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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 March, 2024 is being considered by the examiner, except where indicated.
Particularly, the IDS submitted on 12 March, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Foreign Reference No. 3 (FR 3006741 A1) was not provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Figure 1 showing a prior art device is not legible with regards to the structures being referenced, in view of the figure being inverted in color.
Figure 13 showing “the arrangement of the heat exchanger of Fig. 12 on the cryogenic container” is not legible with regards to the structures being referenced, in view of the figure being inverted in color.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 27 recites “essentially” to describe the shape of the heat exchanger and the parallel nature of the heat exchanger to the cryogenic container jacket. Based on the description (with respect to figures 8-13 showing the “essentially rod-shaped design” and page 20 defining the longitudinal axis, L1, of the cryogenic container being parallel to the longitudinal axis, L2, of the heat exchanger, so as to make reasonable the metes and bounds “essentially” places on the claim language).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites, “the connection block”, in lines 13 and 14, which is understood to be directed to the “single-piece connection block”. As such, in view of 37 CFR 1.71(a), the claim should be corrected to - - the single-piece connection block - - in lines 13 and 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites, “wherein a first removal line, connected to the first outer opening for the extraction of cryogenic fluid in the gas phase, and a second removal line, connected to the second outer opening for the extraction of cryogenic fluid in the liquid phase, are routed into the cryogenic container”, which is considered new matter when read in combination with the requirement of claim 16 to previously include “ a removal line connecting the first heat exchanger tube to the cryogenic container”. Specifically, the claimed invention, as originally-filed, only includes two removal lines (9 and 10). The originally-filed invention does not include a total of three removal lines, as set forth by the invention of claim 17, i.e., a removal line, a first removal line, and a second removal line. As such, this limitation is considered new matter.
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 25 and 28-30 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 25
recites the limitation "the valve" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as a valve.
recites the limitation “with the first heat exchanger tube being connected directly to the inner opening of the further single-piece connection block and a second end of the jacket being attached to the single-piece connection block in a fluid-tight manner” renders the claim indefinite, in view of the previous requirement of independent claim 16 (“the first heat exchanger tube being connected directly to the inner opening of the connection block and a first end of the jacket being attached to the connection block in a fluid-tight manner”). It is unclear of the heat exchanger is connected directly to the inner opening of the single-piece connection block and further single-piece connection block, while further connected to at the first end of the jacket and the second end of the jacket to the single-piece connection block. Looking at the originally-filed specification, it appears the claim is intended to be directed to the heat exchanger being directly to the inner opening of the single-piece connection block and further single-piece connection block, while connected at a first end of the jacket to the single-piece connection block and connected at a second end of the jacket to the further single-piece connection block. See figures 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as such.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the vehicle frame" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as a vehicle frame.
Claim 29
recites the limitation "the single-piece valve block" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the single-piece connection block, in view of the disclosure appearing to be directed to the connection block being designed as a valve.
recites the limitation “the proportion of the cryogenic fluid” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as a proportion of the cryogenic fluid.
Claim 30 depends from rejected claim 29, and thereby, is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the valve or valves” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on the originally-filed specification, it is understood that the single-piece connection block or the further single-piece connection block are designed as valves. As such, it is being interpreted that the control unit is configured to control the single-piece connection block or the further single-piece connection block.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18-24, and 26-27 are allowable.
Claims 25 and 28-30 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest “the first heat exchanger tube being surrounded by a jacket and the heat exchanger having a medium inlet and a medium outlet for heat exchange medium in order to flush a heat exchange medium entering the medium inlet and exiting the medium outlet around the space between the jacket and the first heat exchanger tube, wherein the heat exchanger comprises a single-piece connection block with a first outer opening and a second outer opening and an inner opening, the two outer openings and the inner opening inside the single-piece connection block being connected by a connection passage, the first heat exchanger tube being connected directly to the inner opening of the connection block and a first end of the jacket being attached to the connection block in a fluid-tight manner”. The prior art makes known a system comprising a cryogenic container and a heat exchanger (BENSADOUN – US 11,920,737, B2; EHGARTNER – US 2022/0381403 A1; GUSTAFSON – US 9,829,156 B2; BRUNNER – US 9,640,808 B2; BRUNNER – US 9,625,094 B2; RECH – US 8,113,006 B2; SCHNEIDER – US 4,149,388; HAUMANN – US 3,199,303; SALZBURGER – EP 3121505 A1(provided with the IDS filed on 12 March, 2024)), in addition to a jacketed heat exchanger capable of receiving a medium to surround the heat exchanger tube (EHGARTNER – US 2022/0381403 A1) and a connection block connecting the cryogenic container with the heat exchanger (MURRAY -- US 20180266629 A1; GUSTAFSON – US 9,829,156 B2; BRUNNER – US 9,640,808 B2). However, the prior art does not provide “a single-piece connection block” or “the first heat exchanger tube being connected directly to the inner opening of the connection block and a first end of the jacket being attached to the connection block in a fluid-tight manner”, as required by the claims. As such, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the claimed invention as set forth within independent claim 16, and the dependents thereof.
Conclusion
When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2143.03 – II. With regards to claim 17, the prior art does not disclose the requirements of the claim, in view of the prior art failing to set forth the requirements of independent claim 16 from which it depends. However, a determination of patentability cannot be determined with regards to dependent claim 17, in view of the claim reciting subject-matter not originally disclosed by the instant application. See rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Correction of the claim is necessary to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 4/15/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights