DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 28th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 112(b) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed January 28th, 2026. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 9-17 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.
Claim 9, lines 9-10 recite, “no part of the cryogenic pump is positioned in a sump during operation of the cryogenic pump” however this is a newly added recitation of the claims that does not appear to be described at all in the specification as the word “sump” is does not appear once in the specification. The only support provided in relation to a “sump” is original claim 1 which recited “wherein the hydrogen pump cylinder is not in a liquid hydrogen sump” however, this is not sufficient support for the limitation of claim 9 as claim 9 more broadly claims that no part of the cryogenic pump is positioned in a sump.
Claim 16, lines 1-4 recite, “wherein the only cooling of the cryogenic pump is provided by the hydrogen as the hydrogen moves from the supply header to the hydrogen pump cylinder and then moves out of the cryogenic pump during operation of the cryogenic pump” however this is a newly added recitation of the claims that does not appear to be described at all in the specification as no part of the specification describes that the only cooling that is provided is via the flow of hydrogen inside of the pump.
Claim 17, lines 1-4 recite, “wherein the only cooling of the cold end portion is provided by the hydrogen as the hydrogen moves from the supply header to the hydrogen pump cylinder and then moves out of the cryogenic pump during operation of the cryogenic pump” however this is a newly added recitation of the claims that does not appear to be described at all in the specification as no part of the specification describes that the only cooling that is provided is via the flow of hydrogen inside of the pump.
Claims 10 and 16 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 9.
Claim 11 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
Claim 13 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 14 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 15 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17 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 16 recites the limitation "the supply header" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the supply header” in line 2 to “a supply header”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the cryogenic pump" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the cryogenic pump” in line 3 to “a cryogenic pump”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papirer et al. (US 20150013351), hereinafter Papirer in view of Drube (US 20230332585), hereinafter Drube.
Regarding claim 1 Papirer discloses a hydrogen fueling station (Pg. 1, paragraph 2, Cryogenic pumps are well known and are becoming increasingly used in industry. In one example, motor vehicles are now using hydrogen as a fuel. Some such vehicles are adapted to store hydrogen in liquid state. There is therefore a need for liquid hydrogen filling stations analogous to conventional petrol or gasoline filling stations. Such filling stations need to be equipped with cryogenic pumps which are capable of generating high pressures up, for example, seven hundred bar gauge in order to transfer liquid hydrogen from a central reservoir to the storage tank of each motor vehicle that is filled, A number of practical problems arise, however, in pumping cryogenic liquids, particularly liquid hydrogen and liquid helium; Further, the teachings of Papirer at least imply the use of their cryogenic pump 2 in hydrogen fueling stations since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)), comprising:
a hydrogen supply header (Fig. 2; Pg. 1, paragraph 14, The nozzle 16 is adapted to be connected to a first length of hose communicating the source of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium (not shown); Further, the teachings of Papirer at least imply the cryogenic pump 2 is connected to a hydrogen supply header since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01));
a hydrogen pump cylinder (Fig. 2, cylinder 40); and
a hydrogen piston, the hydrogen piston including a piston seal (Fig. 2, piston 42; See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer below, piston seals A),
wherein
the hydrogen pump cylinder is configured to receive hydrogen from the supply header, wherein the hydrogen pump cylinder is part of a cold end portion of a hydrogen pump and the cold end portion is not in a liquid hydrogen sump (Fig. 1, cryogenic reciprocating pump 2, Fig. 2; Pg. 1, paragraph 15, The cylinder 40 and the piston 42 define there between a pumping chamber 44 which communicates with the outlet 32 for pumped liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Admission of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium to the pump is by means of the nozzle 16. The nozzle 16 leads the liquid hydrogen or liquid helium into a cryogenic liquid reception chamber 46 which is in in-line communication with the pumping chamber 44 through an inlet suction valve 48),
the hydrogen piston, the piston seal, and the hydrogen pump cylinder define at least in part a variable working chamber (Fig. 2; Pg. 1, paragraph 15, The pump 2 is provided with a cylinder 40 in which a piston 42 reciprocates, in operation of the pump. The cylinder 40 and the piston 42 define there between a pumping chamber 44 which communicates with the outlet 32 for pumped liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Admission of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium to the pump is by means of the nozzle 16. The nozzle 16 leads the liquid hydrogen or liquid helium into a cryogenic liquid reception chamber 46 which is in in-line communication with the pumping chamber 44 through an inlet suction valve 48).
However, Papirer does not disclose the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm.
Drube teaches stroke lengths of 20 inches (508 mm) in cryogenic pumps (Fig. 4A, pump 310, piston 322, stroke length 357; Pg. 4-5, paragraph 59, As an example only, the piston length 359 (L) may be 30" while the stroke length 357 (I) may be 20", which per the above equation gives a heat transfer path length 360 (P) of ten inches).
Papirer fails to teach the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm, however Drube teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer by Drube and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling. Further, it has been held, in 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Regarding claim 9, Papirer discloses a cryogenic pump (Fig. 1, pump 2; Pg. 1, paragraph 13, Referring to FIG. 1, a cryogenic reciprocating pump 2 is generally of a cylindrical configuration), comprising:
a hydrogen pump cylinder (Fig. 2, cylinder 40); and
a hydrogen piston, the hydrogen piston including a piston seal (Fig. 2, piston 42; See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer below, piston seals A),
wherein
the hydrogen pump cylinder is configured to receive hydrogen (Fig. 2; Pg. 1, paragraph 15, The cylinder 40 and the piston 42 define there between a pumping chamber 44 which communicates with the outlet 32 for pumped liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Admission of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium to the pump is by means of the nozzle 16. The nozzle 16 leads the liquid hydrogen or liquid helium into a cryogenic liquid reception chamber 46 which is in in-line communication with the pumping chamber 44 through an inlet suction valve 48),
the hydrogen piston, the piston seal, and the hydrogen pump cylinder define at least in part a variable working chamber (Fig. 2; Pg. 1, paragraph 15, The pump 2 is provided with a cylinder 40 in which a piston 42 reciprocates, in operation of the pump. The cylinder 40 and the piston 42 define there between a pumping chamber 44 which communicates with the outlet 32 for pumped liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Admission of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium to the pump is by means of the nozzle 16. The nozzle 16 leads the liquid hydrogen or liquid helium into a cryogenic liquid reception chamber 46 which is in in-line communication with the pumping chamber 44 through an inlet suction valve 48);
no part of the cryogenic pump is positioned in a sump during operation of the cryogenic pump (Pg. 1, paragraph 14, The nozzle 16 is adapted to be connected to a first length of hose communicating the source of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium (not shown); Further, the teachings of Papirer at least imply no part of the cryogenic pump is positioned in a sump during operation of the cryogenic pump as the nozzle 16 is said to be connected to a hose which connects to the liquid helium source (i.e., the sump) since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Papirer does not disclose the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm.
Drube teaches stroke lengths of 20 inches (508 mm) in cryogenic pumps (Fig. 4A, pump 310, piston 322, stroke length 357; Pg. 4-5, paragraph 59, As an example only, the piston length 359 (L) may be 30" while the stroke length 357 (I) may be 20", which per the above equation gives a heat transfer path length 360 (P) of ten inches).
Papirer fails to teach the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm, however Drube teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer by Drube and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling. Further, it has been held, in 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Claims 2-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papirer as modified by Drube as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, respectively, and further in view of Tamada et al. (JP 2017020365), hereinafter Tamada.
Regarding claim 2, Papirer as modified discloses the hydrogen fueling station of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
a hydrogen inlet in a roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder (Papirer, Fig. 2, inlet suction valve 48; See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer roof B), and
a hydrogen outlet (Papirer, Fig. 2, outlet 32).
However, Papirer as modified does not disclose the hydrogen outlet to be in the roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder.
Tamada teaches both a hydrogen inlet and a hydrogen outlet to be in a roof of a hydrogen pump cylinder (Fig. 1, cryogenic liquid pump 10A, cylinder 12, suction valve 16, discharge valve 18).
Papirer as modified fails to teach the hydrogen outlet to be in the roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder, however Tamada teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include the hydrogen outlet to be in the roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to allow for optimal evacuation of cryogenic gases). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer as modified by Tamada and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to allow for optimal evacuation of cryogenic gases.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Regarding claim 3, Papirer as modified discloses the hydrogen fueling station of claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the roof is configured as a mechanical stop for the hydrogen piston (See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer roof B; Further roof B of Papirer has the same structure as the claimed roof and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Regarding claim 4, Papirer as modified discloses the hydrogen fueling station of claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the roof is defined by a cylinder cap fixedly sealing the hydrogen pump cylinder (See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer roof B is defined by cylinder cap C; Pg. 1, paragraph 15, The cylinder 40 and the piston 42 define there between a pumping chamber 44 which communicates with the outlet 32 for pumped liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Admission of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium to the pump is by means of the nozzle 16. The nozzle 16 leads the liquid hydrogen or liquid helium into a cryogenic liquid reception chamber 46 which is in in-line communication with the pumping chamber 44 through an inlet suction valve 48; Further, the teachings of Papirer at least imply the cylinder cap is fixedly sealing the hydrogen pump cylinder as flow into the cylinder 40 is only said to occur through the inlet suction valve 48).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Regarding claim 10, Papirer as modified discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), further comprising:
a hydrogen inlet in a roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder (Papirer, Fig. 2, inlet suction valve 48; See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer roof B), and
a hydrogen outlet (Papirer, Fig. 2, outlet 32).
However, Papirer as modified does not disclose the hydrogen outlet to be in the roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder.
Tamada teaches both a hydrogen inlet and a hydrogen outlet to be in a roof of a hydrogen pump cylinder (Fig. 1, cryogenic liquid pump 10A, cylinder 12, suction valve 16, discharge valve 18).
Papirer as modified fails to teach the hydrogen outlet to be in the roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder, however Tamada teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include the hydrogen outlet to be in the roof of the hydrogen pump cylinder. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to allow for optimal evacuation of cryogenic gases). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer as modified by Tamada and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to allow for optimal evacuation of cryogenic gases.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Regarding claim 11, Papirer as modified discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the roof is configured as a mechanical stop for the hydrogen piston (See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer roof B; Further roof B of Papirer has the same structure as the claimed roof and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Regarding claim 12, Papirer as modified discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the roof is defined by a cylinder cap fixedly sealing the hydrogen pump cylinder (See annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer roof B is defined by cylinder cap C; Pg. 1, paragraph 15, The cylinder 40 and the piston 42 define there between a pumping chamber 44 which communicates with the outlet 32 for pumped liquid hydrogen or liquid helium. Admission of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium to the pump is by means of the nozzle 16. The nozzle 16 leads the liquid hydrogen or liquid helium into a cryogenic liquid reception chamber 46 which is in in-line communication with the pumping chamber 44 through an inlet suction valve 48; Further, the teachings of Papirer at least imply the cylinder cap is fixedly sealing the hydrogen pump cylinder as flow into the cylinder 40 is only said to occur through the inlet suction valve 48).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papirer as modified by Drube and Tamada as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, respectively and further in view of Coldren (US 20160281666), hereinafter Coldren.
Regarding claim 5, Papirer as modified discloses the hydrogen fueling station of claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above).
However, Papirer as modified does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
a thermal decoupling rod configured to transfer force to the hydrogen piston to force the hydrogen received into the hydrogen pump cylinder out of the hydrogen outlet, wherein the thermal decoupling rod is not mechanically fixed to the hydrogen piston.
Coldren teaches a thermal decoupling rod configured to transfer force to the piston to force cryogenic fuel received into the cryogenic pump cylinder out of the cryogenic fuel outlet, wherein the thermal decoupling rod is not mechanically fixed to the piston (Fig. 1, pump 16, pushrod 48, plunger 54; Pg. 2, paragraph 21, Each pump mechanism 50 may include a generally hollow barrel 52 having an open end connected to manifold 40 and an opposing closed end. A lower portion of each pushrod 48 may extend through the open end of a corresponding barrel 52 to engage the back side of a free-floating plunger 54. In this way, an extending movement of pushrod 48 may translate into a downward sliding motion of plunger 54 toward a Bottom-Dead-Center (BDC) position. As will be explained in more detail below, a pressure differential across plunger 54 may help to return plunger 54 to a Top-Dead Center (TDC) position as pushrod 46 is retracted from barrel 52; Further, the teachings of Coldren at least imply the thermal decoupling rod is not mechanically fixed to the hydrogen piston as the free floating plunger 54 is said to retract via pressure differential, rather than being mechanically retracted by the pushrod 48).
Papirer as modified fails to teach a thermal decoupling rod configured to transfer force to the hydrogen piston to force hydrogen received into the hydrogen pump cylinder out of the hydrogen outlet, wherein the thermal decoupling rod is not mechanically fixed to the hydrogen piston, however Coldren teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include a thermal decoupling rod configured to transfer force to the piston to force cryogenic fuel received into the cryogenic pump cylinder out of the cryogenic fuel outlet, wherein the thermal decoupling rod is not mechanically fixed to the piston. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. selective turning of the retraction stroke of the piston to accommodate changes in temperature and pressure affecting operation of pump (Coldren, Pg. 3, paragraph 23)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer as modified by Coldren and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of selective turning of the retraction stroke of the piston to accommodate changes in temperature and pressure affecting operation of pump (Coldren, Pg. 3, paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 6, Papirer as modified discloses the hydrogen fueling station of claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the stroke length is greater than 500 mm (Drube, Fig. 4A, pump 310, piston 322, stroke length 357; Pg. 4-5, paragraph 59, As an example only, the piston length 359 (L) may be 30" while the stroke length 357 (I) may be 20", which per the above equation gives a heat transfer path length 360 (P) of ten inches). Further, it has been held, in 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I). Moreover, the limitations of claim 6 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 7, Papirer as modified discloses the hydrogen fueling station of claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Papirer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the stroke length is 600 mm.
Drube teaches stroke lengths of 20 inches (508 mm) in cryogenic pumps (Fig. 4A, pump 310, piston 322, stroke length 357; Pg. 4-5, paragraph 59, As an example only, the piston length 359 (L) may be 30" while the stroke length 357 (I) may be 20", which per the above equation gives a heat transfer path length 360 (P) of ten inches).
Papirer fails to teach the hydrogen piston is configured to provide wherein the stroke length is 600 mm, however Drube teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 500 mm. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer by Drube and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling. Further, it has been held, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). (MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Regarding claim 13, Papirer as modified discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 12 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 12 above).
However, Papirer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the hydrogen piston includes a lower portion configured to be non-fixedly engaged by a rod configured to transfer force to the hydrogen piston to force the hydrogen received into the hydrogen pump cylinder out of the hydrogen outlet.
Coldren teaches wherein the piston includes a lower portion configured to be non-fixedly engaged by a rod configured to transfer force to the piston to force cryogenic fuel received into the cryogenic pump cylinder out of the cryogenic fuel outlet (Fig. 1, pump 16, pushrod 48, plunger 54; Pg. 2, paragraph 21, Each pump mechanism 50 may include a generally hollow barrel 52 having an open end connected to manifold 40 and an opposing closed end. A lower portion of each pushrod 48 may extend through the open end of a corresponding barrel 52 to engage the back side of a free-floating plunger 54. In this way, an extending movement of pushrod 48 may translate into a downward sliding motion of plunger 54 toward a Bottom-Dead-Center (BDC) position. As will be explained in more detail below, a pressure differential across plunger 54 may help to return plunger 54 to a Top-Dead Center (TDC) position as pushrod 46 is retracted from barrel 52; Further, the teachings of Coldren at least imply the thermal decoupling rod is not mechanically fixed to the hydrogen piston as the free floating plunger 54 is said to retract via pressure differential, rather than being mechanically retracted by the pushrod 48).
Papirer as modified fails to teach wherein the hydrogen piston includes a lower portion configured to be non-fixedly engaged by a rod configured to transfer force to the hydrogen piston to force hydrogen received into the hydrogen pump cylinder out of the hydrogen outlet, however Coldren teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include wherein the piston includes a lower portion configured to be non-fixedly engaged by a rod configured to transfer force to the piston to force cryogenic fuel received into the cryogenic pump cylinder out of the cryogenic fuel outlet. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. selective turning of the retraction stroke of the piston to accommodate changes in temperature and pressure affecting operation of pump (Coldren, Pg. 3, paragraph 23)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer as modified by Coldren and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of selective turning of the retraction stroke of the piston to accommodate changes in temperature and pressure affecting operation of pump (Coldren, Pg. 3, paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 14, Papirer as modified discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 13 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the stroke length is greater than 500 mm (Drube, Fig. 4A, pump 310, piston 322, stroke length 357; Pg. 4-5, paragraph 59, As an example only, the piston length 359 (L) may be 30" while the stroke length 357 (I) may be 20", which per the above equation gives a heat transfer path length 360 (P) of ten inches). Further, it has been held, in 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (MPEP § 2144.05-I). Moreover, the limitations of claim 14 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Papirer as modified discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above).
However, Papirer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the stroke length is 600 mm.
Drube teaches stroke lengths of 20 inches (508 mm) in cryogenic pumps (Fig. 4A, pump 310, piston 322, stroke length 357; Pg. 4-5, paragraph 59, As an example only, the piston length 359 (L) may be 30" while the stroke length 357 (I) may be 20", which per the above equation gives a heat transfer path length 360 (P) of ten inches).
Papirer fails to teach the hydrogen piston is configured to provide wherein the stroke length is 600 mm, however Drube teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include the hydrogen piston is configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 500 mm. This is strong evidence that modifying Papirer as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer by Drube and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling. Further, it has been held, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). (MPEP § 2144.05-I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papirer as modified by Drube, Tamada, and Coldren as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Schmid et al. (WO 2019174814), hereinafter Schmid.
Regarding claim 8, Papirer as modified discloses the hydrogen fueling station of claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Papirer as modified does not disclose at least one first stage pump configured to provide the hydrogen to the hydrogen supply header.
Schmid teaches at least one first stage pump configured to provide hydrogen to the hydrogen supply header (Fig. 1, pump 28, line connecting to inlet 23 of the piston pump 1; Further, the pump 28 of Schmid has the same structure as the claimed first stage pump and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen fueling station to include at least one first stage pump configured to provide hydrogen to the hydrogen supply header as taught by Schmid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the cryogenic fuel at a high pressure to the piston pump (Schmid, Pg. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 3 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “In particular, at paragraph 4 Papirer teaches that "said pump head is at least partly surrounded by a first jacket retaining vacuum insulation, and the first jacket is itself at least partly surrounded by a second jacket, the second jacket defining a chamber for receiving a coolant fluid, the second jacket having an inlet and an outlet for the coolant fluid." (Papirer at paragraph 4). Papirer teaches that the second jacket extends between an inlet 20 and an outlet 30. (Papirer at paragraph 17 and FIG. 1). This second jacket 10, located outwardly of the thermal insulation of the first jacket 8 (see FIG. 3) is filled with cryogenic nitrogen. (Papirer at paragraph 18). The result is that "[b]y using liquid nitrogen to effect the precooling of the cold end 6 of the pump 2 losses of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium are reduced and the total time taken to effect cool down is reduced, Once the temperature of the chamber defined by the second jacket 10 has reached -196° C., which is indicated by a substantially reduced rate of vaporization of nitrogen". (Papirer at paragraph 18). Thus, Papirer teaches that a sump is provided around the cold-end portion to provide cooling before initiation of pumping. (Papirer at paragraph 18).” However, this argument is not persuasive as the second jacket 10 of Papirer is a cooling flow path, not a sump. The Examiner’s BRI of “sump” is the bottom of a container where fluid collects, which is different from the structure of the second jacket 10 of Papirer which is a cooling flow path that includes an inlet and an outlet for the flow through the second jacket 10 of liquid nitrogen (Papirer, Pg. 1, paragraph 14, At the cold end (head) 6 of the pump 2, there is provided a first jacket 8 (see FIGS. 2 and3) retaining primary vacuum insulation and a second jacket 10 surrounding the distal end of the first jacket 8. The second jacket 10 defines a chamber for the reception of a coolant fluid, typically liquid nitrogen. The second jacket 10 has a proximal end which is provided at a first flange 12. The second jacket 10 is typically formed of two adjacent parts joined together by a second flange 14. Further details of the configuration of the second jacket 10 will be described below with reference to FIG. 3. The head or cold end 6 of the pump 2 ends in a vacuum insulated nozzle 16 which extends from the distal end of the pump 2. The nozzle 16 is adapted to be connected to a first length of hose communicating the source of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium (not shown). The second jacket 10 has an inlet 20 to a source of cryogenic coolant, for example liquid nitrogen, and an outlet 22 for the vapour of that coolant). Further, the fluid used in the second jacket 10 of Papirer is liquid nitrogen which means the second jacket 10 cannot be a liquid hydrogen sump. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 3 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “Drube teaches an extended length stroke. In the system taught by Drube, however, Drube teaches that the cooling fluid should be liquid hydrogen (Drube at paragraph 26), which is significantly colder than liquid nitrogen. Drube further teaches that the working area of the piston should be below the level of the liquid hydrogen in the sump. (Drube at FIG. 1, showing liquid hydrogen inlet 18, liquid hydrogen outlet 22, and pumping chamber 52 completely below the level of the liquid hydrogen outlet 22). This configuration is designed so that "pump 10 is kept cool by the liquid hydrogen so that vapor formation within the pump 10 during pumping is eliminated (or at least minimized)." (Drube at paragraph 26). Thus, Drube teaches that increased sump coverage and significantly colder coolant is required in the system of Drube to prevent vapor formation. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, Drube does not teach that the stroke length of greater than 310 mm reduces flash boiling. Therefore, the "predictable result" alleged by the Examiner at page 6 of the Office Action is not predictable at all. To the contrary, the predictable result of simply increasing the length of the piston in Papirer is the exacerbation of the problem of vapor formation. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would reasonably surmise, based upon the teaching of Papirer and Drube, that if increased stroke length is desired, the more limited cooling ofliquid nitrogen through a relatively short insulation jacket as taught by Papirer is inadequate for reduction of flash boiling. Rather, the use of liquid hydrogen as a coolant along with more extensive coverage of the hydrogen cylinder is required in a system with a stroke length of greater than 310 mm. MPEP 2142 notes that "[t]he key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit." The Examiner has failed to provide a clear articulation explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the device of Papirer based upon Drube to extend the length of the piston without further incorporating the liquid hydrogen sump of Drube, especially when the advantage proposed by the Examiner is explicitly taught by Drube to be provided by the liquid hydrogen sump of Drube. Therefore, reasons for obviousness have not been clearly articulated. Consequently, primafacie obviousness has not been established.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the teachings of Drube are simply relied upon to show it is known in the art to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm in a cryogenic pump and would yield the predictable result of reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling which is a result of slower plunger acceleration due to the increase length of the stoke which reduces the tendency to flash the cryogenic liquid at suction, this predictable result is independent of other improvements by Drube on standard cryogenic pumps. Further, 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). See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 6-7 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “Claim 9 has been amended to require that no part of the cryogenic pump is located within a sump during operation based upon the Applicant's specification at FIGs. 2 and 5 and paragraph 56. Therefore, no new matter has been added by way of the amendment. Moreover, both Papirer and Drube teach the use of a sump. Papirer at paragraph 4 teaches that "said pump head is at 1 east partly surrounded by a first jacket retaining vacuum insulation, and the first jacket is itself at least partly surrounded by a second jacket, the second jacket defining a chamber for receiving a coolant fluid, the second jacket having an inlet and an outlet for the coolant fluid." (Papirer at paragraph 4, see also paragraph 14). Thus, the second jacket is a sump within which a portion of the cold end portion of the pump 2 is located. Additionally, the sump of Papirer like the sump of Drube, provides cooling for the pump. As taught by Papirer the pump head is positioned at least partially within the second jacket so as to "cool down the cold end 6 prior to admission of the liquid helium or liquid hydrogen." (Papirer at paragraph 18). The result is that "[b ]y using liquid nitrogen to effect the precooling of the cold end 6 of the pump 2 losses of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium are reduced and the total time taken to effect cool down is reduced, Once the temperature of the chamber defined by the second jacket 10 has reached-196° C., which is indicated by a substantially reduced rate of vaporisation of nitrogen". This is the same effect taught by the "sump" of Drube. (See Drube at paragraph 26). Therefore, both Papirer and Drube teach positioning at least a portion of the pump within a sump. Consequently, even if Papirer and Drube are combined as proposed by the Examiner, such combination fails to arrive at the invention of claim 9 and the rejection of claim 9 should be withdrawn.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the recitation, “no part of the cryogenic pump is positioned in a sump during operation of the cryogenic pump” of claim 9 is a newly added recitation of the claims that does not appear to be described at all in the specification as the word “sump” is does not appear once in the specification. The only support provided in relation to a “sump” is original claim 1 which recited “wherein the hydrogen pump cylinder is not in a liquid hydrogen sump” however, this is not sufficient support for the limitation of claim 9 as claim 9 more broadly claims that no part of the cryogenic pump is positioned in a sump. Further, as the second jacket 10 of Papirer is a cooling flow path, not a sump. The Examiner’s BRI of “sump” is the bottom of a container where fluid collects, which is different from the structure of the second jacket 10 of Papirer which is a cooling flow path that includes an inlet and an outlet for the flow through the second jacket 10 of liquid nitrogen (Papirer, Pg. 1, paragraph 14, At the cold end (head) 6 of the pump 2, there is provided a first jacket 8 (see FIGS. 2 and3) retaining primary vacuum insulation and a second jacket 10 surrounding the distal end of the first jacket 8. The second jacket 10 defines a chamber for the reception of a coolant fluid, typically liquid nitrogen. The second jacket 10 has a proximal end which is provided at a first flange 12. The second jacket 10 is typically formed of two adjacent parts joined together by a second flange 14. Further details of the configuration of the second jacket 10 will be described below with reference to FIG. 3. The head or cold end 6 of the pump 2 ends in a vacuum insulated nozzle 16 which extends from the distal end of the pump 2. The nozzle 16 is adapted to be connected to a first length of hose communicating the source of liquid hydrogen or liquid helium (not shown). The second jacket 10 has an inlet 20 to a source of cryogenic coolant, for example liquid nitrogen, and an outlet 22 for the vapour of that coolant). Further, the fluid used in the second jacket 10 of Papirer is liquid nitrogen which means the second jacket 10 cannot be a liquid hydrogen sump. See the rejection of claim 9 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7-8 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “The Examiner alleges that Papirer teaches most of the limitations of claim 9 while Drube teaches stroke lengths of greater than 310 mm. (Office Action at page 8). Based upon these teachings, the Examiner reasons that Drube teaches that it is known in the art of cryogenic pumps to include a hydrogen piston configured to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm. (Office Action at page 8). The Examiner further asserts that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papirer by Drube and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling." (Office Action at page 8, emphasis added). Respectfully, reasons for obviousness have not been clearly articulated. In particular, as discussed above, Papirer teaches that a sump is provided around the cold end portion to provide cooling before initiation of pumping and Drube teaches that increased sump coverage and significantly colder coolant is required in the system of Drube to prevent vapor formation. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, Drube does not teach that the stroke length of greater than 310 mm reduces flash boiling. Therefore, the "predictable result" alleged by the Examiner at page 8 of the Office Action is not predictable at all. To the contrary, the predictable result of simply increasing the length of the piston in Papirer is the exacerbation of the problem of vapor formation. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would reasonably surmise, based upon the teaching of Papirer and Drube, that if increased stroke length is desired, the more limited cooling of liquid nitrogen through a relatively short insulation jacket as taught by Papirer is inadequate for reduction of flash boiling. Rather, the use of liquid hydrogen as a coolant along with more extensive coverage of the hydrogen cylinder is required in a system with a stroke length of greater than 310 mm. MPEP 2142 notes that "[t]he key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit." The Examiner has failed to provide a clear articulation explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the device of Papirer based upon Drube to extend the length of the piston without further incorporating the liquid hydrogen sump of Drube, especially when the advantage proposed by the Examiner is explicitly taught by Drube to be provided by the liquid hydrogen sump of Drube. Therefore, reasons for obviousness have not been clearly articulated. Consequently, primafacie obviousness has not been established.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the teachings of Drube are simply relied upon to show it is known in the art to provide a stroke length of greater than 310 mm in a cryogenic pump and would yield the predictable result of reducing instantaneous suction demand to minimize flash boiling which is a result of slower plunger acceleration due to the increase length of the stoke which reduces the tendency to flash the cryogenic liquid at suction, this predictable result is independent of other improvements by Drube on standard cryogenic pumps. Further, 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). See the rejection of claim 9 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-10 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “Moreover, with respect to claim 2 and 10 the Examiner proposes modifying Papirer based upon the teaching of Tamada. (Office Action at page 9 and page 12). The Examiner proposes that such a combination would result in "no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of to allow for optimal evacuation of cryogenic gases." (Office Action at page 10 and page 12). Tamada, however, teaches the use of a suction valve 16 and a discharge valve 18 within a cylinder 12 which is located within a jacket 48 filled with cryogenic fluid (a sump). There is no teaching of providing an inlet and outlet valve within a roof which is not located within a sump as required by claim 2. Additionally, the entire "roof' of Papirer is dedicated to the incorporation of the inlet suction valve 48. Redesigning the alleged roof to provide room for an outlet valve would require modification of the housing in which the cylinder 40 is located (see FIG. 2) as well as modification of the insulated sleeves 50/52 and the jackets 8 and 10. The Examiner has failed to explain how these extensive redesigns would provide an optimal evacuation of cryogenic gases. Therefore, the rejections of claim 2 and claim 10 are further in error and should further be withdrawn.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the teachings of Tamada are simply relied upon to show it is known in the art of cryogenic pumps to provide both hydrogen inlet and a hydrogen outlet to be in a roof of a hydrogen pump cylinder. Further, 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). See the rejection of claims 2 and 10 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “With respect to claims 3 and 11, the Examiner argues that "Papirer has the same structure as the claimed roof and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed". (Office Action at pages 10 and 12). As is evident from Applicant's FIGs. 14 and 15, however, the portion of the cylinder heads 340/342 (the "roof', see Applicant's specification at paragraph 66) which is allocated to the low-pressure passages 354 and the insert passage 394 is less than 50% of the surface area of the roof The device of Papirer, wherein substantially the entire area is allotted to the inlet, is not structured in this manner. Therefore, Papirer does not disclose the same structure. Moreover, modification of the inlet sizing would have significant impacts on the formation of vapor on a fluid entering through the modified inlet (greater pressure drop results in increased vapor formation). Consequently, the Examiner's characterization is in error and the rejections of claims 3 and 11 should further be withdrawn.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the “roof” as claimed and shown in Fig. 14 of the present disclosure and the “roof B” of annotated Fig. 2 of Papirer are both the end point of the stroke for the piston function to stop the piston if contact between the piston and the roof is achieved. Further, the only structural difference between the “roof B” of the Papirer and the claimed roof is the outlet being disposed in the roof which is taught by Tamada in claim 2 from which claim 3 depends and modified as described herein. See the rejection of claims 3 and 11 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10-11 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “With respect to claim 13, the Examiner asserts that Coldren teaches a piston with a lower portion configured to be non-fixedly engaged by a rod. (Office Action at page 17). The lower portion of the piston of Coldren is not, however, engaged by a rod at all. (See Coldren at FIG. 1). Therefore, the proposed modification fails to arrive at the claimed invention and the rejection of clam 13 should further be withdrawn.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the claims recite “non-fixedly engaged” which per the Examiner BRI that the piston and the rod should engage (i.e., interact) without being locked togther mechanically is disclosed by the differential pressure system disclosed by Coldren (Coldren, Fig. 1, pump 16, pushrod 48, plunger 54; Pg. 2, paragraph 21, Each pump mechanism 50 may include a generally hollow barrel 52 having an open end connected to manifold 40 and an opposing closed end. A lower portion of each pushrod 48 may extend through the open end of a corresponding barrel 52 to engage the back side of a free-floating plunger 54. In this way, an extending movement of pushrod 48 may translate into a downward sliding motion of plunger 54 toward a Bottom-Dead-Center (BDC) position. As will be explained in more detail below, a pressure differential across plunger 54 may help to return plunger 54 to a Top-Dead Center (TDC) position as pushrod 46 is retracted from barrel 52; Further, the teachings of Coldren at least imply the thermal decoupling rod is not mechanically fixed to the hydrogen piston as the free floating plunger 54 is said to retract via pressure differential, rather than being mechanically retracted by the pushrod 48). See the rejection of claim 13 above.
The rejections of independent claims 1 and 9 are maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 are also maintained for the reasons described herein. See the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of new dependent claims 16-17 above.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 August 03rd, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights