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 .
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 first and second nozzles, a mixing chamber, a catalyst, an outlet downstream of the catalyst and an air supply conduit mentioned throughout the claims all must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a boil-off management system that including first and second nozzles, a mixing chamber, an air supply conduit, a catalyst, a downstream outlet of the catalyst. as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 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 1-6, 8, and 12-14 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 states “an outlet of downstream of the catalyst” which is confusing and should instead state ----an outlet downstream of the catalyst---.
Claim 5 states “the second cryogenic tank comprises a second nozzle” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how the tank can be a nozzle. It will be assumed that this instead states ---the second cryogenic tank fluidly connected with a second nozzle----.
Claim 8 states “a nozzle” which is found to be indefinite as claim 7 already discloses a nozzle connected to the common boil-off conduit.
Claims 12-14 all state “a first nozzle” or “a second nozzle” throughout which is found to be indefinite as a first and second nozzle were both already claimed in parent claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication number 2003/0031970 Shimada et al. (hereinafter Shimada) in view of U.S. patent application publication number 2011/0146605 Dixon et al. (hereinafter Dixon).
Regarding claim 1, Shimada (figures 1-3) discloses A cryogenic tank apparatus, comprising: a first cryogenic tank 1 having a first medium therein (liquid and gaseous hydrogen); a first boil-off conduit fluidically connected to the first cryogenic tank 4, the first boil-off conduit having a first boil-off valve 5; a first nozzle 62 within 6 fluidically connected to the first boil-off conduit; and a boil-off management system (BOMS) 6/7 to receive flow of the first medium from the first cryogenic tank through the first nozzle 62, the BOMS having a mixing chamber 65 (mixing air from 64 and boil off hydrogen from 61/61, a catalyst 9 downstream of the mixing chamber (figure 3), an outlet 12/13 of downstream of the catalyst 9 (figure 3), and an air supply conduit 64 through which flows a second medium (air), the mixing chamber being operable for mixing the first medium from the first cryogenic tank with the second medium from the air supply conduit (see figures and citations above). Shimada does not explicitly disclose a second cryogenic tank having the first medium therein; a second boil-off conduit fluidically connected to the second cryogenic tank; boil-off management system (BOMS) to receive flow of the first medium from the second cryogenic tank and the mixing chamber being operable for additionally mixing the first medium from the second cryogenic tank. The utilization of a second tank/boil-off conduit/ boil-off valve and nozzle to send additional liquid hydrogen boil off to the mixing chamber is consider to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing as merely being a duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to duplicate any individual portion of the liquid hydrogen feed system of Shimada including the tank 1/conduit 4/tank 5/ conduit 10 or nozzle within 6 in order to provided redundancy to the system and the ability to supply greater amounts of stored liquid hydrogen, i.e. the system would still work if a valve breaks or a conduit clogs or needs replacing, additionally this allows the replacement of one tank while another tank is still providing boil-off to the mixing chamber 6 to be mixed with air. Per MPEP 2144.04 - B. Duplication of PartsIn reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). In this case the applicant has not provided any new or unexpected results caused by providing redundant system parts. Additionally, the utilization of multiple tanks/conduits/valves to supply boil off vapor from a tank is disclosed by Dixon who provides duplication of upstream components supplying a fuel (see figure 6 duplicating tank 18, conduit 30, valves 40 and 70 and then combining the supplied streams downstream). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple parallel supply tanks, valves, and conduits to supply vapor cryogen as disclosed by Dixon with the liquid hydrogen supplying system of Shimada to provide for redundancies and the ability to continue supply when equipment in one circuit fails.
Regarding claim 2, See the rejection of claim 1 above, Shimada as modified by duplicate tanks/valves/conduits and/or modified by the valve supply system of Dixon discloses wherein the first boil-off conduit and the second boil-off conduit are merged upstream of the first nozzle to form a common boil-off conduit (see rejection of claim 1, would have been obvious to provide duplicate tanks/conduit/valves upstream of the ejector nozzle and mixing station and further Dixon provides combining vapor streams from supply tanks prior to supply to downstream equipment), such that the first medium flowing in through the common boil-off conduit via the first nozzle is mixed with the second medium flowing in through the air supply conduit (see rejection of claim 1 above, see ejector 6 mixing air with the liquid hydrogen).
Regarding claim 3, Shimada as modified by Dixon further disclose wherein the second boil-off conduit has a second boil-off valve, such that the first boil-off conduit and the second boil-off conduit are merged downstream of the first boil-off valve and the second boil-off valve to form the common boil-off conduit (see motivation to combine with respect to claim 1 above, Dixon discloses first and second boil off valves 40 for each of 18a and 18b upstream of a merge at 66).
Regarding claim 4, Shimada as modified by Dixon discloses wherein the first boil-off conduit and the second boil-off conduit are merged upstream of the first boil-off valve to form the common boil-off conduit, such that the first boil-off valve constitutes a common boil-off valve for the first boil-off conduit and the second boil-off conduit (see motivation to combine with respect to claim 1 above, Dixon provides the use of valves downstream of the merge at 66, see valves between 66 and 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a master valve after combining flows from multiple tanks to easily shut off the entire system if needed and to directly control total flow into the downstream mixer.
Regarding claim 5, Shimada does not explicitly disclose wherein the second cryogenic tank comprises a second nozzle, such that the first medium flowing in through the second boil-off conduit via the second nozzle in the mixing chamber is mixed in the mixing chamber with the second medium. See rejection of claim 1 above wherein the use of a second nozzle is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as a duplication of parts for example to provide alternative supplies of boil off gas from two separate tanks. The examiner further goes on Official Notice that ejectors with a first and second nozzle (i.e. 2 or more nozzles) is well known in the art at the time of applicant’s filing and it would have been obvious to utilize additional nozzles to air in hydrogen supply to the downstream mixing chamber. Also it would have been considered a simple substitution of one well known ejector for another as ejectors can commonly have multiple nozzles.
Regarding claim 7, see the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection above with respect to claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claims 8 and 12-14, see the rejection of claims 7 and 11 above with regard to the prior art already teaching first and second nozzles and the nozzle connection between the cryogenic tanks and the mixing chamber. Further see 112B rejection above.
Regarding claims 9 and 15-17, see the rejections of claims 1-4 above with respect to the utilization of a first and second boil-off valve in the boil-off conduits for each tank.
Regarding claims 6, 10 and 18-20, Shimada further discloses wherein the first medium comprises hydrogen (in tank 1) and wherein the second medium comprises air and oxygen (air entering 6, air contains oxygen).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes US 5373702 who also provides a cryogenic distribution system that includes multiple supply tanks in parallel with respective vapor boil off conduits and valves to supply said boiloff downstream as fuel and US 9356302 who provides utilizing first and second nozzles in parallel to supply an ejector downstream.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798