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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlok (US PG Pub 20200325854), hereinafter referred to as Bartlok and further in view of Snyder et al. (US PG Pub 20140190187), hereinafter referred to as Snyder and Tansey et al. (US PG Pub 20210039937), hereinafter referred to as Tansey.
With respect to claim 1, Bartlok (Figure 1) teaches a liquid hydrogen system, comprising: a hydrogen tank mounted on a vehicle and configured to store liquid hydrogen (tank 1 which is a storage container for cryogenic liquid gas, paragraph 23, the invention is for a storage container for a cryogenic liquid gas and a motor vehicle having such container, paragraph 8, which cryogenic gas is known to include hydrogen)
a supply circuit configured to supply a hydrogen engine with a hydrogen gas which is converted from the liquid extracted from the hydrogen tank (consumer 5 receives gaseous hydrogen via line 4 formed of evaporating liquid hydrogen 2 in 7, paragraphs 24-25, an engine for the motor vehicle is a known consumer for the hydrogen);
and a return circuit branched from the supply circuit and connected to the hydrogen tank (line 6 branches off from 3 and returns gaseous hydrogen back to the tank, paragraph 25), and configured to return the hydrogen gas into the hydrogen tank in such a manner that the internal pressure of the hydrogen tank matches a predetermined reference pressure (the return line is used to increase the pressure of the inner tank in a targeted fashion and is limited by pressure reducer 9, paragraph 28 which means it would be configured to allow the tank to reach a predetermined reference temperature), wherein the return circuit comprises:
a return valve which is openable and closable (shut-off valve 13),
a return pressure reducer disposed on a hydrogen tank side of the return valve and configured to output the hydrogen gas after reducing the pressure thereof (pressure reducer 9, paragraph 28, which as expands hydrogen gas from that has been transmitted to the gaseous phase and compressed and is returning gas to the tank, paragraphs 25-26, would output hydrogen gas).
Bartlok as modified does not teach that the return valve is a gave valve with is electrically openable and closeable.
Tansey teaches that a shut-off valve that provides filling can be a gate valve which is operated by a control module with an electronic solenoid to open or close (paragraph 94).
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 Tansey when providing control to the valve of Bartlok as modified for it to have been a gate valve operated with an electronic solenoid 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 a gate valve provides a good seal to prevent leaking when closed and easy flow with minimal resistance when opening.
Bartlok as modified does not teach the pressure reducer is a valve.
Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known that a pressure reducer in a fluid circuit is a valve and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the pressure reducer of Bartlok as modified to have been a pressure reducer as they are known and reliable way of providing a specific pressure drop to achieve a desired pressure in a fluid. Applicant has not timely and adequately traversed this official notice and as such it is considered admitted prior art.
With respect to claim 2, Bartlok as modified does not teach not teach a pressure sensor configured to detect the internal pressure of the hydrogen tank as a tank internal pressure; and a controller, and the controller is configured to open the return valve when the tank internal pressure becomes lower than the reference pressure.
Snyder teaches that to control pressure inside a tank using a control valve (18b) which opens and closes based on sensors for detecting saturated pressure in the storage tank such that when the pressure is below a certain level the control valve controlled by a controller opens allowing flow into the tank and raising the tank pressure (paragraph 30).
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 Snyder to have provided a pressure sensor which measures the pressure of the tank of Bartlok and when the pressure in the tank gets to low to have using a controller opened the shut-off valve which provides the recycle of gaseous hydrogen back to the tank since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results where it is common knowledge in the art that providing automatic control would provide enhanced efficiency of the system by being able to automatically adjust to changes in the tank pressure.
With respect to claim 8, Bartlok as modified teaches wherein a branch point between the supply circuit and the return circuit is upstream of the hydrogen engine on the supply circuit (the consumer 5 which is known to be the engine is downstream of the branch point 3 as seen in the figure).
With respect to claim 9, Bartlok as modified teaches wherein the hydrogen tank comprises a collector portion (the bottom of the tank where liquid hydrogen collects), wherein a bottommost surface of the collector portion is below a bottommost surface of at least one other portion of the hydrogen tank (the bottommost surface of the tank bottom is below the bottommost surface of the top of the tank).
With respect to claim 11, Bartlok (Figure 1) teaches a vehicle (the storage container shown in Figure 1 is a storage container in a motor vehicle, paragraph 23 so the vehicle is known)
A hydrogen tank mounted on the vehicle and configured to store liquid hydrogen (tank 1 which is a storage container for cryogenic liquid gas, paragraph 23, the invention is for a storage container for a cryogenic liquid gas and a motor vehicle having such container, paragraph 8, which cryogenic gas is known to include hydrogen)
a supply circuit configured to supply a hydrogen engine with a hydrogen gas which is converted from the liquid extracted from the hydrogen tank (consumer 5 receives gaseous hydrogen via line 4 formed of evaporating liquid hydrogen 2 in 7, paragraphs 24-25, an engine for the motor vehicle is a known consumer for the hydrogen);
and a return circuit branched from the supply circuit and connected to the hydrogen tank (line 6 branches off from 3 and returns gaseous hydrogen back to the tank, paragraph 25), and configured to return the hydrogen gas into the hydrogen tank in such a manner that the internal pressure of the hydrogen tank matches a predetermined reference pressure (the return line is used to increase the pressure of the inner tank in a targeted fashion and is limited by pressure reducer 9, paragraph 28 which means it would be configured to allow the tank to reach a predetermined reference temperature), wherein the return circuit comprises:
a return valve which is openable and closable (shut-off valve 13),
a return pressure reducer disposed on a hydrogen tank side of the return valve and configured to output the hydrogen gas after reducing the pressure thereof (pressure reducer 9, paragraph 28, which as expands hydrogen gas from that has been transmitted to the gaseous phase and compressed and is returning gas to the tank, paragraphs 25-26, would output hydrogen gas).
Bartlok as modified does not teach that the return valve is a gave valve with is electrically openable and closeable.
Tansey teaches that a shut-off valve that provides filling can be a gate valve which is operated by a control module with an electronic solenoid to open or close (paragraph 94).
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 Tansey when providing control to the valve of Bartlok as modified for it to have been a gate valve operated with an electronic solenoid 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 a gate valve provides a good seal to prevent leaking when closed and easy flow with minimal resistance when opening.
Bartlok as modified does not teach the pressure reducer is a valve.
Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known that a pressure reducer in a fluid circuit is a valve and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the pressure reducer of Bartlok as modified to have been a pressure reducer as they are known and reliable way of providing a specific pressure drop to achieve a desired pressure in a fluid. Applicant has not timely and adequately traversed this official notice and as such it is considered admitted prior art.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlok/Tansey/Snyder and further in view of Herzenjak (DE102017222926), hereinafter referred to as Herzenjak.
With respect to claim 4, Bartlok as modified does not teach wherein the supply circuit comprises a chamber which is fluid connected to the supply circuit upstream of a branch point of the return circuit and configured to temporarily store the hydrogen gas.
Herzenjak (Figure 1) teaches that upstream of a split in a gas line (17 which splits to 20 and 23) that a buffer tank (18) can be provided (paragraphs 20-22).
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 Herzenjak to have in Bartlok provided a buffer tank upstream of the split between the feed line for the consumer and the recycle line 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 the use of a buffer tank would provide additional way of metering the flow in the system as well as being able to build up a sufficient amount of fluid so that a continuous flow is provided to the consumer if a flow reduction is made from the tank.
With respect to claim 5, Bartlok as modified does not teach a booster pump configured to pressurize the liquid hydrogen and discharge the pressurized liquid hydrogen, for extracting the liquid hydrogen from the hydrogen tank.
Herzenjak teaches that a feed pump can be used to pressurize fuel coming from a tank (Figure 1, 10, paragraph 19).
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 Herzenjak to have in Bartlok as modified provided a feed pump (which can be considered a booster pump) to pressurize and drive the fuel coming from the tank since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a feed pump (which can be considered a booster pump) would provide what is common knowledge in the art of ensuring a desired pressure and flow of the fluid being removed from the tank and could be able to compensate for a lower tank pressure.
With respect to claim 6, Bartlok does not teach the booster pump is inside of the hydrogen tank.
Herzenjak teaches that the feed pump (understood to be a booster pump as above) can be inside the reservoir or outside the reservoir (paragraph 24).
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 Bartlok to have when using a feed pump to pressurize the liquid hydrogen in the tank for the feed pump to have been in the tank since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby as they are both indie and outside a tank are the two locations known to put a feed pump used in a system such as Bartlok putting it inside the tank would be done with the reasonable expectation of being able to pressurize and remove the liquid hydrogen from the tank where providing it in the feed tank would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of reducing the amount of overall piping needed by not needing to pass the fluid from the tank to the pump by being able to feed the pump within the tank.
With respect to claim 7, Bartlok as modified teaches an evaporator (heat transmitter 7 is for converting the liquid to gaseous phase, paragraph 25, and is thus an evaporator) fluidly between the chamber and the hydrogen tank (although not a specific point is defined where the buffer tank is, the buffer tank is somewhere between the tank 1 and the split branch point 3, which means the buffer tank is either between the tank and the evaporator fluidly upstream of the heat transmitter, or between the tank the evaporator fluidly downstream of the heat transmitter, as fluid which passes through both passes from the tank and back to the tank).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlok/Tansey/Snyder and further in view of Kromer (DE102017130477), hereinafter referred to as Kromer.
With respect to claim 10, Bartlok as modified does not teach wherein the return circuit further comprise a check valve between the pressure reducing valve and the hydrogen tank.
Kromer teaches that in a return line between an evaporator and a tank a check valve and/or a safety valve can be provided (paragraph 16).
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 Kromer to have also provided in the return line of Bartlok provided a check valve 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 providing a check valve prevents backflow of fluid which prevents the return fluid from flowing where it is not desired. The check valve can only be placed either upstream or downstream of the pressure reducer as it is on the return line, both locations of which can be considered between the pressure reducing valve and the hydrogen tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant references, page 5 allowable subject matter to claims 6 and 7; however, claims 6 and 7 were not objected to in the previous office action as the previously filed claims di not have a claim 6 or 7.
Applicant argues that the pressure reduce of Bartlok “is disposed further away from the hydrogen tank than the shut-off valve” but does not make it clear what this refers to but this appears to be referring to “on a hydrogen tank side of the return gate valve”. This is not persuasive.
The limitation “on a hydrogen tank side of the return gate valve” does not hold specific meaning in the art, nor does it require specifically the configuration of the pressure reducing valve being closer to the hydrogen tank valve than the shut-off valve, as there is no specific “hydrogen tank side” of the return gate valve. The fluid flows from the tank through the circuit and other valves, through the gate valve and back to the tank and as such, both sides of the gate valve can be considered a hydrogen tank side as one side is where fluid from the hydrogen tank is passed to the valve, and the other is where fluid from the gate valve is passed to the hydrogen tank.
Applicant further argues in regards to assertion of “the use of a pressure reducer as a valve” that “no evidence if provided to support such an assertion”. This appears to be an attempt to traverse the official notice provided in the previous rejection; however, this is insufficient traversal. To traverse official notice “applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Jeong et al. (KR20220075089) which teaches of configurations for a booster pump.
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