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 .
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 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 “an outlet of the vacuum ejector outlet” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what the outlet of the outlet is. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to just be “an outlet of the vacuum ejector”.
Claim 5 recites “an entrained fluid inlet” which is considered indefinite as it unclear how it differs from just an inlet as there is no entrained fluid. For the purpose of examination, “entrained” is not considered to limit the fluid inlet.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the cryogenic liquid is stored in the fuel storage vessel” which is respective of the limitation requiring storing the cryogenic liquid in a fuel storage vessel which results in it being indefinite as it is unclear what it adds to the claim limitations. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to not further limit the claims.
Claim 19 recites “the entrained cryogenic liquid” which is considered indefinite which lacks antecedent basis as there is no entrained fluid. For the purpose of examination, “entrained” is not considered to further limit the claim.
Claim 22 recites “an entrained fluid inlet” which is considered indefinite as it unclear how it differs from just an inlet as there is no entrained fluid. For the purpose of examination, “entrained” is not considered to limit the fluid inlet.
Claim 22 recite ”a venturi tube having an inlet open the chamber” which is considered indefinite as the statement is unclear. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the venturi tube has an inlet open to receive fluid from the chamber.
Claims 4, 6-13, 20-21, 23 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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) 1, 5-6, 11-13, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (US PG Pub 20130255281), hereinafter referred to as Bray and further in view of Taylor et al. (US Patent No.4691510), hereinafter referred to as Taylor.
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 fuel storage vessel within which is the 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), wherein the vacuum ejector is configured to receive the cryogenic liquid directly from the fuel storage vessel (the configuration as shown in Figure 1 would meet the limitation of directly as it passes without other systems from LNG supply into 20, where in Figure 1 the pump is in the LNG conduit, paragraph 21).
Bray does not teach a pump downstream of the vacuum ejector in direct fluid communication with an outlet of the vacuum ejector outlet.
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. Such connection can be considered a direct fluid connection as it only passes through the conduit between the pumps.
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 fuel storage 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 6, Bray as modified teaches wherein the fuel storage vessel is thermally insulated (the tank 14 which is a fuel tank can be thermally insulated, paragraph 16).
With respect to claim 11, Bray as modified teaches an aircraft fuel system for an aircraft, the aircraft fuel system comprising: the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the fuel storage 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 as modified 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 fuel storage 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 fuel storage vessel of the aircraft system, wherein the cryogenic liquid is stored in the fuel storage vessel (supply 14, which contains LNG, paragraph 16, which can be fuel tank 126 of aircraft 100, paragraphs 15-16);
and moving the cryogenic liquid from the fuel storage vessel directly into a vacuum ejector via an outlet of the fuel storage vessel or a conduit directly connected to the outlet of the fuel storage vessel and an inlet of the vacuum ejector (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, which configuration as shown in Figure 1 would meet the limitation of directly as claimed based on what is shown in the figure as it passes without other systems from LNG supply into 20, where in Figure 1 the pump is in the LNG conduit, paragraph 21),
Bray as modified does not teach moving with the vacuum ejector of the aircraft system, at least some of the cryogenic liquid from the fuel storage vessel towards a pump which is connected to the vacuum ejector and moving cryogenic liquid into a pump downstream in a flow of the cryogenic liquid form 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 via flow path which receives the LNG from 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 20, Bray teaches wherein the cryogenic liquid from the vacuum ejector directly to the pump downstream of the vacuum ejector (the modification above is a direct passing of the fluid).
With respect to claim 21, Bray teaches injecting a motive fluid into a motive fluid inlet of the vacuum ejector (an eductor-jet pump/vacuum ejector works by injecting a motive fluid into a motive fluid inlet and thus would be present in Bray).
Bray does not teach diverging a portion of the cryogenic liquid flowing downstream of the pump and using the portion of the cryogenic liquid as the motive fluid injected into the vacuum ejector.
Taylor (Figure 1) teaches that the downstream of the pump (4) is provided with 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 diverted 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.
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/Taylor and further in view of Salih (US PG Pub 20130167525), hereinafter referred to as Salih and Stager et al. (US PG Pub 20220204337), hereinafter referred to as Stager.
With respect to claim 7, Bray as modified does not teach wherein the fuel storage 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.
Bray as modified does not teach the fuel storage vessel is pressurized to a pressure above atmospheric pressure.
Stager teaches that liquid hydrogen (a cryogenic liquid) can be stored in a pressure vessel and natural evaporation results in the increase in pressure in the tank which is controlled to ensure that pressure does not rise too high which is higher than initial pressure in the head space which is 2 atm (paragraphs 50-51). This vapor can be recovered (vapor supply unit, paragraph 60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the fuel storage vessel of Bray to have been a pressure vessel in which can further pressurize (which is above atmospheric pressure) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby allowing the naturally occurring evaporation to result in a pressure increase which would allow the predictable results of removing the vapor for use as fuel during pressure control and thus provide additional source of fuel.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray/Taylor/Salih/Stager 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 fuel storage 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 fuel storage 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray/Taylor and further in view of Stager.
With respect to claim 9, Bray as modified does not teach wherein the fuel storage vessel includes vapor of the cryogenic liquid.
Stager teaches that liquid hydrogen (a cryogenic liquid) can be stored in a pressure vessel and natural evaporation results in the increase in pressure in the tank from the vapor formed which is controlled (paragraph 50). This vapor can be recovered (vapor supply unit, paragraph 60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was fled for the tank of Bray to have included vapors of the liquid based on the teaching of Stager since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as the liquid naturally evaporates it produces vapor would provide the predictable result of allowing that vapor to be recovered whereby allowing the naturally occurring evaporation to result in a pressure increase which would as is common knowledge in the art of allowing removal of the vapor for use as fuel during pressure control and thus provide additional source of fuel.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray/Taylor 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.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bra and further in view of Salih and Stager and Wyatt (US Patent No. 5984144), hereinafter referred to as Wyatt.
With respect to claim 22, 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 fuel storage vessel, wherein the fuel storage vessel is in the aircraft, and is configured to store the cryogenic liquid (supply 14, which contains LNG, paragraph 16, which can be fuel tank 126 of aircraft 100, paragraphs 15-16, which supply is a fuel tank, which can be in the fuselage of the airplane, paragraphs 16 and 32);
a vacuum ejector (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, and it should be noted that all of the features described below are just describing the structure that is present in an eductor-jet pump or vacuum ejector).
an entrained fluid inlet configured to receive the cryogenic liquid directly from the fuel storage vessel (the inlet for the LNG into the ejector),
a chamber open to the entrained liquid inlet and configured to receive the cryogenic liquid entering the vacuum ejector through the entrained liquid inlet (the mixing chamber that would be present in any eductor-jet pump/vacuum ejector)
a nozzle including a motive fluid inlet and an outlet open to the chamber (this is a description of a feature of an ejector/eductor-jet pump has a nozzle which converges the motive fluid into the mixing chamber),
a venturi tube having an inlet open the chamber and an outlet (downstream of the mixing chamber in a ejector/eductor-jet pump is a venturi tube which receives fluid from the mixing chamber and expels it out of the ejector/eductor-jet pump)
Bray does not teach the fuel storage 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.
Bray as modified does not teach the fuel storage vessel is pressurized to above atmospheric pressure.
Stager teaches that liquid hydrogen (a cryogenic liquid) can be stored in a pressure vessel and natural evaporation results in the increase in pressure in the tank which is controlled to ensure that pressure does not rise too high which is higher than initial pressure in the head space which is 2 atm (paragraphs 50-51). This vapor can be recovered (vapor supply unit, paragraph 60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the fuel storage vessel of Bray to have been a pressure vessel in which can further pressurize (which is above atmospheric pressure) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby allowing the naturally occurring evaporation to result in a pressure increase which would allow the predictable results of removing the vapor for use as fuel during pressure control and thus provide additional source of fuel.
Bray as modified does not teach an insulated thermal sleeve connected to an outlet of the fuel storage vessel, which the fluid of the fuel storage vessel is directly passed to the entrained fluid inlet through.
Wyatt teaches advantageously that conduits leaving a tank extend through an insulated sleeve (34) to reduce transmission of heat thereto (Column 3, lines 7-9).
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 Wyatt had the conduit which passes the fluid from the supply to the eductor-jet pump of Bray to have been surrounded by an insulated sleeve in order to reduce transmission of heat to the fluid within the conduit.
Bray does not teach a pump downstream of the vacuum ejector, wherein the pump includes pump inlet in fluid communication with the outlet of the venturi tube.
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. Such connection can be considered a direct fluid connection as it only passes through the conduit between the pumps.
Bray as modified does not teach the pump outlet is in fluid communication with an engine of the aircraft.
Bray teaches that the pump system is used for supplying the cooling system can be used for supply the fuel to an engine (paragraph 16, 35) and where more than one pump can be used (paragraph 21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for fluid from the outlet of the pump of Bray as modified to have been passed to an engine of the aircraft since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results I obvious whereby passing fuel from the outlet of the pump ultimately to the engine would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of being able to power the engines of the aircraft with fuel that has been brought to a suitable pressure for such use.
With respect to claim 23, Bray as modified does not teach a channel between the pump outlet and the motive fluid inlet of the ejector, wherein a portion of the cryogenic liquid flowing form the pump outlet towards the engine is diverted into the channel and flows to the motive fluid inlet, and wherein the motive fluid is the cryogenic liquid flowing from the channel.
Taylor (Figure 1) teaches that the downstream of the pump (4) is provided with 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 diverted 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bray does not describe an educator-jet pump in series with another pump nor the motive fluid for an educator-jet pump or a channel for providing the motive liquid to an educator-jet pump and “does not give a reason for selecting an educator-jet pump over another pump type” and thus “Bray does not recognize any difficulty with pumping a cryogenic fuel and provides no information that would lead a person of ordinary skill to select an educator-jet pump or position an educator-jet pump immediately downstream of a vessel storing a cryogenic fluid”. This is not persuasive.
Bray (Figure 1) can be shown to anticipate a eductor-jet pump that receives fluid directly from an LNG supply (14, which is a fuel tank as shown above in the rejection) . A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the configuration shown in Figure 1 as being a direct connection (see Reese et al. PG Pub 20190137038 Paragraph 8 and 26, directly connected has no valves or instruments arranged, See Figure 1 with a direct connection from the outside of the tank to the pump). Further, no motivation is needed to choose the specific pump as claimed, as Bray anticipates using such a pump in this configuration and as such, based on the teaching of Bray one having ordinary skill in the art would consider the presence of an eductor-jet pump anticipated by Bray. Further, Bray does actually consider that multiple pumps may be present as Bray teaches that it may include “any number of pumps” and each pump may be selected from a list of different pumps. As such, while Bray does specifically describe a second pump in series with an eductor-jet pump (or vacuum ejector which is the same component) Bray does consider it obvious to have multiple pumps present. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This argument only addresses Bray and does not consider the additional teachings of Taylor.
Applicant argues “there is no motivation or rationale to apply the arrangement of a jet pump and pump shown in Figure 1 of Taylor to modify Bay” as “Taylor does not promote the arrangement in Figure 1 and teaches that the arrangement is not suitable because it pulls air from fuel” as the claimed invention requires “a vacuum ejector to receive a cryogenic liquid which may include vapor directly from a vessel from a vessel that stores the cryogenic liquid” and “Taylor teaches away from directing a fuel with vapor or air into a jet pump”. This is not persuasive.
There is no vapor or air in Bray as modified. Taylor teaching shows that it is known to apply a pump downstream of jet pump. While with regards to Figure 1 this is stated as not being done, this is with regard to a system that would have air in this configuration, which a tank as claimed with liquid passing through would not inherently have air. Further, this same configuration is seen in later figures including Figure 2 of Taylor and as such, the teaching away as argued by applicant is not to the position a pump downstream of a jet pump positioning of a jet pump with respect to storage which teaching is not taught by Taylor and which is taught by both Bray and the instant invention. Additionally the difference in fluid type does not render the teaching of Taylor any less obvious to Bray or the claimed invention. As such, the teaching would still apply to Bray and show obviousness, as the alleged teaching away by Taylor does not apply to the rejection above as there is already an eductor-jet pump in Bray before modification. Further, as shown above, Bray does consider multiple pumps, just not their specific configuration. In response to applicant's argument that Taylor would not provide this configuration and teaches away from such configuration, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Taylor clearly shows the obviousness of providing pumps in series which teaching would apply equally to Bray and show obviousness of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot as they do not provide additional arguments beyond what is already argued is not taught by Bray as modified by Taylor.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 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
Prosecution Insights