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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4-6 recite, “which is arranged in the gap and which is designed to transfer heat from the process pipe to the protective barrier or vice versa” should read “which is arranged in the gap and which is designed to transfer heat from the process pipe to the protective barrier or from the protective barrier to the process pipe”
Claim 13, lines 2-3 recite, “a heat conduction element for transferring heat from the process tube to the protective barrier or vice versa” should read “a heat conduction element for transferring heat from the process tube to the protective barrier or from the protective barrier to the process pipe”
Claims 2-5, 8-9, and 13 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 10 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claim 11 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
Claim 14 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 15 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
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:
Claim 1, line 4: “heat conduction device” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the present specification, “The heat conduction device 13 is envelope-shaped or ring-shaped and surrounds the process tube 4 (Pg. 14, paragraph 56)”, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 13, lines 2-3: “heat conduction element for transferring heat” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the present specification, “The heat conduction element 35 is cylindrical. The heat conduction element 35 can be pressed into the bore 33. The heat conduction element 35 contacts both the process pipe 4 and the protective barrier 5 and thus serves to transfer heat Q from the process pipe 4 to the protective barrier 5 and vice versa. More than one heat conduction element 35 may be provided (Pg. 17, paragraph 67)”, or equivalents thereof.
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.
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 8-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the gap is gas-filled”, and the claim also recites “in particular filled with helium” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 9, line 3 recites, “a gap” which is unclear to the Examiner if the gap of claim 9, which depends from claim 1, is the same as the gap of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the gaps of claim 1 and 9 to be different gaps. The Examiner recommends making clarifying amendments to differentiate the gaps of claim 1 and 9.
Claim 10, line 2 recites, “the gap” which is unclear to the Examiner as to which of the two previously claimed gaps of claims 1 and 9, from which claim 10 depends, is being referred to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the gap of claim 10 to refer to the gap of claim 9. The Examiner recommends making clarifying amendments to differentiate which of the previously claimed gaps of claim 1 and 9 is being referred to in claim 10.
Claim 11, line 3 recites, “the gap” which is unclear to the Examiner as to which of the two previously claimed gaps of claims 1 and 9, from which claim 11 depends, is being referred to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the gap of claim 11 to refer to the gap of claim 9. The Examiner recommends making clarifying amendments to differentiate which of the previously claimed gaps of claim 1 and 9 is being referred to in claim 11.
Claim 10 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claim 11 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbie (US 20030106325), hereinafter Robbie in view of Cavanaugh (US 20200096394), hereinafter Cavanaugh.
Regarding claim 1, Robbie discloses a cryogen supply system for supplying a consumer with a cryogen (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, paragraph 42, The coaxial transfer tube, as described, is capable of filling the coaxial space with the gaseous phase of the cryogenic liquid contained within the inner tube and is capable of containing the gas in that space without significant leakage to the exterior surface of the outer tube. This feature is measurable, for example, by verifying the pressure increase in the coaxial space subsequent to introducing cryogenic fluid into the inner tube; Further, in addition to structural limitations, claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “for supplying a consumer with a cryogen.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114), comprising a process pipe through which the cryogen can be conducted (Fig. 1, tubular article 30), a protective barrier (Fig. 1, outer tube 44), in which the process pipe is received, a gap, which is provided between the process pipe and the protective barrier, a heat conduction device, which is arranged in the gap and which is designed to transfer heat from the process pipe to the protective barrier or vice versa (Fig. 1, spacers 42; Pg. 3, paragraph 41, A coaxial construction is assembled by placing spacers 42 over permeable tubular article 30, then placing the inner tube with spacers inside an outer tube 44; Further, in addition to structural limitations, claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “which is designed to transfer heat from the process pipe to the protective barrier or vice versa.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114).
However, Robbie does not disclose a temperature sensor arranged outside the protective barrier for detecting a temperature of the cryogen, wherein the temperature sensor is thermally coupled to the heat conduction device.
Cavanaugh teaches a temperature sensor arranged outside the protective barrier for detecting a temperature of the fluid, wherein the temperature sensor is thermally coupled to the heat conduction device (Fig. 1, sensor capsule 206; Fig. 5, clamp 402, aperture 31; Pg. 2, paragraph 19, System 200 includes heat flow sensor capsule 206 that is urged against external surface 116 of pipe 100 by spring 208. The term "capsule" is not intended to imply any particular structure or shape and can thus be formed in a variety of shapes, sizes and configurations. While spring 208 is illustrated, those skilled in the art will appreciate that various techniques can be used to urge sensor capsule 206 into continuous contact with external surface 116. Sensor capsule 206 generally includes one or more temperature sensitive elements, such as resistance temperature devices (RTDs). Sensors within capsule 206 are electrically connected to transmitter circuitry within housing 210, which is configured to obtain one or more temperature measurements from sensor capsule 206 and calculate an estimate of the process fluid temperature based on the measurements from sensor capsule 206, and a reference temperature, such as a temperature measured within housing 210, or otherwise provided to circuitry within housing 210; Pg. 3, paragraph 34, Clamp 402 can be made out of a variety of different materials including, but not limited to, steel, stainless steel, brass, etc.; Pg. 3, paragraph 41, For example, measurement assembly, having a threaded portion that corresponds to threads in measurement assembly aperture 316, is threaded into measurement assembly aperture 316).
Robbie fails to teach a temperature sensor arranged outside the protective barrier for detecting a temperature of the cryogen, wherein the temperature sensor is thermally coupled to the heat conduction device, however Cavanaugh teaches that it is a known method in the art of measuring fluid temperatures within pipes to include a temperature sensor arranged outside the protective barrier for detecting a temperature of the fluid, wherein the temperature sensor is thermally coupled to the heat conduction device. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. measuring fluid temperatures within piping). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbie by Cavanaugh and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of measuring fluid temperatures within piping.
Regarding claim 2, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the heat conduction device is connected to the process pipe and/or the protective barrier in a force-fitting, integral and/or form-fitting manner (Robbie, Pg. 3, paragraph 41, A coaxial construction is assembled by placing spacers 42 over permeable tubular article 30, then placing the inner tube with spacers inside an outer tube 44; Further, the teaching of Robbie at least imply the spacer 42 to be connected to the process pipe and/or the protective barrier in a force-fitting, integral and/or form-fitting manner since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 4, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the heat conduction device is fluid-permeable (Robbie, Fig. 1, holes 49; Pg. 3-4, paragraph 41, Holes 49 are drilled in the spacers to permit the flow of gas along the length of the transfer tube).
Regarding claim 5, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the heat conduction device has recesses which are designed as through holes (Robbie, Fig. 1, holes 49; Pg. 3-4, paragraph 41, Holes 49 are drilled in the spacers to permit the flow of gas along the length of the transfer tube).
Regarding claim 8, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the gap is gas-filled (Robbie, Pg. 3-4, paragraph 41, Holes 49 are drilled in the spacers to permit the flow of gas along the length of the transfer tube; Pg. 4, paragraph 42, The coaxial transfer tube, as described, is capable of filling the coaxial space with the gaseous phase of the cryogenic liquid contained within the inner tube and is capable of containing the gas in that space without significant leakage to the exterior surface of the outer tube. This feature is measurable, for example, by verifying the pressure increase in the coaxial space subsequent to introducing cryogenic fluid into the inner tube; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 13, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the heat conduction device comprises a heat conduction element for transferring heat from the process tube to the protective barrier or vice versa (Fig. 1, spacers 42; Pg. 3, paragraph 41, A coaxial construction is assembled by placing spacers 42 over permeable tubular article 30, then placing the inner tube with spacers inside an outer tube 44; Further, the spacers 42 have the same structure as the claimed heat conduction element and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbie as modified by Cavanaugh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rozga et al. (US 20170328651), hereinafter Rozga.
Regarding claim 3, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Robbie as modified does not disclose wherein the heat conduction device has a slot extending along a radial direction of the heat conduction device and completely breaking through the heat conduction device.
Rozga teaches wherein the heat conduction device has a slot extending along a radial direction of the heat conduction device and completely breaking through the heat conduction device (Fig. 14, dispense heat exchanger 300, slots 320).
Robbie as modified fails to teach wherein the heat conduction device has a slot extending along a radial direction of the heat conduction device and completely breaking through the heat conduction device, however Rozga teaches that it is a known method in the art of fluid pathway heat exchangers to include wherein the heat conduction device has a slot extending along a radial direction of the heat conduction device and completely breaking through the heat conduction device. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing space for additional system components). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbie as modified by Rozga and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing space for additional system components.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbie as modified by Cavanaugh as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wallace (US Patent No. 11,391,487), hereinafter Wallace.
Regarding claim 6, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Robbie as modified does not disclose wherein the recesses are filled with a plastics material at least in part.
Wallace teaches wherein the recesses are filled with a plastics material at least in part (Fig. 13, sorption paper wall/assembly 54, interior air stop member 50, exterior air stop member 52; Col. 5-6, lines 50-57, 62-67, 1-2, and 7-16; An interior star-shaped air stop member 50 made of plastic, metal or other suitable materials surrounds and is hermetically secured and sealed to the exterior surface of the interior fresh air pipe interior end 42. Preferably, air stop member 50 is made of PVC plastic and includes a central cylindrical opening/hole SOH slightly larger than and adapted to receive the interior fresh air pipe 40 and to be secured thereto such as with an adhesive or by welding… Similarly, an exterior star-shaped air stop member 52 made of plastic, metal or other suitable materials surrounds and is hermetically secured and sealed to the exterior surface of the exterior fresh air pipe exterior end 46. Preferably, air stop member 52 is made of PVC plastic and includes a central cylindrical opening/hole SOH slightly larger than and adapted to receive the exterior fresh air pipe 44 and to be secured thereto such as with an adhesive or by welding… A generally cylindrically shaped sorption paper wall/assembly 54 surrounds the cylindrical air permeable screen 48 and extends between the interior air stop member 50 and the exterior air stop member 52. Preferably, the cylindrically shaped sorption paper wall/assembly 54 is pleat shaped. That is, the sorption paper is folded forming longitudinally extending peaks 54P, valleys 54V and flat walls 54W therebetween thereby forming longitudinally extending pleats 56 surrounding the cylindrical air permeable screen 48 and together forming a cylinder).
Robbie as modified fails to teach wherein the recesses are filled with a plastics material at least in part, however Wallace teaches that it is a known method in the art of fluid pathway heat exchangers to include wherein the recesses are filled with a plastics material at least in part. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the flow paths). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbie as modified by Wallace and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the flow paths.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbie as modified by Cavanaugh as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Finsterwalder et al. (DE 102011113239), hereinafter Finsterwalder.
Regarding claim 7, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 5 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Robbie as modified does not disclose wherein the recesses are arranged unevenly spaced from one another in a peripheral direction of the heat conduction device, so that at least one recess-free region is provided between two adjacent recesses.
Finsterwalder wherein the recesses are arranged unevenly spaced from one another in a peripheral direction of the heat conduction device, so that at least one recess-free region is provided between two adjacent recesses (Fig. 7 of Finsterwalder heat exchanger 10 depicts the holes through which second medium 18 flow through to be unevenly spaced from one another in a peripheral direction of the heat conduction device, so that at least one recess-free region is provided between two adjacent recesses).
Robbie as modified fails to teach wherein the recesses are arranged unevenly spaced from one another in a peripheral direction of the heat conduction device, so that at least one recess-free region is provided between two adjacent recesses, however Finsterwalder teaches that it is a known method in the art of fluid pathway heat exchangers to include wherein the recesses are arranged unevenly spaced from one another in a peripheral direction of the heat conduction device, so that at least one recess-free region is provided between two adjacent recesses. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the flow paths). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbie as modified by Finsterwalder and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the flow paths.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbie as modified by Cavanaugh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rebernik (US 20220275910), hereinafter Rebernik.
Regarding claim 9, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Robbie as modified does not disclose further comprising a vacuum envelope in which the protective barrier is accommodated and a gap provided between the protective barrier and the vacuum envelope.
Rebernik teaches further comprising a vacuum envelope in which the protective barrier is accommodated and a gap provided between the protective barrier and the vacuum envelope (Fig. 2, cladding pipe 6, pipeline 5, spacing area 15; Pg. 3, paragraph 33, The pipeline 5 and the cladding pipe 6 are spaced apart from one another within the pipe penetration module 7 so that a spacing area 15 is provided between them. In this spacing area 15, a vacuum exists just like in the intermediate space 16 between the inner tank 2 and the outer container 3 in order to achieve thermal insulation).
Robbie as modified fails to teach a vacuum envelope in which the protective barrier is accommodated and a gap provided between the protective barrier and the vacuum envelope, however Rebernik teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic flow paths to include a vacuum envelope in which the protective barrier is accommodated and a gap provided between the protective barrier and the vacuum envelope. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. achieving thermal insulation (Rebernik, Pg. 3, paragraph 33)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbie as modified by Rebernik and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of achieving thermal insulation (Rebernik, Pg. 3, paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 10, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 9 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the temperature sensor is guided through the vacuum envelope and the gap to the protective barrier (Cavanaugh, Fig. 1, sensor capsule 206; Fig. 5, clamp 402, aperture 31; Pg. 2, paragraph 19, System 200 includes heat flow sensor capsule 206 that is urged against external surface 116 of pipe 100 by spring 208. The term "capsule" is not intended to imply any particular structure or shape and can thus be formed in a variety of shapes, sizes and configurations. While spring 208 is illustrated, those skilled in the art will appreciate that various techniques can be used to urge sensor capsule 206 into continuous contact with external surface 116. Sensor capsule 206 generally includes one or more temperature sensitive elements, such as resistance temperature devices (RTDs). Sensors within capsule 206 are electrically connected to transmitter circuitry within housing 210, which is configured to obtain one or more temperature measurements from sensor capsule 206 and calculate an estimate of the process fluid temperature based on the measurements from sensor capsule 206, and a reference temperature, such as a temperature measured within housing 210, or otherwise provided to circuitry within housing 210; Pg. 3, paragraph 34, Clamp 402 can be made out of a variety of different materials including, but not limited to, steel, stainless steel, brass, etc.; Pg. 3, paragraph 41, For example, measurement assembly, having a threaded portion that corresponds to threads in measurement assembly aperture 316, is threaded into measurement assembly aperture 316). Further, the sensor capsule 206 of Cavanaugh is said to have to be in contact with a external surface of the pipe which corresponds to the protective barrier as claimed and will maintain this arrangement when modified as described herein, resulting in the limitations of claim 10.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbie as modified by Cavanaugh and Rebernik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saecker (US 20230314235), hereinafter Saecker.
Regarding claim 11, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above).
However, Robbie as modified does not disclose further comprising a protective tube in which the temperature sensor is accommodated, wherein the protective tube is led through the vacuum envelope and the gap to the protective barrier.
Saecker a protective tube in which the temperature sensor is accommodated, wherein the protective tube envelopes the entirety of the temperature sensor (Fig. 1, apparatus 3, measuring insert 4, protective tube 5, port 6; Pg. 3, paragraph 40, FIG. 1 shows an arrangement 1 for determining and/or monitoring temperature T of a medium M located in a pipeline 2 and flowing through the pipeline 2 with a flow velocity v. Arrangement 1 includes an apparatus 3 for determining and/or monitoring temperature T and provided in the form of a thermometer having a measuring insert 4, in which a temperature sensor (not shown) is arranged. Measuring insert 4 is arranged in a protective tube 5, which is introduced into the pipeline 2 by means of a port 6 provided on the pipeline 2).
Robbie as modified fails to teach a protective tube in which the temperature sensor is accommodated, wherein the protective tube is led through the vacuum envelope and the gap to the protective barrier, however Saecker teaches that it is a known method in the art of measuring fluid temperatures within pipes to include a protective tube in which the temperature sensor is accommodated, wherein the protective tube envelopes the entirety of the temperature sensor. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. protecting the temperature sensor from thermal interference to improve sensor accuracy). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Robbie as modified by Saecker and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of protecting the temperature sensor from thermal interference to improve sensor accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, Robbie as modified discloses the cryogen supply system according to claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the protective tube is connected to the vacuum envelope in a fluid-tight manner (Saecker, Pg. 3, paragraph 40, FIG. 1 shows an arrangement 1 for determining and/or monitoring temperature T of a medium M located in a pipeline 2 and flowing through the pipeline 2 with a flow velocity v. Arrangement 1 includes an apparatus 3 for determining and/or monitoring temperature T and provided in the form of a thermometer having a measuring insert 4, in which a temperature sensor (not shown) is arranged. Measuring insert 4 is arranged in a protective tube 5, which is introduced into the pipeline 2 by means of a port 6 provided on the pipeline 2; Further, the teachings of Saecker at least imply the connection between the protective tube and the piping, which includes the vacuum envelope as modified herein, to be in a fluid-tight manner as otherwise the fluid would leak out of the pipeline 2 since it has been held it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)). Further, the limitations of claim 12 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, none of the current art of record discloses wherein the heat conduction device comprises a base element which carries the heat conduction element, wherein the thermal conductivity of a material from which the heat conduction element is made is greater than the thermal conductivity of a material from which the base element is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong (KR 20120113037) discloses a similar heat conduction device for use in a coaxial fluid conduit.
Van Der Heide (US 20220268610) discloses a similar protective tube for a temperature sensor used in cryogenic fluid conduits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 April 08th, 2026