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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “characterized in that”. Should replace with “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “for degassing liquid hydrogen circulating in a circuit, the liquid hydrogen being able to be stored in a storage tank” or “for supplying a pump” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the “circuit”, “storage tank” and “pump” are neither positively recited nor required in the claimed invention.
Therefore, the at least claim 1 has been interpreted as follows:
“A device comprising a vertical degassing chamber with which three pipes communicate fluidically, an inlet pipe through which liquid flows to the vertical chamber, the inlet pipe comprising a mouth; a feed pipe to which some of the liquid entering the vertical chamber through the inlet pipe flows; and a return pipe receiving another part of the liquid entering the vertical chamber through the inlet pipe, the device being characterized in that the cross-section of the vertical chamber at the level of the mouth of the inlet pipe for the arrival of the liquid in the vertical chamber is greater than the cross-section of the inlet pipe for the arrival of the liquid at its mouth, in that the ratio between these two cross-sections is greater than or equal to two, and in that a deflector is arranged in the vertical chamber opposite the mouth of the inlet pipe.”
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 1-6 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 circuit comprising” in line 2. It is not clear whether the claims are directed to the “circuit” or the “device” as the claimed invention. To expedited examination, Examiner has interpreted the claims as being directed to the “device”.
Claims 2-6 depend to claim 1; and hence are also rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mouth of the return pipe" and “the mouth of the feed pipe” in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Saint-Vincent et al (US 20180311597; hereinafter Saint).
As regarding claim 1, Saint discloses the claimed invention for a device comprising a vertical degassing chamber (2070, 3080) with which three pipes communicate fluidically, an inlet pipe (figs. 2B and 3; no number) through which liquid flows to the vertical chamber, the inlet pipe comprising a mouth; a feed pipe (about 3150) to which some of the liquid entering the vertical chamber through the inlet pipe flows; and a return pipe (about 3100) receiving another part of the liquid entering the vertical chamber through the inlet pipe, the device being characterized in that the cross-section of the vertical chamber at the level of the mouth of the inlet pipe for the arrival of the liquid in the vertical chamber is greater than the cross-section of the inlet pipe for the arrival of the liquid at its mouth, in that the ratio between these two cross-sections is greater than or equal to two, and in that a deflector (2060, 3060) is arranged in the vertical chamber opposite the mouth of the inlet pipe (fig. 3).
Alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the cross-section of the vertical chamber at the level of the mouth of the inlet pipe for the arrival of the liquid in the vertical chamber is greater than the cross-section of the inlet pipe for the arrival of the liquid at its mouth, in that the ratio between these two cross-sections is greater than or equal to two in order to enhance device performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen ratios or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen ratios are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 2, Saint as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saint as modified discloses the claimed invention for the deflector (2060, 3060) is located in line with the axis (fig. 3; no number) of the liquid inlet pipe in the vertical chamber.
As regarding claim 3, Saint as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saint as modified discloses the claimed invention for the surface area of the deflector (2060, 3060) is greater than the cross-section of the mouth of the liquid inlet pipe in the vertical chamber.
Alternatively, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the surface area of the deflector is greater than the cross-section of the mouth of the liquid inlet pipe in the vertical chamber in order to enhance device performance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (or dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regarding claim 4, Saint as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saint as modified discloses the claimed invention for the mouth of the return pipe into the vertical chamber is arranged at a level of the vertical chamber which is higher than the level at which the mouth of the inlet pipe supplying the liquid into the vertical chamber is located and in that the mouth of the feed pipe supplying the pump in the vertical chamber is arranged at a level of the vertical chamber lower than the level of the mouth of the liquid inlet pipe (fig. 3).
Claim 5 is likewise rejected with similar reasons as set forth respected to claim 1 above.
As regarding claim 6, Saint as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saint as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the velocity of the liquid hydrogen at the mouth of the inlet pipe into the vertical chamber is between 30% and 50% of the velocity of the liquid hydrogen in the inlet pipe. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the velocity of the liquid hydrogen at the mouth of the inlet pipe into the vertical chamber is between 30% and 50% of the velocity of the liquid hydrogen in the inlet pipe in order to enhance device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7-10 are likewise rejected with similar reasons as set forth in claims 1-4 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights