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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, 19-20, drawn to a method and apparatus of handling cryogenic liquid in an aircraft system classified in F17C7/02.
II. Claims 14-18 drawn to a method of handling saturated cryogenic liquid, classified in F17C7/04.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related to storage of cryogenic liquids. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are not capable of use together, do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants. The only aspect of the invention that is the same is that they are storing a liquid that is removed from a vessel; however, invention I is drawn to specific storage in an aircraft and discharge of that liquid from the storage for use using an ejector, while invention II is drawn to a cooling process and vaporization process to maintain the cryogenic liquid that is removed from the vessel to be at a specific temperature. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The two inventions while beginning with the basic configuration of storing a fluid would require considerably separate search focus. Invention I is focused on ejection and aircraft systems which would require searching outside of F17C such as in B64D which is for fuel systems while the search for Inventio 2 would be focused on indexed areas of F17C that are focused on discharge and cooling/heating of the discharged fluid.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Jeffry Nelson on 10/20/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-13, 18-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-18 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 1-12 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 1 recites “at least some of the cryogenic liquid to be moved from the vessel” which is considered indefinite. The claims only require that there is a system for handling cryogenic and that the vessel is configured to store cryogenic liquid, but there is no claimed cryogenic liquid present, which renders this limitation unclear as there is no “the cryogenic liquid” present. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered that the vacuum ejector is operable to cause cryogenic liquid to be moved from the vessel. This same limitation is found in claim 12 which is further defining the limitation specific to an engine, and is considered indefinite for the same reason and is interpreted in the same way as claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “some of the cryogenic liquid” which is considered indefinite as the claims have no positively claimed the presence of cryogenic liquid only that the various systems are configured to receive or move cryogenic liquid and the pump has not been claimed to move cryogenic liquid. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the pump is configured to move cryogenic liquid and there is a channel connected from the outlet of the pump to the motive fluid inlet that is considered to pass cryogenic fluid therethrough.
Claim 10 recites “the cryogenic liquid is hydrogen” which is considered indefinite. The claims have no positively recited the presence of cryogenic fluid, only that the vessel is configured to store cryogenic fluid. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the vessel is configured to store liquid hydrogen.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11-13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bray (US PG Pub 20130255281), hereinafter referred to as Bray
With respect to claim 1, Bray (Figures 1-2) teaches an aircraft system for handling cryogenic liquid (Figures 1-2 describe a liquid storage tank for LNG a cryogenic liquid which can be a fuel tank of an aircraft, paragraphs 15-16), the aircraft system comprising:
a vessel configured to store cryogenic liquid (supply 14, which contains LNG, paragraph 16, which can be fuel tank 126 of aircraft 100, paragraphs 15-16);
and a vacuum ejector operable to cause at least some of the cryogenic liquid to be moved from the vessel (LNG is moved from the supply via a pump which can be an eductor-jet pump, paragraph 21, an eductor-jet pump is a type or another name for a vacuum ejector).
With respect to claim 6, Bray teaches wherein the vessel is thermally insulated (the tank 14 which is a fuel tank can be thermally insulated, paragraph 16).
With respect to claim 9, Bray teaches comprising the cryogenic liquid in the vessel (LNG is present in the tank).
With respect to claim 11, Bray teaches an aircraft fuel system for an aircraft, the aircraft fuel system comprising: the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the vessel is configured to store cryogenic liquid as fuel for the aircraft (the LNG supply 14 is a fuel tank 126 of the aircraft, paragraph 16, thus making the aircraft system an aircraft fuel system and the cryogenic liquid stored be fuel for an aircraft).
With respect to claim 12, Bray teaches further comprising a conduit configured to supply fuel to an engine of the aircraft, wherein the vacuum ejector is operable to cause the cryogenic liquid to be moved from the vessel through the conduit, towards the engine (the same pump used for the cooling system of Figure 1 can be used for supplying the fuel, paragraph 16 which passes via unlabeled conduit from the tank 126 to engines 124, paragraph 35).
With respect to claim 13, Bray teaches an aircraft comprising the aircraft system of claim 1 (aircraft 100, paragraph 34, Figure 2).
With respect to claim 19, Bray teaches a method of handling cryogenic liquid in an aircraft system (Figures 1-2 describe a liquid storage tank for LNG a cryogenic liquid which can be a fuel tank of an aircraft, paragraphs 15-16), the method comprising: storing the cryogenic liquid in a vessel of the aircraft system (supply 14, which contains LNG, paragraph 16, which can be fuel tank 126 of aircraft 100, paragraphs 15-16); and moving, with a vacuum ejector of the aircraft system, at least some of the cryogenic liquid from the vessel (LNG is moved from the supply via a pump which can be an eductor-jet pump, paragraph 21, an eductor-jet pump is a type or another name for a vacuum ejector).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray and further in view of Taylor et al. (US Patent No.4691510), hereinafter referred to as Taylor.
With respect to claim 2, Bray does not teach comprising a pump downstream of the vacuum ejector.
Taylor (Figure 1) teaches that downstream from a jet pump is another pump (4) which further pumps the fluid and provides it to a fuel control system (Column 2, lines 13-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Taylor to have provided a pump downstream of the eductor-jet pump of Bray since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a fuel pump would as would be common knowledge in the art would ensure that the fuel is pressurized to the necessary pressure for passing to the engines.
With respect to claim 3, Bray as modified teaches wherein the vacuum ejector is fluidically connected directly to the pump (the jet pump passes the fluid downstream to the pump, which can be understood to be a direct fluid connection).
With respect to claim 5, Bray as modified teaches wherein the vacuum ejector comprises an entrained fluid inlet configured to receive cryogenic liquid from the vessel (the main fluid inlet of the eductor-jet pump), and a motive fluid inlet (although not shown, as it is a type of ejector, there would be a motive fluid inlet to provide the driving fluid).
Bray as modified does not teach where the motive fluid inlet is configured to receive cryogenic liquid from the pump
and wherein the system comprises a channel fluidically connected, or connectable, between an outlet of the pump and the motive fluid inlet, such that some of the cryogenic liquid moved by the pump is passable to the motive fluid inlet of the vacuum ejector via the channel.
Taylor (Figure 1) teaches that downstream of the pump (4) is provided a fuel control system which recycles excess fuel along a pipeline to drive the jet pump (Column 2, lines 21-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Taylor to have provided in Bray a connection with a conduit (a channel) between the outlet of the pump (the second pump) and the motive inlet of the jet pump to provide excess cryogenic liquid from the pump to the jet pump since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby driving the jet pump with an internal excess fluid would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of providing the necessary motive fluid for the jet pump while also recycling the excess fuel back towards the engine.
With respect to claim 20, Bray teaches moving at least some of the cryogenic liquid from the vessel comprises moving some of the cryogenic liquid through the vacuum ejector from the vessel (some of the fluid from the vessel passes to the eductor).
Bray does not teach cryogenic liquid passing from the vacuum ejector directly to a pump downstream of the vacuum ejector.
Taylor (Figure 1) teaches that downstream from a jet pump is another pump (4) which further pumps the fluid and provides it to a fuel control system (Column 2, lines 13-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Taylor to have provided a pump downstream (as there is nothing between them but conduit it can be considered passing directly) of the eductor-jet pump of Bray since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a fuel pump would as would be common knowledge in the art would ensure that the fuel is pressurized to the necessary pressure for passing to the engines.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray/Taylor and further in view of Kamath (US PG Pub 20150344144), hereinafter referred to as Kamath.
With respect to claim 4, Bray as modified does not teach wherein the pump comprises a centrifugal pump.
Kamath teaches that a pump to pressurize a cryogenic liquid fuel is a centrifugal pump (paragraph 29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Kamath provided the pump of Bray as modified (the additional pump based on Taylor) as a centrifugal pump since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that centrifugal pumps are suitable for use as fuel pumps because they provided high efficiency and high flow rates.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray and further in view of Salih (US PG Pub 20130167525), hereinafter referred to as Salih.
With respect to claim 7, Bray as modified does not teach wherein the vessel is hermetically sealed.
Salih teaches an outer tank which contains a liquid cryogenic fluid inside is hermetically sealed (paragraphs 13-14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Salih to have in Bray provided the vessel (fuel storage tank) as hermetically sealed since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the tank as hermetically sealed would as is common knowledge in the art prevent leakage of the fluid in the tank or contamination of the fluid in the tank by outside inflow to the tank.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray/Salih and further in view of Bowen et al. (US Patent No. 6047747), hereinafter referred to as Bowen.
With respect to claim 8, Bray as modified teaches wherein the system is configured to prevent an external atmosphere from entering the vessel (as modified the vessel is hermetically sealed, which means it is configured to prevent an external atmosphere from entering the vessel).
Bray as modified does not teach wherein the vessel comprises a pressure relief valve that is operable to reduce a pressure in the vessel.
Bowen teaches a vent line with a pressure relief valve connected to the vapor space of a storage tank (Column 9, lines 40-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Bowen provided the vessel of Bray with a pressure relief valve since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a pressure relief valve would provide what is common knowledge in the art of providing a way to prevent over pressurization and damage to the storage vessel if the pressure inside raises to a unsafe level.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray and further in view of Sankrithi et al. (US PG Pub 20140339367), hereinafter referred to as Sankrithi.
With respect to claim 10, Bray as modified does not teach wherein the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen.
Sankrithi teaches that cryogenic fuel for an airplane can include multiple fluids including LNG and liquid hydrogen (paragraphs 38 and 60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Sankrithi to have in Bray instead of the cryogenic liquid being LNG to have the cryogenic liquid be liquid hydrogen since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results as they are both known cryogenic liquids suitable for storage in use for an aircraft it would have been obvious for the liquid to have been hydrogen instead of LNG for the predictable result of providing a suitable fuel for use in an aircraft engine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pohjoranta et al. (US PG Pub 20210341105) which teaches a configuration for using an ejector along with stored cryogenic fluid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights