DETAILED ACTION
for
MULTI-CAPABILITY PLATFORM FOR TESTING MATERIALS IN HIGH TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE HYDROGEN PRE- AND POST-COMBUSTION ENVIRONMENTS
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
NO information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted.
Oath/Declaration
NO Oath/Declaration submitted as clarified on the informational notice to applicant on 11/22/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 12-13, 16-17, 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. [herein out Shin (US 2020/0182761).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses test platform for assessing mechanical and environmental properties of a metallic specimen (T) under hydrogen exposure, the test platform comprising (see abstract): a proton exchange membrane (PEM) cell configured to generate hydrogen gas by electrolyzing water (¶0049, lines 1-8); a test enclosure (100) configured to contain the metallic specimen (T) therein and subject the metallic specimen (T) to hydrogen gas from the PEM cell (¶0055, lines 1-9); a heating element (400) for generating elevated temperatures within the test enclosure (200; ¶0050, lines 1-4); and a controller for regulating pressure and temperature within the test enclosure (100) during mechanical or environmental testing of the metallic specimen (T; ¶0059, lines 1-12).
Regarding claims 2 and 16-17, Shin further discloses a supply of secondary gases for the test enclosure (100), the secondary gases including nitrogen (¶0065, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, Shin further discloses a vacuum system (V: “A flow rate adjusting valve V configured to adjust, discharge, open, and close influent gas”) configured to evacuate the test enclosure (100).
Regarding claim 4, Shin further discloses a supply of deionized water for the PEM cell (¶0033, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 5, Shin further discloses the controller is communicatively coupled with a pressure sensor (P) and a temperature sensor (300) within the test enclosure (100).
Regarding claim 6, Shin further discloses the test enclosure (200) having a quartz chamber (¶0035, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 7, Shin further discloses a plurality of hydrogen sensors (Fig. 7) configured to detect a leak of hydrogen gas from the test enclosure (100).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Shin further discloses an environmental enclosure (200) surrounding the test enclosure (100), the environmental enclosure comprising a furnace.
Regarding claim 9, Shin further discloses an inert gas supply (Fig. 3) for introducing an inert gas into the environmental enclosure (200).
Regarding claim 13, Shin further discloses the mechanical response of the metallic specimen (T) includes fatigue measurements of the metallic specimen (¶0023, lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
357
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Shin further: a tubular body (T) having a central gage section, a first grip section (120), and a second grip section (140); and an inlet port and an outlet port coupled to the tubular body (Fig. 5), wherein the central gage section is hollow (Fig. 2), and wherein the central gage section defines an inner cavity (160) in fluid communication with the inlet port and the outlet port (Fig. 5 & Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 22, Shin further discloses first grip section (120) and the second grip section (140) are externally threaded for attachment to a test platform (¶0061, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 23, Shin further discloses a first elbow-shaped fitting (Fig. 5) coupled to the first grip section (120), and wherein the outlet port comprises a second elbow-shaped fitting coupled to the second grip section (140).
Regarding claim 25, Shin further discloses first grip section (120) and the second grip section (140) are joined to the gage section at a contoured shoulder (Fig. 5).
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 11, 14-15, 18-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. [herein out Shin (US 2020/0182761).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Shin discloses a method for testing mechanical and environmental water to generate hydrogen via a proton exchange membrane (PEM) cell (¶0049, lines 1-8); introducing hydrogen generated by the PEM cell into a test enclosure containing the metallic specimen (T) therein (¶0055, lines 1-9); regulating pressure and temperature within the test enclosure (200; ¶0050, lines 1-4); and measuring a mechanical response or an environmental response of the metallic specimen (T) to assess its performance under hydrogen exposure (Fig. 1).
Shin fails to explicitly disclose the pressure ranging from atmospheric pressure to at least 6000 psi, the temperature ranging from room temperature to at least 1200ºC.
The particular range/ size, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of temperature and pressure used by Prior Art for atmospheric pressure that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of a test platform for assessing mechanical and environmental properties of a metallic specimen under hydrogen exposure, to modify Shin, to include a at least 6000 psi, the temperature ranging from room temperature to at least 1200ºC, for the benefit of providing a device for evaluating effects of a temperature and a pressure on embrittlement behavior of a material under various gaseous hydrogen environments
Regarding claims 14, 19 and 24, Shin further discloses introducing hydrogen into the test enclosure includes flowing hydrogen gas with a flow rate and heating the test enclosure.
Shin fails to explicitly disclose flow rate between 10 and 1350 SCCM (standard cubic centimeters per minute) and heating the test enclosure at a rate of between 5ºC/min to 100ºC/min.
The particular range/ size of the flow rate and heating the test enclosure, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of temperature and pressure used by Prior Art for atmospheric pressure that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of a test platform for assessing mechanical and environmental properties of a metallic specimen under hydrogen exposure, to modify Shin, to include 10 and 1350 SCCM and the test enclosure at a rate of between 5ºC/min to 100ºC/min, for the benefit of providing a device for evaluating effects of a temperature and a pressure on embrittlement behavior of a material under various gaseous hydrogen environments
Regarding claim 15, Shin further discloses terminating the flow rate (¶0033, lines 18-23) of hydrogen in response to a detected leak of hydrogen from the test enclosure (100).
Regarding claim 18, Shin further discloses evacuating the test enclosure prior to introducing hydrogen into the test enclosure (V: “A flow rate adjusting valve V configured to adjust, discharge, open, and close influent gas”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all 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 Prior arts made available do not teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination the test platform has a proton exchange membrane (PEM) cell configured to generate hydrogen gas by electrolyzing water, a compressor coupled between the PEM cell and a test enclosure, the compressor being configured to pressurize hydrogen gas for the test enclosure, the test enclosure is configured to contain the metallic specimen and subject the metallic specimen to hydrogen gas from the PEM cell, a heating element generates elevated temperatures within the test enclosure, a controller regulates pressure and temperature within the test enclosure during mechanical or environmental testing of the metallic specimen, a supply of secondary gases is provided for the test enclosure, where the secondary gases include carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen, a vacuum system is configured to evacuate the test enclosure, the hydrogen sensors are configured to detect a leak of hydrogen gas from the test enclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights