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 .
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.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
means for delivering gas from said liquefied gas vessel to a system end-point in claim 1.
means for delivering boil-off gas from said liquefied gas vessel to said adsorbent vessel in claim 1.
means for delivering the stored boil-off gas from said adsorbent vessel to said system end-point in claim 1.
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.
Paragraphs [0036] and [0038] describe means (20) for delivering gas from said liquefied gas vessel to a system end-point, means (50) for delivering boil-off gas from said liquefied gas vessel to said adsorbent vessel, and means (60) for delivering the stored boil-off gas from said adsorbent vessel to said system end-point through via conduits 26, 52 and 62, respectively.
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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2007069184 (hereinafter JP ‘184).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-5, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007069184 (hereinafter JP ‘184) in view of Fuller et al (US 20160151762; hereinafter Fuller).
As regarding claim 1, JP ‘184 discloses the claimed invention for a liquefied gas system for capturing gas boil-off from a liquefied gas storage vessel, the system comprising a. a liquefied gas vessel (20) for storing liquefied gas (12); b. a means (32) for delivering gas from said liquefied gas vessel to a system end-point; c. an adsorbent vessel (40) for storing boil-off gas emitted from said liquefied gas vessel, said adsorbent vessel containing at least one adsorbent (46); d. a means (48) for delivering boil-off gas from said liquefied gas vessel to said adsorbent vessel whereby said boil-off gas is reversibly stored on said at least one adsorbent; and e. a means (52) for delivering the stored boil-off gas from said adsorbent vessel to said system end-point ([0023]-[0029] and fig. 2).
JP ‘184 does not disclose wherein said at least one adsorbent comprises a material selected from one or more of a metal organic framework, a covalent organic framework, and a porous organic polymer ([0030]). Fuller teaches said at least one adsorbent comprises a material selected from one or more of a metal organic framework, a covalent organic framework, and a porous organic polymer. Both JP ‘184 and Fuller are directed to hydrogen storage application.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said at least one adsorbent comprises a material selected from one or more of a metal organic framework, a covalent organic framework, and a porous organic polymer as taught by Fuller in order to provide exceptionally high surface area, tunable pore chemistry, high reversible storage capacity, lightweight construction, and low-pressure gas adsorption, making them superior adsorbents for hydrogen storage systems, gas vessels and energy applications.
As regarding claim 2, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for in which said means for delivering boil-off gas from said liquefied gas vessel to said adsorbent vessel is in operation when the rate of gas boil-off from said liquefied gas vessel is greater than (value or ratio) the rate of gas delivery from said liquefied gas vessel to said system end-point. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide in which said means for delivering boil-off gas from said liquefied gas vessel to said adsorbent vessel is in operation when the rate of gas boil-off from said liquefied gas vessel is greater than (value or ratio) the rate of gas delivery from said liquefied gas vessel to said system end-point in order to enhance gas system performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 4, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said gas is hydrogen ([0023]-[0024] and fig. 2).
As regarding claim 5, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said system end-point is a power unit ([0019], [0026]: “a hydrogen gas consumption source, such as a fuel cell”).
As regarding claim 10, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said adsorbent has a pore volume of at least 0.5 cc/g, or at least 1 cc/g. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said adsorbent has a pore volume of at least 0.5 cc/g, or at least 1 cc/g in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to the limitations recited in claim 11, which pertain to the manner in which a material or article is worked upon, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article being worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
As regarding claim 13, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said metal organic framework comprises metal ion corner atoms connected by at least bidentate organic ligands to form a framework structure, wherein said metal ions are selected from Li+, Na+, K+, Rb+, Be2+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, Ba2+, Sc3+, Y3+, Ti4+, Zr4+, Hf4+, V5+, V4+, V3+, Nb3+, Ta3+, Cr3+, Cr2+, Mo3+, W3+, Mn3+, Fe3+, Fe2+, Ru3+, Ru2+, Os3+, Os2+, Co3+, Co2+, Ni2+, Ni+, Pd2+, Pd+, Pt2+, Pt+, Cu2+, Cu+, Ag+, Au+, Zn2+, Al3+, Ga3+, In3+, Si4+, Si2+, Ge4+, Ge2+, Sn4+, Sn2+, Bi5+, Bi3+, Cd2+, Mn2+, Tb3+, Gd3+, Ce3+, La3+ and Cr4+, and mixtures thereof (Fuller - claims 7 and 17).
As regarding claim 16, JP ‘184 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 discloses the claimed invention except for more than one adsorbent vessel for storing boil-off hydrogen emitted from said liquid hydrogen vessel and containing at least one adsorbent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide more than one adsorbent vessel for storing boil-off hydrogen emitted from said liquid hydrogen vessel and containing at least one adsorbent in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007069184 (hereinafter JP ‘184) in view of Fuller et al (US 20160151762; hereinafter Fuller), as applied supra, and further in view of JP S622098 (hereinafter JP ‘098).
As regarding claim 3, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a regenerant system for regenerating said at least one adsorbent.
JP ‘098 teaches a regenerant system for regenerating said at least one adsorbent (abstract, pg 1-2, and claim 1: “…step of regenerating the adsorbent…”).
Both JP ‘184 and JP ‘098 are directed to an adsorbing liquefied hydrogen gas.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a regenerant system for regenerating said at least one adsorbent in order to regenerate adsorbent materials, since it was known in the art as shown in JP ‘098 (abstract, pg 2 and claim 1).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007069184 (hereinafter JP ‘184) in view of Fuller et al (US 20160151762; hereinafter Fuller), as applied supra, and further in view of Clarke et al (US 20220009648; hereinafter Clarke).
As regarding claim 6, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said power unit is for use on a transportation unit and said liquefied gas system is on board said transportation unit. Clarke teaches wherein said power unit is for use on a transportation unit and said liquefied gas system is on board said transportation unit (Clarke – [0187]). Both JP ‘184 and Clarke are directed to hydrogen energy systems involving fuel cells and hydrogen as a fuel for power generation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said power unit is for use on a transportation unit and said liquefied gas system is on board said transportation unit as taught by Clarke in order to improve efficiency and autonomy by integrating hydrogen storage and boil-off recovery directly onboard a transportation unit to continuously supply its fuel cel power unit.
As regarding claim 7, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said end point is a power unit of a stationary hydrogen fuel system (Clarke – [0009]-[0011] and [0187]).
As regarding claim 9, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said power unit is for use to power a machine (Clarke – [0009]-[0011] and [0187]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007069184 (hereinafter JP ‘184) in view of Fuller et al (US 20160151762; hereinafter Fuller), as applied supra, and further in view of Sakajo (US 20070144183).
As regarding claim 8, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said liquefied gas vessel is a liquid hydrogen reservoir and the system end-point is a liquid hydrogen vessel of a liquid hydrogen system for providing hydrogen power. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said liquefied gas vessel is a liquid hydrogen reservoir and the system end-point is a liquid hydrogen vessel of a liquid hydrogen system for providing hydrogen power in order to offer high energy density, low-pressure storage, fast refueling, and excellent suitability for long-range, high-power, or weight-sensitive hydrogen power applications, since it was known in the art as shown in Sakajo ([0024] and claim 13).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007069184 (hereinafter JP ‘184) in view of Fuller et al (US 20160151762; hereinafter Fuller), as applied supra, and further in view of Yaghi et al (US 20120172612; hereinafter Yaghi).
As regarding claim 14, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said metal organic framework is selected from any one or more of MOF-5, MIL-101, NU-125, PCN 250, HKUST-1, MOF-177, Zn2(BDC)2(DABCO), SBMOF-1, MFU, Cu(TCNQ), CaSquarate, and Y-ABTC. Bera teaches wherein said metal organic framework is selected from any one or more of MOF-5, MIL-101, NU-125, PCN 250, HKUST-1, MOF-177, Zn2(BDC)2(DABCO), SBMOF-1, MFU, Cu(TCNQ), CaSquarate, and Y-ABTC ([0098]). Both JP ‘184 and Yaghi are directed to efficient hydrogen storage and controlled release using adsorption materials for energy applications such as fuel cells. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said metal organic framework is selected from any one or more of MOF-5, MIL-101, NU-125, PCN 250, HKUST-1, MOF-177, Zn2(BDC)2(DABCO), SBMOF-1, MFU, Cu(TCNQ), CaSquarate, and Y-ABTC as taught by Yaghi in order to improve hydrogen storage performance by selecting high-surface-area, well-characterized MOFs that provide higher adsorption capacity, tunable pore structure, and more efficient reversible hydrogen uptake and release compared to generic adsorbents.
As regarding claim 15, JP ‘184 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least bidentate ligands are selected from 1,3,5-benzene tricarboxylic acid (BTC), triazine tris-benzoic acid (TATB), 2-amino-terephthalic acid, naphthalene dicarboxylate (NDC), acetylene dicarboxylate (ADC), benzene-1,4-dicarboxylic acid (BDC), benzene tribenzoate (BTB), methane tetrabenzoate (MTB), adamantane tetracarboxylate (ATC), adamantane tribenzoate (ATB), 4,4′,4″,4″′-(pyrene-1,3,6,8-tetrayl)tetrabenzoic acid (TBAPy), meso-Tetraphenylporphine-4,4′,4″,4″′-tetracarboxylic acid (TCPPH2), 3,3′,5,5′-azobenzenetetracarboxylic acid, 2,5-dihydroxyterephthalic acid, pyrazine, 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane, SiF.sub.6, a ligand of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
234
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
4,4′-sulfonyldibenzoic acid, 1H,5H-benzo(1,2-d:4,5-d′)bistriazole, 7,7′,8,8′-tetracyanoquinodimethane, squaric acid, azobenzene-4,4′-dicarboxylic acid, and mixtures thereof (Yaghi – [0098]).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007069184 (hereinafter JP ‘184) in view of Fuller et al (US 20160151762; hereinafter Fuller), as applied supra, and further in view of JP 2006242350 (hereinafter JP ‘350).
As regarding claims 17-18, JP ‘184 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘184 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said adsorbent vessel is provided with a cooling means. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said adsorbent vessel is provided with a cooling means in order to desorb hydrogen from the adsorbent vessel, since it was known in the art as shown in JP ‘350 ([0014]).
Also regarding claims 17-18, JP ‘184 as modified does not disclose wherein said adsorbent vessel is provided with an internal/external cooling means. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said adsorbent vessel is provided with an internal/external cooling means in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, and 13-18 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights