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 .
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 25-29 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.
In Reference to Claims 25-29
The phrase "spring-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "sping-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For Examination purposes the claim will be read as “spring”.
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) 1, 6, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (Acoustic Expanders for use in recuperative cryocoolers – 07-05-2023).
In Reference to Claim 1
(See Adams, Figures 2-7 & Figure 1 as annotated by Examiner below)
Adams et al. (Adams) discloses:
A resonant expander for cooling a fluid, comprising:
an expansion chamber (A) (See Adams, Page 1, Introduction);
a piston (gas-piston) adapted for periodic movement within said expansion chamber (A), the piston (gas-piston) being free from solid contact with a mechanism that is external to the expansion chamber (A), the piston (gas-piston) has a range of motion extending between a cold displacement volume (C) disposed at one end of the expansion chamber (A) and a warm displacement volume (B) disposed at another end of the expansion chamber (A) (See Adams, Page 1, Introduction),
a first fluidic connection (Thot,Phigh) from a first fluid state;
a second fluidic connection (Tcold,Plow) from a second fluid state;
an inlet acoustic valve (D) that fluidically couples the first fluidic connection (Thot,Phigh) to the cold displacement volume (C) (See Adams, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 Reed valve); and
an outlet acoustic valve (E) that fluidically couples the second fluidic connection (Tcold,Plow) to the cold displacement volume (C) (See Adams, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 Reed valve),
wherein the piston (gas-piston), and/or fluid within the warm displacement volume (B), and/or a fluid within the cold displacement volume (C) create a resonant system substantially at the operating frequency of the expander, and the periodic movement of the piston (gas-piston) is maintained by coupling and decoupling the fluid from the first fluidic connection (Thot,Phigh) and the second fluidic connection (Tcold,Plow) via the inlet valve (D) and outlet valve (E), respectively, and the cooled fluid is output from the second fluidic connection (Tcold,Plow). (See Adams, Page 1, Introduction; Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 Reed valve; & Page 5, Conclusion).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 6
(See Adams, Figures 2-7 & Figure 1 as annotated by Examiner above)
Adams discloses:
wherein the piston (gas-piston) is a substantially compressible parcel of fluid. (See Adams, Page 1, Introduction).
In Reference to Claim 12
(See Adams, Figures 2-7 & Figure 1 as annotated by Examiner above)
Adams discloses:
wherein the inlet acoustic valve (D) and the outlet acoustic valve (E) each have an equilibrium position which is open and exhibit a negative flow characteristic. (See Adams, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 Reed valve).
In Reference to Claim 13
(See Adams, Figures 2-7 & Figure 1 as annotated by Examiner above)
Adams discloses:
wherein the inlet acoustic valve (D) and the outlet acoustic (E) are respectively configured to oscillate passively. (See Adams, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 Reed valve).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 26-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hirano in view of Bennett have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-15, 17-18 and 20 to Hirano in view of Bennett has been withdrawn. Specifically, the Examiner notes that while Bennett discloses a passively operated valve which is bias open and actuated by a pressure difference, the valve of Bennett would be inoperable in the device of Hirano, at least for the reasons of requiring a specific piston arrangement with a buffer zone to control operation of the piston and valve system.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 to Adams have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Adams does not disclose “an acoustic valve”, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Adams does not disclose “an acoustic valve”. Specifically, Applicant argues that Adams discloses a reed valve but without “a negative flow characteristic” as defined in Applicant’s specification. Further, Applicant references the pressure curve of Figure 10 of the instant Application with respect to a poppet acoustic valve. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show these features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an acoustic valve with a poppet disk fixed to a spring) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, the claim recitations merely require “an acoustic valve” which is defined by Applicant as a valve exhibiting a negative flow characteristic of figures 10 or 11, or a different negative flow characteristic. (See Applicant’s specification, Paragraph [0036]).
With respect to the Adams references, the reed valve operates with a negative flow characteristic. (See Adams, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 Reed valve). Additionally, Adams explicitly discloses the same operating principle and pressure curve for the acoustic driver reed valve as Applicant’s Figure 11. (See Adams, Page 3, Figure 2). Accordingly, the reed valve of Adams not merely a “passive check valve” but instead utilizes a negative flow resistance pressure curve for passive operation. (See Adam, Page 7, Conclusions).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the acoustic valve(s) of Adams do not operate passively as in claim 13, the Office respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the valve operation of Adams utilizes a negative pressure characteristic for opening and closing and is thus operated passively.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Adams fails to disclose “the piston is substantially compressible parcel of fluid”, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Adams fails to disclose “the piston is a substantially compressible parcel of fluid”. However, Adams explicitly discloses the piston is a “gas piston” (i.e.-a parcel of compressed gas). (See Adams, Pages 3-6 w/respect to expander operation). Therefore, Adams explicitly discloses a piston which is a substantially compressible parcel of fluid.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights