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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 4 - Figure 4 in the reply filed on 9/14/2025 without traverse is acknowledged. The applicant indicated that claims 1-20 read on the elected species, but this indication is not correct. Claims 5, 6, 10, 13-15, 20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim(s) 5-6 do not to read on the elected species because species 4 does not have liquid delivery on both sides and does not have gas delivery on both sides and the specification states that Fig. 4 only has gas and liquid on one side - pg. pub. 51. 54. 56). Claim(s) 10 does not read on the elected species because species 4 does not have a buffer container. Claim(s) 13-15 do not read on the elected species because species 4 does not have a shuttle valve as recited. Claim(s) 20 do not read on the elected species because species 4 does not have liquid delivery on both sides and does not have gas delivery on both sides.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: pg. pub. para. 52 appears to reference the figures incorrectly. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cryopump drive, the stages, and the spring - must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because they have overlapping lines that make interpreting the drawings unnecessarily difficult. The drawings should be corrected with line jumps to show where overlapping lines do not fluidly connect and line dots to show where lines do fluidly connect. Further the flow direction arrows should be made more prominent to provide clarity to the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 16-19 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, “normal operation” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require any particular operations as the claim does not limit what must occur during the normal operation, nor is it even clear what is operating. However, it is understood that the at least one cryopump is surrounded by hydrogen during this phase.
The recitation, “low temperature” is indefinite for being a relative term. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no way to determine what temperature is sufficient to meet the relative and patently indistinct term.
The recitation, “cryogenic fluid” is inconsistent with the disclosure and the independent claim. The claim stores hydrogen and there is no other fluid supported as presently recited.
The recitation, “liquid hydrogen and/or gaseous hydrogen in one or more stages” is indefinite since the claim already introduces “liquid hydrogen” and “gaseous hydrogen” and it is unclear if this is the same or other fluid.
In regard to claims 2, 17, the recitation, “a gas extraction line operable to serve as at least at one intake port” is indefinite since it is unclear how the line is an extraction line when the disclosed line does not remove fluid from the vessel but just provides the fluid to the pump. Further, it is unclear what “at one intake port” should mean grammatically and logically.
In regard to claims 3, 18, the recitation, “the gas extraction line…to facilitate an extraction of gaseous hydrogen from the inner tank by the cryopump” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing gaseous hydrogen. Further, it is unclear how the line is an extraction line from the inner vessel if all the line does is feed fluid to the pump.
The recitation, “adjacent” is indefinite inasmuch as such is interpreted as requiring a particular distance as there is no way to determine the necessary distance to meet the limitation.
In regard to claims 4, 19, the recitation, “between liquid hydrogen and/or gaseous hydrogen” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing the liquid hydrogen and the gaseous hydrogen and the recitations should be amended to be consistent with the previous recitation. Further the recitation, “at the least at one intake port” is grammatically nonsensical and unclear and it is not clear why the recitation is not --to the at least one intake port--.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation “gaseous hydrogen” should properly reference --the gaseous hydrogen--.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “into the inner tank to increase the inner tank pressure.” is indefinite since “the inner tank pressure” lacks proper antecedent basis and should be --into the inner tank to increase the pressure in the inner tank--.
In regard to claim 9, the recitation, “pressure reducer having a downstream pressure safety valve” is indefinite for being entirely inconsistent with the disclosure which shows a pressure reducer and a pressure safety valve are separate structures and the pressure reducer does not have the safety valve. Further, it is unclear what structure the pressure reducer must have as explained in the 112(f) section below.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “a spring-loaded non-return valve or shuttle valve arranged in a pressure line of the cryopump” is indefinite since it is unclear if the spring-loaded non-return valve is also arranged in the pressure line or the alternative only requires a spring-loaded non-return valve.
The recitation, “which takes” is unclear what “which” references.
It is unclear whether the “inlet line” provides connection of the valves to the pressure line or vice versa.
In regard to claim 12, the recitation “filling interface” is indefinite as explained in the 112(f) section below.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “low temperature” is indefinite for being a relative term. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no way to determine what temperature is sufficient to meet the relative and patently indistinct term.
The recitation, “normal operation” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require any particular operations as the claim does not limit what must occur during the normal operation, nor is it even clear what is operating. However, it is understood that the at least one cryopump is surrounded by hydrogen during this phase.
The recitation, “cryogenic fluid” is inconsistent with the disclosure and the independent claim. The claim stores hydrogen and there is no other fluid supported as presently recited.
The recitation, “liquid hydrogen and/or gaseous hydrogen in one or more stages” is indefinite since the claim already introduces “liquid hydrogen” and “gaseous hydrogen” and it is unclear if this is the same or other fluid.
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.
Claim limitation “filling interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Merely reciting “filling interface” does not define the scope of the structure thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “pressure reducer” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Merely reciting “pressure reducer” does not define the scope of the structure thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 other 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, 7, 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fickel (US 2002/0069857). 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 1, Fickel teaches a cryostorage system (see whole disclosure), comprising: a cryocontainer (1; para. 21) operable to store liquid hydrogen (para. 21), the cryocontainer (1) having an inner tank (see inner tank of 1) and an outer container (outer tank of 1); and at least one cryopump (3)arranged in the inner tank (inner wall of 1) to be fully surrounded by the liquid hydrogen (para. 21-23), the cryopump (3) delivering the liquid hydrogen (from inside the inner wall of 1) in one stage (of 3) to a consumer (para. 24, engine) at a pressure greater than a pressure in the inner tank (inner wall of 1; due to operation of the pump).
In regard to claim 7, Fickel teaches a heat exchanger (10) to warm the liquid hydrogen and/or the gaseous hydrogen (para. 25).
In regard to claim 8, Fickel teaches a gas return line (line with 10, 12, 9) operable to facilitate return of a partial flow of extracted gaseous hydrogen (though 12) downstream of the heat exchanger (10) into the inner tank (inside of inner wall of 1) to increase the pressure in the inner tank (inside of inner wall of 1)(para. 26).
In regard to claim 16, Fickel teaches a cryostorage system (see whole disclosure), comprising: a cryocontainer (1) operable to store liquid hydrogen (para. 21), the cryocontainer (1) having an inner tank (see inner wall of 1) and an outer container (see outer wall of 1); and at least one cryopump (3) having a cryopump drive (4; para. 23) arranged in the inner tank (inside inner wall of 1) to be fully surrounded by the liquid hydrogen (para. 21-23), the cryopump (3) delivering the liquid hydrogen (from inside the inner wall of 1) in one stage (of 3) to a consumer (engine para. 24) at a pressure (pressure of fluid after 3) greater than a pressure in the inner tank (within inner wall of 1) (due to operation of the pump 3).
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) 2-4, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fickel (US 2002/0069857) in view of Beiter (WO 2019/081158). 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 2-3, 17-18, Fickel teaches most of the limitations of claims 2-3, 17-18, but does not explicitly teach a gas line operable to provide the gaseous hydrogen to at least one intake port of the cryopump, the gas line having an open end arranged adjacent to a top region of the inner tank to facilitate an extraction of the gaseous hydrogen from the inner tank by the cryopump.
However, Beiter explicitly teaches a gas line (9) operable to provide gaseous phase (“gas phase” para. 31) of the stored cryogen fuel to at least one intake port (inlet of 3) of a cryopump (3); the gas line (9) has an open end (top open end of 9) arranged adjacent (within some distance) to a top region (7) of the storage tank (1) to facilitate an extraction of the gaseous phase (gas phase) from the storage tank (1) by the cryopump (3). These features provide the ability to rapidly adjust down the pressure in the storage tank (para. 29, 19, 16) and flexibly adjust the flow (para. 12 “delivery rate …can be adjusted to the actual requirements of the…engine”) to an engine (para. 11 “internal combustion engine”). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cryopump (3) of Fickel with the gas line of Beiter (3), as detailed above, for the purpose of providing the ability to rapidly adjust down the pressure in the storage tank (para. 29, 19, 16) and flexibly adjust the flow (para. 12 “delivery rate …can be adjusted to the actual requirements of the…engine”) to an engine (para. 11 “internal combustion engine”).
In regard to claims 4, 19, Fickel, as modified, teaches most of the limitations of claims 4, 19, since Fickel teaches a check valve (see figure) and further Beither teaches a valve (8) and such valving facilitates a switching between the liquid hydrogen and the gaseous hydrogen for a selective delivery of the liquid hydrogen or the gaseous hydrogen to the least at one intake port of the cryopump (3) providing the benefits already discussed.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fickel (US 2002/0069857) in view of Bartlok (US 2020/0325854) and separately over
Fickel (US 2002/0069857) in view of Beiter (WO 2019/081158) and Bartlok (US 2020/0325854). 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 9, Fickel does not explicitly teach a pressure reducer and a pressure safety valve in the gas return line. However, providing pressure regulation and a safety valve is routine and ordinary. Bartlok teaches (see whole disclosure including fig. 2) an inner tank (1) and an outer tank (see tank around 1) and a gas return line (4, 6) having a pressure reducer (9) and a pressure safety valve (10), the pressure safety valve (10) being downstream of the pressure reducer (9) in a direction toward the inner tank (1). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Fickel with the pressure reducer of Bartlok for the purpose of providing greater flexibility in what pressure is returned to the inner tank and to modify Fickel with the pressure safety valve of Bartlok for the purpose of providing greater safety and to avoid overpressurization in the gas return line.
In regard to claims 11-12, Fickel does not explicitly teach a spring-loaded non-return valve arranged in a pressure line of the cryopump with an inlet line into the inner tank and does not teach a filling interface (interpreted as lines that can provide fluid into the inner tank) and extraction line. However, spring loaded non-return valves are routine and ordinary as taught by Bartlok. Bartlok teaches a spring-loaded (see figure 2) non-return valve (117) connected with a pressure line (interpreted as output line) (at least 102) and an input line (114, 118; para. 31) into an inner tank (101); further teaching a filling interface (114) to facilitate, via an extraction line (at least line having 117), the spring-loaded non-return valve (117) filling of the inner tank (101)(para. 31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Fickel with the filling interface (114) of Bartlok and spring-loaded non-return valve of Bartlok, as detailed above, for the purpose of providing the ability to feed or add fuel to the inner tank from the exterior without having to provide separated and further lines.
Conclusion
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
October 17, 2025
Prosecution Insights