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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 January, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“1” referring to the facility.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
there is a typographical error. Particularly, the abstract recites, in line 5, “intended to be removably connected to a first end of a mobile liquid tank 6) to be filled, the”, which either should remove the recitation of “6)” or correct the recitation to “(6)”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 19 January, 2024, with regards the amendments to page 1 of the amended specification to incorporates Cross Reference to Related Application section, 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:
MPEP 608.01(p) – I(B) states,
“ As a safeguard against the omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, applicant may include a statement at the time of filing of the later application incorporating by reference the prior application. See MPEP § 201.06(c) and 211 et seq. where domestic benefit is claimed. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216 where foreign priority is claimed. See MPEP § 217 regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b). The inclusion of such an incorporation by reference statement in the later-filed application will permit applicant to include subject matter from the prior application into the later-filed application without the subject matter being considered as new matter. For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). Although, as discussed above, an incorporation by reference statement can be used as a safeguard against an omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, it should be noted that an incorporation by reference statement will not satisfy the specific reference requirement of 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 or 37 CFR 1.78. See Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, 887 F.3d 1309, 126 USPQ2d 317 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
, and wherein MPEP 1893.03(b) states,
“An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that
An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.
Similarly, PCT Article 11(3) provides that
...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
As such, the inclusion of the recitation,
PNG
media_image1.png
198
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,is new matter, as the recitation to include the incorporation by reference of the applications was made after (i.e., 19 January, 2024) the effective filing date of the instant application (i.e., 14 June, 2022).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17, 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites, in line 3, “at least one liquid hydrogen storage reservoir,;”, which appears to include a typographical error. It is suggested the claim be amended to - - at least one liquid hydrogen storage reservoir[[,]]; - - or - - at least one liquid hydrogen storage reservoir,[[;]] - -.
Claim 23 recites, in lines 3-8, “the tank” which appears to be directed to the mobile liquid tank. As such, for consistency of the claim language, in view of 37 CFR 1.71(a), it is suggested the claim be amended to - - the mobile liquid tank - - for each of these instances.
Claim 23 recites, in lines 3-8, the parameters including at least one of “maximum pressure level allowed in the tank, fluid pressure level required at the reception point(s) to which the tank must deliver liquefied hydrogen after filling, quantity of liquefied hydrogen to be filled in the tank, distance that the tank must travel after filling to in turn deliver liquefied hydrogen to the reception point(s), number of reception points to which the tank must deliver liquefied hydrogen after filling, the temperature in the storage reservoir, the volume of the tank”, which should be corrected to - - maximum pressure level allowed in the tank, fluid pressure level required at the reception point(s) to which the tank must deliver liquefied hydrogen after filling, quantity of liquefied hydrogen to be filled in the tank, distance that the tank must travel after filling to in turn deliver liquefied hydrogen to the reception point(s), number of reception points to which the tank must deliver liquefied hydrogen after filling, the temperature in the storage reservoir, and the volume of the tank - - so as to set forth the appropriate list of which the at least one parameter is defined by.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“receiving member” in claim 17.
“a pressure and/or flow rate regulation member” in claims 17-18 , 28-29.
“a compression member” in claim 18, 21
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.
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 17-32 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.
Regarding claim 17,
the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as not requiring the structure of a semi-trailer.
Claim limitation “receiving member” 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 specification, as originally-filed, fails to set forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts performing the “receiving” function of the “member”. See paragraph 2 and 28 of the originally-filed specification. It is unclear to which structure the “receiving member” is to be interpreted as, or the equivalents thereof, based on this. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 18-32 depend either directly or indirectly from rejected claim 17, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 18,
the claim recites, “the gas recovery circuit comprises a compression member arranged between the pressure and/or flow rate regulation member and the second end connected to the liquefier”, which contradicts the original recitation in independent claim 17 (“a gas recovery circuit provided with a first end configured to be removably connected to a second end of said mobile liquid tank and a second end connected to a receiving member of the facility”). It is unclear if the second end of the gas recovery circuit connects to the liquefier or the receiving member of the facility. Looking at the drawings and specification, as originally-filed, it is unclear what structure the “receiving member” is defined as. Further, the gas recovery circuit(7) is depicted as including a first end connected to the mobile liquid tank (6) while the second end is connected to a pipe (14) that houses a valve (24; par. 33). This pipe feeds to the liquefier (3), but it is not clear where the receiving member is within the invention. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted the second end of the gas recovery circuit is connected to the liquefier, at least indirectly.
recites the limitation “the liquefier circuit” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a liquefier circuit.
Regarding claim 21,
recites the limitation “the compression member”/”said compression member” in lines 1-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a compression member for the initial recitation so as to give antecedent basis for the remaining recitations of the claim.
recites the limitation “the inlet of said compression member” in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as an inlet of said compression member for the initial recitation so as to give antecedent basis for the remaining recitations of the claim.
recites the limitation “the reception point(s)” in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a reception point(s) for the initial recitation so as to give antecedent basis for the remaining recitation of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 7/24/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights