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 .
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) 1-8 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 1, the recitation, “synergistically driven” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure is required by the recitation.
The recitation, “a cascaded cryogenic and high-pressure vessel group” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure is required by the term “cascaded” and it is unclear what pressure level is required of the relative and patently indistinct term “high”.
The recitation, “of identical structures” is indefinite since it is unclear what “structures” encompasses. It is unclear if the vessels must have the same construction or the same affiliated components (valves, sensors), or if some other structure is included and it is unclear if the recitation
The recitation, “each cryogenic and high pressure vessel is equipped” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the cryogenic and high pressure vessels--.
The recitation, “, additionally, an in-tank heat exchanger (15) is installed inside the cryogenic and high-pressure vessel (6)” is indefinite for reciting the structure as a step in a system claim and referencing merely one vessel creating ambiguity and it is not clear why the recitation is not --, and an in-tank heat exchanger inside each of the cryogenic and high-pressure vessels--.
The recitation, “each input pipeline is connected” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the input pipelines are connected--.
The recitation, “each output pipeline is connected” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the output pipelines are connected--.
The recitation, “to the output main pipe” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “each return pipeline is connected” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the return pipelines are connected--.
The recitation, “each in-tank heat exchanger (15) is connected” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the in-tank heat exchangers are connected--.
The recitation, “the other end” (line 15) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the inlet” (line 17) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the other end” (line 18) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “a bypass of second three-way valve (12)” is indefinite for since the disclosed line does not bypass the second three-way valve and the recitation is unclear since the plain language meaning of the recitation includes that the second three-way valve is bypassed by the recited bypass and this is not consistent with the disclosed structure.
The recitation, “a bypass of the first three-way valve (11)” is indefinite for since the disclosed line does not bypass the first three-way valve and the recitation is unclear since the plain language meaning of the recitation includes that the first three-way valve is bypassed by the recited bypass and this is not consistent with the disclosed structure.
The recitation, “the filling pipeline” (line 25) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “a bypass of the third three-way valve (16)” is indefinite for since the disclosed line does not bypass the third three-way valve and the recitation is unclear since the plain language meaning of the recitation includes that the third three-way valve is bypassed by the recited bypass and this is not consistent with the disclosed structure.
The recitation, “the vehicle-mounted storage tank (18)” (line 28) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to all of the dependent claims 2-8, the recitation, “by power and heat” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing that which was already previously presented.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the front” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “each cryogenic and high-pressure vessel (6)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the cryogenic and high-pressure vessels (6) --.
The recitation, “each in-tank heat exchanger (15)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the in-tank heat exchangers (15)--.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “comprising four cryogenic and high-pressure vessels (6)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --comprising the four cryogenic and high-pressure vessels (6)--.
The recitation, “are used” is indefinite as a use of the system does not make clear what structure the system has.
The recitation, “the cascaded filling” (line 10) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what steps are included. Further the recitation is a step recitation in a system claim and therefore is indefinite.
The recitation, “and correspond to high-pressure, medium-pressure, and low-pressure filling vessels, respectively;” is indefinite for being explicitly contradictory to claim 1 which states that the pressure vessels are high-pressure vessels and it is entirely unclear how to interpret the present recitation that changes the pressure of the vessels from high-pressure to medium and low and it is unclear what “filling vessels” requires structurally and functionally.
The recitation, “the remaining cryogenic and high-pressure vessel is used for the pressurization process” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the remaining cryogenic and high-pressure vessel” and for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the pressurization process”.
The recitation, “in this process” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what “this process” references. Further the recitation is a step recitation in a system claim and therefore is indefinite.
The recitation, “the cryogenic and high-pressure vessel” is indefinite since it is unclear what vessel is being referenced and it is unclear if this is attempting to reference the remaining cryogenic and high-pressure vessel.
The recitation, “the liquid hydrogen undergoes equal-capacity thermal compression” is indefinite as it is unclear what structure is required of the system and the recitation appears to be a step recitation in a system claim and is therefore indefinite.
The recitation, “thermal compression of the cryogenic and high-pressure vessel (6)” is indefinite since there is not just one cryogenic and high-pressure vessel (6), but there are four and it is unclear why the recitation only references one thereof.
The recitation, “the hydrogen flow” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “in the filling process” is indefinite since it is unclear if this is referencing the cascaded filling or some other filling.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “the specific process” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and the recitation is a process recitation in a system claim and is therefore unclear.
The recitation, “using the cryogenic and high-pressure vessel with a lowest pressure among those in the filling process” is indefinite as the recitation is a process recitation in a system claim and is therefore unclear. Further, it is unclear wat vessels “those” refers to.
The recitation “wherein it is heated close to ambient temperature ”is indefinite for being unclear what “it” references and there is no way to determine the scope of the relative term “close” since 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. Does the term require a temperature with 15 C, 10C, 1C? There is no way to discern.
The recitation, “the cryogenic and high-pressure vessel in the pressurization process” is indefinite as there is no way to determine which vessel is being referenced.
The recitation, “the process” is indefinite for being unclear what process is being referenced.
The recitation, “the cryogenic and high-pressure vessel in the pressurization process until” is indefinite as there is no way to determine which vessel is being referenced.
The recitation, “its pressure” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what is being referenced.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “is heated to the temperature required by filling” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the temperature”; further it is unclear what “filling” is being referenced. Further there is no way to determine what makes a temperature “required”.
The recitation, “it fills” is indefinite since there is no way to determine what “it” references.
The recitation, “the output temperature” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “once the cryogenic and high-pressure vessel in the pressurization process” is indefinite as there is no way to determine which vessel is being referenced.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “high-pressure filling” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing that which was already introduced previously.
The recitation, “the upper pressure limit” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “low-pressure filling” is indefinite since it is unclear what pressure is included and excluded by the relative term “low”.
The recitation, “the lower pressure limit required” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis. Further there is no way to determine what makes a pressure “required”.
The recitation, “the functions” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the original cryogenic and high-pressure vessel” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “by coupling the pressurization process and the cascaded filling process” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what actions and structure are required by “coupling”.
The recitation, “synchronization” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what actions and structure are required.
The recitation, “enabling continuous and rapid pressurization filling” is indefinite since nothing is continuous forever and it is unclear what time consideration is encompassed by “continuous”. Further “rapid” is a relative term and there is no way to determine how quickly the recited filling must occur and no way to determine what structure is required by the recitation.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “each in-tank heat exchanger (15)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already previously introduced and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the in-tank heat exchangers (15)--.
The recitation, “designed as” is indefinite since there is no way to determine what structure the heat exchanger must have to be “designed as”. Further the recitation is a step recitation in a system claim and is therefore indefinite.
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.
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