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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pressure increasing mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the pressure increasing mechanism includes heaters 31 arranged in the fuel tank 2 (par 0015).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0174106 to Tang et al. (Tang).
In reference to claim 1, Tang teaches a fuel supply system (FIG. 1-9) for a hydrogen-powered aircraft including a propulsion device that uses hydrogen as an energy source (par 0001-0003 and 0018), the fuel supply system comprising a fuel tank (18, FIG. 1-9) that stores liquefied hydrogen (par 0018 and 0057); a pump (26, FIG. 2) that discharges the liquefied hydrogen from the fuel tank to supply the liquefied hydrogen to the propulsion device (par 0021); a pressure increasing mechanism (20, FIG. 1-9) that increases a tank internal pressure being a pressure in an inner part of the fuel tank (par 0047); a flow rate controller (66, FIG. 2) that controls a flow rate of the liquefied hydrogen to be supplied from the fuel tank (18, FIG. 2) to the propulsion device (16, FIG. 2); and a pressure controller (valves located at either inlet 50 or outlet 52, FIG. 2) that controls, on the basis of information which is about the flow rate of the liquefied hydrogen and is input from the flow rate controller (66, FIG. 2), the pressure increasing mechanism (20, FIG. 1-2) to adjust the tank internal pressure (par 0047).
In reference to claim 9, it claims the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claim 1, thus, it is rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
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) 2, 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of U.S. Patent 9,255,664 to Gerstler et al. (Gerstler).
In reference to claim 2, Tang discloses fuel supply system as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the pressure increasing mechanism includes a heater arranged in the fuel tank. Gerstler teaches a cryogenic fuel system with auxiliary power provided by boil-off gas (FIG. 1) wherein the pressure increasing mechanism (114, FIG. 1) includes a heater (col 9, line 11) arranged in the fuel tank (110, FIG. 1) in order to increase pressure within the tank by not using the boil off gas within the tank when the need for gas from the consumer is increased (1-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tang, to have the pressure increasing mechanism include a heater arranged in the fuel tank, as taught by Gerstler, in order to increase pressure within the tank by not using the boil off gas within the tank when the need for gas from the consumer is increased.
In reference to claim 3, Tang and Gerstler teach the fuel supply system as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, but they do not explicitly teach wherein the pressure increasing mechanism includes heaters arranged apart from each other in the fuel tank.
However, the court holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, the capacity of the pressure increasing mechanism is augmented.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tang and Gerstler, to have the pressure increasing mechanism include heaters arranged apart from each other in the fuel tank in order to augment the capacity of the pressure increasing mechanism.
In reference to claim 5, Tang and Gerstler teach the fuel supply system as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, and Tang additionally teaches wherein the pressure controller increases the tank internal pressure by raising the temperature of the heater when receiving information indicating an increase in the flow rate of the liquefied hydrogen from the flow rate controller (par 0042).
In reference to claim 6, Tang and Gerstler teach the fuel supply system as explained in the rejection of claim 5 above, and Tang additionally teaches wherein the pressure controller suppresses an increase in the tank internal pressure by lowering the temperature of the heater when receiving information indicating a decrease in the flow rate of the liquefied hydrogen from the flow rate controller (par 0042; intended use recitation, the system in FIG. 1-2 is capable of performing said functional language).
In reference to claim 7, Tang and Gerstler teach the fuel supply system as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, and Gerstler additionally teaches a pressure sensor (112, FIG. 1) that detects the tank internal pressure, wherein the pressure controller increases the tank internal pressure by raising the temperature of the heater when the tank internal pressure detected by the pressure sensor falls below a predetermined first threshold (col 5, lines 35-50).
In reference to claim 8, Tang and Gerstler teach the fuel supply system as explained in the rejection of claim 7 above, and Gerstler additionally teaches wherein the pressure controller (190, FIG. 1) suppresses an increase in the tank internal pressure by lowering the temperature of the heater when the tank internal pressure detected by the pressure sensor exceeds a second threshold which is greater than the first threshold (col 6, lines 7-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1/30/2026