DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/1/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: There is no support for closing the inlet control valve in the operation of Figure 4.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The amendment is not entered.
Further, the specification is objected to because of the following informalities: in addition to the unclear statements in PG. Pub. para. 39, it appears that pg. pub. para. 46-53 are entire repetitions of previous paragraphs. The applicant is encouraged to review the specification and make appropriate correction as required without adding new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/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.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “opening a vent control valve…venting the contents of the lock hopper” in combination with the amended recitation of claim 5 that the lock hopper has contents and that the lock hopper receives “the liquid stream”. The recitation includes that liquid is vented from the lock hopper by opening the recited vent control valve thereby venting liquid from the lock hopper and there is no support for this scope.
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(s) 1-3, 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “wherein the fluid is hydrogen” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the fluid”. For present examination the presently recited fluid refers to the liquid pressurized by the method.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “pressurized liquid.” is unclear since claim 1 already recites a pressurized liquid stream in the lock hopper and it is unclear if the newly introduced pressurized liquid is the same or other liquid.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “wherein the lock hopper has contents” is indefinite since the claim already recites that the lock hopper is filled with the liquid stream and therefore the present recitation creates ambiguity about what must be within the lock hopper as it is unclear what “contents” requires and includes and it is unclear what else must be within the lock hopper other than the liquid stream by the additional recitation of contents.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “closing the second liquid control valve once the lock hopper is empty” and “venting the contents of the lock hopper” is indefinite since claim 5 now requires the lock hopper to have contents but it is unclear what “contents” includes and excludes. Further, it is unclear how the lock hopper is empty and also able to be vented since it is unclear what is being vented by the recitation of contents as now recited. The disclosure only teaches venting a vapor and the scope of “contents” is broader and would appear to encompass liquid as well and therefore it is unclear if the recitation includes venting liquid. For present examination, it is presumed that the second liquid control valve is closed once the lock hopper is empty of the pressurized liquid and the venting only includes venting of a remaining gas. Appropriate amendment is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watts (US 2012/0156059). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claims 1, 5, Watts teaches a method for pressurizing a liquid (see whole disclosure) exiting a phase separator (10), comprising:
a) opening an inlet control valve (para. 17 “valving to complete fill”), thereby providing a two-phase fluid stream (vapor and liquid, para. 16) to the phase separator (10), thereby producing a vapor stream (vapor hydrogen, para. 16 cold GH2) and a liquid stream (LH2 - liquid hydrogen), wherein a first liquid control valve (24abc) prevents the liquid stream (LH2) from leaving the phase separator (10) (para. 17, Fig. 4),
b) opening the first liquid control valve (24abc; para. 16, 19), thereby withdrawing the liquid stream (LH2) from the phase separator (10) and introducing the liquid stream (LH2) into a lock hopper (20abc), wherein the lock hopper (20abc) has a lock hopper pressure (pressure therein) and the lock hopper (20abc) has contents including liquid and gas hydrogen (para. 7, 12), wherein a second liquid control valve (28abc) prevents the liquid stream (LH2 entered into 20abc) from leaving the lock hopper (20abc) (para. 18 see that 28abc were closed during filling of 20abc),
c) closing the first liquid control valve (24abc; para. 17),
d) opening a pressurized vapor control valve (48abc; para. 18), thereby providing a pressurized vapor stream (pressurized vapor hydrogen, para. 18) to the lock hopper (20abc), thereby pressurizing the lock hopper (20abc),
e) closing the pressurized vapor control valve (48abc, para. 19),
f) opening the second liquid control valve (28abc; para. 18), thereby withdrawing a pressurized liquid stream (to 26) from the lock hopper (20abc);
Watts further teaches that the liquid is hydrogen (para. 7, 12).
In regard to claims 2, 6, Watts teaches a step g) closing the second liquid control valve (28abc) once the lock hopper is empty of pressurized liquid (para. 19), h) opening a vent control valve (52abc), thereby venting contents of the lock hopper (20abc; para. 14, 23).
In regard to claim 7, Watts teaches that in the step b) the first liquid control valve (24abc) is opened by a first level sensor (58; para. 25 see that the determinations of depleted are determined by the level sensors 58 and see that 24abc are opened when determined that 20abc are depleted and ready to be filled - para. 16, 23).
In regard to claim 8, Watts teaches that in the step c) the first liquid control valve (24abc) is closed by a second level sensor (58; para. 25 see that determinations of full are determined by the level sensors 58 and see that 24abc are closed when determined that 20abc are full - para.17 and this allows the pressurization to occur).
In regard to claims 3, 10, Watts teaches that the liquid (hydrogen) is a cryogenic fluid (para. 7, 12).
In regard to claim 11, Watts teaches that the liquid is hydrogen (para. 7, 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US 2012/0156059) in view of Wetmer (US 5329777). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Watts teaches most of the limitations of claims 9 but does not appear to explicitly teach that the pressurized vapor control valve (48abc) is closed by a second pressure sensor. However, employing pressure sensors is routine and ordinary as taught by Weltmer. Weltmer teaches a pressure vapor control valve (123) is closed by a second pressure sensor (122) (column 7, line 55-60). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Watts with the pressure sensor of Weltmer to provide easy and automatic control of pressure in the lock hopper (20abc).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US 2012/0156059) in view of Alexander (US 2892416) and
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US 2012/0156059) in view of Wetmer (US 5329777) and Alexander (US 2892416). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 7, Watts, or Watts as modified by Wetmer, teaches all of the claim limitations, however, presuming only for the sake of argument that Watts is in some way insufficient in showing the features of claim 7, for any reason, it is noted that controlling a first liquid control valve to be opened by a first level sensor is well known in the art as taught by Alexander. Alexander teaches a first liquid control valve (6 or 7) that feeds liquid into a lock hopper (1); the first liquid control valve (6 or 7) being fed with liquid from a first volume (5) and teaches that the first liquid control valve (6 or 7) may be opened by a first level sensor (21, 23)(column 4, line 25-40) located in the first volume (5), thereby providing automatic control. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first liquid control valve (24abc) of Watts to be closed by a first level sensor in the phase separator (10) of Watts as taught by Alexander for the purpose of providing automatic control and assurance that the first liquid control valve (24abc) will automatically fill the lock hopper (20abc) when sufficient liquid is sensed by the first level sensor in the phase separator (10).
In regard to claim 8, Watts teaches all of the claim limitations, however, presuming only for the sake of argument that Watts is in some way insufficient in showing the features of claim 8, it is noted that controlling a first liquid control valve to be closed by a second level sensor is well known in the art as taught by Alexander. Alexander teaches a first liquid control valve (6 or 7) that feeds liquid into a lock hopper (1); the first liquid control valve (6 or 7) being closed by a second level sensor (18, 22) located in the lock hopper (1) (column 3, line 66-70) thereby providing automatic control. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first liquid control valve (24abc) of Watts to be closed by a second level sensor in the lock hopper (20abc) of Watts as taught by Alexander for the purpose of providing automatic control and assurance that the first liquid control valve (24abc) stops filling the lock hopper (20abc) when such is sensed to be full by the second level sensor in the lock hopper (20abc).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 4) are an allegation that the identified phase separator (10) in Watts is not “analogous to a phase separator” . In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the identified structure fully meets the structural requirements of the recited phase separator. There is no analogy required since the phase separtor (10) has all of the structure of the recited phase separator. The allegation fails to identify any structure missing from the identified phase separator of Watts.
Applicant's arguments (page 4) are an allegation that a two phase fluid is not entered into element (10). In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as when at least liquid begins flowing to be entered into the phase separator (10) there is gas and liquid formed therein (para. 16) and they separate from each other. Further gas can leave the phase separator (10) at the top of the structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of 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 JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
February 24, 2026