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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a system to integrate multiple cryogenic tanks on an aircraft, classified in F17C2205/0323.
II. Claims 12-15, drawn to an apparatus for integrating multiple cryogenic tanks on an aircraft,, classified in F17C2250/032.
III. Claims 16-20, drawn to a method, classified in F17C2250/0434.
IV. Claims 21-25, drawn to a system to integrate multiple cryogenic tanks on an aircraft, classified in B65D 90/34.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as "an inlet port connected to one of the first cryogenic tank or the second cryogenic tank; an LH2 extraction flowline connected to at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks to supply the cryogenic liquid to a fuel management system". In addition or alternatively, subcombination II has separate utility such as "a controlling device including processor circuitry to execute machine-readable instructions to at least: monitor a first vapor pressure in the first cryogenic tank and a second vapor pressure in the second cryogenic tank; determine whether the first or second vapor pressure satisfies a threshold; and in response to determining that the first or second vapor pressure does not satisfy the threshold, close the first and second isolation valves". See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions I and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as, inter alia, an apparatus that does not have an inlet port connected to one of the first cryogenic tank or the second cryogenic tank, and an LH2 extraction flowline connected to at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks to supply the cryogenic liquid to a fuel management system.
Inventions I and IV are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as "an inlet port connected to one of the first cryogenic tank or the second cryogenic tank; an LH2 extraction flowline connected to at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks to supply the cryogenic liquid to a fuel management system". In addition or alternatively, subcombination IV has separate utility such as " a controlling device including at least one pressure sensor, the at least one pressure sensor configured to sense a first vapor pressure in the first cryogenic tank and a second vapor pressure in the second cryogenic tank, the controlling device configured to: compare each of the first vapor pressure and the second vapor pressure with an operational threshold". See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions II and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as, inter alia, an apparatus that does not have a controlling device including processor circuitry to execute machine-readable instructions.
Inventions II and IV are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as "a controlling device including processor circuitry to execute machine-readable instructions to at least: monitor a first vapor pressure in the first cryogenic tank and a second vapor pressure in the second cryogenic tank". In addition or alternatively, subcombination IV has separate utility such as "a burst disc arranged along a GH2 extraction flowline and configured to rupture when the pressure safety valve malfunctions". See MPEP § 806.05(d).
Inventions III and IV are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as, inter alia, an apparatus that does require a burst disc arranged along a GH2 extraction flowline.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
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: “a pressure safety system” in claim 1 is understood to be a pressure safety valve.
“a heating system” in claim 5 is understood to be any art recognized heater.
“a first pressure safety system” and “a second pressure safety system” in claim 8 is understood to be a pressure safety valve.
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 § 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, 6, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt (US 2023/0349513 A1) in view of Jensen (US 2022/0136876 A1) and further in view of Clarke et al. (US 11,940,097).
In regard to claim 1, Bernhardt teaches a system to integrate multiple cryogenic tanks, the system comprising:
a first cryogenic tank (3) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (4) via a liquid hydrogen (LH2) transfer flowline (40) and a gaseous hydrogen (GH2) transfer flowline (30) (see fig. 9), the LH2 transfer flowline (40) and the GH2 transfer flowline (30) to maintain a fuel level and a vapor pressure across the system (see ¶ 0074; fig. 9: regarding the recitation wherein “maintain a fuel level and a vapor pressure across the system” is directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used and does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115). In this case, both the first (3) and second (4) cryogenic tanks carry a liquid hydrogen in them (¶ 0003, 0020), allow the transfer of pressurized fluid, in particular vapor, between the first and the second liquefied gas store cryogenic tanks (¶ 0014), which is capable of maintaining the desired fuel level and vapor pressure.
the fuel level corresponding to a cryogenic liquid; an inlet port (line from supply tank 20 via 110, 120) connected to one of the first cryogenic tank (3) or the second cryogenic tank (4) (see fig. 9; ¶ 0078, 0080, 0082);
an LH2 extraction flowline (line wherein port 100 is disposed) connected to at least one of the first (3) or second cryogenic tanks (4) to supply the cryogenic liquid to a fuel management system (¶ 0079; Bernhardt teaches the line is attached to a receiver, wherein the receiver could be a dispenser 2 that have a system for evaporating (heating) a pumped cryogenic liquid, see ¶ 0042);
Bernhardt further teaches the LH2 transfer flowline (40) includes a first isolation valve (60) and the GH2 transfer flowline (30) includes a second isolation valve (50) (see fig. 9; ¶ 0074), but does not explicitly teach the system further comprises
a controlling device including processor circuitry and pressure sensors, the controlling device configured to: monitor a first vapor pressure in the first cryogenic tank and a second vapor pressure in the second cryogenic tank compare each monitored vapor pressure with a threshold and when either monitored vapor pressure lies outside the threshold, close the first isolation valve and the second isolation valve to isolate both the LH2 transfer flowline and the GH2 transfer flowline between the first and second cryogenic tanks.
However, Jensen teaches a fuel gauging system having two tanks (212a and 212b) and a fluid circuit therebetween including an exemplary directional control valve for transporting the ullage gas back and forth between the tanks, wherein system further comprises a controlling device including processor circuitry (controller 37) and pressure sensors (40) (see at least fig. 2; ¶ 0032), the controlling device configured to: monitor a first vapor pressure in the first cryogenic tank (212a) and a second vapor pressure in the second cryogenic tank (212b) compare each monitored vapor pressure with a threshold and when either monitored vapor pressure lies outside the threshold, close the first isolation valve (see at least fig. 2 and 4-13; ¶ 0049, 0053, 0067, 0073, 0075-0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bernhardt by implementing a controlling device including processor circuitry and pressure sensors to monitor the pressure in the first and second cryogenic tanks, and manipulate the first and second isolation valves based on the vapor pressure with respect to threshold valve, in view of the teachings of Jensen, in order to provide an automatic valve operation to achieve more efficient and reliable transfer of vapor and liquid between the cryogenic tanks, and prevent over-pressurization and maintain a desired operating conditions.
Bernhardt teaches a system that comprises a first (3) and second (4) cryogenic tanks with transfer flowlines between them, but does not teach a pressure safety system coupled to at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks via a GH2 extraction flowline, the pressure safety system coupled to at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks via a GH2 extraction flowline, the pressure safety system including a pressure safety valve configured to release hydrogen vapor from the at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks when a vapor pressure in the at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks does not satisfy a safety threshold, and a burst disc configured to rupture when the pressure safety valve malfunctions.
However, Clarke teaches a cryogenic hydrogen storage system wherein the hydrogen tank includes a pressure relief valve (196) configured to allow hydrogen to flow out of the tank when the pressure exceeds a selected threshold, thereby relieving over-pressure conditions (col. 8, line 46-55, col. 15, line 37-51 describing outlet line 190 and pressure relief valve 196). Clarke further teaches a burst disc (197) coupled to the tank that ruptures at a higher pressure to provide emergency pressure relief in the event that the pressure relief valve does not adequately relieve pressure (see the discussion of burst disc 197 configured to release at a selected over-pressure) (see fig. 10; col 15, line 7-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bernhardt to further include a pressure safety system comprising a pressure relief valve and a burst disc as taught by Clarke, in order to protect the cryogenic hydrogen tanks from over-pressurization and provide redundant safety protection in the event that the primary pressure relief valve fails or malfunctions, which is a well-known safety practice in cryogenic and hydrogen storage systems.
In regard to claim 6, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Bernhardt teaches the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen (¶ 0003), the first isolation valve (60) in the LH2 transfer flowline (40) to enable or inhibit flow of the liquid hydrogen between the first cryogenic tank (3) and the second cryogenic tank (4) (see fig. 9; ¶ 0074); and the second isolation valve (50) in the GH2 transfer flowline (30) to enable or inhibit flow of hydrogen vapor between the first cryogenic tank (3) and the second cryogenic tank (4) (see fig. 9; ¶ 0074).
In regard to claims 7 and 9, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Bernhardt teaches a system to integrate multiple cryogenic tanks, comprising: a first cryogenic tank (3) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (4) via a liquid hydrogen (LH2) transfer flowline (40) and a gaseous hydrogen (GH2) transfer flowline (30) (see fig. 9), but does not teach the first cryogenic tank is included in a first group of cryogenic tanks, and the second cryogenic tank is included in a second group of cryogenic tanks, further including: a first set of LH2 transfer flowlines and GH2 transfer flowlines to couple the first group of cryogenic tanks in series; a second set of LH2 transfer flowlines and GH2 transfer flowlines to couple the second group of cryogenic tanks in series; a third set of LH2 transfer flowlines and GH2 transfer flowlines to couple the first group of cryogenic tanks and the second group of cryogenic tanks in parallel; and a plurality of isolation valves in the first set, the second set, and the third set of LH2 transfer flowlines and GH2 transfer flowlines to enable or inhibit flow between the first group of cryogenic tanks and the second group of cryogenic tanks.
However, it is noted that mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Since applicant has not disclosed that providing groups of first and second cryogenic tanks and multiple LH2 and GH2flowlines in the system does anything more than produce predictable results i.e., for example, providing a multiple tanks helps distribute heat loads more effectively, preventing localized warming and excessive boil-off), the mere duplication of the tanks and flowlines in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bernhardt by including a first and second group of cryogenic tanks, and LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines, for purpose of providing a predictably results of optimizing fuel consumption and efficiency, and refueling can be done in parallel, reducing turnaround time for operation.
In regard to claim 8, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 7, wherein Bernhardt in view of Clarke teaches a pressure safety system coupled to at least one of the first or second cryogenic tanks via a GH2 extraction flowline, but does not explicitly teach the pressure safety system is a first pressure safety system coupled to the first group of cryogenic tanks via a plurality of first GH2 extraction flowlines, further including a second pressure safety system coupled to the second group of cryogenic tanks via a plurality of second GH2 extraction flowlines. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bernhardt by implementing a first pressure safety system coupled to the first group of cryogenic tanks via a plurality of first GH2 extraction flowlines and a second pressure safety system coupled to the second group of cryogenic tanks via a plurality of second GH2 extraction flowlines, for the purpose of ensuring each groups of cryogenic tanks operates safely under all conditions, specifically from gradual and sudden over-pressurization, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to claim 9, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
In regard to claim 11, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the LH2 extraction flowline (line wherein port 100 is disposed) is a first LH2 extraction flowline connected to the first cryogenic tank (connected to tank 3 via line 40), further including a second LH2 extraction flowline connected to the second cryogenic tank (connected to tank 3 via line 40) (see fig. 9).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt, Jensen and Clarke as applied to claim 1 or 9 above, and further in view of Light et al. (US 2023/0160529 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Bernhardt teaches LH2, GH2 transfer flowline, and a LH2 extraction flowline, but does not teach the LH2 transfer flowline, the GH2 transfer flowline, and the LH2 extraction flowline are vacuum jacketed flowlines.
However, Light teaches a system to integrate multiple cryogenic tanks on an aircraft, the system comprising: a first cryogenic tank (10) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (10) via a liquid hydrogen (LH2) transfer flowline (2) and a gaseous hydrogen (GH2) transfer flowline (4) (see fig. 13), and wherein the liquid hydrogen and the gaseous hydrogen transfer flowline are vacuum jacketed flowlines (see ¶ 0055, 0207, 0209).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bernhardt by vacuum jacketing the LH2 transfer flowline, the GH2 transfer flowline, and the LH2 extraction flowline, in view of the teachings of Light, in order to minimize heat leak from ambient to the liquid and gaseous transfer flowlines.
In regard to claim 10, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 9, wherein Bernhardt teaches a system comprising a first cryogenic tank (3) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (4) via a liquid hydrogen (LH2) transfer flowline (40) and a gaseous hydrogen (GH2) transfer flowline (30), but does not exactly teach including a first pump in the first group of cryogenic tanks and a second pump in the second group of cryogenic tanks, the first and second pumps to trim liquid hydrogen between one or more cryogenic tanks of the system.
However, Light teaches a system to integrate multiple cryogenic tanks on an aircraft, the system comprising: a first cryogenic tank (10) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (10) via a liquid hydrogen (LH2) transfer flowline (2) and a gaseous hydrogen (GH2) transfer flowline (4) (see fig. 13), and wherein the liquid hydrogen and the gaseous hydrogen transfer flowline are vacuum jacketed flowlines (see ¶ 0055, 0207, 0209), and a pump in a liquid transfer line connected between the tanks to transfer amounts of liquid cryogen from one tank to another via the liquid transfer line (see Abstract; ¶ 0229-0231).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bernhardt by including a first pump in the first group of cryogenic tanks and a second pump in the second group of cryogenic tanks, in view of the teachings of Light, in order to efficiently transfer the cryogenic liquid from one tank to another, avoiding reliance on gravity or pressure differentials only.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt, Jensen and Clarke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gustafson et al. (US 2014/0096539).
In regard to claim 4, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach a thermosiphon loop integrated into one of the first or second cryogenic tanks to regulate the vapor pressure of the system.
However, Gustafson teaches a cryogenic liquid delivery system comprising cryogenic tank (22) and a thermosiphon loop (55) integrated into the cryogenic tank (22) to regulate the vapor pressure of the system (¶ 0015, 0019; fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bernhardt by including a thermosiphon loop integrated into one of the first or second cryogenic tanks, in view of the teachings of Gustafson, for the purpose of regulating the pressure of the cryogenic tanks as desired.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt, Jensen and Clarke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emmer (US 2017/0097119 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach including a heating system in one of the first or second cryogenic tanks to regulate the vapor pressure of the system.
However, Emmer teaches a cryogenic liquid delivery system (100) comprising a heating system (126) in cryogenic tank (102) to regulate the vapor pressure of the system (¶ 0021, 0023; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Bernhardt by including a heating system integrated into one of the first or second cryogenic tanks, in view of the teachings of Emmer, for the purpose of regulating the pressure of the cryogenic tanks as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (in view of Clarke et al. US 11,940,097).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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 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 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763