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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 21-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey (US 9816750 B2) in view of Dain (US 20090113899 A1).
Regarding claim 21:
Batey discloses a dilution refrigerator (abstract) comprising:
an outer vacuum chamber #5 (col. 7, L 3-5) comprising a plurality of substantially planar surfaces (see Fig. 1 of Batey Reproduced and Annotated below) parallel to a floor supporting the dilution refrigerator in an operational position of the dilution refrigerator (see Fig. 2: at least two substantially planar surfaces are provided), wherein:
a first surface is arranged transverse to the floor in the operational position (see vertical outer surface of vessel #5); and
the outer vacuum chamber comprises an opening in a portion of the first surface, the opening extending through the outer vacuum chamber from an exterior of the outer vacuum chamber to at least one internal volume disposed inside the outer vacuum chamber (see col. 6, L 3-13: under side-loading configuration, an opening is provided on the side so as to allow the sample to be loaded).
PNG
media_image1.png
689
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Batey Reproduced and Annotated
Batey does not disclose wherein the substantially planar surfaces are arranged such that the outer vacuum chamber has to have a first rectangular cross section.
In other words, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is in respect with the outer shape of the refrigerator.
However, it has been held that the particular shape of a structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Dain discloses a refrigerator (Fig. 1) comprising an outer chamber #10 comprising substantially planar surfaces arranged such that the outer chamber has rectangular cross sections (see at least Fig. 2, [0008]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Batey with the substantially planar surfaces arranged such that the outer vacuum chamber has rectangular cross sections; in a similar manner as taught by Dain.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a refrigerator that is compact, easy to manufacture and assemble as suggested by Dain ([0008]).
As modified to have a rectangular form, the first surface above that is arranged transverse to the floor is clearly amongst the plurality of substantially planar surfaces having a rectangular cross section.
Regarding claim 22:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses a sample stage #20 housed within the at least one internal volume, wherein the opening is configured to provide access to the sample stage through the outer vacuum chamber (col. 7, L 66 – col. 8, L 12 & col. 6, L 3-13).
Regarding claim 23:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses one or more radiation shields #40-41 housed within the outer vacuum chamber, and wherein the opening extends through portions of the one or more radiation shields proximate the sample stage (via #25 & #26; col. 7, L 66 – col. 8, L 27 & col. 6, L 3-13).
Regarding claim 24:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the portions #26 of the one or more radiation shields proximate the sample stage are removable and/or slidable to provide the opening extending through the portions (col. 8, L 14-27 & col. 6, L 3-13).
Regarding claim 25:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the first surface of the plurality of substantially planar surfaces is arranged perpendicular to the floor supporting the dilution refrigerator in the operational position (see rejection of claim 21 above).
Regarding claim 26:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the substantially planar surfaces are arranged to form a rectangular prism (see rejection of claim 21: the shape of the refrigerator is modified to be a cuboid).
Regarding claim 27:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the outer vacuum chamber has a second rectangular cross section perpendicular to the floor supporting the dilution refrigerator in the operational position (see rejection of claim 21: the shape of the refrigerator is modified to be a cuboid).
Regarding claim 28:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the first surface of the outer vacuum chamber is arranged parallel to the second rectangular cross section (see rejection of claim 21: the shape of the refrigerator is modified to be a cuboid).
Regarding claim 29:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the opening comprises a hermetic opening (col. 7: L 3-11).
Regarding claim 30:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations; except for wherein the opening comprises a hinged door.
Nonetheless, Dain further teaches wherein the refrigerator comprises a door #41 having a piano hinge 45 to allow the door to move for access purposes ([0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Batey as modified with the opening comprising a hinged door; in a similar manner as taught by Dain.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a reliable and easy-to-use opening. Other benefits include easy installation.
Regarding claim 31:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the opening comprises a load lock.
Nonetheless, openings provided with load locks are well known in the art (official notice).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Batey as modified with the opening provided with a load lock.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a secured locking mechanism for the opening so as to provide control access to the refrigerator.
Regarding claim 32:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the outer vacuum chamber comprises: a first section #11; and a second section #12 suspended from the first section (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the first and/or second section of the outer vacuum chamber are configured to be at least partially removed from the dilution refrigerator to provide access to an interior of the outer vacuum chamber (with appropriate tools provided, this can be achieved).
Regarding claim 34:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses an external system #2 configured to lift and/or lower the first and/or second section of the outer vacuum chamber (#2 can be used to lift and/or lower the first and/or second section of the outer vacuum chamber).
Regarding claim 35:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the outer vacuum chamber further comprises a third section (see uppermost section of #5, upon which #2 is laying) suspended from the second section (see Fig. 1: the aforementioned section is structurally suspended from #12).
Regarding claim 36:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the opening is disposed in the third section of the outer vacuum chamber (see Fig. 1 of Batey above).
Regarding claim 37:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein both the first section and the second section have rectangular cross sections parallel to the first rectangular cross section (see rejection of claim 21: the shape of the refrigerator is modified to be a cuboid).
Regarding claim 38:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
Batey further discloses wherein the outer vacuum chamber is configured to fit within a server rack container (the outer vacuum chamber can fit within a server rack container larger than its size).
Regarding claims 39-40:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations.
The limitations “wherein the server rack container is configured to integrate with commercial server rack infrastructure” and “wherein the server rack container comprises an external housing comprising an integrated horizontal surface” are directed to the server rack. However, the server rack has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, Batey as modified is considered to meet all the limitations.
For sake of completeness, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Batey as modified with the outer vacuum chamber fitted in a server rack container with the aforementioned claimed limitations.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have allowed the refrigerator to provide the cryogenic temperatures needed for superconducting qubits in quantum computers to maintain their quantum state.
Regarding claims 41-44:
Batey as modified discloses all the limitations (see at least rejection of claim 21 above); but does not disclose wherein the wherein opening include four substantially right angle corners.
Nonetheless, Dain further teaches wherein the refrigerator comprises and opening (covered by door #41); said opening including four substantially right angle corners (see at least Fig. 7A; [0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Batey as modified with the opening comprising four substantially right angle corners; in a similar manner as taught by Dain.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided facilitated installation of the door while providing better structural integration. Other benefits include easy manufacturing.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 08/21/2026 have been fully considered.
Under the current rejection, the vertical surface of the vessel of Batey is a surface transverse to the floor in the operational position. It was also pointed out to the applicant that Batey discloses an opening provided on the vertical surface of the vessel (see rejection of claim 21 above).
Under the new rejection, the only difference between the device of Batey and current claim 21 is that the outer vacuum chamber does not have a rectangular cross section.
However, it has been held that the particular shape of a structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It was also pointed out to the applicant that in the same field of endeavor, Dain discloses a refrigerator (Fig. 1) comprising an outer chamber #10 comprising rectangular cross sections (see at least Fig. 2, [0008]). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art to have provided the apparatus of Batey with the outer vacuum chamber having rectangular cross sections; in a similar manner as taught by Dain. One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided a refrigerator that is compact, easy to manufacture and assemble as suggested by Dain ([0008]). With such modification, all the features of claim 21 are met, including a dilution refrigerator with rectangular cross sections, wherein the vertical surface of the housing has a rectangular cross section provided with an opening extending therethrough.
Applicant asserted that “modifying Batey so that the gate valve 7 (or another opening) was instead in a surface transverse or substantially perpendicular to the floor in the operational position would change the principle of operation of Batey, abandoning Batey's top- loading sample carrier configuration. Such a modification would have required a complete redesign of Batey's system”. This assertion is not persuasive because Batey clearly points out that other configurations including side-loading systems in which apertures with baffles may be provided through the radiation shields so as to allow the sample to be loaded in the refrigerator falls within the principle of the invention (col. 6, L 3-13). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the position that under the new rejection, the combination of Batey and Dain is proper and meets all the limitations of at least claim 21.
The detailed rejections of claims 22-44 is provided under the 103 rejection section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights