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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 August, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because implied phrases are recited (Methods and apparatus for pressure control systems in pressure vessels are disclosed herein.). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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) 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MONTGOMERY (US 2023/0108882 A1 – published 6 April, 2023).
As to claim 1, MONTGOMERY discloses an apparatus comprising:
a cryogenic tank (114; par. 43);
a valve (134; par. 47) fluidly coupled to the cryogenic tank (figure 3);
machine readable instructions (claim 15); and
programmable (BRI of programmable circuitry sets forth circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions; see MPEP § 2114 - IV) circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to (302; par. 43, and 45-48):
determine, based on a temperature of the cryogenic tank and a property of the cryogenic tank, a threshold pressure of the cryogenic tank (par. 47 – wherein the threshold is based on safety thresholds, efficiency thresholds, and/or thresholds based on operational and/or business parameters);
compare a pressure of the cryogenic tank to the threshold pressure (par. 43 and 47); and
after determining that the pressure of the cryogenic tank does not satisfy the threshold pressure, actuate the valve until the pressure satisfies the threshold pressure (par. 29-30,36-37,and 46-47).
As to claim 2, MONTGOMERY discloses wherein the programmable(BRI of programmable circuitry sets forth circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions; see MPEP § 2114 - IV) circuitry is further to detect a transient operation of the cryogenic tank (par. 29-30, 36-37, and 46-47).
As to claim 7, MONTGOMERY discloses wherein the cryogenic tank is a hydrogen tank (par. 15).
As to claim 8, MONTGOMERY discloses a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions (claim 15) to cause programmable(BRI of programmable circuitry sets forth circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions; see MPEP § 2114 - IV) circuity (302; par. 43, and 45-48) to at least:
determine, based on a temperature of the cryogenic tank and a property of the cryogenic tank, a threshold pressure of the cryogenic tank (par. 47 – wherein the threshold is based on safety thresholds, efficiency thresholds, and/or thresholds based on operational and/or business parameters);
compare a pressure of the cryogenic tank to the threshold pressure (par. 43 and 47); and
after determining that the pressure of the cryogenic tank does not satisfy the threshold pressure, actuate the valve until the pressure satisfies the threshold pressure (par. 29-30,36-37,and 46-47).
As to claim 9, MONTGOMERY discloses wherein the instructions cause the programmable(BRI of programmable circuitry sets forth circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions; see MPEP § 2114 - IV) circuitry is further to detect a transient operation of the cryogenic tank (par. 29-30, 36-37, and 46-47).
As to claim 14, MONTGOMERY discloses wherein the cryogenic tank is a hydrogen tank (par. 15).
As to claim 15, MONTGOMERY discloses a method comprising:
determining, based on a temperature of the cryogenic tank and a property of the cryogenic tank, a threshold pressure of the cryogenic tank (par. 47 – wherein the threshold is based on safety thresholds, efficiency thresholds, and/or thresholds based on operational and/or business parameters);
comparing a pressure of the cryogenic tank to the threshold pressure (par. 43 and 47); and
after determining that the pressure of the cryogenic tank does not satisfy the threshold pressure, actuate the valve until the pressure satisfies the threshold pressure (par. 29-30,36-37,and 46-47).
As to claim 16, MONTGOMERY discloses including detecting a transient operation of the cryogenic tank (par. 29-30, 36-37, and 46-47).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MONTGOMERY (US 2023/0108882 A1 – published 6 April, 2023), in view of TANAKA (US 2017/0291486 A1 – published 12 October, 2017).
As to claim 3, MONTGOMERY discloses the programmable (BRI of programmable circuitry sets forth circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions; see MPEP § 2114 - IV) circuity, which is capable of being programmed to perform the functions, as claimed.
However, MONTGOMERY does not expressly disclose wherein the valve is necessarily utilized in such a way that can cause the change in rate of the pressure.
TANAKA is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic tank (2; abstract; par. 27). TANAKA teaches a valve (62/76) fluidly coupled to the cryogenic tank and configured to control the flow rate of the boil off gas from the tank (par. 15). This control directly adjusts the pressure within the tank (par. 15 and 31). The valve is controllable based on the degree of opening of the valve, so as to adjust and change the rate of change of pressure (par. 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MONTGOMERY, in view of the teachings of TANAKA to include an adjustable valve that can control a rate of change of the pressure, for the purpose of returning the tank to a predetermined pressure (par. 41).
Doing such, allows the system to include the circuitry which is capable of being programmed to carry out the functions, as claimed, in addition to the valve which is capable of being adjusted to cause a change in the rate of change of the pressure, when controlled as such.
As to claim 4, MONTGOMERY discloses the programmable (BRI of programmable circuitry sets forth circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions; see MPEP § 2114 - IV) circuity, which is capable of being programmed to perform the functions, as claimed.
More so, MONTGOMERY discloses the valve being a first valve, in addition to a second valve (324; figure 3) being included within the apparatus.
However, MONTGOMERY does not expressly disclose wherein the first valve or the second valve is necessarily utilized in such a way that can cause the change in rate of the pressure.
TANAKA is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic tank (2; abstract; par. 27). TANAKA teaches a first valve (76) fluidly coupled to the cryogenic tank and a second valve (65), wherein the first valve is configured to control the flow rate of the boil off gas from the tank (par. 15) and the second valve is configured to further control the pressure by releasing hydrogen gas from the system (par. 40). This control directly adjusts the pressure within the tank (par. 15 and 31). The first valve is controllable based on the degree of opening of the valve, so as to adjust and change the rate of change of pressure (par. 40-41), while the second valve can be opened to further adjust the pressure by adjusting the amount of BOG which remains in the system (par. 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MONTGOMERY, in view of the teachings of TANAKA to include an adjustable first valve that can control a rate of change of the pressure ,in addition to the second valve, for the purpose of returning the tank to a predetermined pressure (par. 41) and controlling the pressure within the system by controlling the amount of BOG remaining within the system (par. 40).
Doing such, allows the system to include the circuitry which is capable of being programmed to carry out the functions, as claimed, in addition to the first valve which is capable of being adjusted to cause a change in the rate of change of the pressure, when controlled as such, and a second valve which is controlled to be opened and closed in accordance with the amount of BOG to remain within the system during pressure control operation.
As to claim 5, MONTGOMERY, as modified by TANAKA, previously taught the adjustment of the first valve based on the degree of opening of the first valve to control the pressure of the tank, and specifically, reduction in pressure of the tank (see rejection of claim 4). As such, the combination provides wherein the operation of the first valve at a second rate of change, due to the change in the opening of the valve, is a rate of pressure reduction of the cryogenic tank.
As to claim 6, MONTGOMERY discloses the programmable (BRI of programmable circuitry sets forth circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions; see MPEP § 2114 - IV) circuity, which is capable of being programmed to perform the functions, as claimed.
MONTGOMERY, further, discloses wherein the valve includes an open and closed position, but does not necessarily describe wherein the valve is modulated to include multiple opening positions.
TANAKA is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic tank (2; abstract; par. 27). TANAKA teaches a valve (62/76) fluidly coupled to the cryogenic tank and configured to control the flow rate of the boil off gas from the tank (par. 15). This control directly adjusts the pressure within the tank (par. 15 and 31). The valve is controllable based on the degree of opening of the valve, so as to adjust and change the rate of change of pressure (par. 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify MONTGOMERY, in view of the teachings of TANAKA to include an adjustable valve, with multiple opening degrees of the valve, that can control the system based on different rate of changes of the pressure, for the purpose of returning the tank to a predetermined pressure (par. 41).
Doing such, allows the system to include the circuitry which is capable of being programmed to carry out the functions, as claimed, in addition to the valve which is capable of being adjusted to multiple opening degrees to cause different changes in the rate of change of the pressure, when controlled as such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
It is known within the ordinary skill of the art to provide pressure control of cryogenic tanks, such that valves are actuated to reduce pressure associated with the tank based on thresholds (see MONTGOMERY, at least). However, the prior art fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest “determining a first threshold rate of change of the pressure”, such that “in response to determining that a rate of change of the pressure of the cryogenic tank does not satisfy the first threshold rate of change of the pressure, actuate the valve until the rate of change of the pressure satisfies the first threshold rate” (claims 10 and 17), or “determine a second threshold rate of change of pressure”, such that “in response to determining (1) a rate of change of the pressure of the cryogenic tank does not satisfy the second threshold rate of change and (2) the first valve is open, open a second valve fluidly coupled to the cryogenic tank” (claim 11 and similar limitations for claim 18, from which claims 12 and 19). Particularly, the prior art does not provide determinations of the first and second threshold “rates of change of pressure” that unsatisfactory determinations cause the first valve and/or the second valve to operate. More so, the prior art recognizes the valve controlling pressure reduction of a cryogenic tank system can be a modulated valve with varying degrees of opening (see TANAKA). However, the prior art does not recognize “in response to determining that a rate of change of the pressure of the cryogenic tank does not satisfy the threshold pressure, open the valve by moving the modulated valve to the open position from the closed position” and “determine a second threshold rate of change of pressure, and after determining that the rate of change of the pressure of the cryogenic tank does not satisfy the second threshold rage, move the modulated valve from the first open position to the second open position” (claims 13 and similar limitations for claim 20). Absent some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established. Therefore, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the subject-matter of dependent claims 10-13 and 17-20.
It will be noted with regards to claims 10-13, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “programmable circuitry” is circuitry which is merely capable of being programmed to perform the functions and not circuitry that is programmed to carry out the functions (see MPEP § 2114 – IV). However, the claims are directed to the instructions and program steps which are carried out, such that the program steps must necessarily be disclosed, taught, and/or otherwise suggested by the prior art to reach either anticipation and/or obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 2/6/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763