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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 5 (Fig. 5), Species 6 (Fig. 6), subspecies E - 284 controlled by 283 in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 8-10, 18-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that in addition to claims 8-9, 18-20 indicated as drawn to non-elected species by the applicant, claim 10 is also withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected subspecies 3-4.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “of gaseous hydrogen” (in line 3 and several times thereafter) are indefinite for reintroducing gaseous hydrogen anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same gaseous hydrogen or not.
The recitation, “so as to perform heat exchange” is indefinite for reintroducing heat exchange anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same heat exchange or not.
The recitation, “into liquid hydrogen.” is indefinite for reintroducing liquid hydrogen anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same liquid hydrogen or not.
Further see the claim interpretation section below where indefiniteness issues arise from use of 112(f) language that is not defined.
In all dependent claims 2-7, 11-17, the reintroduction of “gaseous hydrogen” is indefinite for the same reasons as above.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “low temperature” is indefinite for being relative and patently indistinct and there is no way to determine what temperature is included and not included.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “from liquid nitrogen” is indefinite for reintroducing liquid hydrogen anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same liquid hydrogen or not.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “with liquid nitrogen” is indefinite for reintroducing liquid hydrogen anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same liquid hydrogen or not.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “of liquid nitrogen” is indefinite for reintroducing liquid hydrogen anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same liquid hydrogen or not.
The recitation, “of gaseous nitrogen” is indefinite for reintroducing gaseous hydrogen anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same gaseous hydrogen or not.
In regard to claim 12, the recitation, “saturated nitrogen” is inconsistent with the other recitations of the claim as there is no support for liquid nitrogen in the tank and some other saturated nitrogen as separately recited and it is entirely unclear what the functional recitation requires.
In regard to claim 13, the recitation, “an upper part” is indefinite for reintroducing upper part anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same upper part or not.
In regard to claim 15, the recitation, “compressing helium” is indefinite for reintroducing helium anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same helium or not.
The recitation, “compressed helium” is indefinite for reintroducing compressed helium anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same compressed helium or not.
The recitation, “of helium is firstly lowered.” is indefinite for reintroducing helium anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same helium or not.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “compressed helium such that” is indefinite for reintroducing compressed helium anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same compressed helium or not.
The recitation, “of helium is secondly lowered.” is indefinite for reintroducing helium anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same helium or not.
The recitation, “performing heat exchange” (all three recitations) is indefinite for reintroducing heat exchange anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same heat exchange or not.
In regard to claim 17, the recitation, “performing heat exchange” is indefinite for reintroducing heat exchange anew improperly when such was already introduced and this creates ambiguity about whether this is the same heat exchange or not.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “heat exchange section” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to define what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the recitation is interpreted as at least a conduit portion.
Claim limitation “pre-cooling device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to define what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the term. While there are a variety of structures described in the specification in association with the term, the specification does not make clear what structure the term requires. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the recitation is interpreted as any structure that can cool hydrogen prior to the hydrogen being liquefied.
Claim limitation “cooling cycle device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to define what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the term. While there are a variety of structures described in the specification in association with the term, the specification does not make clear what structure the term requires. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the recitation is interpreted any refrigeration system.
Claim limitation “vacuum pressure forming device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to define what structure is necessary and sufficient to meet the term. While there are a variety of structures described in the specification in association with the term, the specification does not make clear what structure the term requires. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the recitation is interpreted as any structure that can provide a vacuum pressure to the heat exchange tank.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An (CN 213931700). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, An teaches a hydrogen liquefaction system (see whole disclosure including Fig. 1), comprising:
a hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10), where gaseous hydrogen (page 6, hydrogen to liquefier) is introduced at a front end (see top), heat exchange occurs in a heat exchange section (see hydrogen line between heat exchangers, hereafter H2 line) leading to liquefaction of the gaseous hydrogen into liquid hydrogen (page 6), and liquefied liquid hydrogen (to 10) can be discharged at a rear end (bottom);
a pre-cooling device (2 as described herein) formed between the front end (top) of the hydrogen pipe (1 to 10) and the heat exchange section (H2 line), pre-cooling the gaseous hydrogen (page 6 hydrogen to liquefier); and
a cooling cycle device (refrigeration cycle, page 6), which is in thermal contact with the heat exchange section (H2 line) of the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10) so as to perform the heat exchange with the heat exchange section (H2 line) of the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10) such that pre-cooled gaseous hydrogen (from 2) can be liquefied into the liquid hydrogen (at 10; page 6).
In regard to claim 2, An teaches that the pre-cooling device (2) uses liquid nitrogen to pre-cool the gaseous hydrogen (hydrogen to be liquefied).
In regard to claim 3, An teaches that the pre-cooling device (2) is in thermal contact with the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10) so as to perform heat exchange with the hydrogen pipe (H2 line), having a liquid nitrogen supply pipe (46) on one side and a gaseous nitrogen discharge pipe (48) on other side.
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) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (CN 213931700) in view of An (CN 214095167). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 15-17, An(700) teaches that the cooling cycle device (refrigeration system) includes: a circulating line (see refrigeration cycle loop line, hereafter loop line) in which refrigerant circulates in a reverse-Brayton cycle (see turbines and refrigeration arrangement); a compressor (3, 4) formed in the circulating line (loop line), compressing the refrigerant (page 6); an aftercooler (at least 21) formed in the circulating line (loop line), cooling the compressed refrigerant and releasing heat (therefrom); and a first expander (6) formed in the circulating line (loop line), expanding the compressed refrigerant such that temperature of firstly expanding refrigerant is firstly lowered (page 6).
Further, the cooling cycle device includes: a second expander (7) formed in the circulating line (loop line), expanding the refrigerant such that temperature of secondly expanding refrigerant is secondly lowered (page 6); a first heat exchanger (22) formed between the aftercooler (21) and the first expander (6), performing the heat exchange with the circulating line (loop line) that enters the compressor (3, 4); a second heat exchanger (24) formed between the first expander (6) and the second expander (7), performing the heat exchange with the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10); and a third heat exchanger (25) formed between the second expander (7) and the second heat exchanger (25), performing the heat exchange with the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10).
Further, the cooling cycle device further includes: a fourth heat exchanger (23) formed between the first heat exchanger (22) and the first expander (6), performing the heat exchange with the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10).
An (700) does not appear to teach the refrigerant is helium. However, it is routine and ordinary to use helium for liquefying hydrogen as taught by An (167). An (167) teaches that refrigeration capacity is improved through the use of helium refrigerant (page 6, para. 7). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operate the refrigeration system of Ann (700) with helium refrigerant for the purpose of providing good refrigeration capacity.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (CN 213931700) in view of Xie (US 2021/0300758). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 4, 6, 7, 11-13, An teaches most of the claim limitations, including that the pre-cooling device includes: a heat exchange tank (2) formed to surround the hydrogen pipe (in 16) so as to perform heat exchange with the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10), being formed with an accommodating space (interior) therein so as to accommodate liquid nitrogen (page 6); a liquid nitrogen supply pipe (46) formed in a part of the heat exchange tank (2), supplying liquid nitrogen (page 6) to the heat exchange tank (2); and a gaseous nitrogen discharge pipe (48) formed in an upper part (see top part) of the heat exchange tank (2), discharging gaseous nitrogen (page 7) that is vaporized from the liquid nitrogen in the heat exchange tank (2).
An does not explicitly teach that the liquid nitrogen supply pipe (46) is formed in a lower part of the heat exchange tank (2); that the hydrogen pipe (conduit 1 to 10) is formed with a bent part that is at least partially bent to increase a thermal contact area that is in contact with the liquid nitrogen; a first valve formed in the liquid nitrogen supply line, a second valve formed in the gaseous nitrogen discharge pipe; a pressure regulator that regulates internal pressure of the heat exchange tank so as to regulate temperature of the liquid nitrogen inside the heat exchange tank; the pressure regulator including a vacuum line from an upper part of the heat exchange tank and a vacuum pump in the vacuum line.
However these features are well known for providing the ability to subcooled the nitrogen and provide a lower temperature of refrigeration via the evacuation of nitrogen vapor as taught at least by Xie. Xie teaches a liquid nitrogen supply pipe (1 to 4 to a) formed in a lower part (see bottom) of a heat exchange tank (13); providing a process line (r to s in 13) that is formed with a bent part (see bends therein) that is at least partially bent to increase a thermal contact area that is in contact with the liquid nitrogen (see line is longer due to bends providing greater area); a first valve (4) formed in the liquid nitrogen supply line (1 to 4 to a), a second valve (11) formed in a gaseous nitrogen discharge pipe (c to 11); a pressure regulator (at least 22, and line with 22) that regulates internal pressure (inside 13) of the heat exchange tank (13) so as to regulate temperature of the liquid nitrogen inside (para. 42, 30) the heat exchange tank (13); the pressure regulator (at least 22 and line with 22) including a vacuum line (line with 22) from an upper part (see top part) of the heat exchange tank (13) and a vacuum pump (22) in the vacuum line (line with 22) providing reduced temperatures and thereby improving the ability of bath to refrigerate the process stream (in r to s in 13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the hydrogen pipe within the heat exchange tank (2) of An with the bent part for the purpose of increasing the heat transfer area of the pipe within the tank (2) and to provide the supply line (46) with the first valve for the purpose of controlling a flow of liquid nitrogen into the heat exchange tank (2) and the gaseous nitrogen discharge pipe (48) with the second valve for the purpose of controlling the flow of nitrogen out of the heat exchange tank (2) and to provide a pressure regulator having a vacuum line and a vacuum pump for regulating the internal pressure of the heat exchange tank (2) for the purpose of providing lower refrigeration temperatures and improved refrigeration capacity.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (CN 213931700) in view of Xie (US 2021/0300758) and further in view of Deletre (WO 2016/151224). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
An teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach that the heat exchange tank (2) has an internal tank, an external tank surrounding the internal tank, and an insulating material between the internal and the external tank. However, providing such is routine and ordinary to insulate the contents of cryogenic tanks as taught by Deletre. Deletre teaches a cryogenic tank (2) whose contents are cooled by evacuating vapor therefrom with a vacuum pump (12) and having an internal tank (7), an external tank (4) surrounding the internal tank (7), and an insulating material (page 4) between the internal (7) and the external tank (4) to reduce unwanted heat leak. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the heat exchange tank (2) of An with the internal tank, the external tank surrounding the internal tank, and the insulating material between the internal and the external tank for providing reduction of unwanted heat leak.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (CN 213931700) in view of Xie (US 2021/0300758), and further in view of Deletre (WO 2016/151224) and Yao (US 10724780). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
An, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, including that Xie teaches a vacuum pressure regulation valve (11, 19, 21) formed in the vacuum line (from 13 to 22), but does not explicitly teach a vacuum pressure measuring sensor that measures vacuum pressure of the heat exchange tank (2); a vacuum pressure regulation controller that receives a vacuum pressure signal from the vacuum pressure measuring sensor and applies a control signal to the vacuum pressure regulation valve. However, such control features are routine and ordinary as taught by Deletre and Yao. Deletre teaches a vacuum pressure measuring sensor (“pressure sensor” page 6, para. 4) that measures vacuum pressure of a tank (2) and controls a vacuum pump (12) so as to obtain a desired pressure set point (page 6, para. 4). In addition, Yao teaches that it is routine and ordinary to employ a vacuum pressure regulation controller (25) to control a vacuum valve (24) so as to control the resulting conditions in a heat exchange tank (14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify An with a pressure sensor in the heat exchange tank (2) and a controller operating a vacuum valve so as to easily control the pressure and temperature within the heat exchange tank (2) and provide automatic means of obtaining regulating the conditions in the heat exchange tank (2) to achieve the desired pressure and temperature conditions with simple and affordable control structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571) 272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
January 28, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763