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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 3/9/2026 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: the new specification and drawings provide new figure numbers. Those new figure numbers are directed to parts of the figures that were not previously defined as being part of the figures, only being present within the system. As such, the new figure numbers in the specification and in the drawings are considered new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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:
“conduits able to contain a cryogenic fluid”
“thermal insulator arranged outside the conduits”
“second tank comprising a heating device”
“the heating device comprises conduits arranged for circulation of a gas” “second tank also comprises a thermal insulation device”
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 were received on 3/9/2026. These drawings are unacceptable. The drawings provide new figure numbers, but the new figure numbers do not point to any specific component but just general locations on the figures.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “compressed’ should be between before “gaseous hydrogen” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
The word “compressed’ should be between before “gaseous hydrogen” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 14-23 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 2 recites “wherein the cooling of the gaseous hydrogen to the first cryogenic temperature is carried out in the first tank”; however, claim 1 already recites “during or after filling, cooling the compressed gaseous hydrogen contained in the first tank to a first cryogenic temperature, it is unclear if claim 2 is specifically defining only the method of cooling or is defining a different way of cooling. Foe the purpose of examination, the cooling recited in claim 2 is understood to take place during or after filling of the tank with the compressed hydrogen.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the gaseous hydrogen is cooled to the first cryogenic temperature by a heat exchanger arranged upstream of the first tank”; however, claim 1 already recites “during or after filling, cooling the compressed gaseous hydrogen contained to a first cryogenic temperature” which is indefinite it is unclear if claim 5 is specifically defining only the method of cooling or is defining a different way of cooling. For the purpose of examination, the cooling recited in claim 5 is understood to take place during filling of the tank with the compressed hydrogen.
Claim 14 recites “the gaseous hydrogen” in line 3 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood that the cooling device is capable of cooling gaseous hydrogen.
Claim 14 recites “equalizing the pressure” which is considered indefinite as “the pressure” lacks antecedent basis and as such it is unclear what pressure is being equalized. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is recited that as long as transfer is shown to not be by a compressor or pump the limitation is met.
Claim 14 recites a series of structure as well as a continued recitation of “pressurized gaseous hydrogen”, “the gaseous hydrogen”, “gaseous hydrogen” and “transfer pressurized gaseous hydrogen” but does not positively recite how the structures are related to the various different hydrogen recitations which renders the meets and bounds of the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that there is a first tank which is for receiving gaseous hydrogen pressurized a compressor, a cooling device that cools the hydrogen that is either form or to the compressor, and the transfer is from the pressurized gaseous hydrogen that has been cooled and compressed and originates from the first tank.
Claims 15-23 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: cooling device in claim 14 understood to be conduits able to contain a cryogenic fluid, immersion in a cryogenic fluid, a heat exchanger,
a heating device in claim 19 understood to be conduits arranged for circulation of a gas,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
While claims 16 and 20 both recite “conduits” the plural nature of the word is understood to not be specifically requiring multiple conduits but referring to the concept of conduits being present.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciapalle et al. (US PG Pub 20230279996), hereinafter referred to as Cacciapalle et al. and Bassani (US PG Pub 20240125435), hereinafter referred to as Bassani and Killeen et al. (US PG Pub 20150107681) and Kesten (US PG Pub 20080016884), hereinafter referred to as Kesten.
With respect to claim 1, Cacciapalle teaches (Figure 1) teaches a method for a method for pressurizing gaseous hydrogen comprising the following steps:
providing a first tank capable of receiving pressurized gaseous hydrogen (supply vessel 2, which can receive mixed liquid-gaseous phase or just gaseous phase cryogenic fluid including hydrogen, paragraph 41, which would mean it can receive pressurized gaseous hydrogen);
the gaseous hydrogen contained in the first tank to a first cryogenic temperature (gaseous hydrogen in the vessel is at a cryogenic temperature, paragraph 41);
transferring by a portion of the gaseous hydrogen at said first cryogenic temperature from said first tank to at least one second tank (the cryogenic fluid which can include gaseous hydrogen, paragraph 41 is transferred ultimately from 2 to compressed gas receiver 26 which can be a vehicle tank).
Cacciapalle does not teach filling the first tank with gaseous hydrogen or that the first cryogenic temperature of the hydrogen is achieved by cooling the hydrogen in the first tank during after filling.
Kesten teaches that to cool hydrogen in a tank, the hydrogen tank can be located in a bath of liquefied nitrogen where the hydrogen is filled into the tank from a reservoir at room temperature and cooled by the bath (paragraphs 21-22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in order to provide the hydrogen in the tank of Cacciapalle to have based on the teaching of Kesten to have filled the tank with gaseous hydrogen and then immersed it in a bath of liquid nitrogen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing this method would provide what is predictable in the art of the use of a suitable refrigerant able to bring the hydrogen to a cryogenic temperature.
Cacciapalle does not teach that the hydrogen in the tank is compressed to a first pressure and that the transfer from said first tank to at least one second tank is by equalizing the pressure between said tanks.
Killeen teaches that gas a supplying tank pressure can be at a higher pressure than a gas tank pressure so that transfer is by equalization (paragraph 465).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the gas in the tank of Cacciapalle to have been compressed (at a higher pressure than that of the tank it flows into) such that the transfer of gas between the first tank and the second tank is through pressure equalization based on the teaching of Killeen since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that filling the first tank with compressed gas would increase the overall storage volume available while also allowing the transfer between the first tank and the second tank without the need or a reduced need for a compressor which would provide for a more reliable transfer of fluid.
Cacciapalle does not teach hermetically closing the at least one second tank containing the hydrogen transferred from the first tank; increasing the pressure in the second tank by heating the hydrogen present in the second tank to a second temperature higher than the first cryogenic temperature.
Bassani teaches that a hydrogen containing tank (310) can be provided with a warming arrangement where air is passed through the tank to heat up the hydrogen in the tank (paragraphs 46-47) in a serpentine channel (paragraph 44). Once the tank is filled with hydrogen, the inlet and outlet valves are closed and the hydrogen in the tank is pressurized to a desired pressure through heating of the hydrogen so that low temperature high-pressure hydrogen can be produced (paragraphs 26, 41-42).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed based on the teaching of Bassani for the vehicle tank of Cacciapalle to have valves that allow it to be closed with a serpentine channel to allow air to heat the tank when the valves are closed since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the ability to close and heat the tank would allow for the desired high pressure of the hydrogen in the tank to be achieved without the need for compressors which are not easy to use to achieve high pressure hydrogen (paragraph 11 of Bassani). The tank being closed by valves can be considered hermetically closed as the hydrogen is not able to leave, neither would air.
With respect to claim 2, Cacciapalle as modified teaches wherein the cooling of the gaseous hydrogen to the first cryogenic temperature is carried out in the first tank (as modified this is how the gaseous hydrogen is cooled).
With respect to claim 3, Cacciapalle as modified teaches wherein the first tank is cooled by a cryogenic fluid (as modified the first tank is cooled by liquid nitrogen).
With respect to claim 4, Cacciapalle as modified teaches wherein the cryogenic fluid is liquid nitrogen (as modified the fluid is liquid nitrogen).
With respect to claim 8, Cacciapalle does not teach wherein maximum pressure in at the least one second tank is comprised between 1000 and 1500 bar.
Bassani teaches that when pressurizing hydrogen to a high pressure the pressure can be as high as 1000 bar (paragraph 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when pressurizing the hydrogen in the vehicle tank of Cacciapalle to have based on the teaching of Bassani for it to have been to 1000 bar (which would be the maximum pressure of the tank) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 7, lines 15-16 of the instant specification, where it is stated the pressure is “typically between 1000 bar and 1500 bar”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 9-10, Cacciapalle does not teach wherein the at least one second tank has a volume less than the volume of the first tank where the volume of the at least one second tank is comprised between 40% and 60% of the volume of the first tank.
Bassani teaches that it is advantageous to decrease the tank size of a fuel tank for storing hydrogen in a vehicle in order to increase space for other components (paragraphs 9-10).
Therefore the size of the fuel tank (the second tank of Cacciapalle) and thus the relationship between the first and second tank is a result effective variable chosen based on minimizing the size of the fuel tank in the vehicle to make room for other component. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the size of the fuel tank as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the volume of second tank is comprised between 40% and 60% of the volume of the first tank as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 11, Cacciapalle does not teach wherein the second temperature is comprised between -400C and 250C.
Bassani teaches vehicle tanks having high pressure hydrogen have the hydrogen at a temperature of between -20 C and 50 C (paragraph 22), which overlaps with -40 and 25 C.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when pressurizing the hydrogen in the vehicle tank of Caciapalle to have based on the teaching of Bassani for temperature to have been between -40 C and 25 C applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (page 4, lines 28-29 of the instant specification, where it is stated the second temperature is “typically” around 230-330 K”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 12, Caciapalle teaches comprising a heating step in the at least one second tank (as modified the second tank is heated).
With respect to claim 13, Caciapalle teaches wherein the at least one second tank is a tank of a vehicle (gas receiver 26 is a vehicle tank).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciapalle/Bassani/Killeen/Kesten and further in view of Peter et al. (US PG Pub 20050284154), hereinafter referred to as Peter.
With respect to claim 5, Cacciapalle as modified does not teach wherein the gaseous hydrogen is cooled to the first cryogenic temperature by a heat exchanger arranged upstream of the first tank.
Peter teaches that to bring a hydrogen stream (14) after compression (12) to a cryogenic storage temperature it is cooled by passing through a heat exchanger (liquid nitrogen storage tank 24 acts as a heat exchanger (paragraphs 23-24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of cooling the hydrogen in the tank after it is filled to have filled the tank of Cacciapalle with compressed hydrogen by first cooling the hydrogen down to the first cryogenic temperature in a heat exchanger based on the teaching of Peter since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (immersion cooling after filling) for another (cooling upstream of filling using a heat exchanger) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing cooling to bring hydrogen down to a cryogenic temperature for storage as one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of cooling the compressed hydrogen to a desired cryogenic temperature for storage.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciapalle/Bassani/Killeen/Kesten/Peter and further in view of Heinrich et al. (US PG Pub 20110127174), hereinafter referred to as Heinrich.
With respect to claim 6, Cacciapalle as modified does not teach wherein the first tank comprises a thermal insulation.
Henrich (Figure 1) teaches that a pressure vessel for storing hydrogen has an inner container surrounded by an insulation region (paragraph 152).
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 Heinrich provided in Cacciapalle an insulation region on the tank since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing insulation would prevent undesired heat ingress into the tank which could as would be common knowledge in the art prevent overheating and over-pressurization of the tank.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cacciapalle/Bassani/Killeen/Kesten and further in view of Brunner et al. (US PG Pub 20150007584), hereinafter referred to as Brunner.
With respect to claim 7, Cacciapalle does not teach wherein a maximum pressure in the first tank is comprised between 500 and 600 bar.
Brunner teaches that predefined maximum pressure of a tank is designed for operational safety of the tank (paragraph 17).
As such, it can be shown that the maximum pressure in the first tank is a result effective variable chosen for operational safety of the tank. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the first tank of Cacciapalle to have a maximum pressure of between the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based the first tank of Cacciapalle had a maximum pressure of between 500 and 600 bar as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14-20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassani and further in view of Mukai (US PG Pub 20090184517), hereinafter refer to as Mukai.
With respect to claim 14, Bassani (Figure 2) teaches a system for pressurizing hydrogen comprising a first tank (fixed volume tank 310, paragraph 40) adapted to receive pressurized gaseous hydrogen (hydrogen at 301 between 200 and 500 bar as warm as -175 C, paragraph 39 which would be gaseous as claimed, is fed into 310);
a cooling device capable of cooling the gaseous hydrogen to a first cryogenic temperature (heat exchange 320 provides the same fluid as to 215, paragraph 45, which means it can cool the hydrogen to same temperature);
a gas compressor configured to compress the hydrogen upstream of said first tank (compressor 113, paragraph 58),
and a fluid connection configured to selectively establish a fluid link between the first tank and at least one second tank so as to transfer pressurized gaseous hydrogen at the first cryogenic temperature from the first tank to the at least one second tank (outlet valve 335, paragraph 59, would allow such a fluid connection be made as it connects hydrogen inside 310 to the vehicle tank and it does transfer the fluid that starts the first cryogenic temperature) by equalizing the pressure (as it is only the opening of the valve that allows pressure transfer, this can be considered equalizing the pressure),
said at least one at a second temperature higher than the first cryogenic temperature of the first tank (the second tank is designed to receive a higher temperature fluid from the heating 330, paragraph 46 which would be at a higher temperature)
Bassani does not teach the second tank able to be hermetically closed.
Mukai teaches that a tank which receives hydrogen via a valve assembly has a sealing member for hermetically receiving the hydrogen gas to be stored in the tank at high pressure (paragraph 46).
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 Mukai provided a sealing member to allow the second tank of Bassani to be hermetically sealed since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing such a seal would allow for what is common knowledge in the art of preventing any leakage of hydrogen which would be dangerous.
With respect to claim 15, Bassani does not teach wherein the first tank is immersed in a cryogenic fluid at the first temperature. However, this is a description of the cooling device as claimed in claim 14 which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to include both a tank of cryogenic fluid that the tank is immersed in as well as conduits and therefore it can be considered prima facie obvious in view of the cooling device of Bassani (conduits which pass into the tank carrying a cryogenic fluid) as they would be considered equivalents.
With respect to claim 16, Bassani as modified teaches wherein the first tank comprises conduits able to contain a cryogenic fluid so as to cool the first tank to the first temperature (the serpentine channel 310 which is inside the tank, paragraph 44, can be considered conduits).
With respect to claim 17, Bassasi as modified teaches comprising a thermal insulator arranged outside the conduits (there is a thermal insulation layer on the tank to reduce thermal losses to the surrounding ambient, paragraph 40, the serpentine channel is inside the tank, paragraph 44 and thus the thermal insulator is outside the conduits).
With respect to claim 18, Bassani as modified teaches wherein the cooling device is a heat exchanger arranged upstream of the first tank (heat exchanger 215, paragraph 58 provides the cooling to the hydrogen).
With respect to claim 19, Bassani does not teach wherein the second tank comprises a heating device.
Bassani teaches that a hydrogen containing tank (310) can be provided with a warming arrangement where air is passed through the tank to heat up the hydrogen in the tank (paragraphs 46-47) in a serpentine channel (paragraph 44)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed based on the teaching of Bassani for the vehicle tank of Bassani to have also had a serpentine channel to allow air to heat the tank since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a serpentine channel heater would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the ability to increase the pressure of the tank if necessary as well as provide heating if the hydrogen in the fuel tank is too cold for operation.
With respect to claim 20, Bassani as modified teaches wherein the heating device comprise conduits arranged for a circulation of a gas at a temperatures greater than or equal to the second temperature (as modified the vehicle tank has the same warming arrangement at 310, which is a line with a gas such as air passing through it, which heats the tank fluid, and thus raises it to a temperature above that would be at least the second temperature or above).
With respect to claim 23, Bassani as modified teaches a station for filling vehicles with gaseous hydrogen, comprising a system according to claim 14, the at least one second tank being a tank of a vehicle to be filled with gaseous hydrogen (as Figure 2 is for filling a vehicle tank it can be considered a station for filling vehicles with gaseous hydrogen).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassani/Mukai and further in view of Driehuys et al. (US Patent No. 6199385)
With respect to claim 21, Bassani as modified does not teach where the gas is nitrogen.
Driehuys teaches that a heating jacket for a cryogenic fluid can have nitrogen gas as the warm stream of fluid (Column 13, lines 2-15).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when circulating gas through the conduits of Bassani as modified for the gas to have been nitrogen based on the teaching of Driehuys since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (air is the gas in Bassani) for another (nitrogen) to obtain predictable results is obvious whereby using nitrogen would provide the predictable result of a suitable gas that is capable of providing heating to a cryogenic fluid and would as would be common knowledge in the art be advantageous over air as it is inert and dry.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassani/Mukai and further in view of Heinrich et al. (US PG Pub 20110127174), hereinafter referred to as Heinrich.
Bassani does not teach wherein the at least one second tank also comprises a thermal insulation device.
Henrich (Figure 1) teaches that a pressure vessel for storing hydrogen has an inner container surrounded by an insulation region (paragraph 152).
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 Heinrich provided in Bassani an insulation region on the tank since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing insulation would prevent undesired heat ingress into the tank which could as would be common knowledge in the art prevent overheating and over-pressurization of the tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks, page 7, are not persuasive and the amendments to the drawings do not overcome the previous objections and the amended drawings and specification are considered to be new matter.
Applicant’s argument in regard to the use of “gaseous hydrogen” is considered accepted as it is understood that applicant is stating on the record that the term gaseous hydrogen can also be applied to supercritical hydrogen. The remaining rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have not been fully addressed and as such are maintained above except those corrected by amendment.
Applicant argues that “Even though Cacciapalle marginally mentions a gaseous state, Cacciapalle explicitly stats that where the compressed gas to be distributed is hydrogen” it is “liquid or mixed gas hydrogen”. This is not persuasive.
While Cacciapalle does teach that when the fluid is hydrogen it would be in a liquid or mixed-liquid gaseous phase (paragraph 47), Cacciapalle also teaches that the fluid in the tank is a cryogenic temperature, and a fluid at a cryogenic temperature can be a “gaseous fluid” (paragraph 41) which is a teaching that the fluid present can be gaseous fluid such as cryogenic hydrogen. A further reading of Cacciapalle (paragraph 48) only has the fluid for example be liquid or mixed phase hydrogen, and the teaching required is that the fluid is a process fluid that is at a cryogenic temperature which based on the above teachings would result in a prima facie teaching that gaseous hydrogen can be present in the tank. Beyond just the teaching present, for the sake of argument, the teaching of a mixed phase hydrogen as applicant is arguing would also be a teaching of filling the first tank with gaseous hydrogen that is at a first cryogenic temperature as required by the claims, because the tank would have in part gaseous hydrogen at a cryogenic temperature. There is no teaching precluding the presence of a second fluid or requiring the tank to only have gaseous hydrogen in it. Further, the modification as taught by Kesten would also provide a teaching as such, because the modification by Kesten requires the tank to be filled with gaseous hydrogen and then for the hydrogen to be cooled.
Applicant further argues, that the fluid in Cacciapalle is compressed after leaving the first tank and that Cacciapalle fails to transfer a portion of the hydrogen at said first cryogenic temperature from said first tank to at least one second tank or transfer by equalizing pressure, and Cacciapalle does not teach hermetically closing the at least one second tank and increasing the pressure, as there is only a teaching of storing the fluid in the second tank which result in Cacciapalle being fundamentally different from the claimed invention. This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Except for the teaching of transferring the hydrogen at the temperature and storing gaseous hydrogen, which is addressed above, it is not argued that Cacciapalle teaches any of these limitations. The claims require “a portion the gaseous hydrogen a said first cryogenic temperature” be transferred from said first tank to at least one second tank. There is no requirement that the fluid remain at temperature, only that the fluid that is at the temperature is transferred. The fluid being, heated, cooled or maintained at temperature during the transfer does not change that the fluid that was at the first cryogenic temperature in the first tank is the fluid transferred.
Applicant argues, page 13 that the modification “appears completely pointless” because the fluid in the tank of Cacciapalle is already “so cold that it is most likely in a liquid state, and the heating steps of Cacciapalle would reverse the effect of cooling without any benefit for the process”. This is not persuasive.
It is not argued that the fluid of Cacciapalle is at the cryogenic temperature; however, there is no teaching of Cacciapalle how the fluid arrived at such a temperature. The teaching of Kesten is showing that for the fluid in the tank to be at the temperature as claimed, it can be done so by immersing the tank as taught by Kesten. The modification above is not modifying the system of Cacciapalle to provide cooling to the tank present, but a showing of obviousness that in order for the tank present to have been provided with a cryogenic fluid.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “either have connected the first tank 2 of Cacciapalle to the second tanks 20, hereby short-circuiting the cryogenic feeding device 3, the heat exchanger 5 and the heater 5, making the process of Cacciapalle useless” or “might have connected to the tank 2 of Cacciapalle directly to an end user, making the system of Cacciapalle even more pointless” and “would not have arrived at the claimed invention”. This is not persuasive.
This would not as applicant argues make the system of Cacciapalle, it would be a different way of achieving the same configuration without the need for the cryogenic feeding device or possibly the heat exchanger of heater. Killeen provides a teaching that transferring between tanks can be done by pressure equalization, which applicant does not argue against. The teaching, when applied to Cacciapalle is a showing of a different way to achieve the required transfer with the benefit not needing to rely on the compressor for transfer of the fluid.
Applicant argues that the modification to Cacciapalle by Bassani would have been pointless as Cacciapalle already teaches there are two heating devices and thus no need for heating and Cacciapalle is concerned that the gas in the tank may be to warm for dispensing and teaches cooling the gas, and thus there would be no motivation to the heat the second tank of Cacciapalle. This is not persuasive.
The second tank as interpreted in view of Cacciapalle is not the storage vessel (20) but the gas receiver (26). Further, the modification above, is done to achieve the same overall gas transfer as Cacciapalle based on the teaching of Bassani, but with a different format for doing so. The three heat exchangers in Cacciapalle are for bringing the hydrogen to the desired temperature, for filling into the tank (26), but the modification would not provide a teaching of removing of those heat exchangers, only for how the tank (26) can be operated, which applicant has not argued against. There is no modification being made to the tanks (20) or to the heat exchangers (5, 6, 7) by the modification of Bassani, only to how a tank like the vehicle tank (26) of Cacciapalle could be operated.
Bassani teaches that a hydrogen containing tank (310) can be provided with a warming arrangement where air is passed through the tank to heat up the hydrogen in the tank (paragraphs 46-47) in a serpentine channel (paragraph 44). Once the tank is filled with hydrogen, the inlet and outlet valves are closed and the hydrogen in the tank is pressurized to a desired pressure through heating of the hydrogen so that low temperature high-pressure hydrogen can be produced (paragraphs 26, 41-42).
Further, all of applicant’s arguments appear to be arguing that Cacciapalle cannot be modified because any modification would result in it not doing what it is configured to do which appears to be an argument against bodily incorporation. Many of the modifications above are to show how the conditions of Cacciapalle can be achieved, or the desired result of Cacciapalle can be achieved. In response to applicant’s arguments above, 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). The combined references above would have suggested the limitations as claimed to be obvious.
Applicant argues, pages 15-17 that Bassani and Mukai doe not “teach or suggest ‘a fluid connection adapted to selectively establish a fluid link between the first tank and a second tank so as to transfer pressurized gaseous hydrogen at the first cryogenic temperature from the first tank to the second tank by equalizing the pressure, said second tank be able to be hermetically closed and to be a temperature higher than the first cryogenic temperature of the first tank’”. This argument is only providing a general argument about what is not taught and applicant specifically argues that “Bassani fails to disclose that said second tank is able to be hermetically closed and be at a second to be at a second temperature higher than the first cryogenic temperature of the first tank” because Mukai is only used to teach a sealing member and neither reference teaches the second tank is at a second temperature higher than the first temperature of the first tank. This is not persuasive.
Bassani teaches that the first tank (310) is designed to receive hydrogen at a temperature of between -175 C and -125 C (paragraph 39, see rejection above). The tank is then heatable (300) to increase the pressure by heating the hydrogen in the tank (paragraph 40) and then the then hydrogen can be heated with a warming fluid (paragraph 46) which would result in a warmer hydrogen being the hydrogen transferred from the tank. This is also explicitly taught in Bassani (paragraph 61) where the hydrogen after heating is for being transferred from the tank at a higher temperature. This means that the second tank which receives the hydrogen would be at a higher temperature as it receiving the higher temperature hydrogen. Further, the claims only require that the fluid connection allows for transfer of the gaseous hydrogen at the first cryogenic temperature, but does not require the hydrogen to be at said temperature during transfer further the claims only require that the second tank is able to be hermetically closed and to be at a second temperature that is higher, the claims do not require that the second tank is actually at said higher temperature. Though as the second tank is designed to be receiving the warmer hydrogen it would be understood to be at said higher temperature.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights