DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 36-38 are objected to. Each claim is a method claim, wherein the preamble states “The method of refueling the system according to claim…” However, each method claim is a single (and first) method claim for its claim branch. Correspondingly, the preambles of Claims 36-38 should each read “A method of refueling the system according
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- The “computing unit”, introduced in Claim 20.
- The “journey planning unit”, introduced in Claim 33
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In the present application, Applicant has presented the claims in a non-numerical fashion. Accordingly, the rejections of this Office Action are presented in terms of claim dependency, and not in numerical order.
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 20-39 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.
Regarding Claims 20-39, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Additionally,
Regarding Claim 20, the claim contains several conditional limitations, to include extensive use of the word “or” and the phrase “and/or”. The use of these conditional terms, combined with the idiomatic language of the claim, makes the scope of the claim unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised of what components would or would not infringe upon the subject matter of the claim.
Examiner draws specific attention to the following phrases/limitations of Claim 20:
“…a computing unit designed for determining whether the thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container corresponds to a desired state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of cryogenic fluid within a desired period of time…”
Here, it is unclear if the claim merely requires cryogenic container pressure to remain below a threshold value, or another scenario. It is additionally unclear who, or what, is “taking into account planned removals of cryogenic fluid within a desired period of time”, and if the person or apparatus that is doing the “taking into account” is required as part of the claim’s scope. Examiner notes that this phrase appears twice in Claim 20.
“…wherein the computing unit is designed for determining data to determine whether further addition of the cryogenic fluid, starting from the thermodynamic state determined by the sensor, achieved the desired state…”
Here, the phrase “determining data to determine” is unclear. Specifically, it is unknown if the claim requires a) the computing unit to determine which variables or parameters are necessary to achieve a desired thermodynamic state, b) the computer unit receives/monitors/obtains/etc. specified data parameters (such as pressure and temperature) and performs calculations to determine whether or not a desired thermodynamic state is achieved, or c) some other action.
“….wherein the system furthermore comprises means for terminating the refueling process and/or displaying said data for terminating the refueling process or for transmitting said data to a filling station…”
Applicant’s intent for this limitation is unclear for at least the following reasons:
- It is unknown if the claim requires two options, where option 1 is “comprising means for terminating the refueling process” and option 2 is “displaying data related to refueling process determination and transmitting said data to the filling station”, or if the phrase “transmitting said data to a filling station” is a separate, third option.
- the previous clause (“determining data to determine”) renders the present clause (“displaying said data…” and “transmitting said data…”) unclear.
- it is unclear what “data” is required for “achieving the desired state” and it is additionally unclear if this same “data” is required for “terminating the fuel process”.
Further regarding Claim 20, in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner has applied best understanding and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (please see the rejection of Claim 20 below for a detailed analysis). However, correction is requested to more accurately convey Applicant’s intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim 36, the claim contains the phrase “optionally detecting the end of standard refueling”. Use of the word “optionally” renders the phrase, and the claim, indefinite.
Regarding Claim 30, the claim contains the limitation: “a display, wherein the computing unit is configured for indicating on the display a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached or that the desired state has been achieved.” As written, Applicant’s intent for the scope of the claim is unclear. Examiner notes that as written, the phrase “indicating on the display a current period of time” could include a clock showing the current local time up to, and after, a desired condition is reached. Clarification is requested.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim contains several “and/or” clauses that render the overall scope of the claim unclear; one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised of what components would or would not infringe upon the subject matter of the claim. Additionally, the claim contains the phrase “an indication that the desired state has been achieved and for transmitting to the filling station”. Here, it is unclear exactly what is transmitted to the filling station, or if a transmission is required (as opposed to an option as the result of an “and/or” clause).
Regarding Claim 33, the claim contains the phrase “so that the pressure in the cryogenic container is not reached until the time of the start of the journey or is reached only for a shortest possible time.” In addition to being a statement of intended use, which is given little patentable weight (see MPEP 2114), Applicant’s intent for this phrase is unclear. It is unknown if Applicant intends for a) the container to maintain sufficient pressure while the vehicle is not used in order to begin the next journey at a specified time, b) the cryogenic container is filled at rate such that the maximum allowable pressure is not achieved until the vehicle is scheduled to start its next journey, or c) some other scenario.
Regarding Claims 21-39, these claims ultimately depend upon Claim 20, and suffer the same deficiencies of Claim 20 in addition to the issues noted above.
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 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 20, 21, 23, 28, 31, 34, 35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manousiouthakis (US 2018/0259127).
Regarding Claim 20, this apparatus claim contains several conditional requirements. Accordingly, Examiner applies the following Broadest Reasonable Interpretations (BRI) to the claim limitations, as shown in the table below. Please see MPEP 2111.04.
Claim limitation
Interpreted as (BRI)
Additional Note(s)
20. (New) A system comprising:
a vehicle;
a cryogenic container mounted on the vehicle;
an ancillary system for filling the cryogenic container with cryogenic fluid, wherein the ancillary system comprises:
a filling line routed into the cryogenic container; and
a filling coupling, wherein the cryogenic container is fillable via the filling line;
No BRI applied for these limitations.
the system further comprising:
a ullage tank; and
at least one sensor in communication with the ullage tank in order to determine a thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid during a refueling process
A sensor to determine a “thermodynamic state” of a cryogenic fluid is interpreted to read “any sensor capable of determining temperature of the cryogenic fluid, pressure within the ullage tank containing the cryogenic fluid, the volume of said ullage tank, or the instant filling level of cryogenic fluid within the ullage tank.
As is commonly known in the art, thermodynamic state variables are properties that define the physical state of a system at a specific moment, including temperature, pressure, volume, and internal energy. This BRI is additionally taken in light of Applicant’s Specification (see at least pg 6, first paragraph).
a computing unit designed for
determining whether the thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container corresponds to a desired state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of cryogenic fluid within a desired period of time,
and/or
determining data to determine whether further addition of the cryogenic fluid, starting from the thermodynamic state determined by the sensor, achieved the desired state,
Examiner’s BRI: a computing unit capable of performing either of these two following actions will read upon the claim.
Action 1: a computing unit (any processor) configured to determine if/when the temperature or pressure of the cryogenic fluid meets a predefined threshold (e.g., a “desired state”).
and/or
Action 2: a computing unit (any processor) configured to determine if/when the temperature or pressure of the cryogenic fluid has not met a predetermined threshold (e.g., a “desired state”).
Examiner concludes from the BRI analysis that any processor configured to monitor temperature and/or pressure, and compare the value to a predefined threshold, will read upon these limitations (Actions 1 and 2).
Such a processor, upon performing the comparison of values, is considered to be capable of “determining” both claimed conditions presented in Actions 1 and 2.
wherein the system furthermore comprises means for
terminating the refueling process
and/or
displaying said data for terminating the refueling process or for transmitting said data to a filling station;
and/or
transferring the cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container into the ullage tank after the refueling process, in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into a state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of the cryogenic fluid within a desired period of time.
Examiner’s BRI: a system capable of performing any one of the following three actions will read upon the claim.
Action 1: any system capable of terminating the refueling process
Action 2: any system capable of
a) displaying information stating that the refueling process has been terminated, or
b) transmitting a refueling process termination command to the filling station.
and/or
Action 3: any system capable of transferring cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container into an ullage tank, while monitoring the temperature, pressure, and/or fill level of the cryogenic container.
Examiner additionally notes that the phrase “in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into a state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of the cryogenic fluid within a desired period of time” is a statement of intended use, and not given patentable weight. Please refer to MPEP 2114.
In the present case, Examiner concludes that any system (to include any processor) that is capable of transferring cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container into an ullage tank, while monitoring the temperature, pressure, and/or fill level of the cryogenic container is configured to achieve this intended use, and therefore reads upon this limitation.
Further regarding Claim 20, in light of Examiner’s BRI as applied above, Examiner provides the following examples of the prior art that read upon the Claim 20 and its dependent claims as interpreted above:
Manousiouthakis discloses a system comprising:
- a vehicle (see at least Claim 21, and Fig 3, vehicle 32);
- a cryogenic container (fuel tank 34) mounted on the vehicle;
- an ancillary system ("hydrogen fuel station, see at least paras 60-61 and Fig 3, Examiner's annotations) for filling the cryogenic container with cryogenic fluid, the ancillary system comprises:
- a filling line (40) routed into the cryogenic container; and
- a filling coupling (at inlet valve 36, per at least para 66), wherein the cryogenic container is fillable via the filling line;
the system further comprising:
- a ullage tank (dumping tank 56); and
- at least one sensor in communication with the ullage tank in order to determine a thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid during a refueling process (the reference teaches "a controller 48 that is capable of sensing temperatures and pressures of the system lines and tanks" at para 61).
- a computing unit designed for determining whether the thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container corresponds to a desired state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of cryogenic fluid within a desired period of time (see at least Claim 7, which claims a controller configured to control operation of gate valves, further comprising a processor configured to dispense and remove fuel "sequentially to maintain fuel temperature within a desired temperature range and until the vehicle fuel tank is filled to a desired level"),
and/or
- the computing unit is designed for determining data to determine whether further addition of the cryogenic fluid, starting from the thermodynamic state determined by the sensor, achieved the desired state (also within the purview of Claim 7. See also Claims 19-20.), and
the system furthermore comprises means for
- terminating the refueling process (see claim 15, wherein "the programming of the controller further comprising: stopping the filling of fuel to the vehicle fuel tank when a temperature inside the vehicle fuel tank reaches a maximum allowable temperature.") and/or
- displaying said data for terminating the refueling process or for transmitting said data to a filling station (since the apparatus of Manousiouthakis features controller 48 capable of sensing pressure and temperature of both station and vehicle tanks, the reference reads on this limitation);
and/or
- the system further comprising means for transferring the cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container into the ullage tank after the refueling process (the apparatus of Manousiouthakis is capable of this, as the reference explicitly teaches "fueling and removing" as shown above), in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into a state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of the cryogenic fluid within a desired period of time (this clause is a statement of intended use, and given little patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114. Regardless, the apparatus of Manousiouthakis is configured to perform these functions).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Manousiouthakis discloses a system wherein the means for terminating comprise a valve (Joule-Thomson valve 46) arranged directly in the filling line for terminating the refueling process (see at least para 61).
Regarding Claim 23, Manousiouthakis discloses a system wherein the valve (46) arranged directly in the filling line (40) or a valve (62) arranged between the ullage tank (56) and the cryogenic container (34) can be brought into an alternative operating state (open or closed, which is the inherent function of a valve) in which the cryogenic container and/or the ullage tank are fillable according to a standard refueling process (see at least para 61).
Regarding Claim 35, Manousiouthakis discloses a method of refueling the system according to claim 21, comprising the steps of: opening the valve (46) arranged in the filling line (40); filling up the cryogenic container (34) via the refuel coupling (36); closing said valve when the desired thermodynamic state in the cryogenic container has been achieved (Claims 21, 12, and 19-20).
Regarding Claim 28, Manousiouthakis discloses a system wherein the sensor connected to the ullage tank comprises a fill level sensor, pressure sensor, temperature sensor projecting into the ullage tank (the reference teaches "a controller 48 that is capable of sensing temperatures and pressures of the system lines and tanks" at para 61. This would necessarily require said sensor to "project" into said ullage tank) or an optical sensor for measuring a transparency of the cryogenic fluid and/or wherein the sensor connected to the ullage tank is located between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container.
Regarding Claim 31, Manousiouthakis discloses a system wherein the means for terminating comprises a transmitter for transmitting data to a filling station, wherein the computing unit is configured for determining a mass required for achieving the desired state, in combination with a required pressure and/or a required temperature, and/or a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached and/or a current mass of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container, in combination with a current pressure in the cryogenic container and/or a current temperature in the cryogenic container, or an indication that the desired state has been achieved and for transmitting to the filling station.
Specifically, the Manousiouthakis reference teaches control of gas flow, filling, and emptying based upon pressure readings of the disclosed tank(s), transmitted to controller 48 (see the rejection of Claim 20 above). Examiner concludes that controller 48 is therefore "configured" to a) terminate filling based on received temperature and pressure data, b) determine a mass required, based on temperature and pressure data as is known to one in the art, and admitted by Applicant as being known at para 16, c) acquire said pressure and temperature readings. Examiner concludes that controller 48 of the Manousiouthakis therefore provides "means" as required by Applicant's Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 34, Manousiouthakis discloses a system wherein the filling station comprises
- a receiver for receiving the data transmitted by said transmitter (since the apparatus of Manousiouthakis features controller 48 capable of sensing pressure and temperature of both station and vehicle tanks, the reference reads on this limitation; a component of controller 48 as shown in the annotated Fig 1 would have a sub-component configured to "receive" data),
- the filling station being designed for
terminating a refueling process depending on the data received (see claim 15, wherein "the programming of the controller further comprising: stopping the filling of fuel to the vehicle fuel tank when a temperature inside the vehicle fuel tank reaches a maximum allowable temperature.")
or, respectively,
for providing cryogenic fluid with a required mass, temperature and pressure in order to establish the thermodynamic state in the cryogenic container (see at least Claim 7, which claims a controller configured to control operation of gate valves, further comprising a processor configured to dispense and remove fuel "sequentially to maintain fuel temperature within a desired temperature range and until the vehicle fuel tank is filled to a desired level").
Regarding Claim 39, Manousiouthakis discloses a system wherein the cryogenic container comprises a hydrogen container or an sLH2 container (see at least para 5, where Manousiouthakis teaches "High pressure fuel tanks may be used in hydrogen powered vehicles to provide fuel to power fuel cells and increase range". The entire invention of Manousiouthakis is drawn to the safe filling of a cryogenic hydrogen fuel tank).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 22, 25, 26, 29, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manousiouthakis.
Regarding Claim 22, Manousiouthakis discloses a system further comprising:
- a valve (either of valves 38, 60, or 62 as shown in Fig 3) arranged between the ullage tank (56) and the cryogenic container (34) for transferring the cryogenic fluid into the ullage tank,
- wherein the valve is configured to be actuated manually or via a computing unit (valve 60 is designated as a "controlled valve" at para 62. Additionally, although the Manousiouthakis reference does not explicitly state whether the valves 38 and/or 60 are manual or computer controlled, Examiner takes Official Notice that both types of valves are extremely well known to the art),
- wherein the valve is a pressure relief valve that opens in a direction of the ullage tank when a transfer pressure above a refueling pressure is present in the cryogenic container (the Manousiouthakis reference teaches an "emptying process" for tank 34 that "guarantees that final mass and pressure of hydrogen inside the vehicle fuel storage tank after the emptying process is greater than the mass and pressure of hydrogen at the end of the fill-up step" at para 50. This is accomplished through the use of valves 38 and 62, as explained at paras 60 and 62. Examiner concludes that valves 38 and 62 therefore act as "pressure relief valves", as claimed by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 25, Manousiouthakis discloses a system wherein a volume of the ullage tank is chosen in relation to a volume of the cryogenic container such that a desired thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid is attained after a pressure equilibrium has been established between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container with the valve between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container, after complete filling with the valve closed, with the desired period of time equating to at least 12 hours, 16 hours, 24 hours, 72 hours, 144 hours or 230 hours.
Specifically, the Manousiouthakis teaches ullage tank 56 as having a volume capacity "ten times greater than" vehicle tank 34 for the purposes of pressure control. Although the Manousiouthakis reference does not explicitly express tank relative size in terms of filling time as claimed by Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice and within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to size the tank(s) to achieve whatever filling time was desired. The Federal Circuit 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 26, Manousiouthakis discloses a system further comprising: at least one further ullage tank and at least one further valve provided between the cryogenic container and the at least one further ullage tank or between the ullage tank and the at least one further ullage tank, wherein the at least one further valve can be opened individually to selectively set a hold time after a refueling process.
Specifically, the Manousiouthakis reference teaches multiple tanks and valves at "Example 2", see paras 70-74. Although the reference does not explicitly teach multiple ullage tanks, Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would simply duplicate the number of ullage tanks taught by Manousiouthakis at either of Figs 3 or 6. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; here the duplication of the ullage tank would have the predictable result of greater system capacity. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 29, Manousiouthakis as modified above teaches a system wherein the computing unit is:
- connected to the valve (60, see para 62) between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container and
- configured to directly actuate the valve between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container, in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into a state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of cryogenic fluid within the desired period of time (Examiner interprets the phrase “in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into a state in which the pressure in the cryogenic container does not reach a predefined threshold value without any removal or taking into account planned removals of cryogenic fluid within the desired period of time” as a statement of intended use, and assigns little patentable weight. Regardless, the apparatus of Manousiouthakis is capable of performing this action. See MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 36, Manousiouthakis as modified above teaches the method of refueling the system according to claim 22, comprising the steps of: closing the valve (Fig 3, either of valves 38 , 60, or 62 arranged between the cryogenic container (34) and the ullage tank (56); filling up the cryogenic container (34) via the refuel coupling according to standard refueling (using "standard" components per at least para 14) and optionally detecting the end of standard refueling; opening said valve.
Regarding Claim 32, Manousiouthakis discloses a system further comprising a further cryogenic container (a duplication of item 34), wherein a further filling line (a duplication of item 40) is connected to the filling line and routed into the further cryogenic container so that both the cryogenic container and the further cryogenic container can be filled up via the filling coupling, with the cryogenic container and the further cryogenic container being connected to their own ullage tank (a duplication of item 56).
As the Manousiouthakis teaches these components, it would be within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to simply duplicate these components, as doing so would have the predictable result of greater capacity. See MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, the phrase "so that both the cryogenic container and the further cryogenic container can be filled up via the filling coupling, with the cryogenic container and the further cryogenic container being connected to their own ullage tank" is a statement of intended use, and given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manousiouthakis, in view of Gustafson (US 5,404,918).
Regarding Claim 24, Manousiouthakis teaches the claimed invention, to include cryogenic container 34 and ullage tank 56. Manousiouthakis additionally teaches at least one valve (38, 62, and 60) in a conduit connecting container 34 and ullage tank 56.
However, Manousiouthakis teaches the two tanks as separate entities, and is therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claim 24, wherein the cryogenic container and the ullage tank are surrounded by a common insulating outer shell, wherein the valve arranged between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container is located within the common insulating outer shell.
However, the court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, Gustafson teaches (Col 2, lines 24-57) a cryogenic container (Fig 1, main storage tank 2) and an ullage tank (secondary or ullage tank 10) surrounded by a common insulating outer shell (jacket 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
716
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Manousiouthakis and Gustafson references each teach pressurized storage of compressed gas. The Gustafson reference additionally teaches a method of having an ullage tank within the vehicle itself, with a design than minimizes the hold time before tank venting becomes to near zero. In light of the Court’s holding as explained above, Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, exercise an obvious design choice and apply the teachings of Gustafson to the disclosure of Manousiouthakis. Doing so would result in a single tank (comprised of the container 34 and ullage tank 56 as disclosed by Manousiouthakis) surrounded by a common insulating outer shell (jacket 4, as taught by Gustasfon), wherein the valve (either of valves 38, 62, or 60, as taught by Manousiouthakis) is arranged between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container and located within the common insulating outer shell (as taught by Gustafson, Col 2, lines 24-57), and achieve the advantageous result of an ullage tank within the vehicle itself, with a design than minimizes the hold time before tank venting becomes to near zero.
Regarding Claim 27, Manousiouthakis teaches the claimed invention, to include cryogenic container 34 and ullage tank 56. Manousiouthakis additionally teaches at least one valve (38, 62, and 60) in a conduit connecting container 34 and ullage tank 56.
However, Manousiouthakis teaches the two tanks as separate entities, and is therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claim 27, wherein between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container, a permanent opening is provided, a cross-sectional area of which does not exceed 100 mm2, or does not exceed 75 mm2, and/or ranges between 2 mm2 and 4 mm2 and/or wherein the cross-sectional area of the opening (V) is at most 25%, at most 10%, at most 5% or at most 2% of the cross-sectional area of the filling line.
However, the court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04).
Additionally, Gustafson teaches (Col 2, lines 24-57) a cryogenic container (Fig 1, main storage tank 2) and an ullage tank (secondary or ullage tank 10) surrounded by a common insulating outer shell (jacket 4). Gustafson also teaches first passage 12 "formed in the bottom of tank 10 to allow flow of liquid cryogen from tank 2 into tank 10", wherein " The passage 12 should have approximately 5 percent of the flow capacity of the fill pipe 8 to allow the main tank 2 to become liquid full without first filling tank 10". See Col 2, line 58 – Col 3, line 2 and Fig. 1).
Examiner notes that Gustafson also teaches (See Col 2, line 58 – Col 3, line 2) “Specific examples of the relative sizes of the fill pipe 8 and passage 12 are a 1/2 inch diameter fill pipe with a 1/16 inch diameter passage or a 3/4 inch diameter fill pipe with a 3/32 inch diameter passage although any suitable relative sizes can be used.” These size ranges, when converted to millimeters, also read upon Applicant’s claim.
The Manousiouthakis and Gustafson references each teach pressurized storage of compressed gas. The Gustafson reference additionally teaches a method of having an ullage tank within the vehicle itself, with a design than minimizes the hold time before tank venting becomes to near zero. In light of the Court’s holding as explained above, Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, exercise an obvious design choice and apply the teachings of Gustafson to the disclosure of Manousiouthakis. Doing so would result in a single tank (comprised of the container 34 and ullage tank 56 as disclosed by Manousiouthakis) wherein between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container, a permanent opening (passage 12, as taught by Gustafson) is provided, said passage having a cross-sectional area of which does not exceed 100 mm2, or does not exceed 75 mm2, and/or ranges between 2 mm2 and 4 mm2 and/or wherein the cross-sectional area of the opening (V) is at most 25%, at most 10%, at most 5% (as taught by Gustafson) or at most 2% of the cross-sectional area of the filling line.
Claims 30 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manousiouthakis, in view of Mary et al. (US 2022/0299169).
Regarding Claim 30, Manousiouthakis teaches a method of refueling the system according to claim 30, comprising the steps of: to include filling up the cryogenic container via the refuel coupling (36), and manually terminating the refueling process when the desired thermodynamic state in the cryogenic container has been achieved (see claim 15, wherein "the programming of the controller further comprising: stopping the filling of fuel to the vehicle fuel tank when a temperature inside the vehicle fuel tank reaches a maximum allowable temperature.").
However, Manousiouthakis is silent on “a display, wherein the computing unit is configured for indicating on the display a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached or that the desired state has been achieved”, as also required by Applicant’s Claim 30.
In the interests of compact prosecution (see the rejection of Claim 30 under 35 USC 112(b) above), Examiner applies BRI to the phrase “the computing unit is configured for indicating on the display a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached or that the desired state has been achieved”, and interprets “a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached or that the desired state has been achieved” as including any information concerning the time remaining for filling of the container.
Examiner additionally notes Manousiouthakis teaches controller 48 that obtains at least pressure and temperature data from both the container and ullage tanks in order to control the filling of said tanks. Given a known volume for the tanks and a desired filling rate, one of ordinary skill in the art could easily calculate the amount of time for the container to be filled, and so derive the time remaining for filling.
Mary et al. teaches a display (Fig 1, display 6), wherein the computing unit is configured for indicating on the display a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached or that the desired state has been achieved (see at least para 144: " the digital display 6 of the electronic device 7 makes it possible to display all of the information of use to the user, such as, for example, pressure and gas volume values, a remainder (in hours and minutes) or other information or data, for example the value of the desired or actual gas flow rate (in L/min or in other units), or the remaining gas (in hours and minutes) may also be represented by a graphic bar").
The Manousiouthakis and Mary references each teach aspects of the filling of a pressurized tank. The Mary reference additionally teaches a user feedback mechanism (e.g., a display of pertinent parameters) to further ensure the safe filling of the pressurized tank. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Mary et al. to the disclosure of Manousiouthakis, and modify the controller 48 of Manousiouthakis to display the pressure of the container and/or ullage tank during the filling process as well as the” current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached or that the desired state has been achieved” (e.g., the amount of time remaining for filling the container), for the obvious advantage of ensuring safe filling of the container.
Regarding Claim 37, Manousiouthakis as modified above teaches the method of refueling the system according to claim 30, comprising the steps of:
- filling up the cryogenic container via the refuel coupling (via Manousiouthakis, valve 36), indicating at least one of said data on the display (Mary et al., see at least para 144, wherein pressure and volume of the gas are among the possible variables displayed), and
- manually terminating the refueling process when the desired thermodynamic state in the cryogenic container has been achieved (Manousiouthakis, see claim 15, wherein "the programming of the controller further comprising: stopping the filling of fuel to the vehicle fuel tank when a temperature inside the vehicle fuel tank reaches a maximum allowable temperature.")
Claims 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manousiouthakis, in view of Wagner et al. (DE 102019005062 A1).
Regarding Claim 33, Manousiouthakis is silent on a system further comprising a journey planning unit in which at least one next route to be driven is stored or can be determined, wherein a time of the start of the journey for this route is stored or can be determined, and the journey planning unit is configured for selecting a desired period of time and a required mass of cryogenic fluid for a given thermodynamic state so that the cryogenic fluid is maximized or will at least be sufficient for reaching a next filling station on the route, and so that the pressure in the cryogenic container is not reached until the time of the start of the journey or is reached only for a shortest possible time.
The phrases “so that the cryogenic fluid is maximized or will at least be sufficient for reaching a next filling station on the route”, and “so that the pressure in the cryogenic container is not reached until the time of the start of the journey or is reached only for a shortest possible time” are statements of intended use, and given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2114.
Wagner et al., however, teaches a system further comprising
- a journey planning unit (the components of car 10, which include "an autonomous driving system 14th, a positioning device 16, an environment detection sensor system 18th, a communication interface 20th, a user interface 22nd and / or a tachograph 24 exhibit", per pg. 5, second paragraph) in which at least one next route to be driven is stored or can be determined (Claim 1, "Determination of at least one route guidance proposal from the starting point to the destination point based on the time interval regulation"),
- wherein a time of the start of the journey for this route is stored or can be determined (pg 6, second paragraph "… a start time, an arrival time and / or at least one stopover or intermediate destination can be specified"), and
- the journey planning unit (10) is configured for selecting a desired period of time and a required mass of cryogenic fluid for a given thermodynamic state so that the cryogenic fluid is maximized or will at least be sufficient for reaching a next filling station on the route (10 utilizes "corresponding data D14", which includes charging time; see Fig 2 and at least pg 3, second paragraph and page 4, sixth paragraph. 10 additionally utilizes data D12, which includes "a charge level or tank filling"; see at least pg 7, first paragraph), and
- so that the pressure in the cryogenic container is not reached until the time of the start of the journey or is reached only for a shortest possible time (See MPEP 2114 and Examiner’s comments about statements of intended use above. Regardless, the Wagner reference provides " An optimization method can optimize a number, a duration and / or a location for required charging or refueling stops, taking into account the criteria mentioned", per at least pg 7, last paragraph; Examiner asserts a reason for the Wagner reference is to avoid running out of energy.).
The Manousiouthakis and Wagner references each teach the filling and utilization of a pressurized tank. The Wagner reference additionally teaches a useful planning tool to ensure the vehicle can arrive to its destination without running out of fuel. 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 the controller 48 (and vehicle) of Manousiouthakis, by adding the components of vehicle 10 of the Wagner reference, as described above, in order to gain the advantages of a useful planning tool to ensure the vehicle can arrive to its destination without running out of fuel.
Regarding Claim 38, Manousiouthakis as modified above teaches a method of refueling the system according to claim 33, comprising the steps of:
- filling up the cryogenic container (Manousiouthakis , 34) via the refuel coupling (Manousiouthakis, 36), transmitting at least one of said data to the filling station (since the apparatus of Manousiouthakis features controller 48 capable of sensing pressure and temperature of both station and vehicle tanks, the reference reads on this limitation),
- terminating the refueling process by the filling station when the desired thermodynamic state in the cryogenic container has been achieved (Manousiouthakis, see claim 15, wherein "the programming of the controller further comprising: stopping the filling of fuel to the vehicle fuel tank when a temperature inside the vehicle fuel tank reaches a maximum allowable temperature.").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examine