DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 24-32), species 3 (Fig. 3 as shown), subspecies A, subspecies 1 in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 1-23, 26, 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, species, or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that claim 26 is withdrawn since it is drawn to species 2 and not to species 3, as the elected species 3 does not vaporize the cryogenic liquid from the storage tank in the pressure building circuit and direct a resulting vapor to a head space of the storage tank when the pressure building valve is opened. Further, claim 30 is withdrawn since it is not drawn the elected species 3 since the elected species 3 does not perform a step of directing cryogenic liquid from the storage tank to the high-pressure storage tank, rather the elected species 3 directs liquid from the pressure building circuit to the high-pressure storage tank.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures should unambiguously show the direction of the fluid through all the lines (at least 118, 116, 132, 134) to provide clarity of the applicant’s invention to the public rather than obfuscation as presently depicted. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 24, 25, 27-29, 31, 32 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 24, the recitation, “the steps of” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the steps”.
In regard to claim 25, the recitation, “the step of opening” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the step” and it is unclear why the recitation is not just --opening--.
In regard to claim 27, the recitation “the steps of directing” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the steps” and it is unclear why the recitation is not just --directing--.
The recitation, “cryogenic liquid from the storage tank” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “cryogenic liquid” and it is unclear if this is the same liquid or other liquid.
In regard to claim 28, the recitation, “a Net Positive Suction Pressure” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already introduced previously and it is unclear if this is the same pressure or not.
The recitation, “a temperature and a pressure” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear if this is the same or other temperature and pressure.
The recitation, “a cryogenic liquid” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear if this is the same liquid or other liquid.
In regard to claim 29, the recitation “the step of opening” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it is unclear why the recitation is not just --opening--.
The recitation “high-pressure storage tank” is indefinite as it is unclear since “high is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no way to determine what pressure level is sufficient to meet the recitation.
In regard to claim 30, the recitation “high-pressure storage tank” is indefinite as it is unclear since “high is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no way to determine what pressure level is sufficient to meet the recitation.
Likewise for the recitation, “high-pressure fluid”.
In regard to claim 31, the recitation, “the high-pressure storage tank” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24, 25, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allidieres (US 2007/0186566). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 24, Allidieres teaches a method for preventing cavitation in a cryogenic liquid transfer system including a storage tank (8a, 8b) and a pump (18) comprising: determining a Net Positive Suction Pressure (para. 10, 22, 23) provided to the pump (18) by measuring a temperature (16) and a pressure (14) of a cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen, para. 3) upstream of the pump (18); and adjusting the Net Positive Suction Pressure (para. 10, 22, 23) to a target Net Positive Suction Pressure (para. 10, “at most as high as the cryogenic fluid saturation pressure plus the inlet pressure drop of the cryogenic pump”) based on the measured temperature and pressure (para. 22, 23).
In regard to claim 25, Allidieres teaches opening a pressure-building valve (12a) of a pressure-building circuit (line thereof) to increase the Net Positive Suction Pressure (via increase in pressure of the tank) provided to the pump (18).
In regard to claim 32, Allidieres teaches that the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen (para. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 24, 25, 27-29, 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennec (US 2024/0360957) in view of Allidieres (US 2007/0186566). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim(s) 24, 27-28, 32, Pennec teaches a method employing a cryogenic liquid transfer system (see whole disclosure) including a storage tank (25) and a pump (9, 10 in 1), the method comprising: directing cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen) from the storage tank (25) to a sump (see 1, inside 2, hereafter simply 1) and submerging the pump (9, 10) in the sump (1); the cryogenic liquid is liquid hydrogen (para. 41); measuring a temperature and a pressure (para. 65 temperature and pressure) of the cryogenic liquid in the sump (1).
Pennec does not explicitly teach determining a Net Positive Suction Pressure provided to the pump by measuring the temperature and the pressure; and adjusting the Net Positive Suction Pressure to a target Net Positive Suction Pressure based on the measured temperature and pressure.
However, it is well known to determine and adjust a net positive suction pressure in order to avoid cavitation at the pump. Allidieres teaches preventing cavitation (para. 11) in a cryogenic liquid hydrogen pump (18) by determining a Net Positive Suction Pressure (para. 10, 22, 23) provided to the pump (18) by measuring a temperature (16) and a pressure (14) of a cryogenic liquid (liquid hydrogen, para. 3) upstream of the pump (18); and adjusting the Net Positive Suction Pressure (para. 10, 22, 23) to a target Net Positive Suction Pressure (para. 10, “at most as high as the cryogenic fluid saturation pressure plus the inlet pressure drop of the cryogenic pump”) based on the measured temperature and pressure (para. 22, 23). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller of Pennec to determine the Net Positive Suction Pressure and to adjust the Net Positive Suction Pressure towards a desired value for the purpose of preventing cavitation and the losses thereof and to determine the Net Positive Suction Pressure by measuring the temperature and the pressure of the sump for the purpose of determining the conditions at the inlet of the pump to accurately predict and prevent cavitation for the submerged pump of Pennec.
In regard to claim 25, Pennec, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25, since Allidieres teaches opening a pressure-building valve (12a) of a pressure-building circuit (line thereof) to increase the Net Positive Suction Pressure provided to the pump (9, 10 of Pennec).
In regard to claim 29, Pennec, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 29, since Allidieres teaches opening a pressure-building valve (12a) of a pressure-building circuit (line thereof), where the pressure-building circuit includes a high-pressure storage tank (22), to increase the Net Positive Suction Pressure provided to the pump (9, 10 of Pennec) by pressurizing the sump (1) with fluid from the high-pressure storage tank (22).
In regard to claim 31, Pennec, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, including, a high-pressure storage tank (22), but does not explicitly teach refilling the high-pressure storage tank (22). However, official notice is taken that refilling is ordinary and routine to permit continued use of the fluid therein. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to refill the high-pressure storage tank (22) of Allidieres for the purpose of ensuring continue operation and use of for pressurizing the storage tank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights