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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“utility modules includes… an electronic controller… gas storage tank configured to store utility gas, pneumatic device”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). As shown in the figures and described in the claims, these components are not part of the utility module but in a separate location. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10, 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “the hydrogen liquefaction device further includes a controller, and wherein the controller is configured to open a respective valve on each of the supply line, the discharge line, and the recovery line” which is considered new matter. There is no support in the specification for a controller, and there is no support for operations provided by a controller as the specification only provides support for the liquefier opening valves during operation, not any controller. While the specification recites a control unit, there is no specific operation provided by the control unit in this way that makes it clear it is a controller which provides such control.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the liquefier controller is configured to close a respective valve on each of the supply line and discharge line and to open a valve on the recovery line” which is considered new matter. There is no support for operations provided by a controller as the specification only provides support for the liquefier opening valves during operation, not any controller. While the specification recites a control unit, there is no specific operation provided by the control unit in this way that makes it clear it is a controller provides such control.
Claim 13 recites “electronic controller” which lacks support in the specification and as such is considered new matter.
Claim 13 recites “gas storage tank to store utility gas” which lacks support in the specification and as such is considered new matter.
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, 7-15, 17, 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “from outside” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear to where “from outside” refers. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the gaseous hydrogen is supplied to the liquefier from outside of the liquefier.
Claim 2 recites “a recovery line” and “to recover vaporized gas” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 recites that the liquefier is for liquefying hydrogen gas that is supplied from outside of the liquefier or for liquefying recovered vaporized gas generated by the mobile storage container or mobility and as such, it is unclear if the recovery line is required when the invention is not for recovering vaporized gas. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is treated as a positive recitation of the presence of a recovery line regardless of the configuration of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “upper region” which is considered indefinite as not specific structural configuration with respect to upper or any vertical configuration has been required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted with respect to the physical configuration would be best understood it is in a part of the device that could be considered above where the recovery port is.
Claim 1 recites “lower region” which is considered indefinite as not specific structural configuration with respect to lower or any vertical configuration has been required. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that with respect to the physical configuration would be best understood it is in a part of the device that could be considered below where the discharge port is.
Claim 8 recites “double-pipe shaped” which makes it unclear if the invention is actually double pipe or shaped like a double pipe. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the pipe is a double pipe with a vacuum, such as a vacuum jacketed pipe.
Claim 11 recites “configured to be supplied with liquefied hydrogen from an external liquefied hydrogen storage container while being positioned outside the cradle” which is considered indefinite as there is no structural limitations provided that further limit the language of the claim rendering it unclear what is required by the limitation. For the purpose of examination, as long as the container or mobility has an input for liquefied hydrogen, the limitation is considered met as an external source could be connected.
Claim 12 recites "valves"; however, no valves are recited as being present positively and no previous valves are referred to with respect to the claims and it is unclear if any valves are required and it they are how many there are or where they are. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to require the presence of a valve on each of the supply line, discharge line and recovery line.
Claim 12 recites “the controller is configured to close a respective valve on each of the supply line and discharge line and to open a valve on the recovery line” which is considered indefinite. Claim 10 has already required the three respective valves and it is unclear if these are the same valves as previously recited or separate valves and further it is already required that the recovery line has a valve which has been opened by the controller and as such it is unclear how a valve can be opened which is already opened. For the purpose of examination, as long as the controller is able to open or close valves the limitation is met.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the transport module forms an explosion prevention area surrounded by an explosion protection wall” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear as claimed how the explosion prevention area is formed by the transport module as the claim appears to form the explosion prevention area by the explosion prevention wall, and it is unclear as claimed if the explosion prevention wall is part of the transport module. For the purpose of examination, the transport module is configured to have an explosion prevention wall and the area which it surrounds is the explosion prevention area.
Claim 13 recites "valves"; however, no valves are recited as being present positively and no previous valves are referred to with respect to the claims and it is unclear if any valves are required and it they are how many there are or where they are. It is also unclear if each valve has a specific function as claimed or if it is just a general overall function of the valves together. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted to require the presence of a valve on each of the supply line, discharge line and recovery line.
Claim 13 recites "a liquefier... cooling hydrogen in a gaseous state" which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if this is a method step or only what the liquefier is configured to do. For the purpose of examination, this is considered an intended use of the liquefier that it is configured for.
Claim 13 recites “a compressor of the liquefier” which is considered indefinite. The liquefier has not been previously positively recited to have a liquefier and a compressor is not an inherently aspect of a liquefier which renders this claim indefinite as it unclear if the liquefier is required by the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, no compressor is required for the limitation as claimed, only that there is a coolant chiller.
Claim 14 recites “a recovery line” and “to recover vaporized gas” which is considered indefinite. Claim 13 recites that the liquefier is for liquefying hydrogen gas that is supplied from outside of the liquefier or for liquefying recovered vaporized gas generated by the mobile storage container or mobility and as such, it is unclear if the recovery line is required when the invention is not for recovering vaporized gas. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is treated as a positive recitation of the presence of a recovery line regardless of the configuration of claim 13..
Claims 7, 9-10, 15, 17, 19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
hydrogen supply module in claim 13, understood to be a water electrolyzer or hydrogen cylinder,
a precooling module understood to be a cooling system using liquid nitrogen,
pneumatic device in claim 13 understood to be a device using compressed air source,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikus (US PG Pub 20210301979), hereinafter referred to as Wikus and Admiraal (US Patent No. 4055961), hereinafter referred to as Admiraal and further in view of Baik (US PG Pub 20160231049), hereinafter referred to as Baik and Allidieres et al. (US PG Pub 20250020280), hereinafter referred to as Allidieres and Yamamoto et al. (US PG Pub 20240175546), hereinafter referred to as Yamamoto.
With respect to claim 1, Wikus (Figures 1-3) teaches a liquefaction device comprising:
a cradle configured to form an accommodating space in which a mobile storage container capable of storing liquefied fluid can be accommodated, being formed to be movable (intermediate storage tank 9 of mobile liquefaction plant 7 can be form a transport frame which can be mounted on and off a trailer, paragraph 85, which transport frame would be the cradle that the intermediate storage tank is in which is mobile as it can be moved both as part of the trailer and separate from it, and the accommodating space would be the part in which the storage tank sits);
and a liquefier installed on one side of the cradle, cooling fluid in a gaseous state supplied from an external hydrogen supply to source to the liquefier to a temperature which is equal to or below liquefaction temperature to generate liquefied fluid so as to supply liquefied fluid to the mobile storage container or the mobility (liquefaction device 8 which is part of the mobile liquefaction plant, receives a gaseous fluid such as from compressed storage gas tank and passes a liquid to intermediate storage tank, paragraph 86),
a liquefaction chamber that forms as a liquefaction space into which hydrogen in a gaseous state from outside is flowed and liquefied (the liquefier 8 in which helium is liquefied, paragraph 86 where in the chamber where the liquefaction happens would be the liquefaction chamber),
a cryocooler, cooling hydrogen to a temperature which is equal to or below liquefaction temperature so as to liquefy the hydrogen flowed into the liquefaction space (the cryocooler, paragraph 86 is used to liquefy the fluid, which as modified is hydrogen);
a supply line that connects an external hydrogen supply source so as to supply hydrogen to the liquefaction chamber (there is compressed gas storage tank, paragraph 86 which as modified would deliver hydrogen and delivers it into the liquefaction device 8)
a discharge line that connects the liquefaction chamber and the mobile storage container so as to supply liquefied hydrogen generated in the liquefaction chamber to the mobile storage container or to the mobility the unlabeled line shown connecting 8 to 9, paragraph 86),
Wikus does not teach the device is a hydrogen liquefaction device such that the gaseous fluid received, liquefied and stored is hydrogen.
Admiraal teaches that a cryogenic cooling device with storage can be used to liquefy multiple different gases including helium and hydrogen (Column 1, 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 Admiraal for the gas in the system of Wikus to have been hydrogen instead of helium since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (helium) for another (hydrogen) to obtain predictable result is obvious whereby it would allow for the system of Wikus to be utilized for the predictable result that would of being used for on demand liquid hydrogen production and use where needed in the same way as it is for helium as it is known that liquefiers such as that of Wikus can be used for multiple different type of gases, a simple substation of one gas for another would be prima facie obvious. This means that the fluid received, liquefied and store would be hydrogen.
Wikus does not teach to recover vaporized gas generated from the mobile storage container for re-liquefaction into liquefied hydrogen and wherein the liquefier includes a recovery line that connects the mobile storage container and the liquefaction chamber so as to recover vaporized gas generated from the mobile storage container, wherein the recovery line is connected to a recovery port that connects the lower side of the liquefaction chamber and the supply port, so as to allow vaporized gas to flow into the liquefaction space in a mixed state with hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen supply source.
Allidieres (Figure 1) teaches that in addition to a feed source (2) of a cycle gas such as hydrogen into a liquefier (3) that vaporized recycled gas from the reservoir of the tank which is fed by the liquid is also fed to the liquefier (paragraph 38) to reliquefy the hydrogen so that where appropriate the vaporized gas can be recycled and liquefied (paragraph 45).
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 Allidieres to have provided a recovery line which connected the storage tank of Wikus as modified back to the liquefaction chamber in order to be able to recover any vaporized gas and reliquefy it since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby allowing for the recovery would both allow what would be common knowledge in the art of both recovering of the hydrogen for reliquefaction but also preventing pressure build up in the tank. The recovery line is connected back into the liquefier and thus there would be a recovery port which would connect to both the lower side of the liquefaction chamber and to the supply port as the hydrogen flowing in via the recovery port, which is wherever the recovered hydrogen enters the liquefaction chamber, would mix with the hydrogen from the supply port and both would ultimately in liquid form be connected to the lower side of the chamber once they liquefy.
Wikus does not explicitly teach the cryocooler installed on one side of the liquefaction chamber, though it should be noted that this is likely the configuration, Wikus just does not show the details inside the liquefaction device.
Baik teaches a hydrogen liquefaction device (Figue 1) which has a liquefaction container (20, paragraph 15 which is a liquefaction chamber) which has a cryocooler (30, paragraph 22) installed at the top of it where the gaseous hydrogen transfer tube (62) can be seen to enter the top of the container and the liquid hydrogen pipe (unlabeled with LH2 leaves the bottom of the container)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the cryocooler of Wikus to have been installed on one side of the liquefaction chamber (top as shown in Baik) based on the teaching of Baik since it has been shown that combining prior art teachings to yield predictable results is obvious whereby installing it at the top of the chamber would be common knowledge in the art which allows it to be accessed and removed or serviced through easily through the top of the overall device.
Wikus does not teach wherein the supply line is connected to a supply port formed at an upper region of the liquefaction space, where liquefied hydrogen is accommodated, in the liquefaction chamber, so as to allow hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen supply source to flow into the upper region of the liquefaction space, and the discharge line is connected to a discharge port that is formed on a lower region of the liquefaction chamber, so as to discharge hydrogen generated in the liquefaction chamber to the accommodating space.
Baik teaches a hydrogen liquefaction device (Figure 1) which has a liquefaction container (20, paragraph 15 which is a liquefaction chamber) which has a cryocooler (30, paragraph 22) installed at the top of it where the gaseous hydrogen transfer tube (62) can be seen to enter the top of the container and the liquid hydrogen pipe (unlabeled with LH2 leaves the bottom of the container)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when having a supply line and a discharge line in the liquefaction chamber of Wikus (which would be present through not shown in detail for connecting the outside lines for liquefaction) to have had the supply port (where the supply connects or ends) at the top of the chamber and the discharge port (where the line connects or ends) at the bottom of the chamber (equivalent component to the container of Baik) based on the teaching of Baik since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby flowing the fluid into the top of the chamber would provide what is common knowledge in the art of allowing it to be first cooled in the warmer regions of the device before then being liquefied and providing the discharge line connected to the bottom of the container would allow the discharge line to be formed where the liquid hydrogen is collected (this configuration is what is shown in Baik).
Wikus as modified does not teach wherein the liquefier further includes a vent port connected to the recovery line so as to vent at least a portion of vaporized gas generated and recovered from the mobile storage container or the mobility to outside, where the vent port includes a second vent line including a relief valve so that pressure of vaporized gas recovered to the recovery line does not exceed a predetermined pressure.
Yamamoto (Figure 1) teaches a recovery line for recovering boil-off gas from a tank (62) also has a boil-off channel so that if the tank pressure excessed a safe value the boil-off gas can be released to the outside to prevent excessive increase in the internal pressure of the tank through a valve (paragraph 43).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have connected a line (which would be a vent line via a vent port) to the recovery line with a valve of Wikus as modified based on the teaching of Yamamoto so that if the pressure inside the tank did reach an unsafe level the hydrogen gas could be discharged to the outside. This would give the system the capability to prevent the pressure of the vaporized gas recovered, which is the pressure inside the tank, from being too high (which would be above a predetermined pressure)
Wikus does not teach wherein the vent port includes: a first vent line including a bypass valve so as to control the pressure and flow rate of vaporized gas recovered to the recovery line.
However, this is a mere duplication of parts having two vent lines with two valves allowing fluid to be vented, the name of the valves does not change what the valves are doing which is allowing relief of fluid through vent lines. 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 a first vent line with a valve in addition to the second vent line and valve as modified connected to the vent port since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced whereby having two vent lines instead of one would allow for a predictable increase in venting ability for the system or the ability to provide redundancy in vent lines. As claimed, described and disclosed both the bypass valve and the relief valve are in the same configuration and providing the same function and thus a duplication of parts would result in having two valves and two lines which would meet the limitation as claimed.
With respect to claim 8, Wikus as modified does not teach each of the supply line, the discharge line, and the recovery line is formed as a double-pipe shaped vacuum hose including a vacuum-insulated space.
Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention for the three flow lines (supply, discharge and recovery) to all have been formed of double-walled vacuum insulated pipes in order to provide insulation to the fluid flowing within in order to prevent unwanted heat incursion. Applicant has not timely traversed this official notice and as such it is considered admitted prior art.
With respect to claim 9, Wikus as modified teaches wherein the mobile storage container is configured to be supplied with liquefied hydrogen from the liquefier while being positioned in the accommodating space of the cradle (as modified, while the storage tank 9 is in the transport frame it is receiving the liquid hydrogen).
With respect to claim 11, Wikus as modified teaches wherein the mobile storage container or the mobility is configured to be supplied with liquefied hydrogen from an external liquefied hydrogen storage container while being positioned outside the cradle (as the storage tank is capable of receiving hydrogen it would still be able to when outside the cradle).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikus/Admiraal/Baik/Allidieres/Yamamoto and further in view of Crispel et al. (US PG Pub 20200095113), hereinafter referred to as Crispel.
With respect to claim 7, Wikus as modified does not teach wherein the supply line includes a first quick connector between the external hydrogen supply source and the liquefaction chamber, the discharge line includes a second quick connector between the liquefaction chamber and at least one of the mobile storage container and the mobility, and wherein the recovery line are includes a third quick connector between the liquefaction chamber and at least one of the mobile storage container and the mobility.
Crispel teaches that fluid transfer lines in a liquefied hydrogen system can be connected via quick connectors which is a removeable connection (paragraphs 36-37).
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 Crispel provided quick connectors on the fluid transfer lines of Wikus (which would include supply line which is between the external hydrogen supply source and the liquefaction chamber, recovery line between the storage container and the liquefaction chamber and discharge line which is between the liquefaction chamber and the mobile storage container) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby proving quick connectors would be recognized as common knowledge in the art to provide a quick and easy way to disconnect the different components of the system from each other fluidically if desired.
Claim(s) 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikus/Admiraal/Baik/Allidieres/Yamamoto and further in view of KR20150011613, hereinafter referred to as KR2015.
With respect to claim 10, Wikus teaches a valve on the supply line to supply liquefied hydrogen to the mobile storage container (though not labeled, as seen in Figure 2, there is a valve between 6 and 8, which is used to supply hydrogen to the liquefaction device.
Wikus does not teach the liquefier is a respective valve on valves on the discharge line and recovery line to recover and re-liquefy vaporized gas generated from the mobile storage container or the mobility, and to resupply re-liquefied hydrogen to the mobile storage container or the mobility.
KR2015 (Figure 5) teaches that on both a recovery line (430) and a supply line (220) with a storage tank (410) that shut off valves can be provided to control flow into and out of the tank (paragraph 40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided valves on both the discharge and recovery lines of Wikus as modified based on the teaching of KR2015 since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing said valves would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of being able to provide the amount of hydrogen necessary in the tank to prevent overfilling while also being able to provide control to the recovery process to prevent over-pressurization.
Further KR2015 teaches that a control unit can be provided which controls shut-off valves to either open or close the valves to control flow paths within a system (paragraphs 42-47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have based on the teaching of KR2015 to have provided a control unit (which can be considered a controller) in Wikus as modified to provide control to open or close the valves (on supply, recovery and discharge as claimed) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing said control unit would allow for the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of being able to control the valves as needed during operation and prevent undesirable fill or flow conditions in the system.
With respect to claim 12, Wikus as modified teaches wherein the controller is configured to close a respective valve on each of the supply line and the discharge line and to open a valve on the recovery line so as to recover and re-liquefy vaporized gas generated from the mobile storage container to temporarily store re-liquefied hydrogen in the liquefaction chamber (as the valves and controller that can be control the valves as present as modified, the limitation is met as the controller can provide this configuration).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Contrary to applicant’s argument on page 8, the amendments to the claim have no entirely overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) and new rejections have been provided as a result of the limitation.
Applicant argues page 8 that the transport frame of Wilkus “is structurally different form the cradle of the present invention, which defines an internal accommodating space into which the mobile storage container or mobility may enter” and the rejection is using impermissible hindsight. This is not persuasive.
First, applicant is arguing limitation which are not claimed. All that is required is that there is a cradle which forms an accommodating space. The transport trailer or the prior art forms an accommodating space on top of it by being present and holds the components, and as such it can be considered a cradle. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). No modification is made to consider the trailer of cradle and applicant provide no specific reason why this limitation is hindsight.
Applicant argues page 9 that Yamamoto does not suggest a duel vent line structure “in which the vent port is divided into two distinct lines and a first line equipped with a bypass valve for process control, and a second vent line equipped with a relief valve for safety protection” as claimed. This is not persuasive.
The claims while reciting a bypass valve and a relief valve as well as functions of those valves should not be construed as narrowly as applicant argues. All that is required of the claims is that there are two vent lines, each with a valve. As long as that is present the functions of those valves results naturally from their presence. As it is known to already have one vent line to provide a venting function (which would both provide safety and process control), having a second one which is of the same construction would be obvious as shown in the rejection above.
Applicants’ arguments in regards to claim 7, 10, 12 are moot as they do not provide any arguments as to the teaching of claim 7 or further arguments to claim 1 in view of the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicants’ remaining arguments are moot as the rejection of claim 13 is not maintained in view of the amendments; however, due to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) no determination of allowability can be made at this time. It should be noted that the closest additional art is Mikhelson et al. (US PG Pub 20250230975) which teaches the general teaching of having explosion proof walls as part of an LNG process (paragraph 105) but does not provide any specific configuration. The claimed parts of the utility module of claim 13 are all well known in the art and would be considered conventional, but the configuration of some of those components with the transport module and explosion protection wall as claimed does not appear to be taught by the prior art as the claims are best understood. The explosion protection wall is interpreted with respect to the claim language to be understood to be one that can “withstand explosion pressure” and is understood to be distinguished from a standard wall that may surround a liquefaction system.
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