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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 09th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 112(b) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed April 10th, 2026. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, lines 2-3: “wherein at least recess is designed as a through hole and at least recess is designed as a blind hole” should read “wherein at least one recess of the recesses is designed as a through hole and at least another recess of the recesses is designed as a blind hole”
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 § 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, 13, and 16-17 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 first gap, which is provided between the process pipe and the protective barrier, a heat conduction device, which is arranged in the first gap and which is designed to transfer heat from the process pipe to the protective barrier or designed to transfer heat from the protective barrier to the process pipe (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 first 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 for transferring heat from the protective barrier to the process tube (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).
Regarding claim 16, 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 first gap is filled with helium (Robbie, Pg. 1, paragraph 13, Such fluids may include nitrogen, helium, hydrogen, argon, neon, and air as well as liquefied petroleum gas or low temperature liquids; 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).
Regarding claim 17, 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-impermeable (Robbie, Pg. 4, paragraph 41, Preferred spacer materials include, but are not limited to, rigid plastics (such as PTFE, Delrin®, nylon, and the like), metals, and open cell foams; Further, the teachings of Robbie which suggest metal can be used as the spacer material at least implies the body of the heat conduction device is fluid-impermeable 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)).
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.
Claims 18-19 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 Lin (CN 215261337), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 18, 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 recesses which are designed as blind holes.
Lin teaches wherein the heat conduction device has recesses which are designed as blind holes (Fig. 1, heat exchanger, main body 1, first blind hole 11; Pg. 3, the first blind hole can improve the surface area of the inner side surface of the metal plate main body, through the second blind hole can improve the surface area of the outer side of the metal plate main body, so as to improve the performance of the heat conducting, at the same time, it can reduce the volume of the heat exchanger).
Robbie as modified fails to teach wherein the heat conduction device has recesses which are designed as blind holes, however Lin teaches that it is a known method in the art of heat conduction devices to include wherein the heat conduction device has recesses which are designed as blind holes. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. increasing the surface area of the heat conducting device to improve heat conducting performance and reducing the volume of the heat exchanger (Lin, Pg. 3)). 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 Lin 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 increasing the surface area of the heat conducting device to improve heat conducting performance and reducing the volume of the heat exchanger (Lin, Pg. 3).
Regarding claim 19, 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 wherein at least recess is designed as a through hole (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).
However, Robbie as modified does not disclose wherein the heat conduction device has recesses wherein at least recess is designed as a blind hole.
Lin teaches wherein the heat conduction device has recesses wherein at least recess is designed as a blind hole (Fig. 1, heat exchanger, main body 1, first blind hole 11; Pg. 3, the first blind hole can improve the surface area of the inner side surface of the metal plate main body, through the second blind hole can improve the surface area of the outer side of the metal plate main body, so as to improve the performance of the heat conducting, at the same time, it can reduce the volume of the heat exchanger).
Robbie as modified fails to teach wherein the heat conduction device has recesses wherein at least recess is designed as a blind hole, however Lin teaches that it is a known method in the art of heat conduction devices to include wherein the heat conduction device has recesses wherein at least recess is designed as a blind hole. This is strong evidence that modifying Robbie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. increasing the surface area of the heat conducting device to improve heat conducting performance and reducing the volume of the heat exchanger (Lin, Pg. 3)). 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 Lin 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 increasing the surface area of the heat conducting device to improve heat conducting performance and reducing the volume of the heat exchanger (Lin, Pg. 3).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 09th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “In the rejection it asserted that "Cavanaugh teaches a temperature sensor arranged outside the protective barrier for detecting a temperature of the fluid." This is incorrect. There is no protective barrier in the system disclosed by Cavanaugh. In the Cavanaugh system, heat flow sensor capsule 206 is in direct contact with the external surface 116 of the process pipe 100. In fact, Cavanaugh takes steps to keep the heat flow sensor capsule 206 in continuous contact with external surface 116 of the process pipe 100. Since Cavanaugh fails to disclose a protective barrier, Cavanaugh does not disclose or suggest a temperature sensor arranged outside a protective barrier. Further, since Cavanaugh fails to disclose a protective barrier and discloses that the heat flow sensor capsule is in direct contact with the process pipe, Cavanaugh does not disclose or suggest a temperature sensor that is thermally coupled to a heat conduction device arranged in a gap between the process pipe and a protective barrier. Even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to contemplate modifying the system of Robbie in light of Cavanaugh's disclosure, the result would be a temperature sensor in continuous contact with the process pipe, i.e., Robbie's inner pipe 30, as taught by Cavanaugh. Such a modification would not result in applicants' claimed invention. In view of the above remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the disclosure of Robbie, taken alone or in combination with the disclosure of Cavanaugh, fails to render applicants' claimed invention. Withdrawal of the rejection is requested.”
However, this argument is not persuasive as pipe 100 of Cavanaugh corresponds to the claimed protective barrier as the pipe 100 of Cavanaugh is not permeable like the claimed process pipe, but impermeable like the claimed protective barrier. Therefore, although the pipe 100 of Cavanaugh does not surround a permeable process pipe, the pipe 100 acts as a protective barrier between the fluid within the pipe 100 and the external environment, therefore, the pipe 100 of Cavanaugh is functionally equivalent to the claimed protective barrier. The Examiner maintains the heat flow sensor capsule 206 in contact with the external surface 116 of the pipe 100 meets the claimed limitation of 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. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7-8 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “As acknowledged in the rejection, Robbie does not disclose that their spacer(s) 42, which the rejection characterizes as heat conduction devices, "has a slot extending along a radial direction of the heat conduction device and completely breaking through the heat conduction device." Regarding this feature, the rejection relies on the disclosure of Rozga et al. Specifically, it argued that "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)." Fig. 14 of Rozga et al. shows a point of dispense heat exchanger 300 comprising a unitary one-piece conduit or tube 302 having a central passageway 310 and a plurality of spaced fluid paths 312 positioned radially outwardly from the central passageway 310. Between each of the several fluid paths 312 are slots 320 which extend inwardly from the periphery 314 towards the central passageway 310 and end short of the central passageway 310. Heating heating elements, e.g., PTC heaters or chips 330, are positioned within these slots. The disclosure of Rozga et al. provides no reason or motivation to modify the spacers 42 of Robbie. The spacers of Robbie are not designed for heating. In fact, the spacers are positioned within a gap designed for insulating, not heating. See, for example, paragraph [0019] of Robbie. One of ordinary skill in the art would not seek to provide slots within the spacers 42 so as to accommodate heating elements as taught by the slots 320 and heating elements 330 of Rozga et al. To do so would be detrimental to the operation of the fluid transfer tube of Robbie. Moreover, the disclosure of Rozga et al. does not overcome the deficiencies in the combined disclosures Robbie and Cavanaugh as discussed above. In view of the above remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the disclosure of Robbie, taken alone or in combination with the disclosures of Cavanaugh and/or Rozga et al., fails to render applicants' claimed invention. Withdrawal of the rejection is requested.”
However, this argument is not persuasive as the Examiner did not suggest including the PTC heaters 330 of Rozga into the slots as modified as described herein. The Examiner only suggest including the slots 330 Rozga into the spacers 42 of Robbie as modified to provide the predictable results of providing space for additional system components. The Examiner leaves it up to a PHOSITA to determine which additional system components would be useful to include into the structure of Robbie as modified (i.e., flow sensors, temperature sensors, pressure sensors, etc.). See the rejection of claim 3 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “As acknowledged in the rejection, "Robbie as modified does not disclose wherein the recesses are filled with a plastics material at least in part." It is noted that the rejection relies holes 49 in the spacers 42 as recesses. The rejection asserts that Wallace discloses recesses at least in part filled with a plastics material. In this regard, the rejection refers to Fig. 13 and the sorption paper wall/assembly 54 shown therein. Wallace discloses that the sorption paper wall conducts heat and water moisture therethrough and is generally impervious to air. Heat and water moisture are exchanged through the sorption paper wall between air traveling through a first passageway and air traveling through a second passageway. See column 2, lines 2-9. The disclosure of Wallace does not provide any suggestion of modifying the fluid transfer tube of Robbie. The transfer tube of Robbie is for flow a cryogenic fluid, not air, let alone air with water moisture. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the Wallace disclosure to modify the fluid transfer tube of Robbie so as to provide a sorption paper wall. Further, the holes 49 in the spacers 42 of the Robbie system are intended to permit the flow of gas along the length of the transfer tube. Filing the holes at least in part with plastic material would be counterproductive to the intended function of holes 49 of the fluid transfer tube of Robbie. Moreover, the disclosure of Wallace does not overcome the deficiencies in the combined disclosures Robbie and Cavanaugh as discussed above. In view of the above remarks, it is respectfully submitted that the disclosure of Robbie, taken alone or in combination with the disclosures of Cavanaugh and/or Wallace, fails to render applicants' claimed invention. Withdrawal of the rejection is requested.”
However, this argument is not persuasive as the modification as described herein to include the interior air stop member 50 and exterior air stop member 52 (which corresponds to “filled with plastics materials at least in part”) of Wallace into the spacer 42 of Robbie as modified is simply a teaching that it is known in the art of fluid pathway heat exchangers, like the sorption paper wall/assembly 54 of Wallace, to include plastics materials in some of the recesses of the heat conducting device to provide the predictable result of achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the flow paths. Further, a PHOSITA would look to Wallace for a suggestion as to how heat transfer characteristics can be modified within the flow paths of heat conduction devices in fluid pathways regardless of what the fluid in the pathway is. Further, the modification is not removing all of the holes 49 of Robbie as modified as the claim only requires “wherein the recesses are filled with a plastics material at least in part”, therefore it is up to a PHOSITA to determine the degree to which the addition of plastics materials in the holes 49 of Robbie as modified is beneficial to achieve desired heat transfer characteristics within the flow paths while maintaining flow through the holes 49. See the rejection of claim 6 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 9-10 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “In the rejection it is asserted that Finsterwalder et al. discloses in Fig. 7 a heat exchanger 10 having holes, through which second medium 18 flows, are unevenly spaced from one another in a peripheral direction. The spacers 42 of Robbie are not designed as heat exchange elements and in fact are positioned within a gap designed to provide insulating properties. Thus, the disclosure of Finsterwalder et al.' s heat exchanger provides no motivation to modify the spacers of the Robbie fluid transfer tube.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the spacer 42 of Robbie as modified is disclosed to be made of metal which means it is designed as a heat exchanger element in at least an embodiment where the spacer is made of metal (Robbie, Pg. 4, paragraph 41, Preferred spacer materials include, but are not limited to, rigid plastics (such as PTFE, Delrin®, nylon, and the like), metals, and open cell foams). Further, a PHOSITA would be motivate to modify Robbie as modified in view of the teachings of Finsterwalder which depict holes that provide flow through a heat conduction device to be spaced unevenly apart provide the predicable results of achieving desired heat transfer characteristics within the flow paths. See the rejection of claim 7 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “The rejection asserts that Rebernik discloses a vacuum envelope in which a protective barrier is accommodated and a gap provided between the protective barrier and the vacuum envelope, citing Fig. 2, cladding pipe 6, pipeline 5, and spacing area 15. However, the Rebemik pipeline 5 is a process pipe, not a protective barrier in which a process pipe is received, as recited in applicants' claims. The disclosure by Rebernik cladding pipe around a process pipeline provides no reason to modify the fluid transfer tube of Robbie since the system of Robbie already has an outer pipe surrounding a process pipe, i.e., the inner tube 30.”
However, this argument is not persuasive as the pipeline 5 of Rebernik corresponds to the claimed protective barrier as the pipeline 5 of Rebernik is not permeable like the claimed process pipe, but impermeable like the claimed protective barrier. Therefore, although the pipeline 5 of Rebernik does not surround a permeable process pipe, the pipeline 5 of Rebernik acts as a protective barrier between the fluid within the pipeline 5 and the external environment, therefore, the pipeline 5 of Rebernik is functionally equivalent to the claimed protective barrier. Therefore, a PHOSITA would be motivated by the teachings of Rebernik to include a vacuum envelope in which the protective barrier is accommodated and a gap provided between the protective barrier and the vacuum envelope to provide the predictable result of achieving thermal insulation (Rebernik, Pg. 3, paragraph 33). See the rejection of claims 9-10 above.
Applicant argues on Pg. 11 (as numbered by Applicant) of the Remarks, “The disclosures of Robbie, Cavanaugh, and Rebernik are discussed above. The rejection assets that Saecker a protective tube in which a temperature sensor is accommodated, and wherein the protective tube is led through a vacuum envelope and a gap to a protective barrier.”
However, this argument is not persuasive as Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-13 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein. See the rejections of new dependent claims 16-19 above.
Conclusion
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 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 September 03rd, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights