DETAILED ACTION
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
In response to the restriction requirement dated 9/22/22, the applicant elected Group I (claims 1-6), species 1 - Fig. 1, species 5 (Fig. 5) without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/22. Amended claim 31 is drawn to a non-elected species since the elected species (Fig. 1) does not determine whether cryogenic hydrogen exceeds a temperature threshold and/or a pressure threshold associated with a storage tank. This operation describes the operations of non-elected species 3 (Fig. 3) (see spec. para. 38) and not the elected species of Fig. 1. Therefore, claim(s) 31, 32, 36 are additionally withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 26 is/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 pre-, AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 21, the claim recites a controller in the preamble and the body of the claim describes the functional capability of a liquefaction system and it is entirely unclear whether the claim requires the structures of the liquefaction system to meet the claimed structure of the controller.
The recitation, “A tank controller operable connected” is grammatically errant .
The recitation, “based on determining” (line 5) is indefinite since the claim already recited determining previously and it is unclear if this is the same or different determining.
The recitation, “directing the gaseous boil-off hydrogen to the first cooling stage,” (line 13) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for the first cooling stage.
The recitation, “whereby the liquification system” (page 4, lines 13; page 5, line 3) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for the liquification system.
The recitation, “the second cooling stage” (line 20) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
It is unclear from the recitations if a first cooling stage and a second cooling stage are required by the claimed structure or if these structures are not required by the claimed structure.
The recitation, “gaseous boil-off hydrogen” (line 13) is not consistent with the previously recited “gaseous boil off hydrogen”.
The recitation, “first liquified boil off hydrogen” (page 4, line 21) and “second liquified boil off hydrogen” (page 5, line 8-9) is/are indefinite as a fluid cannot be both a boil off gas and a liquid and the recitation is inconsistent. For examination it is presumed that these are liquid streams.
In regard to claim 22, the recitation, “the boil-off hydrogen” (line 15) lacks properly antecedent basis. The only previously recited boil-off recited was the “gaseous boil-off hydrogen”.
In regard to claim 26, the recitation reads as a step of a method and is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure is required of the controller based on the recitation of the step.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 22, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakamade (US 2015/0068246) in view of Ishimaru (US 2014/0053598) and Kundig (US 4474592). Note that the prior art anticipates the claimed invention inasmuch as the claims are able to be discerned considering the 112 issues.
In regard to independent claim 21, Hakamade teaches a liquefaction system (see figure) comprising a first cooling stage (E1) and a second cooling stage (E2) that liquefies input hydrogen (from 10) into a liquefied hydrogen (liquid at position d) that is transferred to a storage tank (15, 16); a tank controller (24) operably connected to a fluid control device (18) of a cryogenic containment system used to store cryogenic hydrogen (para. 19, 30) in the storage tank (15, 16); the controller (24) configured to: determine whether a temperature of gaseous boil off hydrogen (para. 43 “boil-off gas”) from the storage tank (15, 16) is greater than a temperature threshold (para. 42-44); based on the determining that the temperature of the gaseous boil off gas exceeds the temperature threshold, the controller (24) commands a valve (18) to direct the gaseous boil off hydrogen (boil-off gas) to a first location in the liquefaction system; and based on the controller (24) determining that the temperature of the gaseous boil off hydrogen (boil-off hydrogen) is less than the temperature threshold (para. 43), the controller (24) commands a valve (18) to direct the gaseous boil off hydrogen (boil-off hydrogen) to a second location; the first location being warmer than the second location (para. 43).
Hakamade does not explicitly teach that the temperature threshold is the inversion temperature of hydrogen and that the first location includes an input line (11) and that the second location includes position (b) so that the gaseous boil off hydrogen returned to these locations are reliquefied with a rest of the input hydrogen (from 10) forming a first liquefied hydrogen and a second liquefied hydrogen that are each transferred to the storage tank (15, 16).
However, the inversion temperature of hydrogen is well understood and it is understood that during startup operations it is routine to recycle boil off gas to be cooled with input fluid at an input line location as the system is progressing towards a steady cryogenic state. Ishimaru teaches liquefying gas including hydrogen (para. 2, 34) which all have relatively low inversion temperatures (inherent properties of hydrogen, helium, and neon, para. 34); Ishimaru teaches (see whole disclosure) a recovery line (310, 309) for recovering boil off gas (para. 72) from a storage tank (302) and operates to return boil off hydrogen to mix with input feed hydrogen (3) and send the mix to the first cooling stage (at least stage having liquid nitrogen cooling) and then sending the mix to a second cooling stage (any of the lower temperature cooling stages) to form a first liquefied hydrogen (see liquid hydrogen formed from the mix) and transferring the liquefied hydrogen to the storage tank (302) to make use of boil off hydrogen to provide other utilities (para. 20-21) with the boil off hydrogen and to aide in start up (para. 37); and teaches that the . Also, official notice is taken that it is well known that hydrogen gas above the inversion temperature of hydrogen cannot be cooled by expansion and therefore, in a situation where the temperature of the boil off gas were to be measured to be above 200K, it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller of Hakamade to direct such overly warm boil off hydrogen to the input line, as taught by Ishimaru, for the purpose of reliquefying the boil off hydrogen with a first cooling stage having liquid nitrogen as taught by Ishimaru in order to efficiently reliquefy with the hydrogen gas.
In addition, Kundig teaches how to improve steady state liquefaction of hydrogen. Kundig teaches directing with a valve (12) a boil off hydrogen stream (10) from a storage tank (7) to a second cooling stage (6) when the boil off hydrogen (10) would be below the inversion temperature of hydrogen and teaches that by providing a colder recycle that more vapor can be liquefied (column 2, line 40-45) at reduced cost and reduced low refrigeration effort (column 1, line 50-56). Kundig also teaches forming a second liquefied hydrogen (See liquid after 6) in the second cooling stage (6) and transferring the second liquefied hydrogen to the storage tank (7). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the controller and system of Hakamade to direct the boil off hydrogen to the input of the second cooling stage and mix with the input hydrogen being liquefied (see location b in Hakamade) as taught by Kundig, during steady state operation, when the temperature of the boil off hydrogen measured would be very cold and below the inversion temperature to make liquefaction of the hydrogen more efficient and to reduce costs and reduce the required refrigeration. See that the modification, as described, would provide the first liquefied hydrogen and the second liquefied hydrogen and transfer the first liquefied hydrogen and the second liquefied hydrogen to the storage tank of Hakamade as claimed.
In regard to claims 22, Hakamade teaches that the second cooling stage (E2) is configured to remove a latent heat of vaporization from the boil off hydrogen (see that the boil-off hydrogen is liquefied).
In regard to claim 26, Hakamade teaches that the cryogenic hydrogen is stored in a two-phase mixture (para. 32) in the storage tank (15, 16) and is received from an external source (10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
March 28, 2025
Prosecution Insights