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 .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 8 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, “the H2 in gas form” (line 16) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “gas form” that was already introduced in line 8.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “a heat exchanger at an opposite end” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what the recited heat exchanger must be at an opposite end of.
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 claim limitations have been evaluated and it appears that no recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2012-0127223 hereafter KR223 in view of De Combarier (US 2022/0064357) and Patelczyk (US 2020/0208779).
In regard to claim(s) 1, 3, KR223 teaches a cryogenic tank (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1-5) for storing liquefied Hydrogen (fully capable thereof in view of ability to store natural gas, page 2) with regulated pressure between an inner (110) and an outer tank (120)(page 3), comprising:
the outer tank (120);
the inner tank (110) held inside the outer tank (120) by supports (130), wherein the inner tank (110) contains the liquefied Hydrogen (page 3, para. 1) and a space (between 110 and 120) between the tanks (110, 120) contains Hydrogen in gas form thereby forming an Hydrogen gas atmosphere (page 6, para. 4 - per transfer through 190);
an open-cell inner insulation layer (141; page 5, para. 3) in the space (between 110 and 120) between the tanks (110, 120) and in contact with a surface (see outer surface) of the inner tank (110), wherein said inner insulation layer (141) is embedded in the Hydrogen gas atmosphere (from the inner tank through 190) of the space (between 110 and 120) between the tanks (110, 120);
at least one outer insulation layer (142) in contact with the outer tank (120) comprising closed-cell foams (page 5, para. 3); and
an evaporator (interpreted as a structure that can provide vapor; 191, 190 including part thereof inside 110) inside the inner tank (110) to ensure a fluid exchange of Hydrogen (page 6, para. 4) in the gas form with the space (between 110 and 120) between the tanks (110, 120).
KR223 does not appear to explicitly teach that the closed cell foam is gasified with an inert gas of thermal conductivity lower than the conductivity of the hydrogen. However, such is routine and well known as taught at least by De Combarier. De Combarier teaches closed cell foams (para. 36) are known to be gasified with (using blowing agent) an inert gas (at least nitrogen, para. 40) of thermal conductivity lower than the conductivity of the hydrogen (para. 40, see thermophysical fact that nitrogen is not only inert but has a thermal conductivity lower than hydrogen) thereby providing closed cell foam having lower thermal conductivity and improved thermal performance. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the closed cell foam of KR223 with a blowing agent of nitrogen for the purpose of providing a lower thermal conductivity insulation with improved thermal performance.
KR223 teaches that the evaporator comprises a connecting tube (190) between an interior of the inner tank (110) and the open-cell inner insulation layer (141), but does not explicitly teach that the evaporator extends to a bottom of the inner tank (110) via a drainage tube and a heat exchanger, the heat exchanger being at an end opposite of the drainage tube end of the drainage tube.
However, it is well known to provide an internal heat exchanger in the ullage space of a cryogenic liquid tank to provide heat exchange between a liquid inside the internal heat exchanger and the gas in the ullage space as taught by Patelczyk. Patelczyk teaches a tank (100) having an inner tank (102) and an outer tank (104), the inner tank (102) holding liquid hydrogen (para. 10), a heat exchanger (118) at an opposite end (top end) of a drainage tube (pipe from 116 to 118) in the ullage space (para. 12) and teaches that the heat exchanger (118) permits liquid from a bottom and inside of the tank (102) to heat exchange with and cool vapor around (para. 12) the heat exchanger (118) thereby cooling the vapor and providing a reduction in vapor pressure in the tank. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the evaporator (190, 191) of KR223 to have a drainage tube extending to the bottom of the inner tank and with an internal heat exchanger at the top of the drainage tube in the ullage space for the purpose of cooling ullage vapor and reducing a pressure in the tank while still maintaining the pressure balance benefits of KR223. It is rehearsed that the modification as already explained above, results in the KR223 having an evaporator comprising a heat exchanger (118 from Patelczyk) in the ullage of the inner tank (110) connected to a drainage tube (line from 116 to 118 - Patelczyk) and therefore extending to a bottom (bottom) of the inner tank (110) and a connecting tube (190) between the heat exchanger (118- Patelczyk) and the open-cell inner insulation layer (141) and this permits vaporization reduction and maintains pressure equalization thereby improving the performance of KR223.
In regard to claim(s) 4, 8, KR223 teaches that the outer and inner tanks (120, 110) and the open-cell inner insulation layer (141) and outer insulation layer (142) are concentric (see both surround center of tank).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 5) are an allegation that the prior art does not teach an evaporator that extends to a bottom of the inner tank. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as unpersuasive for failing to respond to the position of the rejection which is based upon the combination of references and not on either reference individually.
Applicant's arguments (page 6) are an allegation that Patelczyk does not teach an evaporator that extends to a bottom of the inner tank. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for ignoring the combined teachings of KR223 as modified by Patelczyk. Therefore the rejection above is maintained.
Applicant's arguments (page 6) are an allegation that the drainage pipe and heat exchanger are not disclosed in Patelczyk “as being part of an evaporator”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the prior art does not need to use the term evaporator to provide the same structure. The allegation fails to identify what the combined teachings of the references fails to provide to meet the claimed evaporator and opposition to the allegation, the identified structure by the rejection fully meets the claimed evaporator, contrary to the base allegation of the applicant. As liquid therein is fully able to evaporator in heat exchange with the gas in the ullage.
Applicant's arguments (page 7) are an allegation that KR223 and Patelczyk “are at odds with each other” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine them allegedly because the heat exchanger of Patelczyk would “work against the pressure-equalizing function” of KR223. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for having no basis whatsoever. The fluid communication of KR223 would in no way be displaced by the addition of pressure reduction. In fact, the opposite is true. Providing some reduction in pressure in the inner tank would aide in the equalizing function by reducing the amount of fluid exchange would be necessary to achieve the balance. Therefore the allegation is entirely unpersuasive and ignores the context and ambition of KR223.
Applicant's arguments (page 7) are an allegation that the “mapping of KR223 to the connecting tube is improper”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for entirely failing to respond to the position of the rejection which relies on the combination of the teachings of the references and not merely each reference alone.
Conclusion
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