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 Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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 conductively of H” is unclear for not reciting hydrogen properly. The claim refers to Hydrogen as H2 elsewhere in the claim and improperly references monotonic Hydrogen in this recitation and it is unclear why the recitation does not recite --Hydrogen--.
The recitation, “a fluid exchange of H2 in gas form” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing H2 in gas form and it is unclear if this is the H2 in the gas form recited previously or not.
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.
No recitations are being 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, 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).
In regard to claim 1, 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.
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).
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 a drainage tube that extends to a bottom of the inner tank (110) and a heat exchanger at an opposite end of the drainage tube.
However, it is well known to provide an internal heat exchanger in the ullage space 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 drainage tube (pipe from 116 to 118) that extends to a bottom (see bottom of tank 100) of the inner tank (102), a heat exchanger (118) at an opposite end (top end) of the drainage tube (pipe from 116 to 118) in the ullage space (para. 12) and teaches that the heat exchanger (118) permits liquid inside the heat exchanger (118) to cool vapor around (para. 12) the heat exchanger (118) thereby cooling the vapor and reducing the 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.
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).
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 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
JFPIII
February 13, 2026