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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 13-23) and Species C (Figure 3) in the reply filed on February 19th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The Office Action's "a posteriori" argument relies on a combination of Gustafson and Allidieres. However, Species C (Figure 3) introduces specific technical improvements that this combination does not suggest”. This is not found persuasive because the combination of Gustafson in view of Allidieres discloses all of the claimed features of claim 13. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “heat exchanger”, “heat-transfer fluid”, “cold energy recovered from the heated gas can be stored and reused”, “pressure equalization step”, and “electronic control member”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the anticipated rejection of claims 13-23 and 26-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 7, line 14: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Pg. 8, line 1: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Pg. 8, line 7: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Pg. 8, line 10: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Pg. 8, line 12: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Pg. 8, line 14: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Pg. 8, lines 15-16: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Pg. 9, line 13: “compressor 3” should read “compressor 5”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-23 and 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, lines 1-2: “cryogenic fluid” should read “the cryogenic fluid”
Claim 13, line 4: “a cryogenic fluid” should read “the cryogenic fluid”
Claim 13, line 6: “a cryogenic fluid” should read “the cryogenic fluid”
Claim 22, lines 3-4: “the pipes” should read “the first pipe and the second pipe”
Claim 27, line 4: “tank” should read “tank.”
Claims 14-18 and 26 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Claims 19-22 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 18.
Claim 27 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 26.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 27 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.
Original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV. Claims that merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it, leave the industry to “complete an unfinished invention.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish possession. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a). The written description requirement is not satisfied by merely outlining the goals or results one hopes to achieve with the invention. See MPEP 163(II)(A)(3)(a).
Claims 27 fails to sufficiently describe “controlling the compressor to transfer a volume of gas from the receiving tank to the distribution tank that is substantially equal to the volume of liquid transferred from the distribution tank to the receiving tank” in enough detail for one skilled in the art to have sufficient written description in the instant specification. The mere statement and recitation of “controlling the compressor to transfer a volume of gas from the receiving tank to the distribution tank that is substantially equal to the volume of liquid transferred from the distribution tank to the receiving tank” in claim 27 and the disclosure “In this case, the compressor 5 is controlled in order to transfer the same volume of gas from the second tank 3 to the first tank 2 as the volume of liquid that is transferred in the other direction (Pg. 8, lines 3-4)” provides insufficient detail as to how this compressor control is done to ensure the same volumes of gas and liquid are transferred between the receiving tank and the distribution tank . Applicant fails to discuss what inputs and outputs are used and the algorithm for using said inputs and outputs to ensure the same volumes of gas and liquid are transferred between the receiving tank and the distribution tank. Therefore, claims 13-23 and 26-27 do not provide sufficient detail to have sufficient written description.
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 13-23 and 26-27 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 13 recites the limitation "the upper portions" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the upper portions" in line 9 of claim 13 to “an upper portion of the distribution tank and an upper portion of the receiving tank”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the lower portion" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the lower portion" in lines 13-14. of claim 13 to “a lower portion”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the same common orifice" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the same common orifice” in lines 2-3 of claim 14 to “a common orifice”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is configured to bring the pressure in the distribution tank to a pressure level that exceeds the pressure in the receiving tank by a value of between 0.2 and 5 bar”, and the claim also recites “and preferably between 0.5 and 2 bar” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is configured to bring the pressure differential between the two tanks to a level lower than a determined value”, and the claim also recites “for example lower than 1 bar” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 23, line 4 recites, “relatively warmer heat-transfer fluid” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what the heat-transfer fluid is relatively warmer than. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the heat-transfer fluid to be warmer than the gas to be compressed. The Examiner recommends changing “relatively warmer heat-transfer fluid” to “a heat-transfer fluid that is warmer than the gas to be compressed”.
The term “substantially” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the volume of gas transferred from the receiving tank to the distribution tank is equal to the volume of liquid transferred from the distribution tank to the receiving tank is rendered indefinite by the use of the term substantially. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the compressor to be controlled to transfer desired amounts of liquid and gas between the distribution tank and the receiving tank.
Claims 14-18 and 26 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Claims 19-22 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 18.
Claim 27 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 26.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by D. Johnston (US Patent No. 2,986,127), hereinafter Johnston.
Regarding claim 13, Johnston discloses a method for transferring cryogenic fluid using a device for transferring cryogenic fluid (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 5-9, Referring now to Figure 1 of the drawings, there is shown a preferred system for transferring a pressurized, normally-gaseous liquid from a large storage or field tank 10 to a smaller applicator or supply tank 12 in accordance with this invention), the method comprising the steps of:
providing the device comprising:
a distribution tank configured to store a cryogenic fluid with a liquid lower phase and a gas upper phase (Fig. 1, field tank 10; Col. 3, 20-30, Usually, when a transfer of anhydrous ammonia is to be effected, the field tank 10 is filled to near its capacity with liquid anhydrous ammonia, which capacity is usually about 85% of the total capacity of the tank, because filling a tank with a pressurized,
normally-gaseous liquid above this level is undesirable from the standpoint of safety. Of course, above this level the tank 10 is filled with ammonia gas under a relatively high pressure, i.e., of the order of one hundred to two hundred pounds per square inch, depending to a great extent upon the temperature),
a receiving tank housing a cryogenic fluid comprising a liquid lower phase and a gas upper phase (Fig. 1, supply tank 12; Col. 3, lines 30-34, Similarly, the supply tank 12 is nearly exhausted of liquid and merely has a small quantity thereof in the bottom of the tank while the space above the liquid again is occupied by ammonia in gas form under a relatively high pressure),
a fluid-transfer circuit connecting the distribution tank and the receiving tank, the fluid-transfer circuit comprising a first pipe connecting the upper portions of the distribution tank and the receiving tank and further comprising at least one compressor configured to draw gas to be compressed from the receiving tank and to discharge the compressed gas into the distribution tank, the fluid-transfer circuit further comprising a second pipe connecting the lower portion of the distribution tank to the receiving tank (Fig. 1, inlet line 24, discharge line 30, tube 28, pump 22, transfer line 14, eduction tube 18; Col. 3, lines 35-36 and 67-72, An efficient pump 22, which in this instance is used as a gas compressor…The pump 22, however, which acting as a compressor draws gas from the supply tank 12 and pumps it into the field tank 10, rapidly builds up a pressure differential between the two tanks so that the needle valve 38 can be opened to its full extent shortly after the transfer operation is initiated);
pressurizing the distribution tank by the compressor via the first pipe (Col. 3, lines 67-72, The pump 22, however, which acting as a compressor draws gas from the supply tank 12 and pumps it into the field tank 10, rapidly builds up a pressure differential between the two tanks so that the needle valve 38 can be opened to its full extent shortly after the transfer operation is initiated); and
transferring liquid from the distribution tank to the receiving tank by way of a pressure differential between the two tanks (Col. 4, lines 3-7, It will be seen that, as the gas pressure in the field tank 10 increases over that in the supply tank 12, the liquid in the field tank will be forced upwardly through the eduction tube 18, through the transfer line 14, and into the supply tank 12),
wherein the second pipe is connected to the upper portion of the receiving tank (Fig. 1, transfer line 14; Col. 3, lines 14-17, Normally the outlet end of the transfer line 14 is connected to the supply tank 12 above the liquid level therein through a conventional valve 20, as shown in Figure 1), and
wherein the liquid is transferred into the upper portion of the receiving tank (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 14-17, Normally the outlet end of the transfer line 14 is connected to the supply tank 12 above the liquid level therein through a conventional valve 20, as shown in Figure 1; Col. 4, lines 3-7, It will be seen that, as the gas pressure in the field tank 10 increases over that in the supply tank 12, the liquid in the field tank will be forced upwardly through the eduction tube 18, through the transfer line 14, and into the supply tank 12).
Regarding claim 17, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is carried out during at least part of the step of transferring liquid from the distribution tank to the receiving tank (Col. 3-4, lines 67-75 and 1-10, The pump 22, however, which acting as a compressor draws gas from the supply tank 12 and pumps it into the field tank 10, rapidly builds up a pressure differential between the two tanks so that the needle valve 38 can be opened to its full extent shortly after the transfer operation is initiated. The pressure regulator 40 is employed to supply the motor 34 with power fluid under a substantially constant pressure in order. to maintain. a substantially constant rate of transfer of liquid from the field tank 10 to the supply tank 12, as will be described later. It will be seen that, as the gas pressure in the field tank 10 increases over that in the supply tank 12, the liquid in the field tank will be forced upwardly through the eduction tube 18, through the transfer line 14, and into the supply tank 12. The rate of transfer of liquid from the tank 10 to the tank 12 depends on the gas pressure supplied to the inlet of the motor 34 and also on the size and efficiency of the complete transfer line; Further, the teachings of maintain constant pressure to the motor of the pump while the liquid is transferred at least imply wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is carried out during at least part of the step of transferring liquid from the distribution tank to the receiving tank 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)).
Regarding claim 26, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank by the compressor and the step of transferring liquid to the receiving tank are performed simultaneously (Col. 3-4, lines 67-75 and 1-10, The pump 22, however, which acting as a compressor draws gas from the supply tank 12 and pumps it into the field tank 10, rapidly builds up a pressure differential between the two tanks so that the needle valve 38 can be opened to its full extent shortly after the transfer operation is initiated. The pressure regulator 40 is employed to supply the motor 34 with power fluid under a substantially constant pressure in order. to maintain. a substantially constant rate of transfer of liquid from the field tank 10 to the supply tank 12, as will be described later. It will be seen that, as the gas pressure in the field tank 10 increases over that in the supply tank 12, the liquid in the field tank will be forced upwardly through the eduction tube 18, through the transfer line 14, and into the supply tank 12. The rate of transfer of liquid from the tank 10 to the tank 12 depends on the gas pressure supplied to the inlet of the motor 34 and also on the size and efficiency of the complete transfer line; Further, the teachings of maintain constant pressure to the motor of the pump while the liquid is transferred at least imply wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank by the compressor and the step of transferring liquid to the receiving tank are performed simultaneously 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)).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D. Johnston (US Patent No. 2,986,127), hereinafter Johnston in view of Jung et al. (US Patent No. 8,955,338), hereinafter Jung.
Regarding claim 14, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are connected to the upper portion of the receiving tank (Fig. 1, tube 28; Col. 3, lines 36-39, inlet line 24 connected to the supply tank 12 above the liquid level therein, preferably through a valve 26 and a tube 28 which depends into the tank 12; Col. 3, lines 14-17, Normally the outlet end of the transfer line 14 is connected to the supply tank 12 above the liquid level therein through a conventional valve 20, as shown in Figure 1).
However, Johnston does not disclose wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are connected to the upper portion of the receiving tank at the same common orifice.
Jung teaches wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are connected to the upper portion of the receiving tank at the same common orifice (Fig. 2, vacuum tube 13’, first conduit 14’, second conduit 16’, first penetration 31’; Col. 4, lines 49-52 and 56-60, The vacuum tube 13' is a conduit surrounding the first conduit 14' and the second conduit 16'. The vacuum tube 13' includes insulation 38' that surrounds the first conduit 14' and the second conduit 16'… The vacuum tube 13' is disposed through a first penetration 31' of the storage tank 10'. The first penetration 31' is formed by a series of apertures in the outer vessel 20', insulation 22', and inner vessel 18' that provide a channel adapted to receive a portion of the vacuum tube 13').
Johnston fails to teach wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are connected to the upper portion of the receiving tank at the same common orifice, however Jung teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic fluid transfer to include wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are connected to the upper portion of the receiving tank at the same common orifice. This is strong evidence that modifying Johnston as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. minimizing the number of penetrations in the storage tank to minimize potential stress failures (Jung, Col. 6, lines 20-28)). 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 Johnston by Jung 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 minimizing the number of penetrations in the storage tank to minimize potential stress failures (Jung, Col. 6, lines 20-28).
Claims 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D. Johnston (US Patent No. 2,986,127), hereinafter Johnston in view of G. H. Zenner et al. (US Patent No. 2,257,897), hereinafter Zenner.
Regarding claim 15, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 13 above).
However, Johnston does not disclose wherein, during at least part of the step of pressurizing the distribution tank, the second pipe is closed.
Zenner teaches wherein, during at least part of the step of pressurizing the distribution tank, the second pipe is closed (Pg. 3, lefthand column, lines 44-50; Pressure is now built in the gas space of the container 22 to a desired value by the vapor transferring action of pump 14 and the valves in the liquid phase transfer connection opened; Further, the teachings of Zenner at least imply wherein, during at least part of the step of pressurizing the distribution tank, the second pipe is closed 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)).
Johnston fails to teach wherein, during at least part of the step of pressurizing the distribution tank, the second pipe is closed, however Zenner teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic fluid transfer to include wherein, during at least part of the step of pressurizing the distribution tank, the second pipe is closed. This is strong evidence that modifying Johnston as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to ensure sufficient pressure is built prior to liquid transfer to improve operational efficiencies). 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 Johnston by Zenner 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 ensure sufficient pressure is built prior to liquid transfer to improve operational efficiencies.
Regarding claim 18, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 13 above).
However, Johnston does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is preceded by a step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks.
Zenner teaches wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is preceded by a step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks (Pg. 3, lefthand column, lines 34-39, When at the place of use, the liquid phase transfer connections are established along with the gas phase transfer connections, and then a gas phase equalization is practiced, as was described in connection with the form shown in Fig, 1; Pg. 2, righthand column, lines 42-46, When these connections are established, the latter is first opened and the material in the gas phase, which is at high pressure, allowed to pass from container 11 into container 22 in order to equalize the pressures).
Johnston fails to teach wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is preceded by a step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks, however Zenner teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic fluid transfer to include wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is preceded by a step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks. This is strong evidence that modifying Johnston as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to ensure sufficient pressure is built prior to liquid transfer to improve operational efficiencies). 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 Johnston by Zenner 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 ensure sufficient pressure is built prior to liquid transfer to improve operational efficiencies.
Regarding claim 19, Johnston as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is carried out by way of passive pressure equalization via the first pipe (Zenner, Pg. 3, lefthand column, lines 34-39, When at the place of use, the liquid phase transfer connections are established along with the gas phase transfer connections, and then a gas phase equalization is practiced, as was described in connection with the form shown in Fig, 1; Pg. 2, righthand column, lines 42-46, When these connections are established, the latter is first opened and the material in the gas phase, which is at high pressure, allowed to pass from container 11 into container 22 in order to equalize the pressures). Further, the limitations of claim 19 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D. Johnston (US Patent No. 2,986,127), hereinafter Johnston in view of Allidieres et al. (US 20200248870), hereinafter Allidieres.
Regarding claim 16, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the step of pressurizing the distribution tank is configured to bring the pressure in the distribution tank to a pressure level that exceeds the pressure in the receiving tank (Col. 4, lines 3-7, It will be seen that, as the gas pressure in the field tank 10 increases over that in the supply tank 12, the liquid in the field tank will be forced upwardly through the eduction tube 18, through the transfer line 14, and into the supply tank 12).
However, Johnston does not explicitly disclose the pressure level to exceed the pressure in the receiving tank by a value of between 0.2 and 5 bar.
Allidieres teaches the pressure level to exceed the pressure in the receiving tank by a value of between 0.2 and 5 bar (Pg. 2, paragraph 32, When the pressure in the tank 10 sufficiently exceeds the pressure in the storage vessel 2 (for example by 0.5 to 5 bar, notably by one to two bar), the heating valves 7, 19 can be closed. All or some of the transfer valves 11, 15, 12, 13, 14 can then be opened in order to allow the storage vessel to be filled by means of a pressure differential; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnston of claim 16 wherein the pressure level in the distribution tank exceeds the pressure in the receiving tank by a value of between 0.2 and 5 bar as taught by Allidieres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the storage vessel to be filled by means of a pressure differential (Allidieres, Pg. 2, paragraph 32). 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston as modified by Zenner as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lacapere (WO 2022258924), hereinafter Lacapere.
Regarding claim 20, Johnston as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above).
However, Johnston as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is carried out by way of active pressure equalization via the first pipe and pumping by the compressor.
Lacapere teaches the use of a compressor for active pressure equalization in a pressure equalization step between cryogenic fluid tanks (Fig. 2, compressor 71, tank 20, tank 70; Pg. 8-9, if the pressure in the application tank is higher than the pressure in tank 20 and the pressure in tank 70 is lower than the pressure in the application tank, opening valve 71 until pressure equalization between the buffer tank 70 and the application tank; putting the compressor 10 into operation and, if necessary, opening the valve 71 to drain the application tank until a pressure equal to or less than the tank 20 pressure is reached).
Johnston as modified fails to teach wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is carried out by way of active pressure equalization via the first pipe and pumping by the compressor, however Lacapere teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic fluid transfer to include the use of a compressor for active pressure equalization in a pressure equalization step between cryogenic fluid tanks. This is strong evidence that modifying Johnston as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to ensure quick and efficient pressure equalization to improve overall operational efficiencies). 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 Johnston as modified by Lacapere 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 ensure quick and efficient pressure equalization to improve overall operational efficiencies.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston as modified by Zenner as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Allidieres et al. (US 20200248870), hereinafter Allidieres.
Regarding claim 21, Johnston as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above).
However, Johnston as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is configured to bring the pressure differential between the two tanks to a level lower than a determined value, for example lower than 1 bar.
Allidieres teaches wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is configured to bring the pressure differential between the two tanks to a level lower than a determined value, for example lower than 1 bar (Pg. 2, paragraph 30, When the pressure within the tank 10 reaches or comes sufficiently close to the pressure of the storage vessel (for example a pressure difference of 5 bar or less (and notably a difference of between 0.5 and 1 bar for example). The transfer valves 11, 15 can be closed; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnston as modified wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is configured to bring the pressure differential between the two tanks to a level lower than a determined value, for example lower than 1 bar as taught by Allidieres. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the storage vessel to be filled by means of a pressure differential (Allidieres, Pg. 2, paragraph 32). 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston as modified by Zenner as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Svensson et al. (US Patent No. 7,131,278), hereinafter Svensson.
Regarding claim 22, Johnston as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above).
However, Johnston as modified does not disclose wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is preceded by at least one of the following: a step of flushing at least one portion of the pipes and a step of cooling at least one portion of the pipes.
Svensson teaches a step of flushing at least one portion of the pipes as needed (Col. 5, lines 15-16, Gaseous CO2 is directly taken from station tank 1 to the fill box 52 and used to purge and pressurize the fill box 52 and the recipient tank 51 when needed).
Johnston as modified fails to teach disclose wherein the step of equalizing the pressure between the two tanks is preceded by at least one of the following: a step of flushing at least one portion of the pipes, however Svensson teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic fluid transfer to include a step of flushing at least one portion of the pipes as needed. This is strong evidence that modifying Johnston as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. removing undesired debris and fluid residue from the piping to maintain fluid purity). 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 Johnston as modified by Svensson 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 removing undesired debris and fluid residue from the piping to maintain fluid purity.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D. Johnston (US Patent No. 2,986,127), hereinafter Johnston in view of Gustafson (WO 2019173445), hereinafter Gustafson.
Regarding claim 23, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 13 (see the rejection of claim 13 above).
However, Johnston does not disclose further comprising a step of heating the gas to be compressed before it is admitted into the compressor during the pressurization step, the heating step comprising an exchange of heat between the gas to be compressed and a relatively warmer heat-transfer fluid.
Gustafson teaches further comprising a step of heating the gas to be compressed before it is admitted into the compressor during the pressurization step, the heating step comprising an exchange of heat between the gas to be compressed and a relatively warmer heat-transfer fluid (Fig. 1, compressor 16, heat exchanger 17; Pg. 5-6, paragraph 16, Compressor 16 creates a differentia! pressure between the two tanks 10 and 12 by drawing vapor from the headspace 8 of receiving tank 12 through line 14 and warming it in heat exchanger 17. The compressor 16 receives the warmed vapor via line 15b and pushes it via line 15a to the headspace 7 of dispensing tank 10, as indicated by arrow 18. The resulting differential pressure between tanks 10 and 12 causes the cryogenic liquid 6 to flow from dispensing tank 10 to receiving tank 12 through liquid line 13, as indicated by arrow 19. The transfer occurs until the compressor 16 is turned off or all of the liquid has been removed from dispensing tank 10; Pg. 6, paragraph 18, Furthermore, while an ambient air heat exchanger is illustrated in Figure 1, alternative types of heat exchangers known in the art may be used in the system of Figure 1. Examples of the types of heat exchangers that may be used include, but are not limited to, electric, shell and tube and/or fiat plate heat exchangers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnston of claim 13 to include a step of heating the gas to be compressed before it is admitted into the compressor during the pressurization step, the heating step comprising an exchange of heat between the gas to be compressed and a relatively warmer heat-transfer fluid as taught by Gustafson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for a compressor that is not capable of handling cryogenic temperature vapors to be used to reduce overall system cost (Gustafson, Pg. 6, paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 27, Johnston discloses the method as claimed in claim 26 (see the rejection of claim 26 above).
However, Johnston does not disclose further comprising controlling the compressor to transfer a volume of gas from the receiving tank to the distribution tank that is substantially equal to the volume of liquid transferred from the distribution tank to the receiving tank.
Gustafson teaches further comprising controlling the compressor to transfer a volume of gas from the receiving tank to the distribution tank that is substantially equal to the volume of liquid transferred from the distribution tank to the receiving tank (Fig. 1, compressor 16; Pg. 6, paragraph 17, The system of Figure 1 may optionally be provided with feedback control so that operation of the compressor 16 may be automated. As an example only, a liquid level sensor may be provided for the dispensing tank 10 and connected to a controller that is configured to deactivate the compressor 16 when the liquid level within the dispensing tank 10 drops below a predetermined level. As another example, the receiving tank 12 may be provided with a liquid level sensor that is connected to the controller, where the controller is configured to deactivate the compressor 16 when the liquid level in the receiving tank rises above a predetermined level. Other types of sensors and feedback arrangements known in the art may alternatively be employed; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnston of claim 26 to include the step or limitation of controlling the compressor to transfer a volume of gas from the receiving tank to the distribution tank that is substantially equal to the volume of liquid transferred from the distribution tank to the receiving tank as taught by Gustafson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure a desired volume of liquid is transferred to the receiving tank to prevent overfilling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
D. Johnston (US Patent No. 2,854,826) discloses a similar method for transferring cryogenic fluid using a device for transferring cryogenic fluid.
Desjardins et al. (US 20150027136) discloses a similar method for transferring cryogenic fluid using a device for transferring cryogenic fluid.
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 March 06th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763