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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 3: “forced hydrogen received” should read “forced the hydrogen received”
Claim 8 line 2: “provide hydrogen” should read “provide the hydrogen”
Claim 13, line 3: “forced hydrogen received” should read “forced the hydrogen received”
Claims 6-8 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 14 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 15 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hydrogen" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the hydrogen” in line 6 of claim 1 to “hydrogen”.
Claim 2 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 5 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claims 6-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
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 the hydrogen from the supply header in the hydrogen pump cylinder, wherein the hydrogen pump cylinder is not in a liquid hydrogen sump (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).
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 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 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 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okaichi et al. (US Patent No. 10,385,836) discloses a similar hydrogen fueling station.
Kroeger et al. (US 20160208793) discloses a similar hydrogen fueling station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 January 20th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763