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 .
Response to Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment, filed on 1 May 2026, is acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claims 20-23, 25 and 29-38. Claims 20-39 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: In light of the amended claims, the objections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn. However, the amendments necessitate a new round of objections is presented below.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(b): the amended claims continue to contain numerous instances of indefiniteness and/or uncertainty surrounding Applicant’s intent for the claims, and the related scope thereof. Please see the modified rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 1 May 2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made to the amended claims, as explained in the Section below titled “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art of Manousiouthakis does not teach an “ullage tank located on the vehicle” as now required in the amended Claim 20. Examiner agrees, but asserts that vehicle-borne ullage tanks are extremely well-known, as evidenced below. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use an ullage tank on a vehicle in order to provides a volume for cryogenic fluid to expand into, so that the tank does not become liquid full before reaching the relief valve set point pressure. Doing so increases cryogenic fluid holding times within the tank, reduces the possibility of venting vapor from the cryogen space is to reserve a portion of the cryogen space for vapor when the storage tank is filled, and mitigates explosion risks from over-pressurization. Examiner further asserts that the practice of utilizing ullage has been in wide-spread use prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and examples of the prior art are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 20 contains the following verbiage:
“…a computing unit configured to: determine whether the thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container corresponds to a desired state in which a pressure in the cryogenic container is below a predefined threshold value determine whether further addition of the cryogenic fluid, starting from the thermodynamic state determined by the at least one sensor, achieves the desired state…”
Here, a comma (,) is needed prior to the second instance of the word “determine”. 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.
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 Claim 20, the claim contains the following verbiage with respect to “a computing unit”:
“a computing unit configured to:
determine whether the thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container corresponds to a desired state in which a pressure in the cryogenic container is below a predefined threshold value
determine whether further addition of the cryogenic fluid, starting from the thermodynamic state determined by the at least one sensor, achieves the desired state, and
terminate the refuelling process,
display data for terminating the refuelling process, or
transmit data to a filling station when the further addition of the cryogenic fluid causes the thermodynamic state to be different from the desired state;”
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment to Claim 20 that removed several instances of the phrase “and/or”, as indicated in the previous rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). However, continued presence of the words “and” and “or” in the above amended claim segment continues to render the claim indefinite.
Applicant uses the general term “thermodynamic state” throughout the claim set. 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. Therefore, and in further light of Applicant’s Specification (see at least pg 6, first paragraph), Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the term “thermodynamic state” to mean any condition related to temperature, pressure, volume, or the internal energy of the cryogenic fluid and/or the cryogenic container.
As written, this segment of the claim can be interpreted as (because of the presence of the word “or”):
a) requiring the computer unit to ONLY perform one action, selected from:
1) “determining if the “thermodynamic state” meets a desired threshold”,
2) “determining if adding additional fluid raises the “thermodynamic state” to meet a desired threshold”,
3) “terminating refueling”,
4) “displaying data”,
5) “transmit data” when a condition is met, i.e., (“when the further addition of the cryogenic fluid causes the thermodynamic state to be different from the desired state”)
or,
b) requiring the computer unit to perform steps 1-3 above, and ONLY one of steps 4 or 5.
Additionally, as written, it is unclear (because of the presence of the word “and”) if
a) item 3 above (terminating refueling) is a required part of item 2 (determining if adding additional fluid raises the “thermodynamic state” to meet a desired threshold), and if refueling MUST be terminated after the pressure meets said threshold, or
b) item 3 above is an optional requirement totally separate from item 2, and termination of the refuelling process occurs regardless of said threshold being met or not.
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 and/or clarification is required.
Regarding Claims 21, 23, and 35, Claim 21 contains the phrase/limitation “a valve”. It is unknown if “a valve” of Claim 21 is the same component as “a valve” of antecedent Claim 20. Claims 23 and 35 depend upon 21, and therefore suffer the same deficiencies.
Regarding Claims 30 and 37, Examiner acknowledges the amendment to Claim 30. However, the claim still states “the computing unit is configured to indicate, on the display, a time until the predefined threshold value is reached or that the desired state has been achieved”. The verbiage and grammatical structure of this limitation continues to make the scope of the claim unclear.
As previously indicated, the above verbiage could be interpreted as requiring the computer unit to display a time (such as the local time, the time in another time zone, etc.), and stop displaying that time when one of two conditions are met: either a threshold is reached, or a desired state is achieved.
From Applicant’s disclosure, it appears that Applicant may intend to claim “the computing unit is configured to indicate, on the display, the time remaining until the pressure in the cryogenic container falls below a predefined threshold value, or the time remaining until a desired thermodynamic state is achieved.” However, this cannot be exclusively inferred from the current limitation verbiage. Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 37 depends upon Claim 30, and therefore suffers the same deficiencies.
Regarding Claim 31, Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the claim. However, the scope of the claim remains unclear, and therefore indefinite.
Claim 31 requires, in part (numbers, underscore, bold, and italics added by Examiner for purposes of clarity):
the computing unit is further configured to: determine a mass required for achieving the desired state, in combination with at least one of:
1) a required pressure,
2) a required temperature,
3) a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached,
4) a current mass of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container,
and 5) further in combination with
6) a current pressure in the cryogenic container,
7) a current temperature in the cryogenic container, or
8) an indication that the desired state has been achieved, and
9) transmit to the filling station.
In the above claim segment, Examiner has identified what appears to be optional requirements 1-9. However, it is unclear if Applicant intends to:
a) require the computing unit to determine a mass required for achieving the desired state, in combination with at least one of: any of items 1-8, and perform item 9,
b) require the computing unit to determine a mass required for achieving the desired state, in combination with at least one of: any of items 1-4, and 5) determine a mass required for achieving the desired state, further in combination with ANY ONE OF items 6-8 and perform item 9,
c) require the computing unit to transmit all of items 1-8 to the filling station, or just the items listed in one of the scenarios a) or b) above, or
d) some other configuration and requirement.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Examiner further notes that Applicant’s Specification appears to teach that a “mass” can be ultimately determined through the measurement of the thermodynamic properties of pressure, temperature, and optionally, filling level. However, Claim 31, as currently written does not claim this concept. Instead, Claim 31 appears to require determining a “mass” and one of the nine items listed above.
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 § 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 20, 21, 23, 35, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 36, 28, 32, 34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manousiouthakis (US 2018/0259127), in view of Kooy et al. (US 5,685,159).
Regarding Claim 20, this apparatus claim continues to contain several conditional requirements and language that result in uncertainty with regards to the claim scope (see the rejections above under 35 USC 112(b)).
Accordingly, Examiner applies the following Broadest Reasonable Interpretations (BRI) to the claim limitations, as shown in the table on the following page. Please see MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 20 limitation
Interpreted as (BRI)
Additional Note(s)
20. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
a cryogenic container mounted on a vehicle and configured to be filled with a cryogenic fluid via a filling line routed into the cryogenic container;
an ullage tank located on the vehicle;
No BRI applied for these limitations.
at least one sensor in communication with the ullage tank and configured to determine a thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid during a refuelling process;
A sensor …configured 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 configured to:
determine whether the thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container corresponds to a desired state in which a pressure in the cryogenic container is below a predefined threshold value (Examiner note- comma (,) added here; see Claim objection above),
determine whether further addition of the cryogenic fluid, starting from the thermodynamic state determined by the at least one sensor, achieves the desired state, and
terminate the refuelling process,
display data for terminating the refuelling process, or
transmit data to a filling station when the further addition of the cryogenic fluid causes the thermodynamic state to be different from the desired state; and
Examiner’s BRI: a computing unit capable of performing either of the following five actions will read upon the claim.
Action 1: a computing unit (any processor) configured to determine if/when the pressure of the cryogenic fluid remains below an over-pressure situation (e.g., a “desired state”).
and/or
Action 2: a computing unit (any processor) configured to determine if adding additional fluid raises either the pressure or temperature to meet a desired threshold. Examiner further interprets this phrase as simply filling a cryogenic container to a point where either a desired volumetric, temperature, or pressure level is achieved, since doing so will meet the above temperature and/or pressure criteria.
and/or
Action 3: a computing unit (any processor) configured to terminate refueling of the cryogenic container.
and/or
Action 4: a computing unit (any processor) configured to any data related to terminating the refueling process. Examiner further interprets this phrase as simply displaying either filling level, temperature, and/or pressure, as the achievement of either of these parameters would necessitate termination of refueling the cryogenic container.
and/or
Action 5: a computing unit (any processor) configured to transmit filling level, temperature, and/or pressure data to a corresponding processor located within the filling station, to include the station’s pump.
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).
Applicant uses the term “desired state” throughout the disclosure, but never teaches what the “desired state” is in the Specification. The only definition of the term “desired state” appears to be in Claim 20, wherein a “desired state” is interpreted as being a state in which the tank is not over-pressurized.
Such a processor as described above, upon performing the comparison of values, is considered to be capable of “determining” both claimed conditions presented in Actions 1 and 2.
a valve connecting the cryogenic container to the ullage tank and configured to allow flow of the cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container into the ullage tank after the refuelling process, in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into the desired state.
Examiner’s BRI:
a valve connecting the cryogenic container to the ullage tank. Examiner asserts that, in the art, such valves are known and provide pressure relief support before, during, and after the refueling process, and therefore meet the criteria of the claim.
Examiner additionally notes that the phrase “in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into the desired state” 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 cryogenic container (Fig 3, fuel tank 34) mounted on a vehicle and configured to be filled with a cryogenic fluid via a filling line (para 60, input line 40) routed into the cryogenic container;
- a computing unit (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". See also Claims 19-20) configured to (per Examiner’s BRI above, a computing unit capable of performing at least one of the following actions reads upon the claim):
- determine whether the thermodynamic state of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container corresponds to a desired state in which a pressure in the cryogenic container is below a predefined threshold value (Claims 7, 15, 19, and 20),
- determine whether further addition of the cryogenic fluid, starting from the thermodynamic state determined by the at least one sensor, achieves the desired state (Claims 7, 15, 19, and 20), and
- terminate the refuelling 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."),
display data for terminating the refuelling process, or
- transmit data to a filling station when the further addition of the cryogenic fluid causes the thermodynamic state to be different from the desired state (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).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 20, Manousiouthakis additionally teaches
- the use of an ullage tank (dumping tank 56),
- 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), and
- a valve (controlled inlet on/off valve 60, see para 62) connecting the cryogenic container to the ullage tank and configured to allow flow of the cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container into the ullage tank after the refuelling process, in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into the desired state.
Examiner notes that Manousiouthakis additionally teaches, in several embodiments of the invention, controllers “operably coupled to all of the valves and sensors of the entire fueling system”, to include valves used to empty “the vehicle storage tank into the fueling station dumping tank until the temperature of the fuel inside the vehicle storage tank reaches a low temperature limit”. See at least paras 16, 87, 106 and 118, and Claims 21-22.
Examiner acknowledges that Manousiouthakis teaches the ullage tank as part of a separate apparatus (a filling station), and is therefore silent on said ullage tank being located on the vehicle, as required in Applicant’s Claim 1.
However, vehicle-borne ullage tanks are extremely well-known, as taught by Kooy et al, who teaches:
- an ullage tank (Fig 1 auxiliary tank 30) located on the vehicle (utility for a vehicle taught at Col 1, line 11);
- at least one sensor (pressure switch 23) in communication with the ullage tank (See Fig 2 and Col 4, lines 29-40) and configured to determine a thermodynamic state (filling level) of the cryogenic fluid during a refuelling process (“capillary tube 60 will control flow of fluid to auxiliary tank 30 by restricting it to such a degree as to apply a back pressure to receiving means 12 and pressure switch 23 which will shut off flow from source 18, resulting in main tank 10 being filled to capacity and auxiliary tank 30 being substantially empty.”);
- a valve (36) connecting the cryogenic container to the ullage tank and configured to allow flow of the cryogenic fluid from the cryogenic container into the ullage tank after the refuelling process, in order to bring the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container into the desired state (see Figs 1-2 and Col 3, lines 34-44: “A valve 36 is positioned between conduits 32 and 34 to selectively control the flow of fluid, either liquid or vapor, between main tank 10 and auxiliary tank 30.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use an ullage tank on a vehicle in order to provides a volume for cryogenic fluid to expand into, so that the tank does not become liquid full before reaching the relief valve set point pressure. Doing so increases cryogenic fluid holding times within the tank, while preventing tank over-pressurization. Examiner further asserts that this practice has been in wide-spread use prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention (Kooy teaches ullage guidelines within the 1990 edition of the National Fire Protection Association, Inc. Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (NFPA 59A); see Col 1, lines 22-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the ullage tank structure of Kooy et al. to the generic cryogen tank of Manousiouthakis in order to gain the advantages of increasing cryogenic fluid holding times within the tank, while preventing tank over-pressurization.
Examiner further concludes it would also have been obvious to utilize the controller of Manousiouthakis, which is capable of controlling the valve(s) responsible for controlling flow into and out of the ullage tank on this vehicle-borne combination as also taught by Kooy et al. Doing so would have the obvious advantage of local control of the vehicle’s subsystems, to include the combined tank(s).
Regarding Claim 21, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches a system wherein the means for terminating comprise a valve (Manousiouthakis, Joule-Thomson valve 46) arranged directly in the filling line for terminating the refueling process (Manousiouthakis, see at least para 61).
Regarding Claim 23, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches a system wherein the valve (Manousiouthakis, 46) arranged directly in the filling line (40) or a valve (Kooy, 36) arranged between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container (see at least Figs 1-2) can be brought into an alternative operating state (open or closed, which is the inherent function of a valve, and taught by Kooy at least at Col 3, lines 33-44) in which the cryogenic container and/or the ullage tank are fillable according to a standard refueling process (see at least Manousiouthakis, para 61 and/or Kooy at least at Col 3, lines 33-44).
Regarding Claim 35, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches a method of refueling the system according to claim 21, comprising the steps of (see Manousiouthakis): 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 22, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches the system according to claim 20,
- wherein the valve is configured to be actuated manually or via a computing unit (Kooy et al., Col 3, lines 61-63: “Once main tank 10 is filled to capacity and coupling 20 is disengaged from coupling 14, valve 36 is opened either manually or automatically, and auxiliary tank 30 operates at the same pressure as main tank 10.”, and Col 4, lines 6-12: “When shut-off coupling 14 is engaged, solenoid valve 36 will close because an interlock sensor 50 will sense the coupling and send an activating electrical current to close valve 36”),
- wherein the valve is a pressure relief valve that opens in a direction of the ullage tank when a transfer pressure above a refuelling pressure is present in the cryogenic container (Col 3, lines 35-44: “valve 36 is positioned between conduits 32 and 34 to selectively control the flow of fluid, either liquid or vapor, between main tank 10 and auxiliary tank 30…. It is desirable that neither pressure relief valve 24 and 40 ever be necessary since most of the vaporized tank contents are retained in auxiliary tank 30 and may be recovered through optional vapor conduit 42”).
Regarding Claim 24, Manousiouthakis as modified above teaches the system according to claim 22, wherein the cryogenic container (Kooy et al., main tank 10) and the ullage tank (Kooy et al., ullage tank 30) 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.
Specifically, the Kooy reference teaches teaches the ullage tank 30 as being a part of the cryogenic container 10 (see Fig 3 and Col 4, lines 58-65, wherein the “more compact” embodiment of Fig 3 is filled in the same manner as the embodiment of Figs 1-2). Kooy et al. additionally teaches main tank 10 as being “preferably double-walled or insulated or both to reduce the rate of temperature rise of the stored liquid product” at Col 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding Claim 25, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches 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, as modified above, teaches 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, and the entire invention of Kooy et al. is drawn to the utilization of an ullage tank. Although the references do 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 the above combination of Manousiouthakis and Kooy. 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 the system according to claim 22, wherein the computing unit (the controller of Manousiouthakis as defined by at least Claims 21-22, and modified to be on-board and controlling the on-board vehicle tank and ullage tank combination as described in the rejection of Claim 20 above) is connected to the valve (Kooy et al., 36) between the ullage tank (Kooy et al., 30) and the cryogenic container (Manousiouthakis, 34 and/or Kooy et al. 10) and configured to directly actuate the valve between the ullage tank and the cryogenic container (Manousiouthakis, Claims 21-22, see the rejection of Claim 20 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 cryogenic fluid within a 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 a desired period of time” as a statement of intended use, and assigns little patentable weight. Regardless, the modified apparatus of Manousiouthakis as described above is capable of performing this action. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 36, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches a method of refuelling the system according to claim 22, comprising steps of: closing the valve (Kooy et al., 36) arranged between the cryogenic container (Kooy et al.,10) and the ullage tank (Kooy et al., 30); filling up the cryogenic container (10) via a refuel coupling according to standard refuelling and detecting an end of standard refuelling; opening said valve (36). Examiner notes this would be done via the modified controller described in the rejection of Claim 20 above.
Regarding Claim 28, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches 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 Manousiouthakis 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 32, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches a system further comprising a further cryogenic container (a duplication of Manousiouthakis, 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 Kooy et al., item 30).
Regarding Claim 34, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches a system wherein the filling station comprises
- a receiver for receiving the data transmitted by a 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 Manousiouthakis , 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 (Manousiouthakis, 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, as modified above, teaches 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 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manousiouthakis as modified by Kooy et al. above, and in further view of Gustafson (US 5,404,918).
Regarding Claim 27, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, teaches the system according to claim 20, wherein, between the ullage tank (Kooy et al., 30) and the cryogenic container (Kooy et al. 10), a permanent opening (conduit 32) is provided (Figs 1-2)
However, neither the Manousiouthakis nor the Kooy references provide detail as to the dimensions of the permanent opening, and therefore does not explicitly teach 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 as claimed by Applicant at Claim 27.
However, 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
602
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, Kooy, 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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the permanent opening provided by Kooy’s conduit 32 to the range of dimensions as taught by Gustafson, in order to gain the advantages of minimizing the hold time before tank venting becomes to near zero.
Claims 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manousiouthakis as modified by Kooy et al. above, and in further view of Mary et al. (US 2022/0299169).
Regarding Claim 30, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, 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 as modified above 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 to indicate, on the display, a 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 to indicate, on the display, a 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, Kooy, 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 modified teachings of Manousiouthakis, and further 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 a 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 as modified by Kooy et al. above, and in further view of Wagner et al. (DE 102019005062 A1).
Regarding Claim 33, Manousiouthakis, as modified above, 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.
The phrase “so that the cryogenic fluid is maximized or will at least be sufficient for reaching a next filling station on the route” is a statement 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
Examiner further notes that 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, Kooy, 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 further 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.").
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manousiouthakis as modified by Kooy et al. above, and in further views of Umayahara (US 2010/0253529) and Mathison et al. (US 2011/0259469).
Regarding Claim 31, this apparatus claim continues to contain several conditional requirements and language that result in uncertainty with regards to the claim scope (see the rejections above under 35 USC 112(b)).
Accordingly, Examiner applies the following Broadest Reasonable Interpretations (BRI) to the claim limitations, as shown in the table on the following page. Please see MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 31 limitation
Interpreted as (BRI)
Additional Note(s)
31. (Currently Amended) The system according to claim 20,
further comprising a transmitter for transmitting data to a filling station,
No BRI applied for this limitation.
wherein the computing unit is further configured to:
determine a mass required for achieving the desired state, in combination with at least one of:
a required pressure,
a required temperature,
a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached,
a current mass of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container,
Examiner’s BRI: a computing unit capable of determining or calculating mass based on the measurement of temperature or pressure will read upon the claim.
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 mass, temperature, pressure, volume, and internal energy. Mass of a fluid within a container can therefore be calculated through the measurement of at least pressure and temperature via the well-known real gas equation.
This BRI is additionally taken in light of Applicant’s published Specification (see at least para 15).
“a desired fill state” remains interpreted as being a state in which the tank is not over-pressurized. See the interpretation of Claim 20 above.
Therefore, any computing unit described above is configured to “determine a mass required for achieving the desired state”.
and further in combination with a current pressure in the cryogenic container,
a current temperature in the cryogenic container, or
an indication that the desired state has been achieved, and
transmit to the filling station.
Examiner’s BRI: any system or sensor that provides instant monitoring of pressure, temperature, or fill level will read upon the claim.
Examiner’s BRI: any teaching of transmission of pressure, temperature, or fill level data from the cryogenic container to any component of the filling station will read upon the claim.
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
Further regarding Claim 31, Manousiouthakis as modified above teaches the claimed system, to include a cryogenic container, valves, the general capability of sensing “temperatures and pressures of the system lines and tanks”, and the avoidance of tank over-pressurization. See the rejection of Claim 20 above, and at least para 61. However, the Manousiouthakis and Kooy references do not explicitly teach the elements of Claim 31, which are drawn to (as interpreted by Examiner above) calculating mass based on currently sensed pressure and temperature parameters, and transmitting tank data to the filling station.
Regardless, the calculation of mass using temperature and pressure measurements is a well-known procedure, and the result of basic physics concepts embodied by the real gas law. Umayahara, for example, teaches measuring temperature and pressure of hydrogen tank 10 via sensors 12 and 14, calculating mass via mass computation module 112. Please see para 33 and Fig 1.
The transmission of tank data, to include pressure and temperature, is also well-known to art. Mathison et al. teaches (see at least para 34) “communication refueling has been developed, where temperature and pressure information is directly transmitted to the hydrogen tank filling station via one or more communication device(s) including, for example, the Infrared Data Association (IRDA) interface detailed in SAE TIR J2799.” The Mathison reference additionally teaches (see para 120) “Once the initial conditions have been determined, the station can calculate how much mass must be added to the tank to reach the target density of 100% SOC. If the station has an accurate flow meter, it can simply integrate the mass flow during the fill and stop when the target mass has been achieved.” Examiner further notes that the standardized teachings of SAE TIR J2799 are incorporated into the Mathison reference, per para 34.
The Manousiouthakis, Kooy, Umayahara, Mathison references all teach the filling of cryogenic tanks to maximum levels without over-pressurizing the tanks. The Umayahara reference teaches calculating mass from measured temperature and pressure parameters using basic physics equations, while the Mathison reference teaches an international standard for performing hydrogen filling wherein the filling station uses these parameters, transmitted from sensors on the tanks themselves, to control the filling of the tanks in a manner that avoids over-pressurization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the modified tanks of the Manousiouthakis and Kooy references incorporated temperature and pressure sensors (12 and 14, as taught by Umayahara) capable of transmitting data (as taught by Mathison et al)., to a mass computation module 112 (as taught by Umayahara) to calculate how much mass must be added to the tank to reach the target density of 100% state of charge (SOC), as taught by Mathison, without over-pressurizing the tank. Doing so would provide the obvious advantage of avoiding tank over-pressurization.
Further regarding Claim 31, therefore, the above combination teaches the system according to claim 20, further comprising a transmitter for transmitting data to a filling station (Mathison et al., paras 34 and 120), wherein the computing unit (of Manousiouthakis, as further modified by Umayahara above), is further configured to:
- determine a mass required for achieving the desired state (via the mass computation module 112 of Umayahara), in combination with at least one of:
- a required pressure, a required temperature (item 112 of Umayahara utilizes these parameters)
- a current period of time until the predefined threshold value is reached, a current mass of the cryogenic fluid in the cryogenic container,
and further in combination with a current pressure in the cryogenic container (provided by Umayahara, pressure sensor 14),
- a current temperature in the cryogenic container (provided by Umayahara, temperature sensor 12), or
- an indication that the desired state has been achieved, and
- transmit to the filling station (via the protocol of Mathison et al., paras 34 and 120).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- US 20070068176 A1 teaches many aspects of the independent claim, to include a cryogenic container, integrated ullage tank, and related sensing equipment.
- US 20140223992 A1 teaches calculating mass from pressure and temperature readings.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights