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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 11th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every drawing objection, 112(f) interpretation, and 112(a) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed September 11th, 2025. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2: “the liquid state” should read “a liquid state”
Claim 10, line 2: “at least one tank” should read “the at least one tank”
Claim 10, line 4: “at least one liquefaction device” should read “at least one of the liquefaction device”
Claim 12, lines 6-7: “a flow of dihydrogen” should read “a flow of the dihydrogen”
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, and 15 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
Claim 7 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claims 11-14 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards
as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the evaporation of dihydrogen in the liquid state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the evaporation of dihydrogen in the liquid state" in line 2 of claim 1 to “an evaporation of dihydrogen in the liquid state".
Claim 10, line 3 recites “at least one dihydrogen consumer” which is unclear to the Examiner as
to how the at least one dihydrogen consumer of line 3 of claim 10 relates to the previously claimed
gaseous dihydrogen consumer of claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the at least one dihydrogen consumer of claim 10 and the gaseous dihydrogen consumer of claim 1 to be the same components. The Examiner recommends changing “at least one dihydrogen consumer” in line 3 of claim 10 to “at least one of the gaseous dihydrogen consumer”.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, and 15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
Claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claims 11-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
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, 4-8, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102062484), hereinafter Lee in view of Iwamoto (JP H08159654), hereinafter Iwamoto.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a device for liquefying gaseous dihydrogen resulting from the evaporation of dihydrogen in the liquid state stored in at least one tank (Fig. 3, hydrogen reliquefaction system 10a, storage tank 100; Pg. 7, paragraph 33, the boil-off gas branched from the boil-off gas transferred from the storage tank 100 to the compression unit 200 and transferred to the first energy generating unit 400 is the storage tank 100), the device for liquefying gaseous dihydrogen comprising:
at least one heat exchanger with a plurality of passes (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, first heat exchanger 301, second heat exchanger 302, first pass A, second pass B, third pass C; Fig. 5, cooling unit 500, heat exchanger 541), at least one supply branch configured to bring at least a portion of the gaseous dihydrogen from the at least one tank to a gaseous dihydrogen consumer (Fig. 3, branch 310b, first energy generating unit 400; Pg. 7, paragraph 33, Branch 310b from the boil-off gas transferred to the first heat exchange unit 301), a part of the at least one supply branch passing through the at least one heat exchanger via a first pass of the plurality of passes (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, first pass A),
at least one cooling branch configured to liquefy at least a part of the gaseous dihydrogen (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, cooling branch D; Pg. 8, paragraph 37, The condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 collects the evaporated gas cooled by the cooling unit 500, and transfers the condensed hydrogen from the evaporated gas cooled by the cooling unit 500 to the liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101. That is, the condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 includes hydrogen, which is cooled by the first heat exchanger 301, the second heat exchanger 302, the cooling unit 500, and the expansion unit 700, and mixes a liquid and a gas state. Are recruited. Among them, the liquefied hydrogen in the liquid state is sent to the liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101, the gaseous evaporated gas is transferred to the evaporation gas mixing unit 800), the at least one cooling branch having at least one compression member (Fig 3, compression unit 200; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above), a portion of the at least one cooling branch passing through the at least one heat exchanger via a second pass of the plurality of passes disposed after the at least one compression member (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, cooling branch D includes second pass B downstream of the compression unit 200), the second pass exchanging heat energy with the first pass in order to liquefy at least a part of the dihydrogen circulating in the at least one cooling branch (Pg. 8, paragraph 37, The condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 collects the evaporated gas cooled by the cooling unit 500, and transfers the condensed hydrogen from the evaporated gas cooled by the cooling unit 500 to the liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101. That is, the condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 includes hydrogen, which is cooled by the first heat exchanger 301, the second heat exchanger 302, the cooling unit 500, and the expansion unit 700, and mixes a liquid and a gas state. Are recruited. Among them, the liquefied hydrogen in the liquid state is sent to the liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101, the gaseous evaporated gas is transferred to the evaporation gas mixing unit 800; Further, second pass B of annotated Fig. 3 of Lee is at least used for precooling the flow in the first heat exchanger 301 via being in thermal communication with first pass A in the liquefaction process performed in the cooling branch D).
However, Lee does not disclose the first pass inside which is disposed a catalyst involved in a conversion of the para isomer of the dihydrogen into ortho isomer of the dihydrogen.
Iwamoto teaches the passes of a set of heat exchangers through which a boil-off gaseous dihydrogen flows from a tank to include catalysts involved in the conversion of the para isomer of the dihydrogen into ortho isomer of the dihydrogen (Fig. 1, vessels 92, 93, 94; Pg. 3, paragraph 18, The hydrogen gas recovery system 91 is provided in each of the first to third heat exchangers 31, 3 and 33, and reverse ortho-para conversion for performing cold recovery by heat exchange and reverse ortho-para conversion. It is equipped with vessels 92, 93, and 94, and a merging path 95 for merging the recovered hydrogen gas after cold recovery with the raw material hydrogen gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first pass of the heat exchanger of the device of Lee of claim 1 to include a catalyst involved in the conversion of the para isomer of the dihydrogen into ortho isomer of the dihydrogen as taught by Iwamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by performing reverse ortho-para conversion at the same time as recovering the cold, the cold contained in the recovered hydrogen gas can be effectively recovered (Iwamoto, Pg. 3, paragraph 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein another portion of the at least one cooling branch passes through the at least one heat exchanger via a third pass of the plurality of passes, an outlet of the third pass being connected to an inlet of the second pass by a connection portion of the at least one cooling branch, the connection portion comprising the at least one compression member (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, third pass C is depicted with outlet C-1 being connected to inlet B-1 of second pass B via the connection portion D1 of the cooling branch D which comprises the compression unit 200).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the second pass of the at least one heat exchanger is arranged so as to exchange heat energy with the first pass and the third pass of the at least one heat exchanger (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, second pass B is arranged so as to exchange heat energy with the first pass A and the third pass C of the first heat exchangers 301 and the second heat exchanger 302).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a gas-liquid separator arranged on the at least one cooling branch after an outlet of the second pass (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 is shown to be arranged in the cooling branch D after an outlet B-2 of the second pass B).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above), configured to place a liquid outlet of the gas-liquid separator in fluidic communication with the at least one tank (Pg. 8, paragraph 38, The liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101 is a container having a space in which liquefied hydrogen is stored. According to an embodiment, the liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101 may be a storage tank 100. That is, liquid hydrogen reliquefied by the present hydrogen reliquefaction system 10 may be introduced into the storage tank 100 again. Alternatively, the reliquefied liquefied hydrogen may be supplied to a storage container separate from the storage tank 100).
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above), comprising a gas-liquid separator arranged on the at least one cooling branch after an outlet of the second pass, wherein a gas outlet of the gas-liquid separator is in fluidic communication with the at least one cooling branch before an inlet of the third pass of the at least one heat exchanger (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 is shown to be arranged in the cooling branch D after an outlet B-2 of the second pass B and gas outlet 600-1 is shown in fluidic communication with the cooling branch D via mixing unit 800 before an inlet C-2 of the third pass C).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified discloses a structure intended for storing dihydrogen in the liquid state that comprises at least one tank containing liquid dihydrogen (Fig. 3, hydrogen reliquefaction system 10a, storage tank 100), the structure comprising:
at least one dihydrogen consumer, and
at least one device for liquefying gaseous dihydrogen as claimed in claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above; Fig. 3, first energy generating unit 400), the at least one dihydrogen consumer being configured to be supplied with fuel by the dihydrogen in the gaseous state circulating at least in part in said at least one device for liquefying gaseous dihydrogen (Fig. 3, first energy generating unit 400; Pg. 7, paragraph 35, The first energy generator 400 generates energy by using the evaporated gas branched from the evaporated gas transferred from the storage tank 100 to the compression unit 200 as a fuel; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified discloses the structure as claimed in claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above), wherein a flow of the dihydrogen in the first pass of the at least one heat exchanger is oriented in a direction opposite a flow of the dihydrogen in the second pass of the at least one heat exchanger (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, first pass A is shown to flow in a direction opposite of the second pass B).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified discloses the structure as claimed in claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above), wherein another portion of the cooling branch passes through the at least one heat exchanger via a third pass of the plurality of passes, an outlet of the third pass being connected to an inlet of the second pass by a connection portion of the at least one cooling branch, the connection portion comprising the at least one compression member, and wherein a flow of the dihydrogen in the first pass of the at least one heat exchanger is oriented in the same direction as a flow of dihydrogen in the third pass of the at least one heat exchanger (See annotated Fig. 3 of Lee below, third pass C is depicted with outlet C-1 being connected to inlet B-1 of second pass B via the connection portion D1 of the cooling branch D which comprises the compression unit 200 and third pass C is shown to flow in the same direction as first pass A).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 15, Lee as modified discloses a method for liquefying gaseous dihydrogen resulting from evaporation of the dihydrogen in the liquid state stored in at least one tank by a the device for liquefying the gaseous dihydrogen as claimed in claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising a step of compression of the gaseous dihydrogen by the at least one compression member and a step of exchange of heat energy in the at least one heat exchanger between the compressed gaseous dihydrogen and the gaseous dihydrogen withdrawn from the at least one tank, so that the compressed gaseous dihydrogen is at least partially liquefied, the conversion, in the presence of the catalyst, of the para isomer into the ortho isomer for the withdrawn gaseous dihydrogen occurring during the step of exchange of heat energy (Lee, Pg. 7, paragraph 36 and 38, the cooling unit 500 cools the evaporated gas compressed in the compression unit 200 and heat exchanged in the first heat exchange unit 301. The evaporated gas used as the refrigerant in the first heat exchange part 301 and the second heat exchange part 302 is provided by vaporizing liquefied hydrogen in the storage tank 100, and thus, the first heat exchange part 301 and the second heat exchange part 302. Since only the evaporation gas cannot be cooled to the liquefaction temperature, the evaporation gas is additionally cooled by using the cooling unit 500… The condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 collects the evaporated gas cooled by the cooling unit 500, and transfers the condensed hydrogen from the evaporated gas cooled by the cooling unit 500 to the liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101. That is, the condensed hydrogen collecting unit 600 includes hydrogen, which is cooled by the first heat exchanger 301, the second heat exchanger 302, the cooling unit 500, and the expansion unit 700, and mixes a liquid and a gas state. Are recruited. Among them, the liquefied hydrogen in the liquid state is sent to the liquefied hydrogen storage unit 101, the gaseous evaporated gas is transferred to the evaporation gas mixing unit 800; Iwamoto, Pg. 3, paragraph 18, The hydrogen gas recovery system 91 is provided in each of the first to third heat exchangers 31, 3 and 33, and reverse ortho-para conversion for performing cold recovery by heat exchange and reverse ortho-para conversion. It is equipped with vessels 92, 93, and 94, and a merging path 95 for merging the recovered hydrogen gas after cold recovery with the raw material hydrogen gas). Further, the limitations of claim 15 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Iwamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You et al. (WO 2022114861), hereinafter You.
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Lee as modified does not disclose wherein the catalyst is chosen from among gels of nickel, copper, iron or metal hydride, nickel, copper or iron films, iron, cobalt, nickel, chromium, manganese hydroxides, iron oxides, nickel-silicon complexes, activated charcoal, and/or at least one combination thereof.
You teaches the use of an iron oxide catalyst for conversion of para-hydrogen into ortho-hydrogen (Pg. 3, paragraph 18 and 25, According to one aspect of the present invention, in the temperature control device for a liquid hydrogen storage tank provided on the inner upper portion of the hydrogen storage tank in which liquid hydrogen is stored, ortho of para-hydrogen among the liquid hydrogen catalyst for hydrogen conversion; and a catalyst holder configured to be provided with the catalyst and disposed on an upper portion of the hydrogen storage tank, wherein inducing a catalytic reaction in which para-hydrogen is converted into ortho-hydrogen according to a change in the internal temperature of the hydrogen storage tank A temperature control device for a liquid hydrogen storage tank may be provided…The catalyst may be iron oxide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catalyst of the device liquefaction of Lee as modified to be iron oxide as taught by You. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure an efficient conversion of para-hydrogen to ortho-hydrogen to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Iwamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanei et al. (US Patent No. 11,168,620), hereinafter Kanei.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Lee as modified does not disclose wherein the at least one supply branch comprises a compression device arranged after an outlet of the first pass.
Kanei teaches wherein the at least one supply branch comprises a compression device arranged after an outlet of the first pass (Fig. 3, cooling heat exchanger 27, third path 32, second boosting member 33; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the supply branch of the liquefaction device of Lee as modified to include a compression device arranged after an outlet of the first pass as taught by Kanei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the flow to the consumer has sufficient pressure to meet the consumer demands.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Iwamoto as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of H. Knapp (US Patent No. 2,959,020), hereinafter Knapp.
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified discloses the liquefaction device as claimed in claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above).
However, Lee as modified does not disclose comprising a bypass branch connecting a convergence point arranged on the at least one supply branch before an inlet of the first pass of the heat exchanger and a junction point arranged on the at least one cooling branch before the at least one compression member.
Knapp teaches comprising a bypass branch connecting a convergence point arranged on the at least one supply branch before an inlet of the first pass of the at least one heat exchanger and a junction point arranged on the at least one cooling branch before the at least one compression member (See annotated Fig. 1 of Knapp below, a bypass branch E is depicted connecting a convergence point F arranged on line 12 before an inlet A-1 of the first pass A of the heat exchanger 14 and a junction point G arranged on the cooling branch D’ before the compression member 20).
Lee as modified fails to teach a bypass branch connecting a convergence point arranged on the supply branch before an inlet of the first pass of the heat exchanger and a junction point arranged on the cooling branch before the compression member, however Knapp teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas liquefaction to include a bypass branch connecting a convergence point arranged on the supply branch before an inlet of the first pass of the heat exchanger and a junction point arranged on the cooling branch before the compression member. This is strong evidence that modifying Lee as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing additional boil-off gas to the cooling branch). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee as modified by Knapp and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing additional boil-off gas to the cooling branch.
PNG
media_image2.png
535
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Knapp
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Iwamoto as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Deletre et al. (WO 2016128696), hereinafter Deletre.
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified discloses structure as claimed in claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above).
However, Lee as modified does not disclose a transfer system for dihydrogen in a liquid state, the system comprising:
the structure as claimed in claim 10,
insulated pipelines arranged so as to connect the at least one tank installed on the structure to a floating or onshore storage facility, and
a pump for driving a stream of cold liquid product through the insulated pipelines from the floating or onshore storage facility or to the floating or onshore storage facility to the at least one tank of the structure or from the at least one tank of the structure.
Deletre teaches a transfer system for dihydrogen in a liquid state, having a tank for storing cryogenic fuel insulated pipelines arranged so as to connect the tank installed on the structure to a floating or onshore storage facility and a pump for driving a stream of cold liquid product through the insulated pipelines from or to the floating or onshore storage facility to or from the tank of the structure (Pg. 12, lines 5-10, According to one embodiment, the invention also provides a transfer system for a fluid, the system comprising the abovementioned vessel, insulated pipes arranged to connect the vessel installed in the hull of the vessel to a floating or ground storage facility. and a pump for driving fluid through the insulated pipelines from or to the floating or land storage facility to or from the vessel; Pg. 1, lines 9-10, The liquefied gas 8 may also be nitrogen, helium, ethylene or liquid hydrogen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Lee as modified to be used in a transfer system for dihydrogen in the liquid state that includes insulated pipelines arranged so as to connect the tank installed on the structure to a floating or onshore storage facility and a pump for driving a stream of cold liquid product through the insulated pipelines from or to the floating or onshore storage facility to or from the tank of the structure as taught by Deletre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a sufficient flow of liquid product to the liquefaction device to allow for continued operation.
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified discloses structure as claimed in claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above).
However, Lee as modified does not disclose a method for loading or offloading from the structure as claimed in claim 10, comprising conveying the dihydrogen in the liquid state through the insulated pipelines from a floating or onshore storage facility or to the floating or onshore storage facility to or from the at least one tank of the structure.
Deletre teaches a method for loading or offloading from the structure as claimed in claim 10, comprising conveying the dihydrogen in the liquid state through the insulated pipelines from a floating or onshore storage facility or to the floating or onshore storage facility to or from the at least one tank of the structure (Pg. 12, lines 5-10, According to one embodiment, the invention also provides a transfer system for a fluid, the system comprising the abovementioned vessel, insulated pipes arranged to connect the vessel installed in the hull of the vessel to a floating or ground storage facility. and a pump for driving fluid through the insulated pipelines from or to the floating or land storage facility to or from the vessel; Pg. 1, lines 9-10, The liquefied gas 8 may also be nitrogen, helium, ethylene or liquid hydrogen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Lee as modified to be used in a method for loading or offloading from the structure as claimed in claim 10, comprising conveying the dihydrogen in the liquid state through the insulated pipelines from a floating or onshore storage facility or to the floating or onshore storage facility to or from the at least one tank of the structure as taught by Deletre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a sufficient flow of liquid product to the liquefaction device to allow for continued operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8-9, filed December 11th, 2025, with respect to the lack of consideration of IDS documents filed in the IDS statement of October 18th, 2023 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The IDS statement of October 18th, 2023 has been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed December 11th, 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation of “compression member” and “Compression device” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections for lack of support of a term interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 11th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Thus, the application of the teachings of Iwamoto to the Lee device would place the para-ortho converter in a pass that is not the first pass of the heat exchanger forming part of the gas consumer's supply line. Thus, the proposed combination would not include all of the features recited in amended independent Claim 1”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, the Examiner would like to note the teachings of Iwamoto are relied upon as a general teaching that it is well known in the art of hydrogen liquefaction to provide catalyst for para-ortho conversion inside of flow paths of heat exchangers of the hydrogen liquefaction system. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
The rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-15 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshida et al. (JP 2002106798) discloses the use of a para-ortho conversion catalyst on a supply flow path from a gaseous portion of a liquid hydrogen storage tank.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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 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 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 January 09th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights