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 .
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 17 is 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 17 recites the limitation "the aerogel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the aerogel” in line 2 of claim 17 to “an aerogel”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the fumed metal oxide" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the fumed metal oxide” in line 3 of claim 17 to “a fumed metal oxide”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the at least one porous of the primary adsorbent" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the at least one porous of the primary adsorbent” in lines 3-4 of claim 17 to “the at least one porous enclosure of the primary adsorbent”.
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, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US Patent No. 4,495,775), hereinafter Young in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110254938), hereinafter Zhang and Romanos et al. (US 7,299,650), hereinafter Romanos.
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a dry vapor cryogenic shipping container (Fig. 1, shipping container 10) comprising:
an inner vessel having an interior volume defined by at least one sidewall and a bottom wall (Fig. 1, inner vessel 13, cylindrical portion 32, bottom 33);
an outer shell that surrounds and is separated from the inner vessel to define an evacuable space between the outer shell and the inner vessel (Fig. 1, outer shell 12, evacuable space 17; Col. 3, lines 61-65, The neck tube 14 connects the open neck 15 of the inner vessel 13 to the open neck 16 of the outer shell 12 and defines an evacuable space 17 separating the outer shell 12 and the inner vessel 13); and
an adsorbent system comprising (Fig. 1, micro-fibrous structure 27, adsorbent 22):
a primary adsorbent having a first liquid cryogen adsorption rate disposed within the interior volume of the inner vessel (Fig. 1, micro-fibrous structure 27; Col. 4, lines 46-53, The inner vessel 13 contains a micro-fibrous structure 27 for holding liquid nitrogen by adsorption and capillary suspension. The micro-fibrous structure 27 comprises a permeable cylindrical core 28 and a liquid nitrogen adsorption matrix 30 composed of a homogenous mass of randomly oriented short particles of inorganic fibers e.g. glass quartz or ceramic of very small diameter); and
a secondary adsorbent having a second liquid cryogen adsorption rate disposed within the interior volume of the inner vessel (Fig. 1, adsorbent 22; Col. 4, lines 37-42, The adsorbent 22 is typically an activated charcoal or a zeolite such as Linde SA which is available from the Union Carbide Corporation. A hydrogen getter 26 such as palladium oxide (PdO) or silver zeolite may also be included in the vacuum space 17 for removing residual hydrogen molecules; Further, the teachings of Young at least imply the adsorbent 22 and the micro-fibrous structure 27 have different adsorption rates because they are different materials since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Young does not disclose wherein a ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the second liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 2:1 to 10:1.
Zhang teaches the use of aerogel as an adsorbent in a dry gas shipping container (Fig. 1, main body 1, refrigerant absorbing material 4; Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container; Further, aerogel is proffered as the primary adsorbent in paragraph 30 of specification of the present disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known micro-fibrous structure 27 used as an adsorbent in the shipping container of Young of claim 1 with the known aerogel used as an adsorbent in the shipping container as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predicable result of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Further, Romanos teaches the use of fumed silica as an adsorbent in a dry gas shipping container (Fig. 1, shipping container 10, absorbent assembly 60, filler material 68; Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material; Further, fumed silica is proffered as the secondary adsorbent in paragraph 33 of specification of the present disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known adsorbent 22 used as an adsorbent in the shipping container of Young as modified with the known fumed silica used as an adsorbent in the shipping container as taught by Romanos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predicable result of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Moreover, Young as modified discloses wherein a ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the second liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 2:1 to 10:1 since it has been held where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)." MPEP 2112.01-I.
Regarding claim 3, Young as modified discloses the dry vapor cryogenic shipping container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the secondary liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 4:1 to 6:1 (Zhang, Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container; Romanos, Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material). Further, the limitation of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above since it has been held where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)." MPEP 2112.01-I.
Regarding claim 6, Young as modified discloses the dry vapor cryogenic shipping container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the primary adsorbent comprises an aerogel and the secondary adsorbent comprises a fumed metal oxide (Zhang, Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container; Romanos, Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material). Further, the limitations of claim 6 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Young as modified discloses the dry vapor cryogenic shipping container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein at least one of the primary adsorbent and the secondary adsorbent are contained within a porous enclosure (Young, Fig. 1, micro-fibrous structure 27, permeable cylindrical core 28; Col. 4, lines 46-53, The inner vessel 13 contains a micro-fibrous structure 27 for holding liquid nitrogen by adsorption and capillary suspension. The micro-fibrous structure 27 comprises a permeable cylindrical core 28 and a liquid nitrogen adsorption matrix 30 composed of a homogenous mass of randomly oriented short particles of inorganic fibers e.g. glass quartz or ceramic of very small diameter).
Regarding claim 9, an adsorbent system for a dry vapor cryogenic shipping container (Fig. 1, shipping container 10, outer shell 12, inner vessel 13, evacuable space 17, adsorbent 22, micro-fibrous structure 27, cylindrical portion 32, bottom 33) comprising:
a primary adsorbent having a first liquid cryogen adsorption rate disposed within the interior volume of the inner vessel (Fig. 1, micro-fibrous structure 27; Col. 4, lines 46-53, The inner vessel 13 contains a micro-fibrous structure 27 for holding liquid nitrogen by adsorption and capillary suspension. The micro-fibrous structure 27 comprises a permeable cylindrical core 28 and a liquid nitrogen adsorption matrix 30 composed of a homogenous mass of randomly oriented short particles of inorganic fibers e.g. glass quartz or ceramic of very small diameter); and
a secondary adsorbent having a second liquid cryogen adsorption rate disposed within the interior volume of the inner vessel (Fig. 1, adsorbent 22; Col. 4, lines 37-42, The adsorbent 22 is typically an activated charcoal or a zeolite such as Linde SA which is available from the Union Carbide Corporation. A hydrogen getter 26 such as palladium oxide (PdO) or silver zeolite may also be included in the vacuum space 17 for removing residual hydrogen molecules; Further, the teachings of Young at least imply the adsorbent 22 and the micro-fibrous structure 27 have different adsorption rates because they are different materials since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Young does not disclose wherein a ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the second liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 2:1 to 10:1.
Zhang teaches the use of aerogel as an adsorbent in a dry gas shipping container (Fig. 1, main body 1, refrigerant absorbing material 4; Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container; Further, aerogel is proffered as the primary adsorbent in paragraph 30 of specification of the present disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known micro-fibrous structure 27 used as an adsorbent in the shipping container of Young of claim 9 with the known aerogel used as an adsorbent in the shipping container as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predicable result of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Further, Romanos teaches the use of fumed silica as an adsorbent in a dry gas shipping container (Fig. 1, shipping container 10, absorbent assembly 60, filler material 68; Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material; Further, fumed silica is proffered as the secondary adsorbent in paragraph 33 of specification of the present disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known adsorbent 22 used as an adsorbent in the shipping container of Young as modified with the known fumed silica used as an adsorbent in the shipping container as taught by Romanos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predicable result of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Moreover, Young as modified discloses wherein a ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the second liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 2:1 to 10:1 since it has been held where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)." MPEP 2112.01-I.
Regarding claim 10, Young as modified discloses the adsorbent system of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the secondary liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 4:1 to 6:1 (Zhang, Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container; Romanos, Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material). Further, the limitation of claims 10 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above since it has been held where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)." MPEP 2112.01-I.
Regarding claim 11, Young as modified discloses the adsorbent system of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the primary adsorbent and the secondary adsorbent are provided as separate articles (Fig. 1 of Young depicts adsorbent 22 and micro-fibrous mixture 27 to be separated by at least cylindrical portion 32).
Regarding claim 13, Young as modified discloses the adsorbent system of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the primary adsorbent comprises an aerogel and the secondary adsorbent comprises a fumed metal oxide (Zhang, Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container; Romanos, Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material). Further, the limitations of claim 13 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 14, Young as modified discloses the adsorbent system of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein at least one of the primary adsorbent and the secondary adsorbent are contained within a porous enclosure (Young, Fig. 1, micro-fibrous structure 27, permeable cylindrical core 28; Col. 4, lines 46-53, The inner vessel 13 contains a micro-fibrous structure 27 for holding liquid nitrogen by adsorption and capillary suspension. The micro-fibrous structure 27 comprises a permeable cylindrical core 28 and a liquid nitrogen adsorption matrix 30 composed of a homogenous mass of randomly oriented short particles of inorganic fibers e.g. glass quartz or ceramic of very small diameter).
Regarding claim 17, Young as modified discloses the adsorbent system of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the primary adsorbent comprises at least one porous enclosure containing the aerogel (Young, Fig. 1, micro-fibrous structure 27, permeable cylindrical core 28; Col. 4, lines 46-53, The inner vessel 13 contains a micro-fibrous structure 27 for holding liquid nitrogen by adsorption and capillary suspension. The micro-fibrous structure 27 comprises a permeable cylindrical core 28 and a liquid nitrogen adsorption matrix 30 composed of a homogenous mass of randomly oriented short particles of inorganic fibers e.g. glass quartz or ceramic of very small diameter; Zhang, Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container) and the secondary adsorbent comprises fumed metal oxide (Romanos, Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material) and where the primary adsorbent is attached to the secondary adsorbent (Fig. 1 of Young depicts the adsorbent 22 to be attached to the micro-fibrous structure which includes the permeable cylinder 28 via the neck portion 15 and the retainer 23). Further, the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above would result in the aerogel of Zhang being disposed in the cylindrical portion 32 of Young as modified with the permeable cylindrical core 28.
However, Young as modified does not disclose the secondary adsorbent comprises at least one secondary porous enclosure containing the fumed metal oxide.
Romanos teaches socks made of fabric material which contain the fumed silica (Romanos, Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material; Further, fabric is inherently porous (MPEP 2112)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary adsorbent of Young as modified to be contained in at least one secondary porous enclosure as taught by Romanos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predictable result of retaining the adsorbent while allowing for gas to be absorbed to keep a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Regarding claim 18, Young discloses a method of storing a liquid cryogen in a dry vapor cryogenic shipping container, the shipping container comprising a primary adsorbent having a first liquid cryogen adsorption rate and a secondary adsorbent having a second liquid cryogen adsorption rate (Fig. 1, shipping container 10, outer shell 12, inner vessel 13, evacuable space 17, adsorbent 22, micro-fibrous structure 27, cylindrical portion 32, bottom 33; Col. 3, lines 29-33, The container of the present invention includes a vessel which opens to the atmosphere and contains a micro-fibrous structure for holding a liquified gas such as liquid nitrogen in adsorption and capillary suspension; Col. 4, lines 46-53, The inner vessel 13 contains a micro-fibrous structure 27 for holding liquid nitrogen by adsorption and capillary suspension. The micro-fibrous structure 27 comprises a permeable cylindrical core 28 and a liquid nitrogen adsorption matrix 30 composed of a homogenous mass of randomly oriented short particles of inorganic fibers e.g. glass quartz or ceramic of very small diameter; Col. 4, lines 37-42, The adsorbent 22 is typically an activated charcoal or a zeolite such as Linde SA which is available from the Union Carbide Corporation. A hydrogen getter 26 such as palladium oxide (PdO) or silver zeolite may also be included in the vacuum space 17 for removing residual hydrogen molecules; Further, the teachings of Young at least imply the adsorbent 22 and the micro-fibrous structure 27 have different adsorption rates because they are different materials since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Young does not disclose wherein a ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the second liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 2:1 to 10:1.
Zhang teaches the use of aerogel as an adsorbent in a dry gas shipping container (Fig. 1, main body 1, refrigerant absorbing material 4; Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container; Further, aerogel is proffered as the primary adsorbent in paragraph 30 of specification of the present disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known micro-fibrous structure 27 used as an adsorbent in the shipping container of Young of claim 18 with the known aerogel used as an adsorbent in the shipping container as taught by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predicable result of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Further, Romanos teaches the use of fumed silica as an adsorbent in a dry gas shipping container (Fig. 1, shipping container 10, absorbent assembly 60, filler material 68; Col. 3, lines 52-60, The absorbent assembly 60 has a plurality 62 of removable absorbent elements 64. In the preferred embodiment, the absorbent elements 64 are socks 65. The socks 65 are elongated, preferably a generally cylindrical body having a cross-sectional area sufficiently small enough to pass through the passage 30. Each sock 65 includes a flexible covering 66, which may be fabric, and a granular filler material 68. The filler material 68 is, preferably, made from fumed silica or another absorbent/adsorbent material; Further, fumed silica is proffered as the secondary adsorbent in paragraph 33 of specification of the present disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known adsorbent 22 used as an adsorbent in the shipping container of Young as modified with the known fumed silica used as an adsorbent in the shipping container as taught by Romanos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predicable result of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Moreover, Young as modified discloses wherein a ratio of the first liquid cryogen adsorption rate to the second liquid cryogen adsorption rate is from 2:1 to 10:1 since it has been held where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)." MPEP 2112.01-I.
However, Young as modified further does not disclose the method comprising:
filling an inner vessel of the shipping container with the liquid cryogen;
waiting for the primary adsorbent to be fully charged with liquid cryogen; and
closing the shipping container after the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen.
Romanos teaches the method comprising:
filling an inner vessel of the shipping container with the liquid cryogen (Fig. 5, step 302; Col. 5, line 12, filling 302 the inner space with a cryogenic liquid);
waiting for the primary adsorbent to be fully charged with liquid cryogen (Fig. 5, step 316-318; Col. 5, lines 23-27, The step of filling 302 the inner space with a cryogenic liquid, or the step of refilling 314 the inner space 44 with a cryogenic liquid, may include the additional steps of allowing 316 the cryogenic liquid to be absorbed by the absorbent assembly 60, 160, 260, and removing 31 any excess cryogenic liquid); and
closing the shipping container after the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen (Col. 3, lines 27-29, The passage 30 may then be sealed by the cap 34 thereby substantially thermally insulating the use material; Further, the teachings of Romanos at least imply closing the shipping container once its filled to thermally insulate the system as it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Young as modified to include the steps or limitations of filling an inner vessel of the shipping container with the liquid cryogen; waiting for the primary adsorbent to be fully charged with liquid cryogen; and closing the shipping container after the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen as taught by Romanos. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to yield the predicable result of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container.
Young as modified does not explicitly disclose closing the shipping container after the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen and before the secondary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen.
However, as evidenced by Young, at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to provide a less expensive and much more efficient liquid nitrogen adsorption system as an alternative to the storage systems in present use (Young, Col. 2, lines 53-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, recognizing that there is a need to provide a less expensive and much more efficient liquid nitrogen adsorption system as an alternative to the storage systems in present use, to try options (potential solutions) regarding the order in which two adsorbents of an adsorbent system are charged, since there are known and finite possible options, in order to discover which option yields greatest success. There are 4 possible options: closing the shipping container after the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen and before the secondary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen, closing the shipping container after the primary adsorbent and the secondary adsorbent are fully charged with the liquid cryogen, closing the shipping container after the secondary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen and before the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen, or closing the shipping container before the primary adsorbent and the secondary adsorbent are fully charged with the liquid cryogen. One having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Young as modified to include the step or limitation of closing the shipping container after the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen and before the secondary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen for the purposes of keeping a dry storage environment of the low temperature container (MPEP 2143, Section I, paragraph E).
Regarding claim 19, Young as modified discloses the method of claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the primary adsorbent is fully charged with the liquid cryogen after 2 hours to 4 hours (Zhang, Pg. 10, paragraph 69, provided with a refrigerant absorbing material 4 in the liner 13, preferably aerogel of said refrigerant absorbing material 4 by the refrigerant absorbing material effective adsorption fixing refrigerant, avoid the low temperature container tilting, turning, when inverted refrigerant overflowing from the low-temperature container, ensuring long-acting and stable low-temperature container refrigeration performance, keeping dry storage environment of low temperature container). Further, the limitations of claim 19 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above since it has been held where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.)." MPEP 2112.01-I.
Regarding claim 20, Young as modified discloses the method of claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above), further comprising emptying unabsorbed liquid cryogen from the shipping container prior to the step of closing the shipping container (Romanos, Fig. 5, step 316-318; Col. 5, lines 23-27, The step of filling 302 the inner space with a cryogenic liquid, or the step of refilling 314 the inner space 44 with a cryogenic liquid, may include the additional steps of allowing 316 the cryogenic liquid to be absorbed by the absorbent assembly 60, 160, 260, and removing 31 any excess cryogenic liquid). Further, the limitations of claim 20 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young as modified by Romanos and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niikura et al. (US Patent No. 11,974,967), hereinafter Niikura.
Regarding claim 2, Young as modified discloses the dry vapor cryogenic shipping container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Young as modified does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the secondary adsorbent is positioned adjacent the bottom wall.
Niikura teaches wherein at least a portion of the secondary adsorbent is positioned adjacent the bottom wall (Fig. 1, bottom portion 6; Fig. 3, vacuum heat insulating double walled container 1, adsorbent blocks 30; Col. 8, lines 20-30, As shown in FIGS. 3 to 5, a plurality of adsorbent blocks 30 is disposed so as to cover the bottom surface side and the side surface side of the storage container 25. The plurality of adsorbent blocks 30 disposed at the bottom surface side and the side surface side of the storage container 25 is arranged with an equal interval in the circumferential direction and that in the vertical direction. By disposing the adsorbent blocks 30 in this manner, it is possible to uniformly cool the storage container 25 in a state in which the cryogenic low-temperature liquefied gas is adsorbed on each of the adsorbent blocks 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shipping container of Young as modified wherein at least a portion of the secondary adsorbent is positioned adjacent the bottom wall as taught by Niikura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it is possible to uniformly cool the storage container in a state in which the cryogenic low-temperature liquefied gas is adsorbed on each of the adsorbents (Niikura, Col. 8, lines 27-30).
Claims 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young as modified by Romanos and Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, respectively, and further in view of Weickert et al. (WO 2015022633), hereinafter Weickert.
Regarding claim 4, Young as modified discloses the dry vapor cryogenic shipping container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Young as modified does not disclose wherein a ratio of a mass of the primary adsorbent to a mass of the secondary adsorbent is from 1:22 to 1:5.
Weickert teaches wherein a ratio of a mass of the primary adsorbent to a mass of the secondary adsorbent is from 1:22 to 1:5 (Fig. 1, sorption store 1, first adsorbent 10, second adsorbent 12; Pg. 5, lines14-19, In a further embodiment, the total mass of adsorbent media disposed in the vessel comprises 15 between 5% and 100%, preferably between 30% and 90% or more than 30% and in particular preferably between 50% and 80% by weight of the first adsorbent medium 10 and between 0% and 95%, preferably between 10% and 70% or less than 70% and in particular preferably Between 50% and 20% by weight of the second adsorbent medium 12; Further, it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shipping container of Young as modified wherein a ratio of a mass of the primary adsorbent to a mass of the secondary adsorbent is from 1:22 to 1:5 as taught by Weickert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to compensate the limiting effect on the adsorption capacity due to an elevated temperature during filling the vessel with gas (Weickert, Pg. 3, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 5, Young as modified discloses the dry vapor cryogenic shipping container of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Young as modified does not disclose wherein a ratio of a volume of the primary adsorbent to a volume of the secondary adsorbent is from 1:1 to 4:1.
Weickert teaches wherein a ratio of a volume of the primary adsorbent to a volume of the secondary adsorbent is from 1:1 to 4:1 (Fig. 1, sorption store 1, first adsorbent 10, second adsorbent 12; Pg. 11, lines 33-34, A vessel which has a fill volume of 536 liters and is filled with pellets of the metal-organic framework (MOF) material A520 as adsorbent medium; Pg. 12, lines 9-15, The filling procedure was effectuated according to the comparative examples using the same gas and tank. The only difference distinguishing the example from the comparative example is the selection of the adsorbent media. In the case of the example, the vessel is not filled with only one type of adsorbent media but with two types of adsorbent media. The upper third of the volume of the vessel is filled with the MOF material A520, already applied in the comparative example. The remaining lower part, representing two thirds of the total vessel volume, is filled with a MOF material Z377; Further, filling the lower two thirds of the 53