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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
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 are construed as pressure safety valves as described in the specification. See Spec. ¶¶ [0095]–[0097], FIG. 3.
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.
Claims 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) in view of Lohmann (US 8,671,998 B2) and further in view of Clarke et al. (US 11,940,097 B2).
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 an LH2 transfer flowline (40) and a GH2 transfer flowline (30) (See Bernhardt Fig. 9; ¶ [0074]). Regarding the recitation “maintain a fuel level and a vapor pressure across the system,” this language 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, 2114–2115. In this case, both the first (3) and second (4) cryogenic tanks carry liquid hydrogen (¶ [0003], [0020]) and allow the transfer of pressurized fluid, in particular vapor, between the first and second liquefied gas stores (¶ [0014]), which is capable of maintaining the desired fuel level and vapor pressure.
an inlet port (line from supply tank 20 via connection fittings 110, 120) connected to one of the first cryogenic tank (3) or the second cryogenic tank (4) (See Bernhardt Fig. 9; ¶ [0078], [0080], [0082]);
an LH2 extraction flowline (the line on which port 100 is disposed) connected to at least one of the first (3) or second (4) cryogenic tanks to supply the cryogenic liquid to a downstream system (¶ [0079]). Bernhardt teaches the line is attached to a receiver, wherein the receiver could be a dispenser (2) that has a system for evaporating (heating) a pumped cryogenic liquid, corresponding to the recited fuel management system (See Bernhardt ¶ [0042]);
Bernhardt teaches a system comprising 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, including a pressure safety valve configured to release hydrogen vapor when a vapor pressure 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 (See Clarke col. 8, ll. 46–55; col. 15, ll. 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, the burst disc configured to release at a selected over-pressure (See Clarke Fig. 10; col. 15, ll. 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.
Bernhardt 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 Bernhardt Fig. 9; ¶ [0074]),
Bernhardt does not explicitly teach a controlling device including processor circuitry and pressure sensors configured to monitor vapor pressures in the first and second cryogenic tanks, compare each vapor pressure to an operational threshold, and simultaneously close both the first isolation valve and the second isolation valve when either vapor pressure does not satisfy the threshold, with the pressure safety system remaining fluidly coupled via the GH2 extraction flowline independent of the isolated transfer flowlines.
However, Jensen teaches a fuel gauging system having two paired tanks (212a and 212b) in an aircraft and a fluid circuit therebetween including a directional control valve for transporting ullage gas back and forth between the tanks. Jensen teaches a controlling device comprising processor circuitry (controller 37) and pressure sensors (40), the controlling device configured to: monitor a first vapor pressure in the first tank (212a) and a second vapor pressure in the second tank (212b); compare each monitored vapor pressure with an operational threshold (a preset upper pressure limit); and when either monitored vapor pressure does not satisfy the threshold, actuate the control valve (24) to manage the flow between the tanks based on the pressure readings (See Jensen Figs. 2, 4–13; ¶ [0032], [0049], [0053], [0067], [0073], [0075]–[0080]).
Lohmann further teaches an aircraft fuel system comprising a fuel supply line (18) with a first isolation valve (22) and a fuel transfer line (26) with a second isolation valve (36), wherein an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising processor circuitry is operatively connected to both the first and second isolation valves and “simultaneously controls the first and the second isolation valve” to interrupt both the supply line and the transfer line when a pressure sensor (48) detects that pressure within the aircraft tank system exceeds a predetermined limit (See Lohmann col. 2, ll. 19–30; col. 5, ll. 44–65; col. 6, ll. 1–12).
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 vapor pressure in the first and second cryogenic tanks and simultaneously close both the first isolation valve (60) and the second isolation valve (50) when either vapor pressure does not satisfy the operational threshold, in view of the combined teachings of Jensen and Lohmann, wherein it would have been obvious to incorporate Jensen’s per-tank pressure monitoring scheme into Bernhardt’s system because independently monitoring the vapor pressure of each tank and comparing those readings to an operational threshold allows the controller to detect unsafe pressure conditions in either individual tank and take corrective action before those conditions propagate across the system, thereby improving operational safety. It would have further been obvious to incorporate Lohmann’s simultaneous dual-valve isolation technique because simultaneously closing isolation valves on both the LH2 and GH2 transfer lines — rather than closing only one — ensures that the cryogenic tank system is fully and reliably isolated from all inter-tank fluid flow upon detection of an unsafe pressure condition, eliminating the risk that fluid continues to flow through one line while the other is closed. Applying both teachings to Bernhardt’s dual-flowline cryogenic architecture having separate isolation valves (50, 60) on both the LH2 and GH2 transfer lines yields a controlling device that monitors each tank’s vapor pressure independently and simultaneously closes both isolation valves upon detection of a threshold violation, providing complete inter-tank isolation and maximum safety protection.
With respect to the amended limitation that the pressure safety system remains fluidly coupled via the GH2 extraction flowline independent of the isolated LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines: when Clarke’s pressure safety system (pressure relief valve 196 and burst disc 197, coupled to the tank via manifold structure 184 and boss 182) is incorporated into Bernhardt’s dual-tank system and the controlling device simultaneously closes the isolation valves on the inter-tank LH2 transfer flowline (valve 60 on line 40) and GH2 transfer flowline (valve 50 on line 30), Clarke’s pressure safety assembly remains fluidly coupled to the tank because it is connected to the tank pressure vessel (125) via a structurally distinct and separate port — the boss (182) and manifold (184) — that is independent of the inter-tank transfer lines of Bernhardt (see Clarke col. 14, ll. 25–60; col. 15, ll. 1–51; Figs. 10–11B). The closure of Bernhardt’s inter-tank isolation valves does not affect Clarke’s dedicated safety path because the two are separate fluid connections to the tank. Accordingly, the claimed result — that the pressure safety system remains fluidly coupled via the GH2 extraction flowline to permit release of hydrogen vapor independent of the LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines after their simultaneous isolation — is an inherent consequence of incorporating Clarke’s structurally independent safety assembly into the combined Bernhardt/Jensen/Lohmann system.
In regard to claim 6, 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) enables or inhibits flow of liquid hydrogen between the first cryogenic tank (3) and the second cryogenic tank (4) (Fig. 9; ¶ [0074]); and the second isolation valve (50) in the GH2 transfer flowline (30) enables or inhibits flow of hydrogen vapor between the first cryogenic tank (3) and the second cryogenic tank (4) (Fig. 9; ¶ [0074]).
In regard to claims 7 and 9, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system comprising a first cryogenic tank (3) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (4) via an LH2 transfer flowline (40) and a GH2 transfer flowline (30) (Fig. 9), but does not explicitly teach the first cryogenic tank included in a first group of cryogenic tanks and the second cryogenic tank 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 in series; a second set of LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines to couple the second group in series; a third set of LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines to couple the first and second groups in parallel; and a plurality of isolation valves in the first, second, and third sets to enable or inhibit flow between the groups.
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). Because applicant has not disclosed that providing groups of first and second cryogenic tanks and multiple LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines does anything more than produce predictable results (e.g., distributing heat loads more effectively, preventing localized warming and excessive boil-off), the mere duplication of the tanks and flowlines 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 first and second groups of cryogenic tanks and LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines, for the purpose of optimizing fuel consumption and efficiency and enabling parallel refueling to reduce turnaround time.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7, as it adds the limitation that each group includes two or more cryogenic tanks, which is encompassed by the duplication analysis above.
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, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the pressure safety system being 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 group of cryogenic tanks operates safely under all conditions, specifically from gradual and sudden over-pressurization. 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 regard to claim 11, Bernhardt teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the LH2 extraction flowline (the line on which port 100 is disposed) is a first LH2 extraction flowline connected to the first cryogenic tank (3), further including a second LH2 extraction flowline connected to the second cryogenic tank (4) in the symmetric modular arrangement of Fig. 9 (see Bernhardt Fig. 9; ¶ [0074], [0079], [0084]–[0085]).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt, Lohmann, Jensen and Clarke as applied to claims 1 and 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, including LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines and an LH2 extraction flowline, but does not teach that 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 comprising a first cryogenic tank (10) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (10) via an LH2 transfer flowline (2) and a GH2 transfer flowline (4) (Fig. 13), wherein the liquid hydrogen and the gaseous hydrogen transfer flowlines are vacuum jacketed flowlines (see Light ¶ [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 comprising a first cryogenic tank (3) coupled to a second cryogenic tank (4) via an LH2 transfer flowline (40) and a GH2 transfer flowline (30), but does not explicitly teach 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 configured to trim liquid hydrogen between one or more cryogenic tanks of the system.
However, Light teaches a system comprising multiple cryogenic tanks coupled via LH2 and GH2 transfer flowlines, and a pump (6) 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 Light ¶ [0204], [0206], [0208]; Figs. 12–13).
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 alone.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt, Lohmann, Jensen and Clarke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gustafson et al. (US 2014/0096539 A1).
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 a cryogenic tank (22) and a thermosiphon loop (55) integrated into the cryogenic tank (22) to regulate the vapor pressure of the system (see Gustafson ¶ [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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt, Lohmann, 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 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 a cryogenic tank (102) to regulate the vapor pressure of the system (see Emmer ¶ [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 fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, unless otherwise noted below.
Applicant's arguments (Remark page) that Jensen does not disclose simultaneous closure of isolation valves on both transfer flowlines nor the continued availability of a pressure relief path after such closure.
In response, the Examiner does not rely on Jensen for those teachings. Jensen is relied upon solely for its disclosure of a controlling device comprising processor circuitry and pressure sensors configured to monitor the vapor pressure of each paired tank independently and compare those readings to an operational threshold. The simultaneous closure of both isolation valves is taught by Lohmann, not Jensen. The pressure safety system via the GH2 extraction flowline is taught by Clarke, not Jensen. Applicant’s argument that Jensen alone does not teach these limitations is therefore not responsive to the rejection as maintained, which relies on Jensen, Lohmann, and Clarke in combination, each for its own specific teaching.
Applicant's arguments (Remark page) that Bernhardt does not disclose a pressure safety system or system behavior following isolation of the transfer flowlines.
In response, the Examiner does not rely on Bernhardt for those teachings. Bernhardt is relied upon for the dual-tank cryogenic hydrogen architecture with LH2 transfer flowline (40), GH2 transfer flowline (30), first isolation valve (60), and second isolation valve (50). See Bernhardt Fig. 9; ¶ [0074]. The per-tank pressure monitoring and operational threshold comparison are taught by Jensen. The simultaneous closure of both isolation valves is taught by Lohmann. The pressure safety system and its structurally independent coupling to the tank are taught by Clarke. Applicant’s argument that Bernhardt alone does not teach these limitations is not a valid traverse of a combination rejection in which Bernhardt, Jensen, Lohmann, and Clarke are each relied upon for their own distinct and specific contribution.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights