what would be cooled inside the dewar).
Claim(s) 2, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustfason/Hoffman and further in view of Simpkins (US PG Pub 20160078987), hereinafter referred to as Simpkins.
With respect to claim 2, Gustfason does not teach wherein the refrigeration module is removably mounted to the dewar.
Simpkins teaches that a refrigeration module is removably mounted (paragraph 2) in order to provide servicing and replacement (paragraph 12).
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 Simpkins had the refrigeration module of Gustafson as modified removably mounted to the dewar in order to allow it to be serviced or replaced.
With respect to claim 8, Gustfason as modified teaches wherein refrigerating module includes a housing (there would be a housing required for the refrigerator module to be present to contain the operational components) and reservoir is secured within the dewar by the reservoir neck (as can be seen in the figure the top of the pressure vessel has a neck which is where it is connected to the dewar to be held in place).
Gustfason does not teach wherein the wherein the housing that is removably mounted to the container.
Simpkins teaches that a refrigeration module is removably mounted (paragraph 2) in order to provide servicing and replacement (paragraph 12).
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 Simpkins had the refrigeration module of Gustafson as modified removably mounted to the dewar in order to allow it to be serviced or replaced.
With respect to claim 9, Gufstafson teaches wherein the cold tip is configured to be removable from the reservoir neck with the refrigeration module housing, wherein the module housing is removable from the container (the cold tip is part of the refrigeration module, and since the refrigeration module is removable as modified so is the cold tip from the reservoir neck).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustfason//Hoffman and further in view of Navedo (US PG Pub 20040055313), hereinafter referred to as Navedo and Ciyanoglu (US PG Pub 20190049169), hereinafter referred to as Ciyanoglu.
With respect to claim 4 Gufstafson as modified teaches wherein the refrigeration module includes a housing (the refrigeration device 100 would have some housing to contain the components of the refrigerator).
Gustafson as modified does not teach the housing includes a divider wall that separates an interior of the housing into a front compartment which includes the system controller and air intake and a rear compartment that includes a motor of the refrigeration module and an air outlet opening.
Navedo discloses a housing (71) with a Stirling refrigerator (20) and system controller (74) in the interior of the housing and arranged in such a way as to use a fan (70) to manage airflow and cool the system controller and Stirling refrigerator (para. 44 “A fan 70 is positioned to blow air across the wrap-around heat sink 40. The fan 70 may be mounted in an enclosure 71 that is attached to the side of the insulated container 60. The enclosure 71 may also house the Stirling cooler 20.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify the refrigeration system of Gustafson such that the housing of the refrigeration device houses the system controller and compressor and associated housing cooling system as taught by Navedo to cool the controller and refrigerator module (para. 10 and 34).
Further Ciyanoglu (fig 4 and 5) teaches a refrigeration module housing (14) including a divider wall (32) that separates an interior of the housing (14) into a front compartment (16) which includes a system controller (94) and a rear compartment (18) that includes the refrigeration module (within 14). While Ciyanoglu does not explicitly disclose a motor, as it utilizes an electrically powered compressor, the compressor necessarily has a motor while not explicitly mentioned. Ciyanoglu (fig 2 and 3) teaches the housing (14) includes an air intake opening (72, Fig. 2) positioned within the front compartment (16) and an air outlet opening vents (74) positioned in the rear compartment (18) and further comprising a fan (22) positioned in part in the divider wall (32) and configured (para. 41) to pull cooling air into the housing through the air intake opening and exhaust air out of the housing through the air outlet opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing of the application to modify the refrigeration system of Gustafson as modified with the housing which houses the system controller and compressor and associated housing cooling system as taught by Navedo such that the housing includes a dividing wall separating the system controller in a front compartment which has an air intake opening from the compressor which would have a motor in a rear compartment which has air opening vents as taught by Ciyanoglu, for the purpose of cooling the controller and compressor of the refrigeration system (para. 18) and thermally insulating the front and rear compartments from one another (para. 14) and therefore not heating the controller with the heat of the compressor motor.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustfason/Hoffman/Navedo/Ciyanoglu and further in view of Ames et al. (US Patent No. 5293758), hereinafter referred to as Ames.
With respect to claim 5, Gufstafson as modified does not teach a baffle wall positioned within the rear compartment of the housing and opposing the air outlet opening.
Ames teaches that a baffle (60) can be provided to provide to provide acoustical isolation and ensure that airflow passes in the direction desired and ultimately to the air outlet (Column 4, lines 44-60). As seen in Figure 4, the baffle (60) opposes the outlet (30).
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 Ames to have provided a baffle in the rear compartment housing of Gufstafson as modified which opposes the outlet to both direct flow to the outlet and provide acoustic isolation of machine components.
With respect to claim 7, Gustafson as modified teaches wherein the air outlet opening includes cooling slots positioned in a back panel of the housing (the air outlet vents can be considered as such).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustfason//Hoffman/Navedo/Ciyanoglu/Ames and further in view of Adamski et al. (US PG Pub 20020121095), hereinafter referred to as Adamski.
With respect to claim 6, Gustafson as modified does not teach wherein the refrigeration module includes a heat sink adjacent to the air intake opening.
Adamski teaches that to provide cooling air a fan (50) is used which draws air over a cooled heat sink (28a) before discharging the cooled air (paragraph 27).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a cooled heat sink and fan at the air intake of Gustafson as modified based on the teaching of Adamski since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat sink and fan would increase the cooling availability of the air provided to the machine components of the refrigeration module in the housing.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustfason/Hoffman and further in view of Stautner (US Patent No. 10724686), hereinafter referred to as Stautner.
With respect to claim 11, Gufstafson as modified teaches wherein the dewar includes an access neck defining an access opening (labeled in Figure 2 as opening 50, seen in Figure 5), with a lid removably covering the access opening, said lid include a top plate and a plug (insulated lid 48, paragraph 23 where the top where the handle is seen would be considered a plate and the bottom portion would be the plug).
Gufstafson does not teach a gasket ring where the gasket ring engages the access neck to seal the access opening when the plug is received in the access opening to close the lid.
Stautner teaches a gasket ring (radial biasing members 320) in a plug (306) of an opening (312) which engages a neck at a material (316) formed of rubber to interact with the biasing members (Column 14, lines 28-37).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed based on the teaching of Stautner provided radial biasing members (which are gasket rings) in the outside of the plug that match with a rubber internal surface of the opening of Gufstafson since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious, whereby providing the radial biasing members on the plug and the rubber material on the inside of the opening would increase the seal between the plug and the opening by providing a better hold of the two components together when the lid is in place.
With respect to claim 12, Gustafson teaches wherein the access neck includes a gasket sleeve that is engaged by the gasket ring when the lid is in the closed configuration (the rubber internal surface).
Gustafson as modified does not teach the gasket sleeve is removable. It has been held that that if there is any reason for the prior art elements to be separable, it would be obvious to make the elements removable for that purpose. MPEP 2144.04 V. C. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time to have had the rubber internal surface acting as the gasket sleeve of Gustafson be removable so that it can be replaced if needed.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and further in view of Strobel (US PG Pub 20170051874), hereinafter referred to as Strobel.
With respect to claim 17, Gufstafson (Figure 5) teaches a freezer comprising:
a container (cryogenic dewar 90, paragraph 33) defining a storage space (although not labeled in Figure 5, it has the same construction seen in the figure as Figure 2, with inside of inner tank 44, paragraph 23),
a reservoir vessel (pressure vessel 92, paragraph 33) positioned within the storage space (it can be seen to be inside the space) and configured to contain a cryogen with a head space (liquid nitrogen fills the vessel, paragraph 33 and can be seen to not completely fill the vessel such that there is a head space, where the liquid is not present) in a reservoir interior space that is sealed with respect to the storage space by a wall of the reservoir vessel (the wall of the vessel would keep the nitrogen separate from the rest of the storage space, as the cryogen is contained inside the vessel, paragraph 29),
a refrigeration module (refrigeration device 100 which is used to cool liquid nitrogen, paragraph 33, which as it is capable of cooling liquid nitrogen would be understood as shown to be a cryocooler),
wherein the refrigeration module includes a cold tip (the cold tip is the part 102 extending from 100, paragraph 33),
a sensor configured to monitor a characteristic of the reservoir interior space (pressure or temperature sensor 96, paragraph 33),
a system controller connected to the sensor and the refrigeration module and configured to control an amount of cooling to the cold tip (the sensor is connected to microprocessor 98 which can turn on or off the power which would make it a controller in response to readings from the sensor, paragraph 33),
wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel cools the storage space by heat transfer through the wall of the reservoir vessel and prevents fluid communication between the storage space and the reservoir interior space (the pressure vessel communicates with the interior of the dewar, paragraph 34 and cools the interior, paragraph 15 which is how it would provide cooling through the wall of the vessel as the nitrogen is kept separate from the rest of the interior).
Gufstafson does not teach the refrigeration module is in a heat exchange relationship with the headspace, wherein the cold tip is in a heat exchange relationship with the headspace and that is positioned in an upper end of a reservoir neck of the reservoir.
Strobel (Figure 1B) teaches to provide liquid into a chamber (6) a cold head (1) with a cold head stage (7) is positioned in a neck that extends from the chamber. Seen in the figure the heat pipe (5) as well as the portion where the cold head stage 7 (which is a cold tip) are placed into would be seen as being a neck (see annotated Figure 1B of Strobel) and thus the cold tip is in the upper part of the neck. This can be seen to be with how the cold head is mounted to the overall container.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Gufstafson have had the neck of the tube reservoir vessel be configured as in Strobel where a heat pipe portion is used for passing cooled cryogen into the vessel and an upper neck portion is used for mounting of the cold tip of the cold end (thus putting the cold tip in an upper neck portion) since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (refrigeration device in the liquid) for another (refrigeration device that recondenses vapor) to obtain predictable results is obvious as they are both known ways of providing cooling to cryogen in a container they would be equally obvious to have applied in Gustafson as they are different ways of providing the same cooling and maintaining the temperature of a cryogen. This modification would still have the neck configured to hold the reservoir vessel as shown in the figure of Gustafson.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1B of Strobel
With respect to claim 18, Gufstafson as modified teaches wherein the freezer is a cryogenic freezer (the overall device is a freezer cooled by a cryogenic liquid making it a cryogenic freezer).
With respect to claim 19, Gustafson as modified teaches wherein the reservoir is secured within the dewar by a reservoir neck that is in fluid communication with the headspace (the neck as modified would still be used to hold the container in place).
With respect to claim 20, Gustafson teaches wherein the wall of the reservoir vessel further cools a stored material in the storage space by heat transfer through the wall of the reservoir vessel (the racks shown in Figure 5, but labeled in Figure 2, 64, paragraph 25 are what would be cooled inside the dewar).
Conclusion
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