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 .
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 § 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.
Claims 1, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5707043 (JP’043) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0216915 to Takata et al. (Takata). JP’043 was cited on an IDS and a copy filed with the application. Therefore, as copy has not been included with this office action.
Regarding claim 1, JP’043 discloses a hydrogen station comprising a liquid hydrogen supply pipe (liquefied hydrogen lead-out passage 3) for supplying liquid hydrogen from a liquid hydrogen storage tank (liquefied hydrogen storage tank 1) to a liquid hydrogen pump (liquefied hydrogen pressure pump 2), wherein the hydrogen station is configured to cool the liquid hydrogen supply pipe (see paragraph [0013]). JP’043 does not disclose a refrigerator configured to use cooling energy generated by the refrigerator to cool the liquid hydrogen supply pipe. Takata teaches a hydrogen station comprising a refrigerator (refrigerator 18), and cold energy generated by the refrigerator is used to cool (see [0053]-[]0055]) a hydrogen supply pipe (hydrogen supply pipe 22) to prevent losses due to vaporization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a refrigerator generating cooling energy to cool the liquid hydrogen supply pipe as taught by Takata in the system of JP’043 to prevent vaporization of the hydrogen.
Regarding claim 10, Takata further teaches the refrigerator includes a pre-cooling line (23) provided along a section of at least a part of the liquid hydrogen supply pipe (Fig. 3), and is configured to cool the liquid hydrogen supply pipe by flowing a refrigerant through the pre-cooling line (refrigerant flows through pipe 23 to cool hydrogen supply pipe 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of JP’043 to include a pre-cooling line along at least part of the liquid hydrogen supply pipe as taught by Takata, which further helps to prevent vaporization of the hydrogen.
Regarding claim 11, JP’043 as modified by Takata further teaches wherein in a case where a length of the liquid hydrogen supply pipe from the liquid hydrogen storage tank to the liquid hydrogen pump is denoted by L1 (inherent the pipe has a first length), and a length of the section of the liquid hydrogen supply pipe provided with the pre-cooling line is denoted by L3 (inherent the section with the pre-cooling line has a second length), but does not explicitly disclose L3/L1 > 0.5. However, Applicant has placed no criticality on the ratio being at least .5 (see [0046] which discloses a number of different ratios which can be used). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured L1 and L3 such that the ration of L3/L1 is at least .5 as such a change requires only a change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). A ration of at least .5 helps to ensure that the liquid hydrogen pipe is sufficiently cooled to maintain the hydrogen as a liquid.
The hydrogen station according to claim 10, JP’043 further discloses a hydrogen gas supply pipe (8) that connects an evaporator (5) for evaporating the liquid hydrogen discharged from the liquid hydrogen pump and a dispenser (the dispenser connecting supply pipe 8 to container 7) for supplying the hydrogen gas generated by evaporating the liquid hydrogen in the evaporator to a hydrogen receiving container (7) but does not disclose a heat exchange unit configured to cool the hydrogen gas flowing through the hydrogen gas supply pipe by using the refrigerant after passing through the pre-cooling line. Takata further teaches a heat exchange unit (12) configured to cool the hydrogen gas flowing through the hydrogen gas supply pipe by using the refrigerant after passing through the pre-cooling line ([0051]-[0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a heat exchanger to cool the hydrogen gas using the refrigerant as taught by Takata in the system of JP’043 for further maintaining the hydrogen at the desired temperature.
Claim 13 is allowed.
Claims 2-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited documents do not disclose “a first heat exchange unit configured to cool hydrogen gas by exchanging heat with a refrigerant of the refrigerator; a cooling hydrogen gas supply pipe configured to supply the hydrogen gas cooled by the first heat exchange unit to the liquid hydrogen supply pipe; and a cooling hydrogen gas recovery pipe configured to recover the hydrogen gas passing through the liquid hydrogen supply pipe and return the hydrogen gas to the first heat exchange unit.” The examiner finds no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the cited documents to include this configuration, absent the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the cited documents do not disclose or render obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, US Patent 12,209,710 and US Patent 7,131,278 disclose dispensing stations for cryogenic liquids.
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 at 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 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights