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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 04th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 12-14, 16-18, and 20-26 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every drawing objection, claim objection, 112(b) rejection previously cited on the Non-Final rejection mailed August 27th, 2025. The terminal disclaimer filed on November 04th, 2025 has overcome each and every double patenting rejection previously cited on the Non-Final rejection mailed August 27th, 2025. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 26 recites the limitation "the system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the system" in line 1 of claim 26 to “the pressurizing system” which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 12 from which claim 26 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitation as recommended herein.
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.
Claims 12-13, 21-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cipolla et al. (US Patent No. 5,165,246).
Regarding claim 12, Cipolla discloses a device for storing and supplying cryogenic fluid (Fig. 1, trailer 2; Abstract, A trailer with piping and accessories capable of maintaining the ultra high purity of a cryogenic liquid while receiving and transporting the liquid, purging an external receiver, and transferring liquid to the receiver), the device comprising:
a cryogenic tank configured to store liquefied fluid (Fig. 1, trailer 2, inner container 4, outer shell 6; Col. 6, lines 21-23, The trailer 2 has an inner container 4 for liquid and liquid vaporized into vapor or gas; Further, the trailer 2 of Cipolla has the same structure as the claimed cryogenic tank and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
a withdrawal circuit (Fig. 3, lower transfer line 34, terminal 22; Col. 7, lines 2-4, The lower transfer line 34 is used to transfer liquid from the inner container 4 to a tank or receiver connected to terminal 22);
a pressurizing system configured to pressurize the cryogenic tank (Fig. 3, heat exchanger feed 14, heat exchanger inlet valve 16, heat exchanger 10, purge gas supply conduit 18, purge gas control valve 24, pressure building conduit 26, segment 30, valve 32; Col. 6, lines 55-65, Also from the outlet of the heat exchanger 10, a pressure building conduit 26 runs to a penetration 28 in the inner container 4 proximate its top. The pressure building conduit 28 has a segment 30 which extends along the top of the inner container commonly at a level where it is just immersed in liquid when the inner container is filled to capacity. Within the inner container, this segment 30 line has holes to distribute emerging liquid or vapor along its length. A valve 32 in the pressure building conduit 24 controls the flow of gas into, and the pressure buildup in, the inner container), the pressurizing system comprising:
a pressurization line having two ends respectively connected to an upper part and a lower part of the cryogenic tank (Fig. 3, heat exchanger feed 14, purge gas supply conduit 18, pressure building conduit 26; Col. 6, lines 43-45 and 55-57, From the first lower port 12, a heat exchanger feed conduit 14 runs to the inlet of the heat exchanger 10… Also from the outlet of the heat exchanger 10, a pressure building conduit 26 runs to a penetration 28 in the inner container 4 proximate its top),
a vaporization heat exchanger (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 10; Col. 6, lines 34-37, The trailer includes a heat exchanger 10 for vaporizing or gasifying cryogenic liquid contained in the inner container. Typically the heat exchanger is heated by natural convection from the atmosphere) and
a set of valve(s) configured to allow liquid to be withdrawn from the cryogenic tank, to be heated in the vaporization heat exchanger and to be reintroduced into the cryogenic tank, wherein the set of valves comprises an isolation valve situated between the vaporization heat exchanger and the upper part of the cryogenic tank (Fig. 3, heat exchanger inlet valve 16, valve 32; Further, the heat exchanger inlet valve 16 and valve 32 of Cipolla have the same structure as the claimed set of valve(s) and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed),
the pressurizing system being further configured to withdraw a determined volume of fluid from the cryogenic tank, and close the set of valves to store and isolate said determined volume of fluid in the vaporization heat exchanger until the determined volume of fluid reaches determined temperature and/or pressure conditions prior to re-injection of this volume of fluid into the cryogenic tank (Col. 6, lines 55-65, Also from the outlet of the heat exchanger 10, a pressure building conduit 26 runs to a penetration 28 in the inner container 4 proximate its top. The pressure building conduit 28 has a segment 30 which extends along the top of the inner container commonly at a level where it is just immersed in liquid when the inner container is filled to capacity. Within the inner container, this segment 30 line has holes to distribute emerging liquid or vapor along its length. A valve 32 in the pressure building conduit 24 controls the flow of gas into, and the pressure buildup in, the inner container; Further, the components which make up the pressure building system of Cipolla have the same structure as the claimed pressurization system and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed), and
wherein the pressurization line comprises an element configured to limit the flow rate and/or the pressure of the re-injected volume of fluid (Fig. 3, purge gas valve 24; Further, the purge gas valve 24 of Cipolla has the same structure as the claimed element and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed),
wherein the element configured to limit the flow rate and/or the pressure is disposed in parallel with the isolation valve situated between the vaporization heat exchanger and the upper part of the cryogenic tank (Fig. 3 of Cipolla depicts the purge gas valve to be disposed in parallel with the valve 32 situated between the heat exchanger 10 and the upper end of the trailer 2).
Regarding claim 13, Cipolla discloses the device as claimed in Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the set of valve(s) of the pressurization line comprises two isolation valves disposed on either side of the vaporization heat exchanger (Fig. 3 of Cipolla depicts the heat exchanger inlet valve 16 and the valve 32 to be disposed on either sides of the heat exchanger 10).
Regarding claim 21, Cipolla discloses a vehicle transporting a device as claimed in Claim 12 (Fig. 1 of Cipolla depicts the trailer 2 to be disposed on a truck).
Regarding claim 22, Cipolla discloses the vehicle as claimed in Claim 21, wherein the vehicle is a truck (Fig. 1 of Cipolla depicts the trailer 2 to be disposed on a truck; see the rejection of claim 21 above).
Regarding claim 26, Cipolla discloses the device as claimed in Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the system is configured to smooth flow rates for re-injection of the volume of fluid to prevent disruption of temperature stratification of a gas blanket of the cryogenic tank (Col. 6, lines 55-65, Also from the outlet of the heat exchanger 10, a pressure building conduit 26 runs to a penetration 28 in the inner container 4 proximate its top. The pressure building conduit 28 has a segment 30 which extends along the top of the inner container commonly at a level where it is just immersed in liquid when the inner container is filled to capacity. Within the inner container, this segment 30 line has holes to distribute emerging liquid or vapor along its length. A valve 32 in the pressure building conduit 24 controls the flow of gas into, and the pressure buildup in, the inner container; Further, the components which make up the pressure building system of Cipolla have the same structure as the claimed pressurization system and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
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.
Claims 14, 20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla et al. (US Patent No. 5,165,246) in view of Garner (WO 2016172803), hereinafter Garner.
Regarding claim 14, Cipolla discloses the device as claimed in Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the element for limiting the flow rate and/or the pressure comprises a valve (Fig. 3, purge gas valve 24).
However, Cipolla as modified does not explicitly disclose the valve for regulating pressure to a determined level that is fixed or adjustable.
Garner teaches the valves used in a pressurizing system of a cryogenic tank to be for regulating pressure to a determined level that is fixed or adjustable (Fig. 4, actively controllable vapor valve 60; Pg. 11-12, paragraph 30, For adjusting the pressure in tank 20, as further described below, actively controllable vapor valve 60 is disposed on vapor conduit 40. Actively controllable vapor valve 60 can be a flow control valve allowing flow in both directions, for example a solenoid actuated valve, whose operation can be controlled by controller 110. The flow control valves shown in the exemplary systems are preferably a type that can be gradually opened or closed, and/or that can be commanded to intermediate open positions between being fully open and closed, to allow greater control over the fluid flow through their respective conduits).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the element of Cipolla of claim 14 to be a valve for regulating pressure to a determined level that is fixed or adjustable as taught by Garner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow greater control over the fluid flow through their respective conduits (Garner, Pg. 11-12, paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 20, Cipolla discloses the device as claimed in Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Cipolla does not disclose further comprising a programmable electronic controller configured to control all or part of the set of valves and the element for limiting the flow rate and/or the pressure, as a function of the pressure in the cryogenic tank.
Garner teaches further comprising a programmable electronic controller configured to control all or part of the set of valves and the element for limiting the flow rate and/or the pressure, as a function of the pressure in the cryogenic tank (Fig. 4, controller 110; Pg. 9-10, paragraph 25, FIG. 1 schematically illustrates an intelligent tank pressure control system 10 which has a storage tank 20 for holding a liquefied gas and electronic controller 110 that controls the pressure inside the tank to adjust the vapor pressure to remain within target preset tank vapor pressure values and/or ranges that are set as a function of system operating conditions based on the signal received from pressure sensor 120,
which determines a pressure that correlates to the pressure inside the tank. The variable target vapor pressure values and/or ranges are determined as a function of at least two system operating conditions which can include the vapor volume in the storage space; the fluid flow demand by the use device; and a measured temperature parameter that correlates to the temperature of the fluid exiting the heater.
Additionally, user and/or geographical based inputs can be used as system operating conditions for predictive determination of the target preset tank vapor pressure values and/or ranges; Pg. 11-12, paragraph 30, For adjusting the pressure in tank 20, as further described below, actively controllable vapor valve 60 is disposed on vapor conduit 40. Actively controllable vapor valve 60 can be a flow control valve allowing flow in both directions, for example a solenoid actuated valve, whose operation can be controlled by controller 110. The flow control valves shown in the exemplary systems are preferably a type that can be gradually opened or closed, and/or that can be commanded to intermediate open positions between being fully open and closed, to allow greater control over the fluid flow through their respective conduits).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Cipolla of claim 12 include a programmable electronic controller configured to control all or part of the set of valves and the element for limiting the flow rate and/or the pressure, as a function of the pressure in the cryogenic tank as taught by Garner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow greater control over the fluid flow through their respective conduits (Garner, Pg. 11-12, paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 23, Cipolla discloses a method for regulating the pressure in the cryogenic tank of the device for storing and supplying cryogenic fluid in accordance with Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above), the vaporization heat exchanger causing phase change by heat exchanger with an ambient environment (Cipolla, Col. 6, lines 34-37 The trailer includes a heat exchanger 10 for vaporizing or gasifying cryogenic liquid contained in the inner container. Typically the heat exchanger is heated by natural convection from the atmosphere).
However, Cipolla does not explicitly disclose the method comprising a step of withdrawing a determined volume of fluid from the cryogenic tank, a step of storing and of isolating this volume in the vaporization heat exchanger and, when the volume of fluid reaches a predetermined temperature and/or a predetermined pressure, a step of re-injecting this volume of fluid into the cryogenic tank.
Garner teaches the method comprising a step of withdrawing a determined volume of fluid from the cryogenic tank, a step of storing and of isolating this volume in the vaporization heat exchanger and, when the volume of fluid reaches a predetermined temperature and/or a predetermined pressure, a step of re-injecting this volume of fluid into the cryogenic tank (Fig. 4 and 5; Pg. 17-18, paragraphs 41-41, The exemplary systems illustrated in FIGS. 1-4 all include actively controllable valve 90 disposed on the fluid delivery conduit upstream of use device 100 for shutting off flow of fluid to use device 100. The exemplary systems can also include other elements, for example manual shut-off valve 50 (shown in FIGS. 3, 1, and 4) on liquefied gaseous fluid conduit 30 can be used to isolate tank 20, but in normal system operation, it is open to allow liquefied gaseous fluid to flow out from cryogenic tank 20. Accompanying manual shut-off valve 50 is check valve 70 which, as explained, allows liquefied gaseous fluid to flow downstream to the heater/vaporizer, but keeps gaseous fluid from flowing back to tank 20 through liquid conduit 30. When actively controllable vapor valve 60 is actuated to an open position, check valve 70 closes flow to tank 20 along liquid fluid conduit 30. Additionally, the system can include pressure and temperature sensors 140 at use device 100 for determining the pressure and temperature of fluid delivered to the use device. A temperature sensor (not shown) for determining the heat transfer fluid temperature may also be used as a system operating parameter by controller 110 to determine tank pressure targets and tank pressure target ranges. When use device 100 is an engine, the heat transfer fluid 130 used for the vaporizer can be engine coolant, the temperature of which can be transmitted to controller 110 from an engine controller (not shown) either wirelessly or through a wired harness as is known in the art. In this manner, controller 110 can determine a target tank vapor pressure value and/or a target tank vapor pressure range from a measured heat transfer fluid temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating the device of Cipolla of claim 1 to include a step of withdrawing a determined volume of fluid from the tank, a step of storing and of isolating this volume in the vaporization heat exchanger and, when the volume of fluid reaches a predetermined temperature and/or a predetermined pressure, a step of re-injecting this volume of fluid into the cryogenic tank as taught by Garner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an improved control strategy for managing the vapor pressure of fueling systems using cryogenic fluids in the storing and supplying of fuel to gaseous fueled engine systems (Garner, Pg. 3, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 24, Cipolla as modified discloses the method as claimed in Claim 23 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 23 above), wherein the device for storing and supplying cryogenic fluid is disposed on a vehicle (Fig. 1 of Cipolla depicts the trailer 2 to be disposed on a truck).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla et al. (US Patent No. 5,165,246) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20170291486), hereinafter Tanaka.
Regarding claim 16, Cipolla discloses the device as claimed in Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Cipolla does not disclose wherein the pressurization line comprises a buffer storage reservoir that communicates with an outlet of the heat exchanger and that is configured to accommodate part of the volume of fluid.
Tanaka teaches wherein the pressurization line comprises a buffer storage reservoir that communicates with an outlet of the heat exchanger and that is configured to accommodate part of the volume of fluid (Fig. 4, buffer tank 74; Pg. 4, paragraph 45, Although in the auxiliary pressurization line 8 having the above-described configuration, the pipe 83 connected to the outlet of the vaporizer 84 is connected to the upper portion of the tank 2, the outlet of the vaporizer 84 and the inlet of the buffer tank 74 may be connected to each other via the pipe 83 as shown in FIG. 4. In this case, the hydrogen gas generated by vaporization in the vaporizer 84 is temporarily stored in the buffer tank 74 and supplied to the upper portion of the tank 2 together with the BOG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cipolla of claim 12 to include a buffer storage reservoir that communicates with an outlet of the heat exchanger and that is configured to accommodate part of the volume of fluid as taught by Tanaka. Specifically arranging the buffer tank 74 upstream of valve 32 of Cipolla and downstream of the vaporizer 10 of Cipolla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for an increased ability to pressurize the trailer to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 17, Cipolla as modified discloses the device as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the buffer storage reservoir is connected to the pressurization line at a location upstream of the isolation valve situated between the vaporization heat exchanger and the upper part of the cryogenic tank, and downstream of the vaporization heat exchanger (Fig. 4 of Tanaka depicts the buffer tank 74 to be disposed upstream of the flow rate control valve 76, which corresponds to the valve 32 of Cipolla, and downstream of the vaporizer 4, which corresponds to the heat exchanger 10 of Cipolla, and will maintain this arrangement when modified as described herein). Further, the limitations of claim 17 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla et al. (US Patent No. 5,165,246) in view of Brook et al. (US Patent No. 8,695,357), hereinafter Brook.
Regarding claim 18, Cipolla discloses the device as claimed in Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Cipolla does not disclose wherein the pressurization line comprises a pressure-sensitive safety valve having a first end communicating with an outlet of the vaporization heat exchanger and a second, discharge end connected to a discharge zone selected from the group consisting of the atmosphere, the cryogenic tank, and combinations thereof.
Brook teaches wherein the pressurization line comprises a pressure-sensitive safety valve having a first end communicating with an outlet of the vaporization heat exchanger and a second, discharge end connected to a discharge zone selected from the group consisting of the atmosphere, the cryogenic tank, and combinations thereof (Fig. 1, liquid fuel conduit 114, vapor fuel conduit 116; secondary pressure relief valve 124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cipolla of claim 12 to include a pressure-sensitive safety valve having a first end communicating with an outlet of the vaporization heat exchanger and a second, discharge end connected to a discharge zone such as the atmosphere or the tank as taught by Brook. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to use the safety valves only in emergency situations and to maintain the pressure inside the tank within the predetermined values (Brooks, Col 7, lines 20-22).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipolla et al. (US Patent No. 5,165,246) in view of Mackey et al. (US Patent No. 9,695,983), hereinafter Mackey.
Regarding claim 25, Cipolla discloses the device as claimed in Claim 12 (see the rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the pressurizing system further comprises openings configured to inject the re-injected volume of fluid into a gas blanket of the cryogenic tank to limit temperature de-stratification of the fluid in the cryogenic tank (Fig. 3, segment 30; Col. 6, lines 57-63, The pressure building conduit 28 has a segment 30 which extends along the top of the inner container commonly at a level where it is just immersed in liquid when the inner container is filled to capacity. Within the inner container, this segment 30 line has holes to distribute emerging liquid or vapor along its length; Further, the components which make up the pressure building system of Cipolla have the same structure as the claimed pressurization system and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
However, Cipolla does not explicitly disclose the openings to be a nozzle.
Mackey teaches the openings to be a nozzle (Fig. 1, nozzle 7, spray heads 4; Col. 5, lines 22-24 and 63-66; A fuel supply line 6 may be fluidly connected to a fill nozzle 7 configured to receive fuel from a fuel dispenser (not shown)… In some embodiments, spray heads 4 may include fixtures, for instance, nozzle(s), sprinkler head(s), faucet(s), shower head(s), deflection plate(s) or any other suitable mechanisms for discharging fluid).
Cipolla fails to teach the openings to be a nozzle, however Mackey teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic tanks to include the openings to be a nozzle. This is strong evidence that modifying Cipolla as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reinjecting fluid into the cryogenic tank above the liquid line to maintain a predetermined pressure within the cryogenic tank to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cipolla by Mackey and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reinjecting fluid into the cryogenic tank above the liquid line to maintain a predetermined pressure within the cryogenic tank to improve overall system efficiencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 04th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “First, as clarified in the amended claims, the claimed invention includes the feature of the pressurizing system to isolate a determined volume of fluid in the heat exchanger until it reaches a predetermined temperature and/or pressure condition before reinjection. This batch-wise process is fundamentally different from the system in Cipolla, which describes a conventional, on-demand pressure-building circuit where valve 32 simply controls the flow of vaporized fluid back to the tank to maintain pressure for liquid transfer. Cipolla does not teach or suggest isolating a specific volume to let it heat up to a target state before release”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8-9 of the response, “Second, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's mapping of the claimed parallel valve arrangement onto Cipolla is factually incorrect. Claim 12 requires an "element... disposed in parallel with the isolation valve situated between the vaporization heat exchanger and the upper part of the tank." The Office Action alleges that Cipolla's purge gas valve (24) is parallel to the pressure-building valve (32). However, a review of Figure 3 of Cipolla clearly shows this is not the case. Valve 32 is in the pressure-building conduit (26), which returns gas to the tank's upper portion. In contrast, valve 24 is in the purge gas supply conduit (18), which directs gas to an external terminal (22) for purging a receiver. These are two separate circuits with different functions and destinations. They are not, and cannot, be arranged in parallel to control flow back to the tank as required by claim 12”. However, this argument is not persuasive as the claims only require that the element be disposed in parallel with the isolation valve and situated between the vaporization heat exchanger and the upper part of the cryogenic tank. The claims do not preclude the element from being apart of another circuit. Further, the element is structurally capable of performing the function of limit the flow rate and/or the pressure of the re-injected volume of fluid as line 14 of Cipolla branches downstream of the heat exchanger 10 into line 26 and line 18 both of which are connected to the upper part of the cryogenic tank and are both capable of directing fluid to the cryogenic tank. Specifically, if valve 44 is left open and valve 20 is closed fluid in line 18 could be routed to the cryogenic tank via the opening of valve 24. Further, it has been held when the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
The rejection of independent claim 12 is maintained. The rejection of dependent claims 13-14, 16-18, and 20-26 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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 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 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 November 26th, 2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights