DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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 flange connector must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Presently, the drawings are unclear showing no flange connector but appear to point only at a fluid line. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claims 4, 8, the recitation, “a flange connector being configured for permanent connection to the storage tank of the filling station or a different storage tank via the at least one line or a different line” introduces new matter as there is no support whatsoever for a different storage tank and different line much less that the flange connector is configured for permanent connection to a different storage tank via the at least one line or a different line. Therefore, the recitation introduces new matter.
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) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim(s) 4, 8, the recitation, “the flange connector being configured for permanent connection” is entirely indefinite and there is no way to determine what structure the recitation includes and excludes. The term “permanent” is not defined and is a relative and patently indistinct term. This is immediately apparent and no different than identifying an object as old, short, tall, or ugly - all of which are relative terms with no absolute meaning and there is no way to determine whether something may or may not be considered “permanent” to meet the recitation. Further, the plain meaning of permanent is to remain unchanged indefinitely and no system, connector, or structure lasts indefinitely and there is no way of discerning what structure the recitation requires of the flange connector. For examination, the recited flange connector is interpreted as a connector with a flange that has some service life length.
The recitation, “a different storage tank” and “a different line” are indefinite as there is no way to determine what feature, characteristic, or aspect qualifies as a difference and which do not. Further, there is no support for any other tank or line as claimed and therefore no way to determine what qualifies as a difference.
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 “refrigerating apparatus” 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. The application uses the term but never defines what specific structure is sufficient to meet the term. Further, the application even uses the term to describe “conventional” structure (pg. pub. para. 3) and therefore it is unclear what the corresponding structure includes and excludes. The specification never states what structure the term requires. 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. For examination, the recitation alone of a refrigerating apparatus is interpreted to include merely any structure that can provide cooling to the storage region using the refrigerant.
Claim limitation “filling station” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph since the filling station comprises structure sufficient to perform the claimed function.
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.
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) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allwood (EP 3147599) in view of Viegas (US 2004/0216469) and Thomas (US 2017/0159886). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claims 4, 8, Allwood teaches (see whole disclosure) a refrigerated vehicle (2; para. 2, 25, 40) having:
a storage region (4, para. 40) intended to receive products to be refrigerated (para. 40);
a refrigerating apparatus (at least 10) or heat exchanger (10) arranged in the storage region (4), the refrigerating apparatus (at least 10) configured for refrigerating an atmosphere in the storage region (4) by indirect thermal contact with a cryogenic refrigerant (liquefied gas, para. 29); and
a refrigerant tank (6) intended to store the cryogenic refrigerant (liquefied gas) and is in fluid communication with the refrigerating apparatus (at least 10) via a pipeline (8, 12), wherein the refrigerating tank (5) comprises an adapter (at least 24) configured to connect to a filling nozzle (para. 45 end of hose 26) of a filling station (40, para. 46) to the refrigerant tank (6), the filling station (40) comprising a storage tank (42; para. 52, 53) storing the cryogenic refrigerant (liquefied gas; para. 46) and at least one line (26) configured to convey the cryogenic refrigerant (liquefied gas) from the storage tank (42) to the filling nozzle (end of 26), thereby to provide the cryogenic refrigerant from the storage tank (42) to the refrigerant tank (6).
Allwood does not explicitly teach a flange connector on the pipeline (8, 12) upstream of the refrigerating apparatus (10), the flange connector being configured for permanent connection to the storage tank (42) of the filling station (40). However, Viegas teaches it is well known to provide cryogenic refrigerant (para. 29, cryogen) from a storage tank (20) of a filling station (24) directly to a number of refrigerated vehicles (18, 118) to provide cooling to several storage regions (16, 116) while the vehicles (18, 118) are parked at loading docks and warehouses (para. 4, 51), the provision of the cryogenic refrigerant (cryogen) from the storage tank (20) of the filling station (24) is provided to a pipeline (to 70) upstream of a refrigerating apparatus (70) via at least a connection structure (inherent connection structure that permits 52 to be connected to 70 as desired - see that the trailers are mobile units and are connected while parked and are disconnected when the trailers are operated on the road). This provides the ability for the storage (20) to maintain a cooling temperature in a number of vehicles while the vehicles are parked.
In addition, it is routine and ordinary to provide a connection structure with a flange connector as demonstrated by Thomas. Thomas teaches a flange connector (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 17, see connector that has a flange - see flanges throughout most every figure), the flange connector remaining with a filling station (para. 38; see flange connector stays with filling station).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Allwood with the fluid connection and distribution of the cryogenic liquid from the storage tank of the filling station to the pipeline upstream of the refrigerating apparatus (10) as taught by Viegas to provide the ability to provide cooling to many vehicles with the bulk cryogenic storage of the filling station and thereby simplify the maintenance of the refrigeration temperatures in the plurality of vehicles and eliminate the need to manage the cryogenic refrigerant in the plurality of refrigerant tanks of the vehicles and to further provide said fluid connection and distribution with at least a flange connector that stays connected with the filling station as taught by Thomas for the purpose of providing easy attachment to the vehicles and provide an improved connector that has all of the operational and connection benefits of Thomas (para. 7-10).
In regard to claim(s) 5, 9, Allwood teaches a disconnect valve (16) configured for selectively disconnecting the refrigerant tank (6) from the pipeline (8, 12) (see fully capable of the function) is provided in terms of flow between the flange connector (of Thomas) and the refrigerating tank (6) (see the modification above wherein the flange connector is provided on line 8 upstream of the refrigerating apparatus 10).
In regard to claim(s) 6, 10, Allwood teaches a regulating valve (16, 18) to regulate drawing of the cryogenic refrigerant from the refrigerant tank (6) as a function of a predefined refrigeration temperature (para. 54, 51, 44) in the storage region (4).
In regard to claim(s) 7, 11, Allwood teaches the refrigerated vehicle (2) is a road vehicle (para. 49).
Claim(s) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2019/0248205) in view of Thomas (US 2017/0159886). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claims 4, 8, Moon teaches a refrigerated vehicle (airplane, para. 19) having:
a storage region (19, para. 18) intended to receive products (para. 2, perishable items) to be refrigerated;
a refrigerating apparatus (2) or heat exchanger (2) arranged in the storage region (19), the refrigerating apparatus (2) configured for refrigerating an atmosphere (air and space in 19) in the storage region (19) by indirect thermal contact (with 2) with a cryogenic refrigerant (para. 19, Liquid nitrogen); and
a refrigerant tank (1) intended to store the cryogenic refrigerant (para. 18), the refrigerant tank (2) in fluid communication with the refrigerating apparatus (2) via a pipeline (line to 2), wherein the refrigerating tank (1) comprises an adapter (see fluid connecting structure to each 1, hereafter connector-1) configured to connect to a filling nozzle (21) of a filling station (para. 19 airport), the filling station (airport) comprising a storage tank (22) storing the cryogenic refrigerant (liquid nitrogen) and at least one line (see line from 22 to 21) configured to convey the cryogenic refrigerant (liquid nitrogen) from the storage tank (22) to the filling nozzle (21), thereby to provide the cryogenic refrigerant (liquid nitrogen) from the storage tank (22) to the refrigerant tank (1); and a connector (23) on the pipeline (line to 2).
Moon does not explicitly teach the connector (23) is a flange connector, the flange connector being configured for permanent connection to the storage tank (22) of the filling station (airport).
However, it is routine and ordinary to provide a connection with a flange connector as demonstrated by Thomas. Thomas teaches a flange connector (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 17, see connector that has a flange - see flanges throughout most every figure), the flange connector (Fig. 17) remaining with a filling station (para. 38; see flange connector stays with filling station). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the connector of Moon to be a flanged connector that remains connected to the storage tank of the filling station for the purpose of providing easy and repeated attachment to the vehicles as needed when the arrive at the airport and provide an improved connector that has all of the operational and connection benefits of Thomas (para. 7-10)
In regard to claims 5, 9, Moon teaches a disconnect valve (24) configured for selectively disconnecting the refrigerant tank (1) from the pipeline (line to 2) (see fully capable of the function) is provided in terms of flow between the flange connector (from Thomas) and the refrigerating tank (1).
In regard to claims 6, 10, Moon teaches a regulating valve (17) configured to regulate drawing of the cryogenic refrigerant (liquid nitrogen) from the refrigerant tank (1) or from the storage tank (22) as a function of a predefined refrigeration temperature (para. 18) in the storage region (19).
In regard to claims 7, 11, Moon teaches the refrigerated vehicle (air plane) is a road vehicle (fully capable of moving on a road - para. 19; see at airport airplane moves on pavement surface).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 2) are an allegation that the specification does not state that the refrigerating apparatus is a conventional refrigerating apparatus. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for entirely ignoring the rationale of the office action. The position of the office action is not that the specification states that the invention is conventional. Rather the fact that the applicant uses the term to describe conventional cooling systems is evidence that the term does not have a defined meaning that is limited as alleged. Further, the applicant’s own language in the present remarks and the specification both use the term “refrigerating apparatus” to merely generally refer to a cooling device and do not define the term specifically in accordance with the requirements of 112(f). The ambiguity of the specification is at fault and makes the claimed structure indefinite. The applicant cannot use 112(f) language and then fail to specifically define what structure is required by such language.
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
Prosecution Insights