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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a 7-10 and 14-18, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I and sub0invention IA, claims 1-3 and 11-13 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden in examining all the claims. Further the examiner notes that applicant attempted to reclassify claims 5-7 under invention II, this reclassification has been considered moot as restriction practice does not allow applicant to re-define the examiners defined inventions. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s argument that the inventions as claimed are not mutually exclusive is not found persuasive. The inventions explicitly have varying scopes. The definition the examiner is relying on to support the inventions as being “mutually exclusive” is “Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention”. Please see MPEP 806.05. Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that each invention would infringe on all of the others. Instead as the examiner clearly pointed out distinct limitations in each invention which clearly would not infringe in limitations of the other inventions. In other words the claims can clearly be interpreted as not overlapping and scope and mutually exclusive. As to the applicant’s argument that the inventions are not sperate products, applicant has provide no evidence to support this contention. In contrast the examiner has identified that each invention clearly has a materially different design defined by each respective distinction present in each invention. Lastly the serious burden has been support by the examiner is showing various subgroup based searching and various search queries that would be required based on the distinct nature of each invention. For these reason the restriction has been maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 heated by the heater therein.
However, Lee does disclose and show in figures 1 and 2 and in (Abstract; [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).
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 heated by the heater therein 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 ([0014]) and as such as explicitly noted by Petitpas characterize the reaction more thoroughly.
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.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights