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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 17: “that discharges gas” should read “the discharges the gas”
Claim 2, lines 3-4: “one end of which” should read “one end of the second discharge channel”
Claim 2, lines 4: “another end of which” should read “another end of the second discharge channel”
Claims 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 7 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 11 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 10.
Claim 12 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
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:
Claim 11, line 4 recites, “evaporation device” which does not correspond to any defining structure in the present disclosure. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Line 4 recites, “evaporation device” which is interpreted herein under 35 U.S.C 112(f) but is not further provided with sufficient written description to define the structure of the evaporation device. The closest recitation of structure is, “The evaporation device 22 vaporizes the high-pressure liquid hydrogen compressed by the compression device 21 to generate hydrogen gas (Pg. 4, lines 19-21)” however this recreation further defines the function of the evaporation device rather than its structure. See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-3, 7-8, and 11-12 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 2, lines 3-4 recite, “one end of which communicates with the first discharge channel and another end of which opens outside” which is unclear to the Examiner what the another end of the second discharge channel opens outside of (i.e., the pressing member, the suction valve, etc.). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the another end of the second discharge channel to open to the outside of the pressing member. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 7, line 2 recites, “an end of the pressing member closer to an outer periphery” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what outer periphery is being referred to (i.e., outer periphery of the pressing member, outer periphery of the second discharge channel, outer periphery of the suction valve, etc.). For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the outer periphery to refer to an outer periphery of the pressing member. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 7, line 2-3 recite, “an end of the pressing member closer to an inner periphery” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what inner periphery is being referred to (i.e., inner periphery of the pressing member, inner periphery of the second discharge channel, inner periphery of the suction valve, etc.). For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the inner periphery to refer to an inner periphery of the pressing member. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 8, lines 1-2 recite, “wherein the second discharge channel is provided between the block or the valve casing and the pressing member” which is unclear to the Examiner as per Fig. 5, , 10-11, and 13-14, the second discharge channel is a part of the pressing member. This is further described by the following recitation of the specification, “the pressing member 64 is provided with second discharge holes (second discharge channels) 95 (Pg. 10, lines 5-7)”. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the second discharge channel to be provided between the block or the valve casing and at least a portion of the pressing member. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim limitation “evaporation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no corresponding structure provided in the specification to define the structure of the evaporation device. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the evaporation device to include heat exchangers and functional equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12, line 2 recites, “an end of the pressing member closer to an outer periphery” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what outer periphery is being referred to (i.e., outer periphery of the pressing member, outer periphery of the second discharge channel, outer periphery of the suction valve, etc.). For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the outer periphery to refer to an outer periphery of the pressing member. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 12, line 2-3 recite, “an end of the pressing member closer to an inner periphery” which is unclear to the Examiner as to what inner periphery is being referred to (i.e., inner periphery of the pressing member, inner periphery of the second discharge channel, inner periphery of the suction valve, etc.). For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the inner periphery to refer to an inner periphery of the pressing member. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
Claim 3 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamichi et al. (JP 2007303406), hereinafter Nakamichi in view of Coldren et al. (US Patent No. 9,970,421), hereinafter Coldren.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamichi discloses a suction valve (Fig. 1, suction valve 14) comprising:
a block that includes a compression chamber and a recess communicating with the compression chamber (Fig. 1, cylinder block 13, compression chamber 13a, recess 13c; Pg. 5, On the other hand, a valve seat 13d that matches the seat surface 21 d of the head 21 is formed at a portion (location) of the cylinder block 13 that faces the one end surface of the piston 11, and the seat surface 21 d is seated on the valve seat 13d. When it does, the communication state of the recess 13c and the cylinder 13a is interrupted/blocked);
a valve casing that is housed in the recess and forms a first space part communicating with the compression chamber (Fig. 1, valve casing 19, fluid inlet 19a; Pg. 6, all the outlet ends of the fluid inlet 19a are opened so that the low-temperature fluid in the atmospheric pressure flows into the cylinder 13a (see FIG. 2));
a pressing member that presses the valve casing against the block (Fig. 1, casing presser 26; Pg. 6, The valve casing 19 is attached (fixed) to one end portion of the cylinder block 13 via a casing presser 26 and a bolt (not shown));
a suction channel that is provided in the valve casing and sucks a low-temperature fluid to the first space part (Fig. 1, fluid inlet 19a; Pg. 6, all the outlet ends of the fluid inlet 19a are opened so that the low-temperature fluid in the atmospheric pressure flows into the cylinder 13a (see FIG. 2));
a first discharge channel that is provided in the valve casing and discharges gas in the first space part (Fig. 1, communication holes 19c; Pg. 5, These communication holes 19c are passages for discharging the low-temperature fluid existing (collected) in the recess 13c to the outside of the low-temperature fluid booster pump 10 so as to be always open (that is, the second fluid) It is configured so as not to be opened and closed by the valve body 18);
a first valve body that is capable of causing the compression chamber and the first space part to communicate with each other and is capable of isolating the compression chamber and the first space part from each other (Fig. 1, first valve body 17; Pg. 6, The first valve element 17 overcomes the urging force of the spring 25 and moves toward the piston 11, the seat surface 21d of the first valve element 17 moves away from the valve seat 13d, and the second valve element 18 The sheet surface 18c is separated from the sheet member 24, and all the outlet ends of the fluid inlet 19a are opened so that the low-temperature fluid in the atmospheric pressure flows into the cylinder 13a (see FIG. 2); Further, Fig. 1 depicts the first valve body in a closed state and Fig. 2 depicts the first valve body in an opened state);
a second valve body that is capable of causing the first space part and the first discharge channel to communicate with each other and is capable of isolating the first space part and the first discharge channel from each other (Fig. 1, second valve body 18; Pg. 5, As shown in FIG. 3, the second valve body 18 is a ring-shaped (donut-shaped) plate-like member having a circular opening 18a in a plan view at the center, and one end of the cylinder block 13 (see FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 is housed in a recess 13c formed in the lower end portion in FIG. 2, and along the longitudinal direction of the cylinder block 13 (vertical direction in FIGS. 1 and 2) in the recess 13c. It is slidable).
However, Nakamichi does not disclose a second discharge channel that discharges gas in the first discharge channel outside the pressing member.
Coldren teaches a second discharge channel that discharges gas in the first discharge channel outside the pressing member (See annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren below, head 46 is depicted with a second discharge channel A that discharges gas from smaller high pressure chamber 54 to discharge passage 20).
Nakamichi fails to teach a second discharge channel that discharges gas in the first discharge channel outside the pressing member, however Coldren teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryogenic pumps to include a second discharge channel that discharges gas in the first discharge channel outside the pressing member. This is strong evidence that modifying Nakamichi as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. discharging gas to the outside of the pump to improve overall system efficiencies). Specifically, providing second discharge channel that discharges gas in the communication holes 19c of Nakamichi in the casing presser 26. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamichi by Coldren and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of discharging gas to the outside of the pump to improve overall system efficiencies.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren
Regarding claim 2, Nakamichi as modified discloses the suction valve according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein
the first discharge channel is disposed along a vertical direction (Fig. 1 of Nakamichi depicts fluid inlet 19a disposed along a vertical direction), and
the second discharge channel is disposed along a horizontal direction, one end of which communicates with the first discharge channel and another end of which opens outside (Annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren depicts second discharge channel A disposed along a horizontal direction one end of which communicates with the smaller high pressure chamber 54 and another end of which opens outside via discharge passage 20; As best understood see 112(b) rejections above). Further, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren
Regarding claim 3, Nakamichi as modified discloses the suction valve according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein
the pressing member has a tubular shape with a second space part formed inside (Fig. 1 of Nakamichi depicts the casing presser 26 to have tubular shape with a second space formed inside as depicted by the opening allowing for the suction pipes 27 to connect to the fluid inlets 19a), and
one end of the second discharge channel communicates with the first discharge channel via the second space part (Annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren depicts second discharge channel A is depicted with one end of the second discharge channel A communicates with the smaller high pressure chamber 54 via the second inlet check valve 62). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren
Regarding claim 4, Nakamichi as modified discloses the suction valve according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second discharge channel is provided along a radial direction of the pressing member (Annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren depicts second discharge channel A is depicted along a radial direction of the head 46). Further, the recitation of “wherein the second discharge channel is provided along a radial direction of the pressing member” is a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
However, Nakamichi as modified does not disclose a plurality of the second discharge channels are provided along a radial direction of the pressing member.
Regarding a plurality of the second discharge channels are provided along a radial direction of the pressing member, “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Further, Nakamichi as modified does not disclose the plurality of second discharge channels to be spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the pressing member.
However, it is noted there are only a finite number of ways to apace apart the plurality of second discharge channels in the pressing member. The following finite arrangements including: in a circumferential direction of the pressing member, in an axial direction of the pressing member, or in both a circumferential direction and an axial direction of the pressing member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify plurality of second discharge channels to be spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the pressing member to provide the predictable result of discharging gas to the outside of the pump to improve overall system efficiencies.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren
Regarding claim 6, Nakamichi as modified discloses the suction valve according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second discharge channel has a hole shape passing through the pressing member in a radial direction (Fig. 1 and 3 of Coldren depict the second discharge channel A of annotated Fig. 1 of Coldren to have a hole shape passing through the pressing member in a radial direction).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamichi as modified discloses the suction valve according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second discharge channel is provided between the block or the valve casing and the pressing member (As described in the modification of claim 1 the second discharge channel A would be located in the casing presser 26 of Nakamichi resulting in the second discharge channel A provided between the block 13 and at least a portion of the casing presser 26; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above). Further, the limitations of claim 8 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamichi as modified discloses a pressure boosting pump (Nakamichi, Fig. 1, cryogenic fluid booster pump 10) comprising:
the suction valve according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above);
a piston that compresses the low-temperature fluid sucked from the suction valve to the compression chamber (Nakamichi, Fig. 1, piston 11; Pg. 4, fluid from which a low-temperature fluid compressed by one end surface of the piston 11 (for example, pressurized to about 30 to 40 MPa) flows out to the side surface (for example, the right surface in FIGS. 1 and 2) of the cylinder block 13); and
a discharge valve that discharges the low-temperature fluid compressed by the piston (Nakamichi, Fig. 1, discharge valve 15; Pg. 4, An outlet 16 is provided, and a discharge valve (check valve) 15 is provided downstream of the fluid outlet 16. The discharge valve 15 is opened when a fluid pressure higher than or equal to a predetermined pressure is applied (applied), and is closed when the fluid pressure is lower than the predetermined pressure. For example, the discharge valve 15 includes a ball 15a and a spring 15b. is there).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamichi as modified by Coldren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaertner et al. (US Patent No. 9,631,617), hereinafter Gaertner.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamichi as modified discloses the suction valve according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Nakamichi as modified does not disclose wherein the second discharge channel has a slit shape opening upward in a vertical direction in the pressing member.
Gaertner teaches wherein the second discharge channel has a slit shape opening upward in a vertical direction in the pressing member (Fig. 7, openings 52; Col. 4, lines 22-29 and 40-41, Openings 52, through which the fluid can flow back out from the rear side of the component 38 to the front side thereof, are arranged spaced at regular intervals in a circle on the annular disk of the mount 44. Here the fluid must cause the outlet-restricting element in the form of a restrictor plate, situated in front of these openings, to pivot, so as to allow it to escape on the front side through the openings 52. Six such openings 52 are provided here… FIGS. 7 and 8 show a variant of the component 38, in which the openings 52 are designed as radially oriented slits).
Nakamichi as modified fails to teach wherein the second discharge channel has a slit shape opening upward in a vertical direction in the pressing member, however Gaertner teaches that it is a known method in the art of valve pressing members in pumps to include wherein the second discharge channel has a slit shape opening upward in a vertical direction in the pressing member. This is strong evidence that modifying Nakamichi as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. discharging gas to the outside of the pump to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamichi as modified by Gaertner and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of discharging gas to the outside of the pump to improve overall system efficiencies. Further, regarding the shape of the second discharge channel, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamichi as modified by Coldren as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nakamichi et al. (JP 2008196590), hereinafter Nakamichi ‘590.
Regarding claim 11, Nakamichi as modified discloses the pressure boosting pump according to claim 10 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 10 above).
However, Nakamichi as modified does not explicitly disclose a hydrogen supply system comprising:
a compression device that includes the pressure boosting pump according to claim 10 to compress liquid hydrogen as the low-temperature fluid;
an evaporation device that vaporizes the liquid hydrogen compressed by the compression device; and
a dispenser that supplies hydrogen gas vaporized by the evaporation device.
Nakamichi ‘590 teaches a hydrogen supply (Fig. 1, hydrogen supply station 1) system comprising:
a compression device that includes a pressure boosting pump to compress liquid hydrogen as the low-temperature fluid (Fig. 1, booster pump 3; Pg. 5, The booster pump 3 is, for example, a piston type booster that compresses and boosts the liquid hydrogen flowing from the hydrogen storage tank 2 via the first hydrogen supply line 7);
an evaporation device that vaporizes the liquid hydrogen compressed by the compression device (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 4; Pg. 4, The heat exchanger 4 heats (or heats) the high-pressure hydrogen gas discharged from the booster pump 3); and
a dispenser that supplies hydrogen gas vaporized by the evaporation device (Fig. 1, dispenser 6; Pg. 4, The dispenser 6 is a hydrogen gas filling device having a dispenser side hose (first hydrogen supply line) 13 having a dispenser side coupler 12 connected to one end thereof. The dispenser-side coupler 12 is connected to a vehicle-mounted hose (vehicle-side hydrogen supply line) 15 extending from a vehicle-mounted hydrogen filling tank (not shown) mounted on a vehicle (for example, a fuel cell vehicle or a hydrogen engine vehicle). It is configured to be connectable (detachable) to the in-vehicle side coupler 16 attached to one end).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known element of a pressure boosting pump of Nakamichi ‘590 with the pressure boosting pump according to claim 10 of Nakamichi as modified as it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as a pressure boosting pump is known to be useable for the moving fluid through a hydrogen supply system it would have been prima facie obvious to have used the pressure boosting pump according to claim 10 of Nakamichi as modified for the predictable result of a pressure boosting pump suitable to provide the predictable result of moving fluid through a hydrogen supply system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, there is no prior art of record to suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art that it would be obvious to have in the second discharge channel, an end of the pressing member closer to an outer periphery is positioned above an end of the pressing member closer to an inner periphery, in a vertical direction of the pressing member, in combination with all other claimed features.
Regarding claim 9, there is no prior art of record to suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art that it would be obvious to include a third discharge channel that discharges gas in the first discharge channel below the pressing member, in combination with all other claimed features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adler (US 20080213110) discloses a similar cryogenic pump with a suction valve.
Brown (US Patent No.10,774820) discloses a similar cryogenic pump with a suction valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 June 17th, 2026
Prosecution Insights