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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8 July, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 remains interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with regards to the recitation of “fluid heating unit” as set forth within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 May, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALL (US 7,028,489 B1 – published 18 April, 2006), in view of VAISHNAV (US 11,548,381 B2 – published 10 January, 2023).
As to claim 9, HALL discloses a device for storing and supplying a cryogenic fluid, the device comprising:
a tank (tank shown in figure 1 with inner shell, 14, and outer shell, 12) delimiting a fluid storage volume (30, with a liquid space, 32, and a vapor space, 34; col. 2, lines 56-58; figure 1);
a drawing-off circuit comprising a liquid drawing-off duct having a first end which is connected to a lower portion of the tank(see annotated figure 1), and a second end (connected at 70; col. 3, line 40 – col. 4, line 15), the liquid drawing-off duct comprising a pump (74); and
a system for pressurization of the tank comprising a duct for pressurization of fluid which connects the lower and upper parts of the tank(see annotated figure 1), and being provided with a fluid heating unit (54; col.3, lines 14-28) which is configured to collect liquid, heat the liquid, and reinject the liquid into the tank(annotated figure 1; col. 3, lines 14-28).
However, HALL does not expressly disclose the tank comprising a set of plates which are designed to limit or guide the displacement of fluid in the tank, the set of plates comprising: a plurality of first plates which are spaced vertically, and extend in a horizontal direction when the tank is in a position of use, one or a plurality of second plates which extend in a vertical direction when the tank is in the position of use, and is/are connected to the first plates; and in that the vertical spacing of the first plates increases from a top to a bottom of the tank.
VAISHNAV, however, is within the field of endeavor teaches a device for storing and supplying a cryogenic fluid (i.e., hydrocarbon fuel; col.2, lines 30-38) which includes a tank(20) delimiting a fluid storage volume (interior of tank, 20, defining the interior, 24; figure 1). The tank includes a plurality of plates (44, 72, and 74; col.3, lines 23-59; figures 2-7) which are designed to limit or guide the displacement of fluid in the tank (col.4, lines 55-60). The plates comprise a plurality of first plates which are spaced vertically (72 and 74; col. 3, lines 42-43; figures 2-7) and extend in a horizontal direction when the tank is in a position of use (col.3, lines 41-50; figures 1-7), in addition to one or a plurality of second plates(44), connected to the first plates (col.4, lines 40-45), which extend in a vertical direction when the tank is in the position of use (col. 3, lines 23-25; figures 1-7). Providing the set of plates within the tank inhibits excessive sloshing, thereby, reduces slosh noise and forces below acceptable levels (col.4, lines 55-60) and increases strength of the tank (col. 4, lines 61-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, to includes the set of plates, as defined by the claims, for these reasons.
More so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the prior art (HALL, in view of VAISHNAV) to have “the vertical spacing of the first plates increases from a top to a bottom of the tank”, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, would not operate differently with the claimed vertical spacing change(i.e., increases in spacing) from the top of the tank to the bottom of the tank, and since the horizontal first plates are intended to be positioned to reduce sloshing noise and forces within the tank, which would remain to provide such function with the changed vertical positioning of the horizontal first plates in the tank. Furthermore, it appears the Applicant has not placed any criticality on the claimed dimension, indicating “The vertical spacing of the first plates 2 can be constant or variable,”. See paragraph 23 of the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
731
1033
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of HALL
As to claim 10, HALL, as modified, previously taught including the one or plurality of second plates (44), but does not expressly disclose, as currently modified, the plurality of second plates spaced in the horizontal direction.
VAISHNAV, however, further discloses the plurality of second plates being spaced in the horizontal direction (figure 1). Providing the set of plates within the tank inhibits excessive sloshing, thereby, reduces slosh noise and forces below acceptable levels (col.4, lines 55-60) and increases strength of the tank (col. 4, lines 61-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, to includes the spacing of the plurality of second plates, as defined by the claims, for these reasons.
As to claim 11, HALL, as modified, discloses wherein the cryogenic fluid is liquefied hydrogen (col.1, lines 7-10, in view of col. 1, lines 12-13).
As to claim 12,HALL, as modified, previously taught including the first plates positioned in the horizontal cross-section of the volume of the tank (see rejection of claim 9, wherein VAISHNAV teaches the first plates that are horizontal relative to the vertical plates that attached to the ceiling and floor of the tank; figure 1), but does not expressly disclose, as currently modified, wherein the first plates extend over most of the horizontal cross-section of the volume of the tank and are spaced from the wall which forms the tank over at least part of their periphery.
VAISHNAV, however, further teaches wherein the first plates are spaced from the wall which forms the tank over at least a part of their periphery (figure 1). Providing the first plates within the tank inhibits excessive sloshing, thereby, reduces slosh noise and forces below acceptable levels (col.4, lines 55-60) and increases strength of the tank (col. 4, lines 61-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, to includes the first plates, as defined by the claims, for these reasons.
More so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the prior art (HALL, in view of VAISHNAV) to have “the first plates extend over most of the horizontal cross-section of the volume of the tank”, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, would not operate differently with the claimed horizontal extent of the first plates(i.e., extending over most of the horizontal cross-section of the volume of the tank), and since the horizontal first plates are intended to be positioned to reduce sloshing noise and forces within the tank, which would remain to provide such function with the changed/increased extent of the horizontal first plates in the tank volume. Furthermore, it appears the Applicant has not placed any criticality on the claimed dimension. See paragraph 27 of the instant application.
As to claim 13, HALL, as modified, previously taught including the second plates positioned in the vertical cross-section of the volume of the tank (see rejection of claim 9, wherein VAISHNAV teaches the second plates that are vertical relative to the horizontal plates and attached via the upper and lower mounts, 40,42; figure 1), but does not expressly disclose, as currently modified, wherein the second plates extend over most of the vertical cross-section of the volume of the tank and are spaced from the wall which forms the tank over at least part of their periphery.
VAISHNAV, however, further teaches wherein the second plates are spaced from the wall which forms the tank over at least a part of their periphery (figure 1, in addition to attachment via the upper and lower mounts, 40,42). Providing the second plates within the tank inhibits excessive sloshing, thereby, reduces slosh noise and forces below acceptable levels (col.4, lines 55-60) and increases strength of the tank (col. 4, lines 61-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, to includes the second plates, as defined by the claims, for these reasons.
More so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the prior art (HALL, in view of VAISHNAV) to have “the second plates extend over most of the vertical cross-section of the volume of the tank”, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, would not operate differently with the claimed vertical extent of the second plates(i.e., extending over most of the vertical cross-section of the volume of the tank), and since the vertical second plates are intended to be positioned to reduce sloshing noise and forces within the tank, which would remain to provide such function with the changed/increased extent of the vertical second plates in the tank volume. Furthermore, it appears the Applicant has not placed any criticality on the claimed dimension. See paragraph 28 of the instant application.
As to claim 14, HALL, as modified, discloses wherein the plates include a thickness (figure 1-7), but does not expressly disclose, as currently modified, the thickness of the plates being between 0.1mm and 1mm.
More so, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the prior art (HALL, in view of VAISHNAV) to have “the thickness of between 0.1mm and 1mm” of the plates, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, would not operate differently with the claimed thickness of the plates, and since the thickness can be selected to achieve goals of the device of HALL to reduce sloshing noise and forces within the tank (col. 5, lines 30-39; col.6, lines 12-39). Furthermore, it appears the Applicant has not placed any criticality on the claimed dimension. See paragraph 29 of the instant application.
As to claim 15, HALL, as modified, previously taught including the plates, but does not expressly disclose, as currently modified, the plates being formed of at least one of the materials from out of: plastics, PTFE, PCTFE, aluminum, stainless steel, austenitic steel, which are compatible with hydrogen.
VAISHNAV, however, further discloses wherein the plates are formed from plastic (col. 4, lines 42-43), which is capable of being compatible with hydrogen. Providing the set of plates, as formed by plastic, within the tank inhibits excessive sloshing, thereby, reduces slosh noise and forces below acceptable levels (col.4, lines 55-60) and increases strength of the tank (col. 4, lines 61-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, to includes the plates formed of plastics, as defined by the claims, for these reasons.
As to claim 16, HALL, as modified, previously taught including the plates, but does not expressly disclose, as currently modified, the plates comprise orifices.
VAISHNAV, however, further discloses wherein the plates comprise orifices (50; col. 3, lines 28-31; figure 2). The inclusion of the apertures, in conjunction with the plates, creates a series of multidirectional panels, grids, and/or surfaces that grip and trap the fluid to inhibit excessive sloshing to reduce the sloshing noise and forces below acceptable levels (col.4, lines 55-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, to include the plates with orifices, as defined by the claims, for these reasons.
As to claim 17, HALL, as modified, previously taught including the plates, but does not expressly disclose, as currently modified, the plates being secured rigidly on the tank.
However, VAISHNAV further teaches wherein the plates are secured rigidly on the tank (col. 3, lines 20-23), which positions the plates to reduce sloshing and provide the desired structural reinforcement (col.3, lines 16-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, to include the plates rigidly secured to the tank, as defined by the claims, for these reasons.
Furthermore, the requirement of the “secured rigidly” being “at least one out of: welding, clamping, screwing”, only requires one of these types of joining methods, wherein at least “clamping” is a product-by process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). See MPEP § 2113 – I. In this case, VAISHNAV teaches the wherein the plates are secured rigidly on the tank, such that the product formed by the teachings of HALL, in view of VAISHNAV, render the claimed invention defining the “secured rigidly” being, at least, “clamping” unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments, drawings and claim 9 amendments, filed 8 July, 2026, with respect to the drawing objections made on the record within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 18 May, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections made within the Non-Final Office Action have been withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant’s arguments and specification amendments, filed 8 July, 2026, with respect to the specification objections made on the record within the Non-Final Office Action mailed 18 May, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections made within the Non-Final Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments and claim 9 and 17 amendments, filed 8 July, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) within the Non-Final Office Action mailed 18 May, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 within the Non-Final Office Action mailed 18 May, 2026 and maintained herein, filed 8 July, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At pages 4-5, Applicant alleges criticality of the limitation “the vertical spacing of the first plates increases from a top to a bottom of the tank” required by independent claim 9. Applicant alleges page 4, lines 13-20 supports criticality of this limitation. However, the evidence of record does not support criticality of this limitation. Particularly, paragraph 23 of the originally-filed specification, consistent with the cited portion at page 5 of the Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed 8 July, 2026, provides wherein “The vertical spacing of the first plates 2 can be constant or variable, for example increasing (or decreasing) from the top to the bottom of the tank 1” and “This makes it possible to provide a more efficient labyrinth in the parts with the highest gas temperature gradient at the level of re-injections of hot bas provided by the pressurization system(s)”. First, these recitations make clear the increasing of the vertical spacing of the first plates is not critical, as the vertical spacing could be constant or decreasing. Second, these recitations provide the purported criticality of the limitation is based on a mere possibility. For this, the limitation does not have criticality or contain an unexpected result (applicant fails to provide any evidence necessary to support a conclusion of unexpected results; See MPEP 716.02), and the argument based on such is not persuasive.
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 JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 8/20/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights