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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11 are 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 1 recites “one or more controllers configured to control operation” and then lists the operations that are controlled; however, the specification only appears to describes operations based on controller groups and does not identify each individual labeled component (400, 410 420) as separate controllers that control the total operations or that each controller can provide all control operations or that multiple controllers are used simultaneously where any of them provides all of the operations. As such this limitation is considered to be new matter. Claims 2-3 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 as they contain the limitation of “one or more controllers”.
Claim 6 recites “one or more controllers configured to control an operation” and then lists the operations that are controlled; however, the specification only appears to describes operations based on controller groups and does not identify each individual labeled component (400, 410 420) as separate controllers that control the total operations or that each controller can provide all control operations or that multiple controllers are used simultaneously where any of them provides all of the operations. As such this limitation is considered to be new matter. Claims 7 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6 as it contains the limitation of “one or more controllers”.
Claim 10 recites “one or more controllers configured to control an operation” and then lists the operations that are controlled; however, the specification only appears to describes operations based on controller groups and does not identify each individual labeled component (400, 410 420) as separate controllers that control the total operations or that each controller can provide all control operations or that multiple controllers are used simultaneously where any of them provides all of the operations. As such this limitation is considered to be new matter. Claims 11 is rejected for the same reason as claim 10 as it contains the limitation of “one or more controllers”.
Claims 4 is rejected as being dependent upon as rejected claim.
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 2-3 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 2 recites limitations entirely related how the “one or more controllers” control the flow of cryogenic fluid in each line according to the internal pressure of the storage tank; however, claim 1 has already required this limitation with how the controllers are configured which renders these limitations indefinite.
Claim 3 recites limitations related to how the valves control the fluid and how the controllers control the fluid; however, claim 3 has already required all of these limitations in their entirety rendering claim 3 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 and 3 fail to further limit the limitations of claim 1 and only recite them using different phrasing without actually limiting the previous limitations further. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poag et al. (US PG Pub 20180306383), hereinafter referred to as Poag and Fiat et al. US PG Pub 20170122495), hereinafter referred to as Fiat.
With respect to claim 5, Poag (Figure 1) teaches a pressure buildup system of a cryogenic fluid storage tank, the pressure buildup system comprising:
a storage tank in which cryogenic fluid is stored (LNG is stored in tank 15, paragraphs 12, 14);
a discharge line communicating with a lower part of the storage tank to allow the cryogenic fluid stored in the storage tank to flow through the discharge line (liquid pickup line 1, paragraph 14 seen to come from the bottom of the tank);
a first line having one end connected to the discharge line and the other end connected to a supply target (after leaving the tank, the first line can be considered the one that passes from point 2 in the drawings to the engine 13);
and a third line configured to perform non-gravity pressure buildup, branched from the first line at a fourth point and having one end formed to be connected at a fifth point of the first line outside the storage tank, wherein a portion of the third line passes through the cryogenic fluid stored in the storage tank (from exit tee 10 a separate line passes through the tank to tank heater line 7 which provides pressure buildup through heating of the fluid and is then mixed back with the second line at return tee 11, paragraph 16 and 18 which is a non-gravity pressure buildup).
Poag does not teach a second line configured to perform gravity pressure buildup, the second line being branched from the first line at a third point to communicate with an inside of the storage tank to perform gravity pressure buildup.
Fiat teaches that to maintain the pressure in a tank a recirculation circuit can be used where from the duct removing liquid from the tank (17) a duct (19) is branched upstream of supply (to 25) where the duct passe through a heater (11) which vaporizes the liquid so that it can be passed to the vapor space to increase the pressure (paragraphs 77-81, 89).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have provided a second line branched from the first line of Poag based on the teaching of Fiat to act as a recirculation line to provide vaporized gas to the vapor space of the storage tank since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the recirculation circuit would provide what is common knowledge in the art of another way to ensure that the pressure is maintained necessary in Poag so as to be able to withdraw the liquid from the tank as desired. As both methods are known both gravity and non-gravity pressure build up, using them together would be obvious to either ensure that pressurization happened or to provide redundancy. This modification would result in a second line branching off the first line to from the recirculation line as taught by Fiat.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poag/Fiat and further in view of Alliederes (US PG Pub 20200248870), hereinafter referred to as Alliederes.
With respect to claim 6, Poag as modified does not teach wherein the pressure buildup system of the cryogenic fluid storage tank comprises: a controller configured to control a flow of the cryogenic fluid in each line according to an internal pressure of the tank, wherein the controller is configured to allow the cryogenic fluid to past through the second line until the pressure of the storage tank reaches a preset pressure, and when the internal pressure of he storage tank reaches the preset temperature, clos the flow of the cryogenic fluid to the second line and control the cryogenic fluid to be supplied to the supply target through the first line.
Alliederes teaches that in a delivery system from a liquefied gas tank that in order to maintain the pressure needed in a tank to pass fluid out, a heating system is used with a heating valve that is automatically controlled and a heating member (6) (paragraph 24). When the pressure is too low heating valves are opened to activate the heating loop to increase the pressure in the tank, and when the pressure achieves a sufficient level the heating valves are closed and then a transfer valve (11 which is at the outlet of the tank) which allows transfer of the fluid for use (to vessel 2) is then opened. The valves can all be controlled control member which will automate the operations (paragraphs 35-37).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Poag provided a control member (a controller) along with a valve on the branch that passes fluid into the recirculation line and a valve (which would be after the first line branch) on the branch that passes fluid to the heat exchanger (5) based on the teaching of Alliederes that are controlled such when the pressure isn’t high enough in the tank the valve on the recirculation line is open and when the pressure reaches a desired level in the tank, the valve on the recirculation is closed followed by the valve allowing fluid to pass to the heat exchanger (and thus ultimately to the engine which is the supply target) is opened allowing fluid to pass therethrough since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing such automatic control would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of an efficient system that is able to run without external intervention. Thus the control member (a controller) provides flow control to the first and second lines as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poag/Fiat and further in view of Alliederes and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1B), hereinafter referred to as AAPA.
With respect to claim 7, Poag as modified teaches wherein the pressure buildup system of the cryogenic fluid storage tank comprises:
a first valve disposed in the second line to control the fluid flow to the second line (as modified there is a valve on the recirculation line);
and a second valve formed on the first line to control the fluid flow to the first line (as modified there is a valve which controls flow in the second line), and the controller is configured to control an operation of at least one of the first valve or the second valve according to the internal pressure of the storage tank (the control member as modified controls both valves), and wherein the controller is configured to open the first valve until the internal pressure of the storage tank reaches a preset pressure so that the fluid passes through the second line, when the internal pressure of the storage tank reaches the set pressure, open the second valve after closing the first valve so that the cryogenic fluid is supplied to the supply target through the first line, and when the internal pressure of the storage tank decreases below a predetermined level while the second valve is open, allow the cryogenic fluid to be supplied to the supply target through the third line (this is how the operation of the valves is, with the first valve opened until the pressure of the tank is at a desired pressure, and then the first valve is closed, followed by the second valve being opened to pass cryogenic fluid to the supply target, which as the second valve is opened it would allow the flow of fluid through the storage tank as long as the pressure in the tank was low enough to cause flow based on the temperature of fluid in the tank, which would happen from how the configuration of the flow lines are).
Poag does not teach the second valve is at a downstream end side of the first line.
AAPA teaches that a valve which allows fluid flow to a supply target is at the end of the second line with respect to the supply target (see AAPA where valve V is just before supply target 20).
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 AAPA to have provided the second valve of Poag as modified at the end of the first line just upstream of the engine (supply target) since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby as the second line has a finite length the valve can only be placed on one of the ends as shown by AAPA or not at an end and therefore it would have been obvious to have placed it at the end of the line (the rear end) before the supply target with a reasonable expectation of success in it being a suitable location to block flow passing to the supply target when it is desired for no flow to pass to the supply target.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poag/Fiat and further in view of Snyder (US PG Pub 20140190187), hereinafter referred to as Snyder.
With respect to claim 8, Poag as modified teaches wherein the pressure buildup system of the cryogenic fluid storage tank comprises:
a first heat exchanger (the heat exchanger 5, paragraph 14 which vaporized liquid natural gas) is disposed at a location before the third line is branched from the first line (5 is upstream of 10).
and a second heat exchanger disposed at a location before the third line branched from the first line is reconnected to the first line (the tank heater line 7 is a heat exchanger as fluid passing through exchanges heat, paragraph 16, and as seen in the figure is upstream of the return tee), wherein the first heat exchanger is configured to increase a temperature of the cryogenic fluid passing therethrough (fluid passing through the first heated exchanger is vaporized and thus heated).
Poag as modified does not teach the first heat exchanger is disposed at a location before the second line is branched from the first line.
Snyder teaches that when a recirculation line (22) is provided to a head space (17) of a storage tank based that the recirculation is provided downstream of a heat exchanger (15) that heas the liquid that is also passed to an application (paragraph 27).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have placed the branch point for the second line from the first line of Poag as modified downstream of the heat exchanger (5) to provide vaporization to all of the liquid before any branching occurs based on the teaching of Snyder since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that using a single heat exchanger for all vaporization necessary would allow for less overall components required by the system which could result in a more efficient configuration as only one component needs to be monitored and maintained as opposed to separate heat exchangers. Thus, both branch lines would be after the heat exchanger (5) not just the one shown already in Poag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 9-12 has been withdrawn in regards to the rejection under 35 USC 103.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has provided no specific arguments as to the rejection of claim 5. The arguments made in regards to claim 1 that are referenced in regards to claim 5 (see page 4 of the arguments) are that claim 5 is patentable for similar reasons. This is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 1 are in regards to the operation of valves in a specific configuration and to the controller flow lines in a specific configuration. Those limitations are not present in claim 5 and as such the arguments do not apply to the rejection of claim 5. Further, applicant’s additional arguments in regard to claim 5 are only about the limitations that are found in claim 5 but do not provide additional arguments as to how claim 5 is differentiated from the prior art.
Upon further review of claim 9, the presence of the second line being connected to the third line as claimed is considered to read over the prior art as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12 allowed. Claims 1, 4, 10-11 would be allowed if the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) were resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to both claims 1 and 7 is that provided above in the rejection and as seen in the previous rejection. While the general structure in regards to claim 1 has been taught by Poag as shown in the rejection in the previous office action and provided above in claim 5, the specific controller operation in regards to how the controller allows or does not allow flow through the second and third line as claimed. AAPA (Figure 1B) is the closest to this teaching (instant application page 2, lines 25-26) provides the general teaching of pressure control but does not provide the control as claimed; however, the claims rely on the presence of the first valve for operation of the third line, and such control operation would require a teaching of specific control operations of the two pressure buildup systems being controlled by the controller together, which is not taught by the prior art, as individual control of the separate systems is what is taught by the prior art. See the previous rejections in regards to claim 3 (provided below) which teach the closest combination to the rejection specifically in regards to the operation of the flow pattern; however, claim 3 did not require the specific operation in regard to the relationship of the valves or the blocking of third line.
With respect to claim 3, Poag as modified does not teach wherein the pressure buildup system of the cryogenic fluid storage tank comprises:
a first valve formed in the first line to control the fluid flow to the first line (as modified there is a valve on the recirculation line);
and a second valve formed in the second line to control the fluid flow to the second line (as modified there is a valve on the branch that is the second line), and the controller is configured to control an operation of at least one of the first valve or the second valve (the controller operates all the valves), wherein the controller is configured to open the first valve until the internal pressure of the storage tank reaches a preset set pressure so that the fluid passes through the first line, when the internal pressure of the storage tank reaches the set pressure, open the second valve after closing the first valve so that the fluid is supplied to the supply target through the second line, and when the internal pressure of the storage tank decreases below a predetermined level while the second valve is open, allow the fluid to be supplied to the supply target through the third line (this is how the operation of the valves is, with the first valve opened until the pressure of the tank is at a desired pressure, and then the first valve is closed, followed by the second valve being opened to pass fluid to the supply target, which as the second valve is opened it would allow the flow of fluid through the storage tank as long as the pressure in the tank was low enough to cause flow based on the temperature of fluid in the tank, which would happen from how the configuration of the flow lines are).
In regard to claim 9, as the two pressure control systems are taught separately by the prior art as shown in the rejection above, the placement of third line being branched from the second line, with the closest prior art be that provided in the rejection of claim 5 above, which has a different placement of the third line with respect to the second line and as such it would not have been obvious to have modified Poag as modified to have the configuration as claimed in claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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