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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein the liquefied hydrogen is stored in a storage tank, the boil-off gas of which is heated in the first and second heat exchangers” in Claim 18 and “wherein the cooled flow is subsequently cooled in the second heat exchanger” in Claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
In re Claim 13, the recitation “the gas exiting from the separation apparatus at the temperature of at most 103K ” should be amended to recite-- the hydrogen-rich gas exiting from the separation apparatus at the temperature of at most 103K --to avoid potential ambiguities and/or § 112(b) issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
means for sending a hydrogen-rich gas in claim 22. For purposes of examination: this is interpreted as a line and its equivalents (Applicant Specification Publication [0007]).
means for sending the hydrogen-rich gas to be cooled in claim 22. For purposes of examination: : this is interpreted as a line and its equivalents (Applicant Specification Publication [0007]).
means for sending a hydrogen-rich flow to be cooled in claim 22. For purpose of examination: For purposes of examination system: : this is interpreted as a line and its equivalents (Applicant Specification Publication [0008]).
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the claim uses the term “means”,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
means for mixing the hydrogen-rich gas with the hydrogen-rich flow in claim 22. For purpose of examination: this is interpreted as a line and its equivalents.
a) no corresponding structure is described in the specification as a corresponding structure for a means for mixing the hydrogen-rich gas with the hydrogen-rich flow, while joining lines are shown in the drawings and disclosed in Application specification [0045] as being mixed, no specific structure is described as to what mixing actually entails, see 112b rejection below.
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 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.
Claims 13-21 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.
The Specification does not describe the process of wherein the cooled flow is subsequently cooled in the second heat exchanger and its resulting inherent further cooling the cooled flow ( or provide a correlation between “structure and its “method” properties) in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, especially when the Specification does not provide any disclosure of how further cooling the cooled flow. In other words, the claims and the Specification appear to set out a desired functional result of the “describe structure”, without sufficiently identifying how the invention achieves the claimed functional result. See Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349) (explaining that the written description requirement is not met if the Specification merely describes a further cooling the cooled flow). The Specification provides no guidance or example as to what is necessary in order to provide wherein the cooled flow is subsequently cooled in the second heat exchanger having the further cooling the cooled flow in the second heat exchanger. Without any such guidance or example in the Specification as to what is structure achieves the functional limitation, the Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant possessed the functionally-defined process recited in the claims. Claims 13-21 are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to meet the written description requirement.
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 13-21 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 reclaim 13, the phrase "a hydrogen rich flow" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same hydrogen rich flow of lines and or a different hydrogen rich flow. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as any hydrogen rich flow.
In re Claim 13, The term “substantially the same pressure and composition as the hydrogen-rich gas and cooled in the second heat exchanger down to the temperature of the hydrogen-rich gas” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” 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. It is unclear if the temperature is degrees above or below and to what extent the composition purity is above or below the hydrogen-rich gas. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a pressure and composition of the hydrogen-rich gas and cooled in the second heat exchanger down to the temperature of the hydrogen-rich gas.
In re Claim 22, as stated above the limitation “means for mixing hydrogen rich gas” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is described in the specification as corresponding structure for the “means for mixing hydrogen rich gas”. For purposes of examination: in order to expedite prosecution, the terms are defined as:
“means for mixing hydrogen rich gas” is a structure or junction for combining flows (See Applicant Fig. 3) and its equivalents.
Claims 14-21 are rejected at least by virtue of its dependency.
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 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.
Claims 13-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US3398545) in view of Roldan et al (US20050091991A1).
In re Claim 13, Nelson discloses A process for the liquefaction of hydrogen (Fig. 1-4) integrated with the cryogenic separation of a first mixture of hydrogen and of another component (2),
wherein:
i) cooling the first mixture (2) in an auxiliary heat exchanger (Fig. 2 and 3: heat exchanger 12 to 74) down to at least 120K (cool stream 76 down to -292 F, i.e. 93.15 K),
the cooled first mixture is separated by partial condensation (78 and 82) and/or by distillation and/or by stripping at a temperature below 120K in order to produce a flow rich in hydrogen (80) containing at least one impurity at between 20 and 30 bar (The first vapour, leaving the top of separator 40, passes through conduit 44 to a compressor 46 where it is compressed to high pressure (approximately 435 psia, i.e., 30 bar) and
the hydrogen-rich flow (80 becomes 88) is purified at a cryogenic temperature of at most 103K (Col 4:70-Col 5:5) in order to reduce its content of the at least one impurity in order to form a hydrogen-rich gas (Col 4:70-Col 5:5: nitrogen is reduced to form a hydrogen rich gas);
ii) sending the hydrogen-rich gas (88 which becomes 92) originating from the apparatus for separation by distillation and/or stripping and/or partial condensation (78 and 82),
the gas exiting from the separation apparatus at the temperature of at most 103K containing at least 99.9 mol% of hydrogen and at a pressure between 20 and 30 bar (88 > 92), to a hydrogen liquefier (6), without having heated the hydrogen-rich gas to a temperature above 0 C (See Col 5:1-7)
However, Nelson does not explicitly teach, iii) cooling the hydrogen-rich gas from the temperature of at most 103K and at the pressure between 20 and 30 bar in a first heat exchanger of the liquefier; iv) cooling a hydrogen-rich flow in a second heat exchanger of the liquefier from a temperature of greater than 103K to form a cooled flow; and wherein the cooled flow is subsequently cooled in the second heat exchanger, the hydrogen-rich gas is mixed with the hydrogen-rich flow having substantially the same pressure and composition as the hydrogen-rich gas and cooled in the second heat exchanger down to the temperature of the hydrogen-rich gas in order to form a second mixture, and the second mixture is liquefied either in the first heat exchanger or after cooling in the first heat exchanger in order to form liquid hydrogen.
On the other hand, Roldan teaches iii) cooling the hydrogen-rich gas (114) from the temperature of at most 103K and at the pressure between 20 and 30 bar ([0037]: at the designated temperature and pressure) in a first heat exchanger (1501-10) of the liquefier (Fig. 2 corresponding to Nelson 6);
iv) cooling a hydrogen-rich flow (110) in a second heat exchanger (130) of the liquefier (Fig. 2 corresponding to Nelson 6) from a temperature of greater than 103K to form a cooled flow (stream leaving heat exchanger 130); and
wherein the cooled flow (stream leaving heat exchanger 130) is subsequently cooled in the second heat exchanger (130),
the hydrogen-rich gas (114) is mixed with the hydrogen-rich flow (110) having substantially the same pressure and composition as the hydrogen-rich gas and cooled in the second heat exchanger down to the temperature of the hydrogen-rich gas (See [0036]: where the gas is hydrogen and adjusted to be the same temperature and pressure) in order to form a second mixture (stream after flow 120), and
the second mixture (stream after flow 120) is liquefied after cooling in the first heat exchanger (1501-10) in order to form liquid hydrogen ([0037]: cooled to form liquified gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Nelson and to have modified them by cooling the hydrogen-rich gas from the temperature of at most 103K and at the pressure between 20 and 30 bar in a first heat exchanger of the liquefier; iv) cooling a hydrogen-rich flow in a second heat exchanger of the liquefier from a temperature of greater than 103K to form a cooled flow; and wherein the cooled flow is subsequently cooled in the second heat exchanger, the hydrogen-rich gas is mixed with the hydrogen-rich flow having substantially the same pressure and composition as the hydrogen-rich gas and cooled in the second heat exchanger down to the temperature of the hydrogen-rich gas in order to form a second mixture, and the second mixture is liquefied after cooling in the first heat exchanger in order to form liquid hydrogen, in order to for the hydrogen gas to condense and remain in liquid form (See Roldan [0045]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 14, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the hydrogen-rich gas (Nelson 88) is purified by adsorption (Nelson 90) in order to remove the at least one impurity nitrogen (Nelson Col 5:1-2: at least the impurity nitrogen is removed).
In re Claim 15, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the first mixture (Nelson 2) comprises, as main components, hydrogen and carbon monoxide and possibly methane and/or nitrogen (Nelson comprise hydrogen, carbon monoxide and nitrogen, methane, and constituents heavier than butane).
In re Claim 16, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the hydrogen-rich gas (Nelson 88) is withdrawn a phase separator (Nelson 86), said separator (Nelson 86) operating at between 20 and 30 bar abs (See Nelson Col 8:15-25).
In re Claim 17, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the process is kept cold at least partially by a refrigeration cycle (Roldan 140), the fluid (Roldan 154) of the cycle (Roldan 140) being heated in the first heat exchanger (Roldan 1501-10).
In re Claim 18, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the liquefied hydrogen is stored in a storage tank (Nelson Fig. 1: liquid hydrogen from liquefier 6 goes to storage), the boil-off gas ([0105]: gas from storage tank 170) of which is heated in the first (Roldan 1501-10).
In re Claim 19, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the hydrogen-rich gas (Roldan 110) is liquefied in the first heat exchanger (Roldan 1501-10) and the first mixture (Nelson 2) is cooled (cooled via Roldan 1501-10).
In re Claim 20, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the hydrogen-rich flow (Roldan 114) is cooled in the second heat exchanger (Roldan 130) from a temperature above 0°C (See [0114]).
In re Claim 21, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the hydrogen-rich flow (Roldan 110) is cooled in the second heat exchanger (Roldan 130) and subsequently is mixed with the hydrogen-rich gas (Roldan 110)|(See Roldan Fig. 8).
In re Claim 22, Nelson discloses a separation apparatus (4) configured to separate a mixed fluid (2) using a means selected from the group consisting of distillation, stripping, partial condensation, and combinations thereof (78 and 82);
means for sending a hydrogen-rich gas (92) originating from the separation apparatus (4) at a temperature of at most 103K containing at least 99.9 mol% of hydrogen and at a pressure between 20 and 30 bar (See [0036-0037]) to the hydrogen liquefier (6), without having heated the hydrogen-rich gas to a temperature above 0°C (the gas is not heated see Fig. 3);
means for sending the hydrogen-rich gas to be cooled from the temperature of at most 103K and at the pressure between 20 and 30 bar (line of 92)
However, Nelson does not explicitly teach, a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger; means for sending a hydrogen-rich flow to be cooled in the second heat exchanger; means for mixing the hydrogen-rich gas with the hydrogen-rich flow cooled in the second heat exchanger and having substantially the same pressure, temperature and composition as the hydrogen-rich gas in order to form a second mixture; and means for sending the second mixture to be liquefied in the first heat exchanger or after cooling in the first heat exchanger to be liquefied in order to form liquid hydrogen.
On the other hand, Roldan teaches the first heat exchanger (1501-9);
a second heat exchanger (130);
means for sending a hydrogen-rich flow to be cooled in the second heat exchanger (120);
means for mixing (junction after valve 112) the hydrogen-rich gas (114) with the hydrogen-rich flow (110) cooled in the second heat exchanger (130) and having substantially the same pressure, temperature and composition as the hydrogen-rich gas in order to form a second mixture (See [0036]: where the gas is hydrogen and adjusted to be the same temperature and pressure); and
means for sending the second mixture to be liquefied in the first heat exchanger (1501-9) to be liquefied in order to form liquid hydrogen (See Roldan 160 containing liquid hydrogen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Nelson and to have modified them by having a second heat exchanger; means for sending a hydrogen-rich flow to be cooled in the second heat exchanger; means for mixing the hydrogen-rich gas with the hydrogen-rich flow cooled in the second heat exchanger and having substantially the same pressure, temperature and composition as the hydrogen-rich gas in order to form a second mixture; and means for sending the second mixture to be liquefied in the first heat exchanger or after cooling in the first heat exchanger to be liquefied, in order to for the hydrogen gas to condense and remain in liquid form (See Roldan [0045]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 24, Modified Nelson teaches further comprising a refrigeration cycle (Roldan 140) using helium (Roldan [0050]: helium used) in order to cool and optionally to liquefy the second mixture1.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US3398545) as modified by Roldan et al (US20050091991A1) further in view of Cardella (US 20180347897 A1).
In re Claim 23, Modified Nelson teaches wherein the first exchanger (Roldan 1501-9) is located in a first thermally insulated chamber (Roldan 170) and
the second exchanger (130),
the point where the hydrogen-rich gas (Roldan 114) and
the hydrogen-rich flow (Roldan 110) mix being located outside the first and second chambers (See Roldan Fig. 8 mixed outside insulation).
However, Modified Nelson does not explicitly teach, is located in a second thermally insulated chamber.
On the other hand, Cardella teaches a heat exchanger located in a second thermally insulated chamber (78).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Nelson and to have modified them by having is located in a second thermally insulated chamber, in order to have consistent temperature cooling and control of the lowering temperature (See Cardella [0114]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of "in order to cool and optionally to liquefy the second mixture" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).