DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claims 1-31, in general, the claims are replete with terms which lack antecedent basis. Terms must be properly introduced before they are referenced. Applicants’ cooperation is requested in ensuring all terms have antecedent basis.
In re claims 1 and 17, the claims recite, inter alia, “gas becomes partially saturated with the liquid”. Both the gas and the liquid are the materials worked upon by the structure being claimed. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2115, which recites, inter alia, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.”. Additionally, applicant is directed to MPEP 2173.05(p), which recites, inter alia, “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph”. Here, the gas and the liquid are not positively recited elements of the system, but rather materials worked upon by the system in its intended use. Therefore, the recitation quoted above is indefinite because it is not clear when infringement occurs. The limitation of “a gas is compressed in the compression vessel…” in claim 17 is also unclear for similar reasoning.
In re claims 3, 10, 12, 14, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 29, these claims also recite methods within the system claim and are indefinite for similar reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.
In re claim 1, “the liquid” and “the stored gas” lack antecedent basis (LAB).
In re claims 2, 8, 18, 23, “the high-pressure gas” LAB.
In re claim 3, “the storage pressure” and “the gas pressure” LAB.
In re claim 7, “the gas” LAB.
In re claim 11, “sump tank” is unclear. Is this the same sump tank of claim 1 or a new one?
In re claim 12, “the sump tank” is unclear because it is not clear if this is the one form claim 11 or claim 1.
In re claim 17, “the liquid” LAB.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 11-15, 17-19, 22-23, and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fjalestad (2012/0130549).
In re claim(s) 1, Fjalestad discloses a high-pressure gas storage system (fig.1) comprising:
a storage vessel (1);
a liquid sump tank (3); and
a separation system (21, para.41),
wherein the pressure in the storage vessel is controlled by partially filling or draining the storage vessel with the liquid (has all the structure required to meet the claim, and in fact functions as claimed, see paras. 22 and 31-39),
wherein the stored gas becomes partially saturated with the liquid (not germane to patentability, regardless Fjelstad inherently functions as claimed), and
wherein the separation system reduces the saturation (para.41, a drier inherently reduces saturation).
In re claim(s) 17, Fjalestad discloses a high-pressure gas compression system (fig.1) comprising:
a storage vessel (1);
a compression vessel (2);
a liquid sump tank (3); and
a separation system (21, para.41),
wherein a gas is compressed in the compression vessel by partially filling the compression vessel with the liquid (has all the structure required to meet the claim, and in fact functions as claimed, see paras. 22 and 31-39),
wherein the compressed gas is transferred from the compression vessel to the storage vessel, gas pressure in the storage vessel being controlled by partially filling or draining the storage vessel with the liquid (has all the structure required to meet the claim, and in fact functions as claimed, see paras. 22 and 31-39),
wherein the compressed gas becomes partially saturated with the liquid (not germane to patentability, regardless Fjelstad inherently functions as claimed), and
wherein the separation system reduces the saturation (para.41, a drier inherently reduces saturation).
In re claim(s) 2 and 18, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 1, where the high-pressure gas is hydrogen (para.22).
In re claim(s) 3, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 1, where the storage pressure maintains the gas pressure above 750 bar absolute (paras.22 and 26).
In re claim(s) 4 and 19, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 1, where the liquid includes water (para.22).
In re claim(s) 7 and 22, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 1, where the gas in the storage vessel/compression vessel becomes saturated above 75% with the liquid (Fjalestad has all of the structure required to meet the claim).
In re claim(s) 8 and 23, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 1, where the liquid saturation of the high-pressure gas is removed by the separation system (Fjalestad has all of the strucutrre required to meet the claim, i.e. a drier, see para.41).
In re claim(s) 11 and 26, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 1, where the liquid when not in the storage vessel is held in sump tank (para.22).
In re claim(s) 12 and 27, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 11/26, where the sump tank is covered with an inert gas blanket (this limitation is unclear, an inert gas blanketing system is not positively recited, but rather claimed as a function of the system in its intended use. Limitations directed to the material worked upon by a structure being claimed is not germane to the patentability of the structure, see MPEP 2115).
In re claim(s) 13 and 28, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 12/27, where the inert blanket gas has a nitrogen concentration of over 95% purity (this limitation is unclear, an inert gas blanketing system is not positively recited, but rather claimed as a function of the system in its intended use. Limitations directed to the material worked upon by a structure being claimed is not germane to the patentability of the structure, see MPEP 2115).
In re claim(s) 14 and 29, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 12, where the sump tank is maintained at an overpressure (paras. 26, 32, 35).
In re claim(s) 15 and 30, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 14, where the sump tank over pressure is at least 1 bar gauge (para. 26, “pressure values for the … buffer tank… are typically… 1-30 bar”).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjalestad.
In re claim(s) 5-6 and 20-21, while Fjalestad discloses the use of water, it fails to explieclty recite the specific purity level of the water. The Excmainer takes Official notice that these purity levels of water are well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to select type II or III water, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 9-10 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjalestad in view of Vanzandt (2016/0001215).
In re claim(s) 9-10 and 24-25, Fjalestad fails to explicitly recite the specific type of drier used.
Vanzandt teaches another hydorgen gas storage system having discloses the system of Claim 8/23, where the separation system is a desiccant system, wherein the desiccant system is regenerated using pressure swing adsorption technology (para.8, dryer 150, as described, is inherently a desiccant system despite the lack of the term, i.e. PSA required a desiccant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Vanzandt in Fjalestad for the purpose of selecting a drier that allows for continuous drying.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjalestad in view of Prakash (NPL – Slide Deck entitled “Low Cost Hydrogen Storage at 875 Bar Using Steel Liner and Steel Wire Wrap).
In re claim(s) 16, Fjalestad discloses the system of Claim 1, however, it faisl to explicitly recite the construction of the vessel.
Prakash discloses a hydrogen storage vessel where the storage vessel is composed of SA372 Gr J CL 70XXX material (first bullet point on slide 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Prakash in Fjalestad for the purpose of low cost of construction of the vessel. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to make the vessel of a specific material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fjalestad in view of Adler (9,162,410).
In re claim(s) 31, Fjalestad fails to explicitly disclose but Adler teaches a hydrogen storage system comprising a hybrid compression system (V1) with a low-pressure hydrogen gas compressor is configured to compress the gas to an intermediate pressure, and wherein the compression vessel is configured to compress the gas from the intermediate pressure to a high-pressure value (Fjalestad once modified).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Adler in Fjalestad for the purpose of using less expensive separation devices thereby reducing cost and increasing profit as taught by Adler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy P Kelly whose telephone number is (571)270-7615. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p ET.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Timothy P. Kelly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights