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
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/10/2025.
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 1-7, 12 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 “and defines an aperture in the collar of the vapor shield” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what define a collar in an aperture of the of the vapor shield. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is an aperture in the collar of the vapor shield which corresponds to the opening.
Claim 4 recites “comprising a notch configured to direct fluid overflow” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how the notch relates to the system. As claimed the notch is effectively floating within the invention with no clear limitation.
Claim 5 recites “the pump out protector is at least 30 degrees from the notch” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear in what way it is 30 degrees away from the notch. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that with respect to the vertical z axis, the pump out protector center is 30 degrees from the notch with respect to the collar.
Claim 12 recites “the pump out protector is at least 30 degrees from the notch” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear in what way it is 30 degrees away from the notch. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that with respect to the vertical z axis, the pump out protector center is 30 degrees from the notch with respect to the collar.
Claims 2-3, 6-7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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)(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, 6, 8-11, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US PG Pub 20240093839), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a vapor shield system (Figures 1-4) comprising:
a cryogenic storage vessel (120, paragraph 30) having an opening (opening 128, paragraph 31) and a pump out port (130, paragraph 31) and a pump out port protector (the vapor plug 110 has a neck 114 which seals the opening, paragraph 31, would protect the pump out port);
wherein the collar of the vapor shield is attached to an opening of the cryogenic storage vessel and defines an aperture in the collar of the vapor shield (neck ring 124 which surrounds the neck 122 with opening 128, paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the pump out port protector is positioned adjacent to the pump out port to allow fluid overflow from the cryogenic storage vessel to direct fluid away from the pump out port (the neck which has the vapor plug is adjacent to the pump out port on the vessel and as such the neck can also be considered adjacent if there was any overflow it would be blocked from leaving the tank which would direct it away from the pump out port).
With respect to claim 3, Lee teaches wherein the vapor shield is removable from the cryogenic storage vessel (the vapor plug is removable, paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches further comprising a notch configured to direct fluid overflow (the receiving channel 126 of the neck ring, paragraph 33 is a notch, and if there was overflow it would be able to direct any overflow that came out of the tank).
With respect to claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the cryogenic storage vessel further comprises a lid, the lid configured to fit into the opening of the cryogenic storage vessel (the upper part of the vapor plug 110 including the handle 118 and cap 112, paragraph 31 form the lid, which in part pass into the opening).
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches a vapor shield device (Figures 1-2) comprising: a collar configured to attach to an opening of a cryogenic storage vessel (neck ring 124, which is adhered to the neck 122 of the cryogenic storage vessel 100, paragraph 29; and a pump out port protector connected to the collar (the neck 114 of the vapor plug, paragraph 29 would protect the pump out port protector 130 , wherein the pump out port protector is positioned adjacent to a pump out port of the cryogenic storage vessel (the neck which has the vapor plug is adjacent to the pump out port on the vessel and as such the neck can also be considered adjacent).
With respect claim 9, Lee teaches comprising a notch in the collar, wherein the notch is configured to provide a channel to direct overflow of fluids from the cryogenic storage vessel (the receiving channel 126 of the neck ring, paragraph 33 is a notch, and if there was overflow it would be able to direct any overflow that came out of the tank).
With respect to claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the pump out port protector is configured to allow fluid overflow from the cryogenic storage vessel to re-route away from the pump out port (if there was any overflow it would be redirected back into the tank by the cap when the cap is on or blocked).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches wherein the vapor shield device is removably attached to the cryogenic storage vessel (the neck ring can be adhered by strength, and the vapor plug is removable, which means both are removable from the vessel, paragraph 29 and 34).
With respect to claim 21, Lee (Figures 1-4) teaches a storage vessel vapor shield system comprising: a cryogenic storage vessel comprising a pump out port (cryogenic storage vessel 120 with pump out port 130, paragraphs 29-30);
a vapor shield comprising a pump out port protector (the combination of the ring 124 and the vapor plug 110, paragraphs 29-30 form a vapor shield and also a pump out port protector as they prevent fluid from flowing the pump out port, with the cap 112 of the vapor shield ultimately being the pump out port protector), wherein the pump out port protector is configured to attach the cryogenic storage vessel such that the pump out port protector is positioned above the pump out port when the cryogenic storage vessel is in an upright position (as seen in figure 4, the vessel when in the upright position has the cap above the pump out port); wherein the pump out port protector is configured to direct fluid overflow away from the pump out port (if there was any overflow it would be redirected back into the tank by the cap when the cap is on or blocked).
With respect to claim 22, Lee teaches wherein the pump out port protector is removable from the cryogenic storage vessel (the vapor plug is removable, paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 23, Lee teaches wherein the vapor shield comprise a notch, the notch configured to direct fluid overflow from the cryogenic storage vessel (the receiving channel 126 of the neck ring, paragraph 33 is a notch, and if there was overflow it would be able to direct any overflow that came out of the tank).
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) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and further in view of Edwards (US PG Pub 20240384838).
With respect to claim 25, Lee does not teach wherein the vapor shield is attached to the cryogenic storage vessel by a clamp, the clamp configured to tighten the vapor shield onto the cryogenic storage vessel. Lee provides a general teaching of connection through strength or other (paragraph 29) but does not provide a specific teaching.
Edwards teaches that a ring can be connected a neck by a clamp (paragraph 113).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Edwards used a clamp to connect the ring of Lee to the neck (which would result in the vapor shield being tightened onto the cryogenic storage vessel) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a clamp would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of a secure connection between the two components keeping the neck ring in place.
With respect to claim 26, Lee does not teach wherein the vapor shield is attached to the cryogenic storage vessel by one or more fasteners.
Edwards teaches that a ring can be connected a neck by a clamp (paragraph 113).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Edwards used a clamp to connect the ring of Lee to the neck (which would result in the vapor shield being tightened onto the cryogenic storage vessel) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using a clamp would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of a secure connection between the two components keeping the neck ring in place. As the neck plug fits into the neck ring, connecting the neck ring with a clamp (a type of fastener) meets this limitation as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 7 and 13, Lee teaches the opening is a cavity for payload (paragraph 406). Lee does not teach a payload sleeve that is configured to be inserted into the opening. Sever (US PG Pub 20210190405) (Figures 9a-9d) teaches a sample holder (35) which have arms (38) which fit into grooves (37) in a cap (36) (paragraphs 93-34); however, although the grooves can be considered notches, the notch in Lee is for connecting the cap to a ring outside the cap, and it would not applicable to provide the arms (which are tabs) into this notch as it would require them to reach outside and above the cap, which is not the configuration in Sever. Further, even if applied to Lee, the grooves in Sever, would not result in the same configuration as the groove in Sever would not provide the direct of fluid that would be naturally present.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) and while they appear that they may contain allowable subject matter, such a determination cannot be made until those rejections are resolved.
Claims 13 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 13 Lee teaches the opening is a cavity for payload (paragraph 406). Lee does not teach a payload sleeve that is configured to be inserted into the opening. Sever (US PG Pub 20210190405) (Figures 9a-9d) teaches a sample holder (35) which have arms (38) which fit into grooves (37) in a cap (36) (paragraphs 93-34); however, although the grooves can be considered notches, the notch in Lee is for connecting the cap to a ring outside the cap, and it would not applicable to provide the arms (which are tabs) into this notch as it would require them to reach outside and above the cap, which is not the configuration in Sever. Further, even if applied to Lee, the grooves in Sever, would not result in the same configuration as the groove in Sever would not provide the direct of fluid that would be naturally present.
With respect to claim 24, there is no teaching in the prior art of the configuration as claimed wherein the pump out port protector is a hooded ramp structure configured to partially overlay the pump out port.
Additional relevant prior art which has aspects of the claimed invention is provided here. Bollinger (US PG Pub 20190211971) teaches a similar configuration to Lee but with less detail. A similar teaching can be seen in Giesy (US PG Pub 20020166326). Hawking (US Patent No. 3358463) provides a configuration of a tank including a vacuum port (same component as a pump out port) but does not teach any kind of pump out port protector. Larsen et al. (US PG Pub 20140312042) teaches the use of a shield (4) with a gas cylinder (paragraph 111); however, such configuration would not have been obvious to apply to that of Lee as the configuration of the tank of Lee and Larsen different in design and further, Larsen does not have a hooded ramp as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights