DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed February 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
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. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0211684 A1 to OSCOMP HOLDINGS INC., (hereinafter Oscomp).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Oscomp teaches a defueling system and method (600a; Fig. 6a) comprising a compressor inlet (see compressor 613; an inlet is an inherent property of a compressor); a defuel inlet (see the end of the line connected to 622, connecting 622 and valves 688 & 689; an inlet is an inherent property of a fluid line) for connecting to and defueling a pressurized fuel source (622 Fig. 6a; para [0287]: “The mobile vessel 622 contains compressed gaseous fuel") having a pressure (vessel 622 contains compressed fluid, thus it inherently has a pressure); a heat exchange system (653,152, 153); Fig. 6a; para [0343}: “[a]s shown in FIG. 6a, an unload controller 694 may operatively connect to the various components involved in unloading (e.g., ... heater 653, 153, 152 ...")) connected to the defuel inlet (see that 613 is connected to the end of line that is connected to 622 is also connected to 653 through 689 and 613 Fig. 6a), wherein the heat exchange system comprises a plurality of staged heat exchangers (see [0228] where heat exchangers 152 and 153 comprise both active refrigeration and passive refrigeration; i.e., two stages of heat exchange) and is configured to prevent freezing from rapid depressurization during defueling (para [0313]: "the heater 152, 153 (e.g., heat exchangers, boilers, etc.) may heat the gas either upstream from or downstream from the pressure regulator 136. Heating the upstream gas may advantageously increase the minimum temperature of the gas, thereby possibly avoiding cryo temperatures anywhere in the flow path"); a pressure regulator (684, 136; Fig. 6a; para (0343): "[as shown in FIG. 6a, an unload controller 694 may operatively connect to the various components involved in unloading (e.g., ... pressure/temperature regulator 136, 684"), a defueling storage tank (143 in Fig. 6C, wherein 143 is part of 130 as shown in box 130b in Fig. 1a and wherein 630 in Fig. 6a is a supply line to connect 600a to a user site 130; para (0343): "the supply line 630 of the user site 130") having a pressure Spsi for storing defueled fuel from the pressurized fuel source (para [0299]: "top-off a back-up fuel vessel 143 from a lower pressure vessel 122, 142 of a mobile transport system 120" - wherein 122 is interchangeable with 622 - para [0287]: “at least one (e.g., multiple) mobile vessel 622 (e.g., also see 122 in FIG. 1 a)" and since 143 is filled with fuel from 122, it inherently has a pressure), wherein the pressure regulator is configured to depressurize a compressed gas (para [0287]: "The mobile vessel 622 contains compressed gaseous fuel") being defueled from the pressurized fuel source (para [0283]: "The P/T regulation system 136, 684 may include pressure regulation valves, ... Pressure control valves can be arranged in series to allow a smaller pressure drop per valve" – see that compressed gas from 622 has to pass 684 to get to 630, and thus will be depressurized as it passes 684), and wherein the defueling system comprises either a refueling outlet (see switching valve Fig. 6d) configured to refuel a fuel demand source (END USER Fig. 6d) with defueled fuel, a defuel storage for storing defueled fuel, or both.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Oscomp further teaches wherein the heat exchange system comprises from 2-3 heat exchange components (653, 152-153 as taught in para [0343]: "[a]s shown in FIG. 6a, an unload controller 694 may operatively connect to the various components involved in unloading (e.g., ... heater 653, 153, 152 ...").
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Oscomp further teaches wherein the heat exchange system comprises 3 heat exchange components (653, 152-153 as taught in para [0343]: "[a]s shown in FIG. 6a, an unload controller 694 may operatively connect to the various components involved in unloading (e.g., ... heater 653, 153, 152 ...").
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Oscomp further teaches wherein the defueling system uses a same line for refueling and defueling (para [0083]: "[t]he same type of oversized hoses ... may be used at any other connection point between two components in any of the disclosed embodiments to improve flow through those connections (e.g., ... between the vessel(s) 122, 142 and the user site 130) according to various embodiments").
Regarding claim 6, Oscomp further teaches wherein the defueling system is configured to pressurize fuel being refueled to the fuel demand source from the defueling storage tank or a defueled vessel (para [0301]: “[a] steeple cylinder may be used to compress lower pressure gas to a higher pressure (e.g., 3600 psig) for injection into the stationary storage vessel 143” and thus the fuel will be pressurized prior to being refueled to END USER as shown in Fig. 6D).
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.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oscomp.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Oscomp teaches the defueling system of claim 1 and method of claim 12 (see above). Oscomp does not specifically teach wherein the pressure regulator reduces the pressure from about 4500psi to about 250psi. However, Oscomp teaches wherein the pressure regulator reduces the pressure from about 3600 psi to about 250 psi (the vessel 122, 142 are originally at 3600 psi and the final pressure in vessel 143 is 250 psig after the gas passes through pressure regulator 684 in Fig. 6a; para [0071]: “pressure of the vessel 122, 142 (e.g., 3600 psi)” - wherein 122 is interchangeable with 622 - para [0287]: "at least one (e.g., multiple) mobile vessel 622 (e.g., also see 122 in FIG. 1 a)" - and para [0380]: "vessels 143, the vessels' pressures may range from 250 to 6000 psig") and Oscomp further teaches another vessel 141 at 4500psi (para [0069): "a pressure in the vessel 141 is at least 1000, 1250, 1500, 2000, 2400, 3000, 3600, 3800, 4000, 4500, and/or 5000 psig") and wherein vessels 141, 122, and 142 could be the same (para [0138]: "the storage vessels 141, 143 and 122, 142 used may be the same" - and thus vessels 122, 142 can withstand pressure higher than 3600 psi). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have brought up the pressure in vessels 122, 142 to 4500psi in order to allow for greater pressure difference between vessels 122, 142 and 143 to increase the transfer flow rate of gas.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,619,351 (the ‘351 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-11 are recited by or inherent to claims 1-25 of the ‘352 patent. Therefore, in making or using the invention of the ‘351 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would also make or use the invention of claims 1-11. The claim limitations of claims 1-11 use the same terminology and similar arrangement to claims 1-25 of the ‘352 patent, so detailed claim mapping of the limitations of claims 1-11 to the claims of the ‘352 patent is not necessary.
Claims 1-12 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,235 (the ‘235 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-12 and 18-20 are recited by or inherent to claims 1-20 of the ‘235 patent. Therefore, in making or using the invention of the ‘235 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would also make or use the invention of claims 1-12 and 18-20. The claim limitations of claims 1-12 and 18-20 use the same terminology and similar arrangement to claims 1-20 of the ‘235 patent, so detailed claim mapping of the limitations of claims 1-12 and 18-20 to the claims of the ‘235 patent is not necessary.
Claims 13-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of the ‘235 patent in view of Oscomp. Regarding claims 13-16, all of the limitations are disclosed by or obvious in view of Oscomp (see the rejections of claims 13-16 in view of Oscomp above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of claim 17 of the ‘235 patent to include the limitations of claims 13-16 as taught by Oscomp to reduce the likelihood of freezing and to increase the transfer flow rate of the gas as set forth above.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of the ‘235 patent in view of claim 21 of the ‘351 patent. Claim 17 recites the same limitations as claim 12 of the ‘235 patent except for the heat exchange system comprises: a manifold regulator comprising an antifreeze tank and an antifreeze heater; a pump; and the pressure regulator comprising a plurality of pressure changing valves. Claim 21 of the ‘351 patent recites the heat exchange system comprises: a manifold regulator (claim 1) comprising an antifreeze tank (glycol tank) and an antifreeze heater (glycol heater); a pump (claim 1); and the pressure regulator comprising a plurality of pressure changing valves (claim 1) to help prevent freezing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the heat exchange system of claim 21 of the ‘351 patent into the method of claim 12 of the ‘235 patent to help prevent freezing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's argument that heat exchangers 653, 152 and 153 are alternative embodiments of the same heater/heat exchanger rather than 3 separate heat exchangers used in combination is not persuasive. Paragraph [0313] clearly sets forth that both heat exchangers 152 and 153 are used together (this is also clearly shown in the figures). Additionally, paragraph [0343] sets forth that heat exchanger 653 can also be used in combination with heat exchangers 152 and 153. Therefore, Oscomp clearly discloses the system having a plurality of heat exchangers (152 and 153) and shows at least one embodiment where 3 heat exchangers are used (where 152, 153 and 653 are used in combination and all three "heaters" are formed as "heat exchangers"). Further, as set forth above, at least heat exchangers 152 and 153 can be configured as staged heat exchangers (see [0228]) and given the placements of the 3 different heat exchangers in the system, the heat exchangers prevent freezing during rapid depressurization (the purpose of the heat exchangers is to prevent freezing; [0313]). Further, Applicant’s argument that Oscomp does not discloses “same line” is not persuasive because the phrase “same line” is broad enough to include two separate lines of the same type rather than a single performing both functions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached on 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights