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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application
because the submitted drawings have a line quality that is too light to be reproduced (weight of all lines
and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction) or text that is illegible (reference
characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible). See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(1).
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are
required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for
corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the indirect heat exchanger of claim 16 and the heat exchanger of claim 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 16-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 6: “liquefying the hydrogen in the second cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof” should read “liquefying the hydrogen in the second cryogenic cold box or downstream of the second cryogenic cold box”
Claim 16, line 9: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 16, line 10: “liquefied hydrogen” should read “the liquefied hydrogen”
Claim 16, lines 10-11: “the first and second cryogenic cold boxes” should read “the first cryogenic cold box and second cryogenic cold box”
Claim 16, lines 12-13: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 16, line 16: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 16, lines 17-18: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 17, line 2: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 17, line 3: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 17, line 3: “a second heater” should read “the second heater”
Claim 17, line 4: “a hydrogen feed stream” should read “the hydrogen feed stream”
Claim 23, line 2: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 23, lines 3-4: “a first heater” should read “the first heater”
Claim 25, line 2: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 26, line 2: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 26, line 3: “the first or second heater” should read “the first heater or the second heater”
Claim 26, line 4: “the first and/or second cryogenic cold box” should read “the first cryogenic cold box and/or the second cryogenic cold box”
Claim 28, lines 5-6: “so as to liquefy the hydrogen in the second cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof” should read “so as to liquefy the hydrogen in the second cryogenic cold box or downstream of the second cryogenic cold box”
Claim 28, lines 8-9: “a loading bay containing at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the loading bay containing the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 28, lines 12-13: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 28, line 14: “first and second heaters” should read “a first heater and a second heater”
Claim 28, line 14: “the first and second cryogenic cold boxes” should read “the first cryogenic cold box and second cryogenic cold box”
Claim 28, line 22: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 28, lines 26-27: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 28, lines 29-30: “a hydrogen feed stream” should read “the hydrogen feed stream”
Claim 29, line 3: “a boil-off gas stream” should read “the boil-off gas stream”
Claim 29, lines 3-4: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 29, line 4: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 30, line 2: “a hydrogen feed stream at a first pressure” should read “the hydrogen feed stream at the first pressure”
Claim 30, lines 3-4: “so as to liquefy the hydrogen in the second additional cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof” should read “so as to liquefy the hydrogen in the second additional cryogenic cold box or downstream of the second additional cryogenic cold box”
Claim 30, line 5: “from the second additional cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof” should read “from the second additional cryogenic cold box or downstream of the second additional cryogenic cold box”
Claim 30, line 6: “at least one hydrogen transport truck” should read “the at least one hydrogen transport truck”
Claim 30, line 7: “the second cryogenic cold box” should read “the additional second cryogenic cold box”
Claim 30, line 10: “a hydrogen feed stream” should read “the hydrogen feed stream”
Claims 17-23 and 27 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
Claim 24 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 23.
Claims 25-26 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
Claims 29-30 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 28.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-30 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 16 recites the limitation "the boil-off gas stream" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the boil-off gas stream” in line 12 of claim 1 to “a boil-off gas stream”.
Claim 16, lines 12-13 recite, “measuring the pressure of the boil-off gas and if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below a previously determined pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what is supposed to happen if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below a previously determined pressure. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to simply require measuring the pressure of the boil-off gas.
Claim 17 recites, “wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is above a previously determined pressure…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 17 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 17 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 17, line 2 recites, “a previously determined pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the previously determined pressure of claim 17 relates to the previously determined pressure of claim 16, from which claim 17 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the previously determined pressures of claim 16 and 17 to be the same pressure.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the at least part of the warmed boil-off gas…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 18 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 18 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein at least part of the warmed boil-off gas…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 19 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 19 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 20 recites, “sent to the first cryogenic cold box in a first amount if warmed boil-off gas…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 20 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 20 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 21 recites, “wherein the previously determined pressure is between 1.5 and 3 bars” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 21 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 21 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 22 recites, “wherein the boil-off gas stream…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 22 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 22 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 23 recites, “wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 23 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 23 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 23, line 2 recites, “a previously determined pressure” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the previously determined pressure of claim 23 relates to the previously determined pressure of claim 16, from which claim 23 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the previously determined pressures of claim 16 and 23 to be the same pressure.
Claim 24 recites, “wherein the previously determined temperature is between -180°C and -210°C” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 24 depends from claims 23 and 16 which only optionally claim the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 24 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 25 recites, “wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 25 depends from claims 21 and 16 which only optionally claim the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 25 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the previously determined temperature" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the previously determined temperature" in lines 2-3 of claim 25 to “a previously determined temperature”.
Claim 26 recites, “wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck…” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 26 depends from claims 21 and 16 which only optionally claim the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 26 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the previously determined temperature" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the previously determined temperature" in lines 2-3 of claim 26 to “a previously determined temperature”.
Claim 27 recites, “wherein the previously determined pressure has a value chosen between 2 and 10 bars, for example 2 bars” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 27 depends from claim 16 which only optionally claims the at least one hydrogen transport truck and corresponding boil-off gas stream. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 27 to also be optional as they only relate to optionally claimed limitations from claim 16.
Regarding claim 27, 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).
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 27 recites the broad recitation “wherein the previously determined pressure has a value chosen between 2 and 10 bars”, and the claim also recites “for example 2 bars” 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.
Claim limitation “means for providing liquefied hydrogen to a storage or a loading bay containing at least one hydrogen transport truck” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is provided in the specification to define the means for providing liquefied hydrogen to a storage or a loading bay containing at least one hydrogen transport truck. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the means for providing liquefied hydrogen to a storage or a loading bay containing at least one hydrogen transport truck to include pipelines, fluid conduits, and functional equivalents. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the second additional cryogenic cold box" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the second additional cryogenic cold box" in lines 4 and 5 to “the additional second cryogenic cold box" which is given proper antecedent basis in lines 2-3 of claim 30. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the second additional cryogenic cold box and the additional second cryogenic cold box to be the same components.
Claim limitation “means for providing liquefied hydrogen from the second additional cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof to the storage or the loading bay containing at least one hydrogen transport truck,” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is provided in the specification to define the means for providing liquefied hydrogen from the second additional cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof to the storage or the loading bay containing at least one hydrogen transport truck. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the means for providing liquefied hydrogen from the second additional cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof to the storage or the loading bay containing at least one hydrogen transport truck to include pipelines, fluid conduits, and functional equivalents. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “means for sending the boil-off stream warmed in the first heater to be mixed with the additional hydrogen refrigeration cycle” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is provided in the specification to define the means for sending the boil-off stream warmed in the first heater to be mixed with the additional hydrogen refrigeration cycle. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the means for sending the boil-off stream warmed in the first heater to be mixed with the additional hydrogen refrigeration cycle to include pipelines, fluid conduits, and functional equivalents. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “and means for sending the boil-off stream warmed in the first heater to be mixed with a hydrogen feed stream upstream of the first additional cryogenic cold box” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is provided in the specification to define the and means for sending the boil-off stream warmed in the first heater to be mixed with a hydrogen feed stream upstream of the first additional cryogenic cold box. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret and means for sending the boil-off stream warmed in the first heater to be mixed with a hydrogen feed stream upstream of the first additional cryogenic cold box to include pipelines, fluid conduits, and functional equivalents. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the first additional cryogenic cold box" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the second additional cryogenic cold box" in line 10 to “the additional first cryogenic cold box" which is given proper antecedent basis in lines 1-2 of claim 30. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the first additional cryogenic cold box and the additional first cryogenic cold box to be the same components.
Claims 17-23 and 27 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
Claim 24 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 23.
Claims 25-26 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
Claims 29-30 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 28.
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 16-19 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Allam et al. (US Patent No. 7,559,213), hereinafter Allam.
Regarding claim 16, Allam discloses a hydrogen boil-off gas recovery method (Fig. 1, stream 58; Col. 11-12, line 67 and 1-3, A stream 58 of hydrogen flash gas is passed back through the flash gas cooler 46 where it provides a portion of the refrigeration duty to form condensable hydrogen gas and leaves the heat exchanger 46 as stream 60), the method comprising the steps of:
cooling a hydrogen feed stream at a first pressure in a first cryogenic cold box to form a cooled hydrogen stream (Fig. 1, stream 16, stream 18, plate-fin heat exchanger 12, stream 20; Col. 10, lines 63-67, The hydrogen feed gas stream 10 is formed from the combination of a stream 16 of fresh hydrogen gas which may be produced in an integrated hydrogen gas production process (not shown), and a stream 18 of compressed recycled hydrogen gas; Col. 11, lines 3-5, The hydrogen feed gas is pre-cooled to produce a stream 20 of pre-cooled hydrogen feed gas at about 2.5 MPa and about -156° C);
further cooling the cooled hydrogen stream in a second cryogenic cold box by using a hydrogen refrigeration cycle to refrigerate the second cryogenic cold box (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 24, first stream 26, second stream 28, expander 38, discharge stream 32, first part 34, expanded hydrogen gas stream 40; Col. 11, lines 7-29, The pre-cooled hydrogen feed gas stream 20 is further cooled in heat exchanger 24 to about -163 ° C. at which point it is divided into a first stream 26 and a second stream 28. The first stream 26 is expanded in an expander 30 to produce a stream 32 of expanded hydrogen gas at a pressure of about 0.25 MPa and a temperature of about -221 ° C. The expander 30 discharge stream 32 is sent back through the heat exchanger 24 where it provides a portion of the refrigeration duty required to form condensable hydrogen gas. The second stream 28 is further cooled in heat exchanger 24 to a temperature of about -208° C. at which point it is divided into a first part 34 and a second part 36. The first part 34 is expanded in an expander 38 to produce an expanded hydrogen gas stream 40 at a pressure of about 0.25 MPa and a temperature of about -244 ° C. The expander 38 discharge stream 40 is sent back through exchanger 24 as a cooling stream where it combines with the expander 30 discharge stream 32 and provides a portion of the refrigeration duty required to form condensable hydrogen gas. The combined expanded hydrogen gas stream 42 leaves the heat exchanger 24 at a temperature of about -158° C. The second part 36 of the 2.5 MPa hydrogen gas is further cooled and leaves the heat exchanger 24 as stream 44);
liquefying the hydrogen in the second cryogenic cold box or downstream thereof (Fig. 1, hydrogen gas stream 44, flash gas cooler 46, stream 48, expander 50, two-phase stream 52; Col. 11, lines 29-37, Hydrogen gas stream 44 is further cooled in flash gas cooler 46 to produce a stream 48 of 30 condensable hydrogen gas at a temperature of about -240° C. and a pressure of about 2.5 MPa Stream 48 of condensable hydrogen gas is expanded in an expander 50 to produced a two-phase stream 52 at a pressure of about 0.1 MPa and a temperature of about -253° C. containing about 31 % hydrogen flash gas and about 69% liquid hydrogen);
providing liquefied hydrogen to a storage (Fig. 1, separator 54, two-phase stream 52; Col. 11, lines 64-65, The two-phase stream 52 is fed to a separator 54 where it is separated into liquid hydrogen and hydrogen flash gas).
Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations below only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps:
sending boil-off gas from at least one hydrogen transport truck in the loading bay to which liquefied hydrogen has been provided to an indirect heat exchanger outside the first and second cryogenic cold boxes in order to warm the boil-off gas;
measuring the pressure of the boil-off gas and if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below a previously determined pressure; and
warming at least part of the boil-off gas stream in a first heater and mixing the at least part of the boil-off gas with a hydrogen refrigeration cycle stream,
wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is above a previously determined pressure, at least part of the boil off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is warmed in the first heater or in a second heater and mixed with a hydrogen feed stream upstream of the first cryogenic cold box.
Regarding claim 17, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is above a previously determined pressure, at least part of the boil off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is warmed in a second heater and mixed with a hydrogen feed stream upstream of the first cryogenic cold box, regardless of the temperature of the boil-off gas stream. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of method claim 17 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and a contingent limitations of “wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is above a previously determined pressure” (see MPEP 2111.04, Section II) and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 18, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the at least part of the warmed boil-off gas is compressed in a dedicated compressor before being mixed with the hydrogen feed stream. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 18 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 19, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein at least part of the warmed boil-off gas is compressed to the first pressure after being mixed with the hydrogen feed stream. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 19 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 21, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the previously determined pressure is between 1.5 and 3 bars. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 21 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 22, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the boil-off gas stream is analyzed to detect the value of one of its components and if its hydrogen content is below a predetermined value and/or if an impurity content is above a predetermined value, the boil-off gas is not sent to the hydrogen feed stream or the hydrogen refrigeration cycle. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 22 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 23, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below a previously determined pressure and below a previously determined temperature, at least part of the boil off gas stream is not warmed in a first heater but is mixed with a hydrogen refrigeration cycle stream. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 23 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 24, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 23 (see the rejection of claim 23 above), wherein the previously determined temperature is between -180°C and -210°C. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 24 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 25, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21 above), wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below the previously determined pressure but above the previously determined temperature, the boil off stream is heated in the first heater and returned to the hydrogen refrigeration cycle. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 25 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and a contingent limitations of “wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below a previously determined pressure” (see MPEP 2111.04, Section II) and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 26, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21 above), wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below the previously determined pressure and below the previously determined temperature, the boil off stream is not heated in the first or second heater and is heated in a heat exchanger of the first and/or second cryogenic cold box to cool the hydrogen feed stream to be liquefied. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 26 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and a contingent limitations of “wherein if the boil-off gas stream from at least one hydrogen transport truck is below a previously determined pressure and below the previously determined temperature” (see MPEP 2111.04, Section II) and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 27, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the previously determined pressure has a value chosen between 2 and 10 bars, for example 2 bars. Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations of claim 27 only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam discloses all required steps; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam et al. (US Patent No. 7,559,213), hereinafter Allam in view of Turney et al. (US 20200141640), hereinafter Turney.
Regarding claim 20, Allam discloses the method according to Claim 16 (see the rejection of claim 16 above).
However, Allam does not disclose wherein the hydrogen feed stream is generated by a hydrogen generation unit.
Turney teaches wherein the hydrogen feed stream is generated by a hydrogen generation unit (Fig. 3, hydrogen generation system 101, hydrogen inlet stream 105; Pg. 5, paragraph 132, A hydrogen generation system 101 and separation device 104 may provide a hydrogen inlet stream 105, however hydrogen inlet stream may be provided by other available sources such as a reaction off-gas (not shown). Such a hydrogen generation system 101 may include, for example, a steam methane reformer, a methane cracker, an ATR, or a PDX, or a combination thereof. Hydrogen generation system 101 produces a synthesis gas 102 containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide, usually along with some carbon dioxide and residual hydrocarbons. A hydrogen separation device 104 is then used to produce a hydrogen inlet stream 105 from this syngas stream. Such a hydrogen separation device 104 may be a pressure swing adsorption unit, a membrane separation unit, or other systems known to the art).
Allam fails to teach the hydrogen feed stream is generated by a hydrogen generation unit, however Turney teaches that it is a known method in the art of hydrogen liquefaction to include the hydrogen feed stream is generated by a hydrogen generation unit. This is strong evidence that modifying Allam as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. to produce a hydrogen feed stream onsite to reduce cost associated with transporting gaseous hydrogen). 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 Allam by Turney 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 produce a hydrogen feed stream onsite to reduce cost associated with transporting gaseous hydrogen.
Further, the Examiner would like to note the limitations below only reference steps related to an optionally claimed hydrogen transport truck and are not required limitations of the claims, Allam as modified discloses all required steps:
sent to the first cryogenic cold box in a first amount if warmed boil-off gas is not mixed with the hydrogen feed stream and if warmed boil-off gas is mixed with the hydrogen feed stream, the amount of hydrogen feed stream sent from the hydrogen generation unit to the first cryogenic cold box is reduced to a second amount, smaller than the first amount.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 20160356545) discloses a similar hydrogen boil-off gas recovery method.
Bernhardt et al. (US 20200149684) discloses a similar hydrogen boil-off gas recovery method.
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 January 14th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763