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 5 June, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 37-56 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 37, 38, 39, 46, 49, 50, 51, and 53 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 originally-filed specification fails to provide any general guidelines to set forth and/or measure the degree of “substantially” of which one having ordinary skill within the art would have been apprised. As such, the claims are being directed to some degree, without any definitive range.
Claims 38-56 depend from rejected claim 37, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 51-52 are dependent from rejected claim 50, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 41 recites the broad recitation “wherein the inner wall has a thickness about 5mm to about 10mm), and the claim also recites “or a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 2mm” 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 examination purposes, the claim is being directed to either of the ranges.
The term “about” in claims 44-45 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 originally-filed specification fails to provide any general guidelines to set forth and/or measure the degree of “about” of which one having ordinary skill within the art would have been apprised. As such, the claims are being directed to some degree, without any definitive range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 37-39, 41-42, 44, 46-54, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FAYER (US 2023/0272881 A1 – effectively filed 21 June, 2021), in view of POHANISH (NPL: Table 17 (pg. 278-279) of Pohanish, Richard P. McCauley, Christopher J. Brengelman, Laura. (2020). Machinery’s Handbook Pocket Companion (2nd Edition). Industrial Press. Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpMHPCE001/machinery-s-handbook/machinery-s-handbook. )
As to claim 37, FAYER discloses a cryogenic vessel arrangement for storage of cryogenic liquids (abstract), the arrangement comprising:
an outer wall (5) defining an external periphery of the vessel arrangement 9par. 50-53 and 56);
an inner wall (4) spaced inwardly from said outer wall (par. 50) so as to define therebetween an insulation volume of the vessel arrangement (par. 60), wherein the inner wall defines a containment volume of the vessel arrangement internally of the inner wall (par. 43-44, in view of par. 41); and
a liner member (2) spaced inwardly and apart from the inner wall and located within said containment volume (par. 43-44), the liner member configured to receive and contain a cryogenic liquid (par. 41), wherein a thermal capacitance of the liner member is substantially less than that of the inner wall (see Table 1, in view of NPL references).
"To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill." Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As disclosed by FAYER, the inner wall (4) can be constructed of materials (par. 45) inclusive of at least stainless steel (par. 45, wherein type 316 and 304 is included within the envisioned materials applied to the invention of FAYER, par. 42) and the liner (2) can be constructed of materials (par. 42) inclusive of at least aluminum (par. 42, wherein type 6061 and 2024 is included within the envisioned materials applied to the invention of FAYER, par. 42). Intrinsic material properties (i.e., density (
ρ
) and specific heat (
C
p
)) of stainless steel and aluminum are set forth within Table 1. More so, thermal capacitance (
C
t
h
) is based on the relationship between the amount of material and the specific heat of the material, wherein the amount of material can be characterized by mass (
m
)
, multiplicity of volume (
V
) and density (
ρ
), or multiplicity of surface area (A), thickness (d), and density (
ρ
). The thickness of the liner and inner wall are defined within paragraphs 42 and 45 of FAYER, wherein in the present analysis, for simplicity, the thickness is being assumed as 1mm (0.0393701in) for each. More so, it is understood the surface area of the inner wall is larger than the surface area of the liner, given that the liner is reasonably understood to be smaller and held within the interior of the inner wall (figures 1 and 2 of FAYER; See MPEP § 2123, wherein the exact value of surface area cannot be ascertained, but reasonably the relationship between the surface area of the inner wall to the liner can be reasonably ascertained based on the positioning and basic sizing relationship depicted within figures 1 and 2 of FAYER). Based on this information, an exemplary surface area of 1in² is set for the liner and an exemplary surface are of 2in² is set for the inner wall. As such, the correlation of
C
t
h
=
A
*
d
*
ρ
*
c
p
can be used to determine the thermal capacitance of the liner and the inner wall. In view of the application of the correlation in Table 1, based on the above information explicitly and inherently defined by FAYER, the liner has a “substantially” less than thermal capacitance than the inner wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 1
As to claim 38, FAYER discloses wherein the thermal capacitance of the liner member is configured so as to substantially reduce or inhibit a rate at which cryogenic vapours are released by the cryogenic liquid upon its contact with, or receipt or storage by, the liner member (MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein based on the liner materials and claimed structure, the liner has a thermal capacitance capable of substantially reducing or inhibiting the rate at which the cryogenic vapors are released by the cryogenic liquid upon its contact with, or receipt or storage by, the liner member).
As to claim 39, FAYER discloses wherein the thermal capacitance of the liner member is configured so as to substantially reduce or inhibit a rate at which the temperature of the liner member rises upon departure of cryogenic liquid therefrom(MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein based on the liner materials and claimed structure, the liner has a thermal capacitance capable of substantially reducing or inhibiting the rate at which the temperature of the liner member rises upon departure of cryogenic liquid therefrom).
As to claim 41, FAYER discloses wherein the inner wall has a thickness of about 0.5mm to 1mm (par. 45).
As to claim 42, FAYER discloses wherein the liner member comprises at least aluminum or composites (par. 42).
As to claim 44, FAYER discloses wherein the liner member has a thermal conductivity that ranges from about 0.25 W/m-K to about 240 W/m-K (par. 42, in view of the intrinsic material property as stated within the NPL).
As to claim 46, FAYER discloses wherein the liner member is configured to receive and contain the cryogenic liquid in a manner so as to substantially reduce or inhibit contact of the cryogenic liquid with the inner wall (par. 41, in view of figures 1 and 2 to prevent contact of the cryogenic liquid with the inner wall).
As to claim 47, FAYER discloses wherein the liner member is spaced apart from the inner wall and located within said storage volume by support member(s) (insulation layers, as described in par. 46-49) that operatively connect said liner member to said inner wall (figures 1-2, in view of par. 46-49).
As to claim 48, FAYER discloses wherein the containment volume is configured to entrap at least some cryogenic vapours released by the cryogenic liquid upon its contact with, or receipt or storage by, the liner member (par. 42).
As to claim 49, FAYER discloses wherein the liner member and/or inner wall is/are configured such that the containment volume substantially maintains a pressure equilibrium between cryogenic liquids received or stored by the liner member and cryogenic vapours released by the cryogenic liquid upon its contact with, or receive or storage by, the liner member(MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the defined structure of the liner member and/or the inner wall are capable of providing the functional limitations of the claim).
As to claim 50, FAYER discloses wherein said pressure equilibrium is substantially maintained via released, out from the containment volume, of at least some of said cryogenic vapours released by the cryogenic liquid upon its contact with, or receipt or storage by, the liner member(MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the defined structure of the arrangement are capable of providing the functional limitations of the claim).
As to claim 51, FAYER discloses wherein said pressure equilibrium is substantially maintained via release, out from the containment volume, of at least some of said cryogenic vapours out from the liner member and/or containment volume particularly by relief members(s) arranged at the inner wall and/or liner member (8; par. 53; MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the defined structure of the arrangement are capable of providing the functional limitations of the claim).
As to claim 52, FAYER discloses wherein said relief member(s) comprise aperture(s) (par. 53).
As to claim 53, FAYER discloses wherein the containment volume is configured to receive or store a gas maintained at substantially the same pressure as the cryogenic liquids received or stored by the liner member (MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the containment volume, as defined by the claim, is capable of providing the functional limitations of the claim).
As to claim 54, FAYER discloses wherein the insulation volume is configured to contain or comprise a vacuum and one or more insulative materials comprising multi-layer insulation (par. 43 and 46-49).
As to claim 56, FAYER discloses a cryogenic vessel comprising the cryogenic vessel arrangement of claim 37 (see rejection of claim 56, in view of abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 40 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAYER (US 2023/0272881 A1 – effectively filed 21 June, 2021), in view of POHANISH (NPL: Table 17 (pg. 278-279) of Pohanish, Richard P. McCauley, Christopher J. Brengelman, Laura. (2020). Machinery’s Handbook Pocket Companion (2nd Edition). Industrial Press. Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpMHPCE001/machinery-s-handbook/machinery-s-handbook.).
As to claim 40, FAYER recognizes the storage of cryogenic liquids needs to satisfy constrains related to volume, shape, mass, mechanical integrity, and cost, wherein the thickness of the storage (i.e., liner, 2, and inner wall, 4) is provided to meet these requirements. More specifically, the thickness of the inner wall, at least, can be selected based on application (par. 59), which recognizes the thickness of the inner wall, at least, as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, satisfying necessary constraints related to volume, shape, mass, mechanical integrity, and cost, based on the selected application (par. 59, in view of par. 3). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 – II (A). Further, it appears one having ordinary skill within the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of FAYER to have a thickness of the inner wall, which in turn would have a direct impact on the relationship between the thickness of the inner wall and the liner within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of one of the thicknesses of the liner and inner wall (i.e., inner wall) disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify FAYER by making the relationship between the liner member thickness and the inner wall thickness to be “the liner member is configured with a thickness that ranges from about 1/3rd to about 1/20th of a thickness of the inner wall” as a matter of routine optimization. More so, it appears the Applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, in view of page 9, lines 1-8 and page 18, lines 27-29.
As to claim 55, FAYER recognizes the application of an insulation volume to minimize heat loss (par. 44, 46-49) with a surface area thereof (figures 1-2), but does not expressly disclose wherein the surface area heat leak ranges from at least about 0.5 W/m² to about 20 W/m².
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify FAYER to includes the surface area heat leak within the range claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In this case, the device of FAYER would not operate differently with the claimed surface area heat leak and since the insulation volume of FAYER is designed to impede the change in temperature of the volume of fluid (i.e., liquid cryogen; par. 41) being held within the interior of the cryogenic vessel arrangement, such that the device would function appropriately having the claimed surface area heat leak.
Further, it appears the Applicant places no criticality on the claimed limitation and range, as the specification recites, “The insulation volume 26 may be configured to have a surface area heat leak that ranges from at least about 0.5 W/m² to about 20 W/m². However, those skilled in the art may envisage other ranges of heat leak per surface area depending on a configuration of the cryogenic vessel arrangement 100.” See page 16, lines 17-20 of the originally-filed specification.
Claim(s) 43 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAYER (US 2023/0272881 A1 – effectively filed 21 June, 2021), in view of POHANISH (NPL: Table 17 (pg. 278-279) of Pohanish, Richard P. McCauley, Christopher J. Brengelman, Laura. (2020). Machinery’s Handbook Pocket Companion (2nd Edition). Industrial Press. Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpMHPCE001/machinery-s-handbook/machinery-s-handbook.) and BROOK(WO 2005/061952 A1 – published 7 July, 2005).
As to claim 43, FAYER recognizes wherein the material for the liner member can include any other alloy or composite material that is compatible with cryogenic temperatures (par. 42).
BROOK is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic vessel arrangement (abstract). BROOK teaches wherein it is known to include the use of G-10 fiberglass laminate is a known material to be used within the field, based on very low thermal conductivity (Table 1) and adequate compressive and tensile strength at low temperatures(par. 25), within the application of cryogenic vessels. As such, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify FAYER, in view of the teachings of BROOK, to include G-10 fiberglass laminate as the liner member material, which is recognized to be compatible with cryogenic temperatures based on application as a cryogenic fluid storage material and based on the ability to possess very low thermal conductivity and adequate compressive and tensile strength at low temperatures(par. 25).
As to claim 45, FAYER recognizes wherein the material for the liner member can include any other alloy or composite material that is compatible with cryogenic temperatures (par. 42).
BROOK is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic vessel arrangement (abstract). BROOK teaches wherein it is known to include the use of G-10 fiberglass laminate is a known material to be used within the field, based on very low thermal conductivity (Table 1) and adequate compressive and tensile strength at low temperatures(par. 25), within the application of cryogenic vessels. As such, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify FAYER, in view of the teachings of BROOK, to include G-10 fiberglass laminate as the liner member material, which is recognized to be compatible with cryogenic temperatures based on application as a cryogenic fluid storage material and based on the ability to possess very low thermal conductivity and adequate compressive and tensile strength at low temperatures(par. 25).
In doing so, the liner member, as taught by the combination of FAYER, in view of BROOK, effectively teaches wherein the liner member has a thermal conductivity of “about” 0.288 W/m-K (Table 1 of BROOK; See MPEP § 2144.05 – I, wherein 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), and in view of the interpretation as set forth under the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
Conclusion
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 3/4/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763