Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 6-10 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 6 recites “a first pre-cooling stage” and “a second pre-cooling stage” and then later recites that the stage extension component is attached to the first pre-cooling stage; however it is unclear how these stages relate to the pre-cooling stage of stage one. For the purpose of examination, this limitation I is understood that the first pre-cooling stage is the same as the pre-cooling stage of claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
“Pre-cooling cryocooler” in the context of the invention is understood to refer to a cryocooler that provides cooling upstream of a Joule-Thompson expansion, the limitation is met.
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, 10is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatri et al. (US PG Pub), hereinafter referred to as Khatri and further in view of Wang (US PG Pub 20140202174) and Bouvier (US PG Pub 20250020369).
With respect to claim 1, Khatri teaches (Figure 2 which has cryocooler 200 upstream of Joule-Thompson expansion 240, paragraph 23) a Joule-Thomson cryocooler comprising:
a pre-cooling cryocooler that comprises a pre-cooling stage (cryocooler 200 which has two cooling stage, paragraph 32, either of which can be considered the pre-cooling stage, and are upstream of 240);
a stage extension component that is connected to the pre-cooling stage and is cooled by the pre-cooling stage (either of the heat exchangers 220 or 230, which are in direct thermal contact with the first and second stage of the cryocooler respectively, paragraph 32, and as seen in the figure are extensions of the stages);
and a refrigerant pipe that is connected to the stage extension component to enable heat exchange with the stage extension component (as seen in the figure the helium being cooled passes in flow through the heat exchanger which result in cooling of the helium paragraph 32).
Khatri as modified does not teach that the connection is made between the refrigerant pipe and the extension such that the refrigerant pipe is mounted on the extension.
Bouvier (Figure 1) teaches that a heat exchanger in a cryogenic system can be configured as a block of conductive material (7) that has a tube soldered to the block (paragraphs 59-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchangers of Khatri (which are extensions) in the configuration of Bouvier as a block of conductive material to which the tube carrying the helium is soldered (a form of mounting) to since it has been shown that combining prior at elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing this configuration for the heat exchangers would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a known and suitable way of putting the heat tubes in contact with the heat exchangers to provide the necessary heat exchange.
Khatri does not explicitly teach that the connection made by the cooling stage to the heat exchanger is attached.
Wang teaches that a heat exchanger can be thermally attached to the cooling stage (paragraph 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the heat exchangers (220 and 230) to have been thermally attached to the respective cooling stages of Khatri based on the teaching of Wang since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchangers are thermally attached would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of providing a stronger thermal connection to provide good heat exchange between the connections.
With respect to claim 2, Khatri does not teach wherein the stage extension component is detachably attached to the pre-cooling stage.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the extension (the block as modified with the pipe) of Khatri as modified detachable from the pre-cooling stage so that extension could be replaced if needed, or the cryocooler could be serviced as it has been held “if it were considered desirable for any reason” to make something separable, it would be obvious to do so MPEP 2144.04 V C.
With respect to claim 3, Khatri as modified teaches wherein the refrigerant pipe is not mounted on the pre-cooling stage (as modified the refrigerant pipe is only mounted to the block forming the heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 5, Khatri as modified teaches wherein the pre-cooling cryocooler comprises a cylinder extending from the pre-cooling stage (the component seen in the figure of cryocooler 200 that extends between the two cooling stages, would be recognized to be a cylinder, see annotated figure 2 of Khatri), and the stage extension component extends from the pre-cooling stage to a side opposite to the cylinder (the second cooling stage can be considered the pre-cooling stage in this claim, and as such the block that forms the heat exchanger 230 extends opposite the pre-cooling stage from the cylinder).
With respect to claim 6, Khatri as modified teaches wherein the pre-cooling cryocooler comprises a first pre-cooling stage and a second pre-cooling stage that is cooled to a lower temperature than the first pre-cooling stage (the second cooling stage is a colder stage than the first cooling stage, paragraph 32), and the stage extension component is attached to the first pre-cooling stage and is cooled by the first pre-cooling stage (there are stage extension on each stage, and as such 220 can be considered the claimed stage extension which is cooled by the first cooling stage).
With respect to claim 7, Khatri does not teach wherein the stage extension component is detachably attached to the first pre-cooling stage.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the extension (the block as modified with the pipe) of Khatri as modified detachable from the first cooling stage so that extension could be replaced if needed, or the cryocooler could be serviced as it has been held “if it were considered desirable for any reason” to make something separable, it would be obvious to do so MPEP 2144.04 V C.
With respect to claim 8, Khatri as modified teaches wherein the refrigerant pipe is not mounted on the first pre-cooling stage (as modified the refrigerant pipe is only mounted to the block forming the heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 10, Khatri as modified teaches wherein the stage extension component is not in physical contact with the second pre-cooling stage (220 is not in physical contact with the second stage which is at the bottom end of the cylinder in the annotated figure 2 of Khatri).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Khatri
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatri/Bouvier/Wang and further in view of Sarwinski et al. (US Patent No. 6438967), hereinafter referred to as Sarwinski.
With respect to claim 4, Khatri as modified teaches wherein the pre-cooling cryocooler comprises a cylinder extending from the pre-cooling stage (the component seen in the figure of cryocooler 200 that extends between the two cooling stages, would be recognized to be a cylinder, see annotated figure 2 of Khatri, where the first cooling stage is the pre-cooling stage).
Khatri does not teach wherein the cylinder is disposed inside the stage extension component.
Sarwinski (Figures 1-3B) teaches a cryocooler (14) which has a first stage (20) connected to a cooling element (24, which is a heat exchange attached to the stage, and as can be seen in the figure an extension) where the cooling element can be seen in the combination of the figures to wrap around the cryocooler (see Figure 2) such that there is cylinder (component which extends from where 20 is labeled to 22, same component as in Khatri in the annotated figure).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the cylinder of the cryocooler of Khatri pass through the heat exchanger in the configuration as shown by Sarwinski since it has been shown that combining prior art element to yield predictable results is obvious whereby allowing the cylinder to pass through the heat exchanger that forms the extension part would provide would be common knowledge in the art of increasing the amount of area that the heat exchanger is in contact with the cooling stage of the cryocooler by allowing it to be connected all around the cooling stage which would allow increased overall contact between the components thermally.
With respect to claim 9, Khatri as modified teaches wherein the pre-cooling cryocooler comprises a cylinder extending from the first pre-cooling stage (the component seen in the figure of cryocooler 200 that extends between the two cooling stages, would be recognized to be a cylinder, see annotated figure 2 of Khatri, where the first cooling stage is the pre-cooling stage).
Khatri does not teach wherein the cylinder is disposed inside the stage extension component.
Sarwinski (Figures 1-3B) teaches a cryocooler (14) which has a first stage (20) connected to a cooling element (24, which is a heat exchange attached to the stage, and as can be seen in the figure an extension) where the cooling element can be seen in the combination of the figures to wrap around the cryocooler (see Figure 2) such that there is cylinder (component which extends from where 20 is labeled to 22, same component as in Khatri in the annotated figure).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the cylinder of the cryocooler of Khatri pass through the heat exchanger in the configuration as shown by Sarwinski since it has been shown that combining prior art element to yield predictable results is obvious whereby allowing the cylinder to pass through the heat exchanger that forms the extension part would provide would be common knowledge in the art of increasing the amount of area that the heat exchanger is in contact with the cooling stage of the cryocooler by allowing it to be connected all around the cooling stage which would allow increased overall contact between the components thermally.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kotsubo et al. (US PG Pub 20190226724), Tilleman-Dick et al. (US PG Pub 20230012324).
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