DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/16/2025 are not accepted as they introduce new matter and are therefore not entered. The disclosed length “y” is disclosed in the specification as a length of the portion reduced in diameter and there is no evidence that Y ends where it is depicted to end. Further, the drawings introduce new matter concerning the depiction of the inner diameter of the liquid pipeline - there is no support that the pipeline expands to a bell shape as depicted.
The drawings dated 5/23/2023 objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inside diameter of the liquid supply pipeline and the length Y must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In addition, the drawings should show where the subject matter of Fig. 4 is located in Fig. 5.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “y=n x ID” and “wherein the liquid supply pipeline has an inside diameter ID” introduces new matter. The original disclosure states that y = n x d, wherein d was a diameter of a circular cross section of the gas pipe. There is no support that the parameter y is related to the ID of the liquid supply pipeline. The applicant presents a bizarre allegation (REM 12/16/2025, page 10-11) that those of ordinary skill in the art would somehow “instantly recognize and appreciate” how to correct the errors in the specification.
In response the Examiner finds no support for the allegation.
There is no evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art would have any clue that the formula was referencing an incorrect diameter. There is no evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art would somehow know what the formula should be.
The applicant alleges that the applicant has discovered a specific geometric relationship (allegedly the formula for “y”) for an injector that solves a problem with incomplete vaporization (REM 12/16/2025, page 13-14). It is a total mystery to the Examiner how the formula is a non-obvious discovery and at the same time that those of ordinary skill in the art should know what the formula should have been. The allegations that those of ordinary skill in the art would have noticed the formula is incorrect AND known what the formula should have been is considered wholly unpersuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 13, 14 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “and the gas pipe has a circular cross section, and a diameter d of less than 600 mm” is indefinite for errant punctuation and it is unclear what has the recited diameter d.
The recitation, “wherein the gas pipe is connected to the heat exchanger so as to be supplied with gas produced by the system of columns” is indefinite since the claim already introduces a “gas” previously in the claim and it is entirely unclear if the presently recited gas is the same or other gas.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “the gas pipe is configured to break up the cryogenic liquid upstream the turbine” is indefinite for being inconsistent with the recitations of claim 1 as claim 1 states that a location of the liquid supply pipeline and the portion of the gas pipe having the reduction in diameter are responsible for breaking up the cryogenic liquid and therefore it is unclear what structure must perform this function.
In regard to claim 13, the recitation, “wherein the axial distance of the portion having the reduction in diameter corresponds to 1 to 5 times a distance for breaking up a jet of the cryogenic liquid discharged from the liquid supply pipeline” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “diameter” and it is unclear if this is the same diameter previously recited or other diameter. Further, there is no way to discern what distance is included and excluded by the recitation because it is not clear when a jet of the cryogenic liquid qualifies as being broken up as claimed. The recitation implies that there is a required degree of disintegration of the jet into (presumably) some number of droplets or liquid parts, but it is unclear what amount of division of the liquid is required to satisfy the recitation.
In regard to claim 14, the recitation, “wherein the constricted portion has an axial length sufficient to sustain aerodynamic shear forces against the cryogenic liquid for a duration required to atomize the cryogenic liquid into droplets capable of vaporization within the gas pipe” is indefinite as there is no way to discern when length is included and excluded by the recitation especially as fluid is ejected from the liquid supply pipeline, the fluid will always be subject to aerodynamic shear forces - no matter the length of the recited portion, since all fluids experience such forces as a matter of physical reality. Further, droplets are always capable of vaporization themselves and this does not inform as to what length is “sufficient” as the length of the constricted portion does not determine vaporization.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the grounds of rejection above. The prior art rejections are withdrawn as the primary reference does not appear to be prior art to the present application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of 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.
The prior art made of record on the 892 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 JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571) 272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights