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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petitpas et al. (NPL: Para-H2 to ortho-H2 conversion in a full-scale automotive cryogenic pressurized hydrogen storage up to 345 bar) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0077298 A1).
As to claim 1, Petitpas discloses and shows in figures 4 and 7, a liquid hydrogen ratio analysis system comprising:
a receiving portion (sample cell) provided to accommodate the hydrogen and including a transmission window (i.e. fused silica windows) through which a laser is transmitted (page 6538, right column, l. 7 thru page 6539, left column, l. 7)
a spectral detector (i.e. spectrometer and CCD) provided to detect an energy level scattered from the hydrogen by irradiating the laser to the hydrogen accommodated in the receiving portion through the transmission window (page 6539, left column, l. 8, thru right column l. 20); and
a processor (inherently required to provide the output to the monitor explicitly shown in figure 6) operatively connected to the spectral detector and configured to determine a ratio of para hydrogen molecules to ortho hydrogen molecules in the hydrogen through the energy level detected by the spectral detector (result explicitly labeled and shown in figure 6) (Fig. 6 description; page 6539, right column, ll. 15-20; Table 1).
Petitpas does disclose the desire to further refine their measurement data as a function of measuring the hydrogen under varying temperatures (page 6546, right column, ll. 2-5).
Petitpas does not explicitly disclose a heater provided to heat hydrogen to a predetermined temperature or the receiving portion that receives hydrogen heated by the heater in the receiving portion.
However, Lee does disclose and show in figures 1 and 2 and in (Abstract; [0013]; [0014]; [0064]; [0091]) the use of a heater (E) to increase the temperature of a liquid sample under test which is undergoing Raman analysis in a receiving portion (100). Obviously if the heater of Lee can raise the temperature above room temperature it is also structurally capable of heating the fluid to at least room temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petitpas with a heater provided to heat hydrogen to a predetermined temperature or the receiving portion that receives hydrogen heated by the heater in the receiving portion in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility in using a heater to control the sample temperature under test one can allow for more control over a chemical reaction ([0013]; [0014]) and as such as explicitly noted by Petitpas characterize the reaction more thoroughly, further Lee explicitly notes that Raman analysis is commonly done at room temperature, as such the elevation of the fluid to room temperature is one of many predictable options known in the art.
As to claims 2 and 3, Petitpas does disclose the basic concept of using a temperature sensor (TC3) to measure the sample under test (Page 6538, left column, ll. 3-7).
Petitpas does not explicitly disclose a liquid hydrogen ratio analysis system of claim 1, further including: a temperature sensor portion provided to detect a temperature of the hydrogen heated by the heater or wherein the temperature sensor portion is disposed inside the heater or the receiving portion.
However, Lee does disclose and show in figures 1, 2 and in ([0091]) the basic concept of using a thermocouple (115, which is a temperature sensor) to detect temperature of the sample under test. As modified with Petitpas this would obviously be a temperature of hydrogen gas/liquid. Further Lee show the temperature sensors as being present in the receiving portion (i.e. structure 100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petitpas with a liquid hydrogen ratio analysis system, further including: a temperature sensor portion provided to detect a temperature of the hydrogen heated by the heater or wherein the temperature sensor portion is disposed inside the heater or the receiving portion in order to provide the advantage of expected results as explicitly Petitpas puts extreme value on precise temperature measurements (Table 1), as such further detailing such temperature measurements by adding an additional temperature sensor in the receiving portion that measures the temperature of the heater one can provide a more precise temperature analysis of the system and ultimately the sample under test.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 11, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine the ratio of the para hydrogen molecules to the ortho hydrogen molecules in the hydrogen based on multiplying a ratio of hydrogen molecules including a rotational quantum number (J) of zero in the hydrogen to hydrogen molecules including a rotational quantum number (J) of one in the hydrogen by an inverse of a calibration coefficient which is a function of the temperature.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that Petitpas and Lee taken alone or in combination fails to teach a heater to heat hydrogen to a room temperature, the examiner respectfully. Firstly, it is noted that the claim in question, claim 1, is a system claim. A heater as claimed therefore merely needs the capability to heat hydrogen to room temperature. There is no structure (e.g. a controller) that controls or requires that the heater actually provide a fluid sample at room temperature to a receiving portion. In other words, “a heater” is exactly that, a structure capable of heating. Applicant argues that the prior art heater provides elevated temperature, and that this is higher than applicant’s room temperature. As such applicant has provided further evidence that the heater of the prior art is capable of at the very least achieving the low bar of “room temperature”. As such the rejection has been maintained as the structural requirements of the claim have been met by the prior art of record. Further the examiner notes for clarity of record that Lee explicitly discloses in [0013], that it is well known to run Raman analysis at “room temperature” as such obviously the heater as provided by Lee could again provide a sample at least at room temperature for the predictable benefit of providing a sample at a known and expected temperature.
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 MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
