DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 6/22/2026. No claims are currently amended. No claims are newly added. No claims have been canceled. Presently, claims 1-20 are pending wherein claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration following the election of Invention I in the response dated 6/22/2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/6/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/12/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second stage pump" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “the second stage pump” will be treated as if the limitation of “the second stage pump” should be “the cryogenic pump”.
Claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based on the dependency from claim 2.
Clarification and appropriate correction is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brasche et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0058878) in view of Robert et al. (DE 102017222419 A1) and in view of Michalski (US 12435714).
Claim(s) 2 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Brasche et al. reference discloses a cryogenic pump, the cryogenic pump comprising:
a first cylinder including a first piston (it is considered that the left-hand piston 144 in figure 4 constitutes a first piston),
a first decoupling rod (160) fixedly coupled to an upper end of the first hydraulic piston; and
a first hydrogen piston (it is considered that the left-hand piston 210, 212 and 204 constitutes a first hydrogen piston) within a first hydrogen pump cylinder (it is considered that the combination of 154, 152, and 222 that receives the left-hand piston 210, 212 and 204 constitutes the first hydrogen pump cylinder), which is located above the first decoupling rod (see figure 4), and aligned with an upper end of the first decoupling rod (see figure 4).
Regarding “a hydrogen fueling station”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Firstly, the Brasche et al. reference does not disclose wherein the first cylinder is a first hydraulic cylinder and wherein the first piston is a first hydraulic piston and wherein the first hydraulic piston including a first piston seal separating a first low pressure portion of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston seal from a first high pressure portion of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston seal.
However, the Robert et al. reference teaches a cryogenic pump assembly having a first hydraulic cylinder (8) having a first hydraulic piston (2) wherein the first hydraulic piston including a first piston seal (8, 9, 11) separating a first low pressure portion (6) of the first hydraulic cylinder on one side of the first piston seal from a first high pressure portion (5) of the first hydraulic cylinder on an opposite side of the first piston seal wherein a shaft (2.2) extends through the first high pressure portion (5) wherein the first hydraulic cylinder with first hydraulic piston permits reciprocation of the pump while preventing leakage within the first hydraulic cylinder.
The substitution of one known element (a first hydraulic cylinder and a first hydraulic piston and wherein the first hydraulic piston including a first piston seal separating a first low pressure portion of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston seal from a first high pressure portion of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston seal as shown in Robert et al.) for another (first cylinder and the first piston as shown in Brasche et al.) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the first cylinder and the first piston as being a first hydraulic cylinder and a first hydraulic piston as shown in Robert et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, the structure of a first cylinder and first cylinder that prevents leakage between the pressure chamber above the first piston and the pressure chamber below the first piston of the Brasch et al. reference.
Secondly, the Brasche et al. reference of the combination of the Brasche et al. reference and the Robert et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the decoupling rod is a thermal decoupling rod.
However, the Michalski reference teaches a pump assembly having a piston wherein the piston rod can be made of a low thermal conductivity material in order to either prevent cooling of the motor or to prevent heating of the pump body (col. 6, lines 60-64).
The substitution of one known element (the material of the coupling rod being a low thermal conductivity material made as shown in Michalski) for another (the material of decoupling rod as shown in Brasche et al.) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the material of the decoupling rod to be a low thermal conductivity material shown in Michalski would have yielded predictable results, namely, a material of the decoupling rod between the first hydraulic piston and the first hydrogen piston of Brasche et al. that prevents heating of the pump body.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of the Brasche et al. reference, the Robert et al. reference and the Michalski reference discloses wherein:
[the cryogenic pump] further comprises a cold end portion base plate (Brasche et al.: 116);
an intermediate portion housing (Brasche et al.: see figure 4 for an intermediate housing surrounding the first piston 144) is fixedly attached to a lower surface of the cold end portion base plate;
a first thermal decoupling cylinder (Brasche et al.: 140) is fixedly attached to the upper surface of the cold end portion base plate at a location within the insulated vacuum jacket, and is configured to guide the first thermal decoupling rod;
a lower portion of the first thermal decoupling rod (Brasche et al.: 160) is fixedly coupled to the first hydraulic piston (Brasche et al.: see figure 4) within the intermediate portion housing; and
an upper portion of the first thermal decoupling rod (Brasche et al.: 160) is configured to non-fixedly mate with a receptacle in a lower end of the first hydrogen piston (Brasche et al.: 158; see figure 4).
The Brasche et al. reference of the combination of the Brasche et al. reference, the Robert et al. reference and the Michalski reference does not disclose an insulated vacuum jacket attached to an upper surface of the cold end portion base plate.
However, the Michalski reference teaches a vacuum jacket (Michalski: 201) attached to an upper surface of a base plate (Michalski: 202b) in order to thermally isolate the pump (Michalski: 300) from the environment of the pressure vessel in which the pump (Michalski: 300) is received (Michalski: see at least col. 8, lines 48-53 and col. 14, lines 39-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the Brasche et al. reference of the combination of the Brasche et al. reference, the Robert et al. reference and the Michalski reference with an insulated vacuum jacket as taught by the Michalski reference in order to thermally isolate desired portions of the cryogenic pump from the contents of the container in which the cryogenic pump is received (Brasche et al.: tank space 105).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein “the cryogenic pump further comprising:
a seal box defined within the cold end portion base plate, wherein the first thermal decoupling rod extends through the seal box; and
a seal assembly positioned at least in part within the seal box portion, wherein the seal assembly includes a scraper positioned around the first thermal decoupling rod, and an ice scraper having an inner surface extending around the first thermal decoupling rod and spaced apart from the scraper by a cavity” and in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 4-12 depend from claim 3, and, therefore, claims 4-12 are allowable for containing the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson et al. (US 4396362) discloses a cryogenic reciprocating pump having a packing gland (64) and a wiper-scraper (69) inserted into an annular slot in a packing gland retainer.
However, the Thompson et al. reference does not disclose an ice scraper, in addition to the scraper, wherein the ice scraper includes an inner surface extending around a first thermal decoupling rod and spaced apart from the scraper by a cavity.
Coldren et al. (US 10788026), Coldren et al. (US 10626856), Pevzner (US 4576557), and Schuck (US 4156584) disclose various cryogenic pump assemblies.
Bean et al. (US 10041447), Noble et al. (US 7607898), and Riede (US 2730957) disclose various pump assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights