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 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.
Claim 10 and 14 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 10 recites the limitation “it” in line 1. It is unclear what “it” refers to and the limitation should read - - the set of degassing lines - - .
Claim 14 recites the limitation “it” in line 1. It is unclear what “it” refers to and the limitation should read - - the device - - .
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, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0404604 to Drube et al. (Drube).
In reference to claim 1, Drube teaches a device for supplying pressurized cryogenic fluid (FIG. 1-2) comprising, a thermally insulated container (8 and 10, FIG. 2) consisting of an inner tank (8, FIG. 2) delimiting a volume designed to store cryogenic liquid (12, FIG. 2) to be pumped and an outer tank (10, FIG. 2) arranged about the inner tank (8, FIG. 2) and delimiting a sealed volume about the inner tank, wherein when the device is in the usage state, the inner tank and the outer tank extend vertically (FIG. 2) and are closed at the top end thereof by a set of covers (inherent in the structure of FIG. 2; vacuum sealed insulation, par 0018), a pumping system (60, FIG. 2) mounted on the set of covers and comprising a lower end seated in the volume delimited by the inner tank and designed to pump the cryogenic liquid therein (inherent in the structure of FIG. 2; the sumps are not levitating within the tank 8), a cryogenic liquid feed circuit (unmarked; inherent in the structure of tank 6, FIG. 2) designed to supply the inner tank (8, FIG. 2) with cryogenic fluid (12, FIG. 2) and a delivery circuit (74, FIG. 2) designed to transfer the cryogenic liquid (12, FIG. 2) pumped by the pumping system (60, FIG. 2) out of the inner tank (8, FIG. 2), wherein the pumping system comprises two piston pumps (62a and 62b, FIG. 2; par 0007) actuated by an actuator (unmarked; inherent in the structure of FIG. 2; pumps 62a and 62b are automatically controlled via an actuator based on the pressure, temperature and liquid level monitoring), the two piston pumps being connected in parallel to the delivery circuit (FIG. 2) and designed to be actuated in an offset manner to ensure a continuous flow of cryogenic liquid pumped through the delivery circuit (par 0031), wherein two alternating pumps (62a and 62b, FIG. 2) are used in parallel and form a single compression stage delivering a continuous flow at constant pressure (par 0031).
In reference to claim 5, Drube teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Drube additionally teaches wherein the cryogenic liquid feed circuit comprises a set of valves (66a and 64a, FIG. 2) and passes through the sealed volume delimited about the inner tank (8, FIG. 2) by the outer tank (10, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 11, Drube teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Drube additionally teaches wherein the pumping system comprises a piston rod that extends vertically in the inner tank (par 0007 and FIG. 1-2), the device comprising a support and guidance structure for the pumping system mounted about the piston rod inside the inner tank (inherent; the pump is not levitating within the tank 8, FIG. 1-2), the device further comprising a thermal insulation structure interposed about the support and guidance structure (par 0018).
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) 2-4, 6-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drube in view of U.S. Patent 4,593,835 to Kikkawa et al. (Kikkawa).
In reference to claim 2, Drube teaches the device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach wherein the set of covers comprises a first cover and a second cover, the second cover closing an opening in the first cover, the second cover forming a support for the pumping system and being mounted sealingly and removably on the second cover, the pumping system being designed to be mounted or removed vertically in relation to the container when the second cover is mounted or removed. Kikkawa teaches a cryogenic liquefied pump system (FIG. 1-4) wherein the set of covers comprises a first cover (5, FIG. 1-4) and a second cover (18, FIG. 1-4), the second cover closing an opening (allowing for support tube 16, FIG. 1) in the first cover, the second cover forming a support (16, FIG. 1-4) for the pumping system (col 3, lines 15-16) and being mounted sealingly and removably on the second cover (sealed structure; col 5, line 60), the pumping system (2, FIG. 1-4) being designed to be mounted or removed vertically in relation to the container (1, FIG. 1-4) when the second cover (18, FIG. 1) is mounted or removed (FIG. 1-4) in order to greatly facilitate maintenance of the system by providing separate mounting for the pump (col 2, lines 54-59).
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 Drube, to have the set of covers comprise a first cover and a second cover, the second cover closing an opening in the first cover, the second cover forming a support for the pumping system and being mounted sealingly and removably on the second cover, the pumping system being designed to be mounted or removed vertically in relation to the container when the second cover is mounted or removed, as taught by Kikkawa, in order to greatly facilitate maintenance of the system by providing separate mounting for the pump.
In reference to claim 3, Drube and Kikkawa teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, and Kikkawa additionally teaches wherein the delivery circuit comprises a delivery line (1B, FIG. 1) having a lower end connected to the lower end of the pumping system (at 9, FIG. 1) and an upper end connected to the set of covers (5 and 18, FIG. 1), when the device is in the usage state, a part of the delivery line (9, FIG. 1) being immersed in the cryogenic liquid (41, FIG. 1) to be pumped (FIG. 1).
In reference to claim 4, Drube and Kikkawa teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, and Kikkawa additionally teaches wherein the upper end of the delivery line (at 1B, FIG. 1) is connected to the second cover (5, FIG. 1) and opens in the latter (FIG. 1).
In reference to claim 6, Drube teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach wherein the set of covers comprises at least one degassing outlet passage connected to a set of degassing lines passing through the sealed volume delimited about the inner tank by the outer tank. Kikkawa teaches a cryogenic liquefied pump system (FIG. 1-4) wherein the set of covers comprises at least one degassing outlet passage (20, FIG. 1) connected to a set of degassing lines passing through the sealed volume delimited about the inner tank by the outer tank (FIG. 1) in order to vent helium gas produced by vaporization (col 4, lines 15-20).
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 Drube, to have the set of covers comprise at least one degassing outlet passage connected to a set of degassing lines passing through the sealed volume delimited about the inner tank by the outer tank, as taught by Kikkawa, in order to vent helium gas produced by vaporization.
In reference to claim 7, Drube and Kikkawa teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Kikkawa additionally teaches wherein the set of degassing lines comprises a first degassing line (47, FIG. 3) having a first end connected to an upper end of the inner tank (at 18, FIG. 3) and a second end leading to a coupling outside the container (at 48, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 8, Drube and Kikkawa teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Kikkawa additionally teaches wherein the first degassing line comprises a valve (48, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 9, Drube and Kikkawa teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Kikkawa additionally teaches wherein the set of degassing lines comprises at least one second degassing line (20, FIG. 3) having a first end connected to the first degassing line (47, FIG. 3) and a second end leading to a coupling or passage outside the container (at 46. FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 10, Drube and Kikkawa teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 9 above, and Kikkawa additionally teaches wherein the set of degassing lines includes at least one second degassing line (20, FIG. 3) provided with a valve (46, FIG. 3).
In reference to claim 12, Drube teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, but does not teach wherein the thermal insulation structure is rigidly connected to the second cover between the second cover and a lower end of the support and guidance structure. Kikkawa teaches a cryogenic liquefied pump system (FIG. 1-4) wherein the thermal insulation structure (23, FIG. 3) is rigidly connected to the second cover (18, FIG. 3) between the second cover and a lower end of the support and guidance structure (at 9, FIG. 3) in order to prevent movement of the insulation within the structure thus avoiding thermal leaks.
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 Drube, to have the thermal insulation structure rigidly connected to the second cover between the second cover and a lower end of the support and guidance structure, as taught by Kikkawa, in order to prevent movement of the insulation within the structure thus avoiding thermal leaks.
In reference to claim 13, Drube teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, but does not teach wherein the thermal insulation structure comprises a vertical stack of a set of insulating foam layers and/or a set of thermal shields. Kikkawa teaches a cryogenic liquefied pump system (FIG. 1-4) wherein the thermal insulation structure (23, FIG. 3) comprises a vertical stack of a set of insulating foam layers and/or a set of thermal shields (col 4, lines 8-11) in order to prevent thermal leaks.
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 Drube, to have the thermal insulation structure comprise a vertical stack of a set of insulating foam layers and/or a set of thermal shields, as taught by Kikkawa, in order to prevent thermal leaks.
In reference to claim 14, Drube teaches the device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach wherein the device comprises a purge circuit comprising at least one line having a first end leading to a coupling or passage outside the container and a second end connected to the feed circuit. Kikkawa teaches a cryogenic liquefied pump system (FIG. 1-4) wherein the device comprises a purge circuit (20 and 46, FIG. 3) comprising at least one line (line 20, FIG. 3) having a first end leading to a coupling or passage outside the container (at 46, FIG. 3) and a second end connected to the feed circuit (below 20, FIG. 3) in order to provide ventilation after vaporization (col 4, lines 15-20).
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 Drube, to add a purge circuit comprising at least one line having a first end leading to a coupling or passage outside the container and a second end connected to the feed circuit, as taught by Kikkawa, in order to provide ventilation after vaporization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
2/7/2026