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 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 capacitive measuring unit” in claims 1 and 10, is understood to be any art recognized measuring unit for measuring the level of liquid.
“a communication unit” in claims 1 and 10, is understood to be a short-range radio or Bluetooth.
“a power unit” in claims 1 and 10, is understood to be an energy harvester.
“a short-range radio communication unit” in claim 6, is understood to be a Bluetooth.
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 § 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 1-2 and 4-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the capacitive measuring unit and the at least two sensor electrodes is in a form of an elongated strip arranged to extend substantially a vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel” in line 11-13 renders the claim indefinite because the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, the specification fails to provide general guidelines to the meaning of the terminology “substantially” as intended. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) - I and III(D). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the extension of the capacitive measuring unit and the at least two sensor electrodes is relative to vertical length of the pressure vessel.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sensor unit" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “a sensor unit” in line 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the liner" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 appears to be directed to both method of using an apparatus and the apparatus. It is unclear whether the claim is claiming both the system that comprises a sensor unit …. and the communication unit” is required or just the method steps. See MPEP 2173.05.(p) II.
Claim 10 recites the limitation wherein “arranging said elongated strip such that it extends substantially a vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel” renders the claim indefinite because the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, the specification fails to provide general guidelines to the meaning of the terminology “substantially” as intended. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) - I and III(D).
Claim 10 recites the term “it” in line 14 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the term “it” referring to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the capacitive measuring sensor unit" in 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –the capacitive measuring unit--.
Claims 2, 5-9 and 11-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 12 appears to be non-eligible subject matter under 101 for the following reasons:
Step 2A analysis- Well known device or apparatus appears of a composite pressure vessel with electrical capacitance sensors for measuring gas level and being positioned vertically in communication to a memory unit with a display that store the measured information” appear to be well known devices uses in the art as illustrated by the disclosure of McCulloch et al. (US 6,016,697) in view of Klok et al. (US 5,230,439) and further in view of Iida et al. (US 6,190,481), as shown below.
Step 2B Analysis – Well known device is used to Apply to mathematical calculation by the calculation steps of “calculating the amount of gas in the composite pressure vessel based on the measured temp” which is directed to mathematical calculation or mental process that is not affecting or impacting the system in claim 12. As such claim 12 appears to be directed to non-eligible subject matter under 101 analysis.
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) 1-2, 5-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lease et al. (US 2019/0033119 A1) in view of Klok et al. (US 5,230,439).
In regard to claim 1, Lease teaches a system for measuring the level of gas in liquid form in a composite pressure vessel (28) that uses electrical capacitance to perform the measuring wherein the system comprises:
a capacitive measuring unit (10) for measuring the level of gas in liquid form in the pressure vessel (28) (see ¶ 0027-0028, 0072-0074; fig. 9-13),
at least one sensor electrode (15) connected to the capacitive measuring unit (10) (see ¶ 0028, 0072-0074),
a communication unit (58) for communicating the information measured by the capacitive measuring unit (10) (see ¶ 0031-0033, fig. 2-5), and
a power unit for (72 and/or 210) supplying power to at least one of the at least one electrodes (15), the capacitive measuring unit (10) and the communication unit (58) (see ¶ 0031, 0069).
Lease teaches at least one sensor electrode (15) and the capacitive measuring unit (10) is in a form of an elongated strip arranged to extend in vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel (28) (see fig. 1, 9; ¶ 0028-0029), but does not explicitly teach at least two sensor electrodes, wherein the at least two sensor electrodes is in a form of an elongated strip arranged to extend substantially a vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel.
However, Klok teaches a container having a means for detecting of liquid level, wherein the interior shell (2) comprises at least one, typically two elongated parallel electrodes, 9, 9', wherein the at least two sensor electrodes (9, 9’) is in a form of an elongated strip arranged to extend substantially a vertical height of an inner liner (3) of the composite pressure vessel (1) (See col. 2, lines 33-51; 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 sensor electrode of Lease with at least two elongated strip sensor electrodes and arranged it by substantially extending it in the vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel, in view of the teachings of Klok, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy of the liquid level.
The modified Lease teaches a composite pressure vessel (a pressurized cryogenic storage vessel (28) for storing a pressurized gas or liquid cryogens see ¶ 0029, pressurized cryogenic tanks inherently consist of an inner and outer shell. The inner vessel holds the cryogenic liquid, while the outer shell acts as a protective casing. The space between them is either a vacuum or filled with insulation to minimize heat transfer and maintain the low temperature of the contents). Note: according to applicant’s invention, the composite pressure vessel is simply a pressure vessel with an inner and outer layer (see Applicant’s spec, Abstract, ¶ 0020, 0037). Assuming arguendo that Lease does not sufficiently teach a composite pressure vessel, composite pressure vessels are common and well-known in the field of cryogenics, as taught by Klok, wherein Klok teaches a cryogenic vessel comprising an exterior shell (1) and an interior shell (2) for storing a cryogenic fluid (see fig. 1; col. 2, line 18-23). 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 pressurized cryogenic storage vessel of Lease with a composite pressure vessel that comprises inner and outer wall, in view of the teachings of Klok, in order to provide a pressure vessel that isolate an extremely cold, often pressurized inner vessel from the outside, and the double-walled design minimizes the risk of accidents and improves overall safety.
In regard to claim 2, the modified Lease teaches the system according to claim 1 wherein the at least two electrodes (as modified above) comprise at least one transmitting electrode and at least one receiving electrode with interdigitized fingers (See Lease ¶ 0030, 0032, 0072-0074).
In regard to claim 5, Lease teaches the system according to claim 1 wherein the power unit is an energy harvester (¶ 0048).
In regard to claim 6, Lease teaches the system according to claim 1 wherein the communication unit (58) is a short-range radio communication unit (Bluetooth) for communicating information measured by the capacitive measuring unit (15) to a receiver (46) (¶ 0031, 0055, 0058, 0069, 0091).
In regard to claim 7, Lease teaches the system according to claim 6 wherein the information displayed to a user can be either an amount of gas left in the composite pressure vessel or an amount of gas in liquid form in the composite pressure vessel (28) (see Lease ¶ 0030-0031).
In regard to claim 8, Lease teaches the system according to claim 6 wherein the receiver is a display (12) situated on the composite pressure vessel displaying an the amount of gas left in the composite pressure vessel (see Lease ¶ 0030-0031).
In regard to claim 9, Lease teaches the according to claim 1 wherein the system further comprises a temperature sensor (176), a pressure sensor (178) and a memory unit (194) (see Lease ¶ 0045, 0049-0051, 0053, 0054).
In regard to claim 13, Lease teaches the composite pressure vessel (28) comprising a system (the system of claim 1) for measuring the amount of gas left according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
In regard to claim 14, Lease teaches the composite pressure vessel according to claim 13, wherein the composite pressure vessel (28) is a cylindrical vessel (see fig. 1; ¶ 0028) arranged for a vertical alignment of a cylinder axis, wherein the capacitive measuring unit (10) is arranged vertically on an inner liner (see fig.1; ¶ 0028).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lease and Klok as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of McCulloch et al. (US 6,016,697).
In regard to claim 4, Lease teaches the system according to claim 2 but does not teach a reference point situated near a first end of the sensor unit to be arranged on the composite pressure vessel at a level where the gas always is in liquid form and a reference point situated near a second end of the sensor unit to be arranged on the composite pressure vessel at a level where the gas is always in gas form.
However, McCulloch teaches storage tank (100) comprising capacitive probe, or primary sensor 110, wherein the primary sensor (110) further comprises two capacitive reference sensors, a gas reference sensor (112) and a liquid reference sensor (114), are positioned adjacent the top and bottom, respectively, of the primary sensor (110) to assist in calibration of the system (col. 5, lines 3-30; 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 sensor of Lease to have a gas reference sensor and a liquid reference sensor, in view of the teachings of McCulloch, for the purpose of consistently measure liquid and gas level with a high degree of accuracy.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCulloch et al. (US 6,016,697) in view of Klok et al. (US 5,230,439) and further in view of Iida et al. (US 6,190,481)
In regard to claim 10, McCulloch teaches a method for digitally monitoring a level of gas in liquid form in a pressure vessel (100) comprising a gas tight inner liner (120) inside an outside chamber of the pressure vessel (100) (see fig. 1), in a system that comprises a sensor unit (110 comprising a gas reference sensor 112 and a liquid reference sensor 114) inside the liner (120) of the pressure vessel that uses electrical capacitance to measure the amount of gas present in the vessel (see abstract; col. 5, lines 5-29), wherein the sensor unit (110) comprises: a capacitive measuring unit (110) for detecting the amount of gas in the pressure vessel (col. 5, lines 5-29), at least two sensor electrodes (140, 142) connected to the capacitive measuring unit (110) (col. 7, lines 16-26; col. 8, lines 8-38), a communication unit (200) for communicating the amount of gas left detected by the capacitive measuring unit (110) (col. 8, lines 8-51), and a power unit (270, FIG. 6) for supplying power to the capacitive measuring unit, the electrodes and the communication unit (see col. 7, line 27-46);
wherein the method comprises the following steps: supplying power from the power unit (27) to the capacitive measuring unit (110), at least one of the electrodes (140, 142) and the communication unit (200) (see col. 7, line 27-46; col. 8, line 39-51); measuring the amount of gas present in the composite pressure vessel (100) with the capacitive measuring unit (110) utilizing absolute or relative changes in electrical capacitance (col. 8, line 8-28),
communicating the measured amount of gas present with the communication unit (200) to a memory unit (224), storing the measured amount of gas present in the composite pressure vessel in the memory (see col. 3, lines 23-35; col. 7, line 27-45) and/or ii. a receiver, and/or iii. a user, and/or iv. displaying the information to a user.
McCulloch teaches the capacitive measuring unit (110) and at least two sensor electrodes (140, 142) connected to the capacitive measuring unit (110), wherein the capacitive measuring unit (110) formed as an elongated strip and arranged substantially in a vertical height of an inner liner (101) of the pressure vessel (see fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach the at least two sensor electrodes is in a form of an elongated strip arranged to extend substantially a vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel.
However, Klok teaches a container having a means for detecting of liquid level, wherein the interior shell (2) comprises at least one, typically two elongated parallel electrodes, 9, 9', wherein the at least two sensor electrodes (9, 9’) is in a form of an elongated strip arranged to extend substantially a vertical height of an inner liner (3) of the composite pressure vessel (1) (See col. 2, lines 33-51; 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 sensor electrode of McCulloch with at least two elongated strip sensor electrodes and arranged it by substantially extending it in the vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel, in view of the teachings of Klok, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy of the liquid level.
Assuming arguendo that McCulloch does not expressly teach the pressure vessel is a composite pressure vessel comprising an inner liner and a layer of composite material. However, Iida, teaches a pressure vessel wherein the pressure vessel is a composite pressure vessel (See col. 3, line 65 to col.4, line 24) comprising an inner liner (2), a layer of composite material (E; col. 4, lines 57-59), and an outer casing (3).
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 pressure vessel of McCulloch with a composite pressure vessel comprising a layer of composite material, in view of the teachings of Iida, in order to improve gas leakage and to provide a light weight vessel that is capable of maintaining internal pressure against repetitive impacts and excellent reliability (see col.2, lines 13-17 and col. 4, lines 25-27 of Iida).
In regard to claim 11, McCulloch teaches the method according to claim 10 wherein the power unit (e.g., ramp generator) is an energy harvester that gathers energy from an ambient radio frequency spectrum (see at least col. 7, lines 26-45). A ramp generator is an energy harvester, specifically designed to capture kinetic energy from vehicular impacts or other forms of movement, converting it into usable electricity.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCulloch, Klok and Iida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 2013/0291952).
In regard to claim 12, McCulloch teaches method according to claim 10, but does not teach measuring the temperature of the composite pressure vessel and measuring the pressure within the pressure vessel, and the method further comprises calculating the amount of gas in the composite pressure vessel based on the measured temperature, the measures pressure and the measured level of gas in liquid form in the composite pressure vessel.
However, Zhou teaches a system and method to detect accumulator loss gas, wherein the system comprises a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of a fluid in an accumulator and a pressure sensor for measuring the pressure of the fluid within the accumulator, and the method comprises calculating the amount of gas in the accumulator based on the measured temperature, the measures pressure and the measured level of gas in the accumulator (see ¶ 0009-0010).
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 method of the liquid level of McCulloch by measuring the temperature and pressure of the fluid within the pressure vessel and calculate the amount of gas and liquid in the pressure vessel, in view of the teachings of Zhou, for the purpose of providing a continuous real-time measurement without a need to open the pressure vessel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (Remark page 7-10) that wherein applicant argued the term “substantially” is not a relative term In the present application, the recited “... an elongated strip arranged to extend substantially the vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel.” The recitation represents the configuration in which the elongated strip extends a vertical height of an inner liner of the composite pressure vessel but also includes some looseness or variability that is understood by those having ordinary skill in the subject art to be inherently provided to the arrangement of the strip along the vertical length. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that this recitation includes some variability so that the strip might not necessarily extend for the entire vertical height of an inner liner of the pressure vessel. In other words, even though a strip may not extend for the entire vertical height of an inner liner of the pressure vessel, the height of the strip may still be included within the scope of the present invention, as recited in the claims of the present application. In other words, it would not be reasonable to limit Applicant’s claim scope to exactly the entire vertical height of an inner liner of the pressure vessel, when it is well understood by those having ordinary skill in the subject art that there is inherently some degree of looseness or variability to be taken into consideration.
In response, the argument is not found persuasive because, according to the MPEP, to establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2163.07(a). The terminology of “substantially” is not given a definite meaning within the ordinary skill of the art, so as to be provided with an inherent definition of which one having ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood based on the description of the specification. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments (Remark page 13) that Lease discloses a mechanically complex electronic gauge assembly for indicating liquid condition within a large tank mounted on a delivery vehicle. In this regard, Applicant refers to Fig. 1 of Lease. Applicant respectfully submits that Lease is entirely silent with regard to any material and structural properties of the tank. Accordingly, the pressure vessel of Lease does not appear to disclose a composite pressure vessel comprising an inner liner and a layer of composite material, in addition to an outer layer. Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that it can reasonably be assumed that the vehicle-mounted tank is most likely for holding compressed gases, for instance liquified petroleum gas (LPG) at ambient temperature. In this regard, Applicant also refers to paragraph [0029] of Lease. The tank extends rearwardly of the driver’s cabin and without projecting significantly beyond the outline of the driver’s cabin.
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive. First, Lease teaches a pressurized cryogenic storage vessel (28) for storing a pressurized gas or liquid cryogens (see ¶ 0029). The claim term “composite pressure vessel” is not defined in the claims or specification; therefore, it must be interpreted according to its broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the specification. Under this interpretation, a composite pressure vessel encompasses any pressure vessel with an inner and outer layer that is capable of retaining a liquid/gas under pressure. Lease discloses a pressurized cryogenic storage vessel having multiple structural layers including an inner liner and an outer containment shell (Note that: pressurized cryogenic tanks inherently consist of an inner and outer shell. The inner vessel holds the cryogenic liquid, while the outer shell acts as a protective casing. The space between them is either a vacuum or filled with insulation to minimize heat transfer and maintain the low temperature of the contents). Such configuration constitutes a composite structure within the ordinary and customary meaning of “composite.” Accordingly, Lease discloses or at least suggests the claimed “composite pressure vessel.” Alternatively, it would have been obvious to employ composite materials (e.g., vessels with inner and outer layer) in the vessel of Lease to improve strength and thermal performance, which are well-known design motivations in the field. Furthermore, the pressure vessel being a composite pressure vessel was not positively recited in the previous claim 1, other than what was mentioned in the preamble of the previous claim language. In claim 1, the recitation “a level of gas in liquid form in a composite pressure vessel” has been given little patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). However, examiner has addressed the issue in view of the amendments (see the rejection above).
Applicant's arguments (Remark page 13-14) that Liquid level condition in the tank is measured by means of a horizontal float that rides on the surface of the liquid. In a related context, it is essential that the vehicle operator may access information about liquid level condition in the tank.
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive. In this case, applicant is arguing the side way position of the tank (28) on vehicle (14), rather than a relative position of the capacitive measuring unit (10) that extends in the tank (28) in the direction of the vertical height of the tank. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that whenever the tank (28) is positioned in its upright standing position, the capacitive measuring unit (10) would extend down towards the bottom of the tank. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (Remark page 14-15) that Klok discloses a freestanding container for cryogenic purposes. In this regard, Applicant refers to the Abstract and Fig. 1 of Klok. Here, it is well-known that a cryogenic vessel and a vessel for compressed liquified gas, such as that disclosed in Lease, are not interchangeable because they differ greatly structurally as they are engineered for fundamentally different purposes.
In response to applicant's argument that a cryogenic vessel and a vessel for compressed liquified gas, such as that disclosed in Lease, are not interchangeable with Klok is fully unpersuasive and erroneous. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Klok is used for its teaching of at least two sensor electrodes in a cryogenic vessel to measure the liquid level in cryogenic vessel. Furthermore, contrary to applicant’s argument Klok teaches a cryogenic vessel comprising an exterior shell (1) and an interior shell (2) for storing a cryogenic fluid. Lease also teaches a pressurized cryogenic storage vessel (28) for storing a pressurized gas or liquid cryogens (see ¶ 0029).
Applicant's arguments (Remark page 15-16) that if one having ordinary skill in the subject art was to attempt to modify the solution of Lease by providing a vertically extending sensor electrodes as disclosed in Klok, the gauge head/display unit would consequently be positioned so as to be readable from above, i.e., at or close to the top surface of the tank shown in Fig. 1 of Lease. In that case, the gauge head would be extremely inconveniently located and it would be very difficult to perform a manual read of the liquid condition within the tank. Here, the option of manually reading the liquid condition must still be available to the vehicle operator as the internal/external factors could compromise the wireless connection with the electronic gauge assembly. In this regard, MPEP § 2143.01.V teaches that “[i]f a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.” Also, MPEP § 2143.01.VI teaches that “[i]f the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.”
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. As explained in the previous examiner response above, applicant is arguing the side way position of the tank (28) on vehicle (14), rather than a relative position of the capacitive measuring unit (10) that extends in the tank (28) in the direction of the vertical height of the tank. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that whenever the tank (28) is positioned in its upright standing position, the capacitive measuring unit (10) would extend down towards the bottom of the tank. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive. As clearly disclosed in (para. 0098 of Lease), “It will be further understood that the term “connect” and its derivatives refer to two or more parts capable of being attached together either directly or indirectly through one or more intermediate members. In addition, terms of orientation and/or position as may be used throughout the specification denote relative, rather than absolute orientations and/or positions.” Which clearly indicate that the capacitive measuring unit and/or sensors can be mounted along the side of a tank or at any other position for measuring and displaying the condition of the liquid in the tank (see also Lease, ¶ 0029, line 22-29). Furthermore, Lease teaches changing arrangement and number of the display portions for customized appearances would be obvious without changing the operation of Lease (see ¶ 0054, 0064, 0070). Therefore, the allegation is not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (Remark page 16) that one having ordinary skill in the subject art would not consider modifying Lease in view of Klok which teaches that a level indicator should be readable from above, 1.e., arranged at or close to the top surface of the container/tank. In a related context, the inherent teaching of Klok is that in order to preserve thermal integrity of the reading box with the level indicator, this reading box must be well isolated from the content of the cryogenic container and arranged at a distance from the main structure of the container.
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive. Klok is not introduced for its teaching of the reading box, but rather for its teaching of at least two sensor electrodes in a cryogenic vessel to measure the liquid level in cryogenic vessel. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
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