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.
Drawings
The drawings dated 8/13/2026 are accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the disclosure dated 8/13/2026 is accepted.
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 of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim 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
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey (US 2014/0034162) in view of either Zwick (US 4197712). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Mackey teaches a system (see whole disclosure) for dispensing a cryogenic fluid (liquid hydrogen, para. 16) comprising:
a. a bulk tank (12) configured to contain a supply of the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen);
b. a sump (10, para. 29) configured to receive the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) from the bulk tank (12);
c. a first positive-displacement pump (26 or 28; para. 37) positioned within the sump (10) and configured to be submerged within (within 10) and pump the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) stored within the sump (10);
d. a second positive-displacement pump (26 or 28, para. 37) positioned within the sump (10) and configured to be submerged within (within 10) and pump the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) stored within the sump (10);
e. a vaporizing heat exchanger (para. 49) configured to receive and vaporize the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) pumped from the first pump and/or the second pump (26 or 28; para. 48-49).
Mackey does not explicitly teach that the vaporizing heat exchanger is heated by a warming fluid circuit as claimed. However, it is well known and obvious to vaporize cryogenic liquid with a warming fluid circuit having all of the claimed features in view of the teachings of either Zwick or Loesch.
Zwick teaches (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 2) pumping (via 11) a cryogenic liquid (liquid nitrogen) to a vaporizing heat exchanger (10); the vaporizing heat exchanger (10) receives a warming fluid (coolant medium, column 6, line 34) so that the cryogenic liquid (liquid nitrogen) is warmed and vaporized (column 5, line 25-30) by the warming fluid (coolant medium) in the vaporizing heat exchanger (10); at least one hydraulic motor (22, column 6, line 25) configured to articulate (interpreted as provide at least some operation of) the pump (11) using a hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium, column 6, line 25) so that the hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium) is warmed (column 4, line 15-20); a hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (27) configured to receive cooled warming fluid (coolant medium from 10) from the vaporizing heat exchanger (10) and to receive the warmed hydraulic fluid (from 22 at least) from the at least one hydraulic motor (22) after the hydraulic fluid actuates the at least hydraulic motor, wherein the cooled warming fluid (hydraulic fluid from 10) from the vaporizing heat exchanger (10) is warmed by a transfer of heat in the hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (27) using the warmed hydraulic fluid (from 22) received by the hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (27) from the at least one hydraulic motor (22) after the hydraulic fluid actuates the at least one hydraulic motor (22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vaporizing heat exchanger of Mackey with the warming fluid circuit and the hydraulic fluid circuit as identified from Zwick as described above for the purpose of providing useful vaporization heat from the waste heat of from power sources of the first and second cryogenic liquid pumps thereby providing efficient vaporization to the cryogenic liquid and useful cooling of the power sources.
In regard to independent claim 8, Mackey teaches a method (see whole disclosure) for dispensing a cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen, para. 16) comprising:
a. storing the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) in a bulk tank (12);
b. directing the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) from the bulk tank (12) to a sump (10, para. 29);
c. submerging a first positive-displacement pump (26 or 28; para. 37) and a second positive displacement pump (28 or 26) in the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) in the sump (10);
d. pumping the cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) from the sump (10) to a vaporizing heat exchanger (para. 49) using the first pump and/or the second pump (26 or 28; para. 48-49)
e. vaporizing the cryogenic liquid in the vaporizing heat exchanger (para. 49) to form a cryogenic vapor (thereafter).
f. dispensing the cryogenic vapor (use after vaporization).
However, it is well known and obvious to vaporize cryogenic liquid with a warming fluid circuit having all of the claimed features in view of the teachings of Zwick.
Zwick teaches (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 2) pumping (via 11) a cryogenic liquid (liquid nitrogen) to a vaporizing heat exchanger (10); vaporizing the cryogenic liquid (liquid nitrogen) in the vaporizing heat exchanger (10) using a warming fluid (coolant medium) that warms and vaporizes the cryogenic liquid (liquid nitrogen) in the vaporizing heat exchanger (10) whereby the warming fluid is cooled (column 5, line 25-30);
articulating (interpreted as provide at least some operation of) the pump (11) with at least one hydraulic motor (22) using a hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium, column 6, line 25) so that the hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium) is warmed (column 4, line 15-20); warming the cooled warming fluid (coolant medium from 10) in a hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (27) using the warmed hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium) from the at least one hydraulic motor (22), wherein the hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (27) receives the cooled warming fluid (coolant medium from 10) from the vaporizing heat exchanger (10) and the warmed hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium from 22) from the at least one hydraulic motor (22) after the hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium) actuates the at least one hydraulic motor (22), and the warming the cooled warming fluid occurs via a transfer of heat in the hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (27) from the warmed hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium from 22) from the at least one hydraulic motor (22) after the hydraulic fluid (hydraulic medium) actuates the at least one hydraulic motor (22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vaporizing heat exchanger of Mackey with the warming fluid circuit and the hydraulic fluid circuit as identified by Zwick for the purpose of providing useful vaporization heat from the waste heat of the power sources of the first and second cryogenic liquid pumps thereby providing efficient vaporization to the cryogenic liquid and useful cooling of the power sources.
In regard to claim 3, Mackey teaches that the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen (para. 16, 29).
In regard to claim 9, Mackey teaches that the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen (para. 16, 29).
Claim(s) 6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey (US 2014/0034162) in view of Zwick (US 4197712) and further in view of Loesch (US 4438729). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claims 6, 12, Mackey, as modified, does not appear to explicitly teach a warming fluid storage tank as claimed. However, it is routine and ordinary to employ storage tanks for ensuring proper amounts of circulating warming fluid. Loesch teaches a warming fluid storage tank (46, 184) in fluid communication with a hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (50, 52, 54) so as to receive and store a warming fluid (see volume within 46, 184), said warming fluid storage tank (46, 184) configured to provide the warming fluid (coolant fluid) to a vaporizing heat exchanger (42, 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mackey with a warming fluid storage tank at least downstream from the hydraulic fluid heat exchanger and upstream of the vaporizing heat exchanger for the purpose of providing flexibility in the amount of circulating warming fluid employed in the heat exchangers cited.
In regard to claim 7, 13, Mackey, as modified, does not appear to explicitly teach a supplemental heat exchanger as claimed. However, it is routine and ordinary to employ additional heat exchangers for providing further heat and alternative heating to the cryogenic fluid. Loesch teaches a supplemental heat exchanger (56, 58) configured to receive and warm the warming fluid (coolant fluid) from the hydraulic fluid heat exchanger (50, 52, 54) and direct the warming fluid (coolant fluid) to the warming fluid supply tank (184, 46). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mackey with the supplemental heat exchanger of Loesch for the purpose of providing greater or alternative heating to the cryogenic fluid to allow adaptation for greater cryogenic fluid processing alternative heat sourcing.
Claim(s) 2, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey (US 2014/0034162) in view of Zwick (US 4197712) and further in view of either Drube (US 5954101) or Thor (US 2019/0331298).
Claim(s) 2, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackey (US 2014/0034162) in view of Zwick (US 4197712) and Loesch (US 4438729) and further in view of either Drube (US 5954101) or Thor (US 2019/0331298). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Mackey, as modified, does not explicitly teach an at least partially evacuated jacket around both the bulk tank and the sump. However, providing a common vacuum insulation jacket is routine and ordinary as taught by either of Drube or Thor. Drube teaches a bulk tank (62) and sump (66) both positioned within a jacket (67, 68, 69, column 4, line 41) wherein an interior (inside) of the jacket (67, 68, 69) is at least partially evacuated of air (column 4, line 40-45). Alternatively, Thor teaches a bulk tank (210) and the sump (216) are positioned within a jacket (208, para. 48) wherein an interior (inside) of the jacket (208) is at least partially evacuated of air (implicit to vacuum jacket). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vacuum insulation of Mackey to be combined as taught by either of Drube or Thor for the purpose of providing a more compact assembly and providing the ability to evacuate both spaces through a single connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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