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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 November, 2024, 28 January, 2026, and 19 March, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the hydrogen output form the liquefaction unit during the start-up via the recycle loop”, in lines 16-17, which appears to include a typographical error. It is suggested the claim be amended to - - the hydrogen output from the liquefaction unit during the start-up via the recycle loop - -.
Claim 10 recites “a parahydrogen content of between 80 mole percent (mol%) and 100 mol%)”, in lines 3-4, which appears to include a typographical error. It is suggested the claim be amended to - - a parahydrogen content of between 80 mole percent (mol%) and 100 mol%[[ )]].
Claim 18 recites “a parahydrogen content of between 80 mole percent (mol%) and 100 mol%)”, in lines 3-4, which appears to include a typographical error. It is suggested the claim be amended to - - a parahydrogen content of between 80 mole percent (mol%) and 100 mol%[[ )]].
Claim 18 recites “the at least one storage tank, the at least one storage tank being positioned to output hydrogen stored therein to feed the hydrogen to the conversion unit in response to the feed of hydrogen being at or below a pre-selected threshold”, in lines 9-11, which appears to include an inadvertent repetition of words. It is suggested the claim be amended to - - - - -
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:
“a conversion unit…to convert the parahydrogen to orthohydrogen” in claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. For examination purposes, the “conversion unit” is being interpreted as the structure defined in paragraph 55 of the originally-filed specification and equivalents thereof.
“compression system…to compress the hydrogen for feeding the hydrogen to the conversion unit” in claims 17 and 19. For examination purposes, the “compression system” is being interpreted as the structure defined in paragraph 30 of the originally-filed specification and equivalents thereof.
“liquefaction unit” in claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 18. For examination purposes, the “liquefaction unit” is being interpreted as the structure defined in paragraph 34 of the originally-filed specification and 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "so that the parahydrogen content of the recycled hydrogen recycled to the feed of the liquefaction unit has a parahydrogen content of between 20 mol% parahydrogen and 30 mol% parahydrogen" in lines 9-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a parahydrogen content of the recycled hydrogen.
Claims 2-9 depend from rejected claim 1, and thereby are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the liquefier" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a liquefier.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the conversion unit" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a conversion unit.
Claim 6 depends from rejected claim 5, and thereby is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency.
Claim 6, dependent from claim 5, recites the limitation “ceasing the feeding of the hydrogen stored in the at least one storage tank towards the conversion unit”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which conversion unit the feed of hydrogen is prevented from flowing towards from the at least one storage tank, e.g., the conversion unit set forth by claim 5 or the conversion unit set forth by claim 6. Looking at paragraph 25 of the originally-filed specification, it is evident more than conversion unit may be provided within the embodiments, wherein these conversion units may be operated in series or parallel. From this, it cannot necessarily be determined which conversion unit is necessarily intended to not receive the flow of hydrogen from the storage tank. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted either the conversion unit set forth by claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 10-20 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest “recycling the liquid hydrogen to a feed of the liquefaction unit” (claim 1), “hydrogen output form the liquefaction unit is recyclable to a feed inlet of the liquefaction unit with a parahydrogen content that is between 20 mol% and 30mol%” (claim 10), “the first recycle loop conduit heater positioned to heat liquid hydrogen output from the liquefaction unit to vaporize the liquid hydrogen to gaseous hydrogen, and the first recycle loop heater conduit positioned to feed the gaseous hydrogen to the conversion unit; and a second recycle loop heater positioned to receive hydrogen from the at least one storage tank and heat the hydrogen so the hydrogen output from the at least one storage tank to be fed to the conversion unit is fed to the conversion unit at gaseous hydrogen” (claim 18). Particularly, the prior art fails to provide wherein liquid hydrogen is recycled and/or output from the at least one storage tank, as required by the claimed inventions set forth within claims 1-9 and 18-20. See ODELL (US 2024/0361071 A1 – effectively filed 28 April, 2023), SCHWARTZ (US 2023/0147955 A1 – published 11 May, 2023), THOMAS (US 11,391,511 B1 – published 19 July, 2022), and GAUMER, JR. (US 4,765,813 – published 23 August, 1988), at least. More so, the prior art recognizes including a conversion unit to convert parahydrogen to orthohydrogen within a recycle stream (see ODELL (US 2024/0361071 A1 – effectively filed 28 April, 2023)), but the prior art fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest the particular composition between the spin isomers of the hydrogen to include the parahydrogen content between 20 mol% and 30 mol%, as required by the claimed invention set forth within claims 10-17. As such, absent some teaching, motivation, or suggestion to modify the prior art, prima facie obviousness cannot be established, and the claims include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 6/10/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights