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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102012218621 to Binder et al. (Binder) in view of U.S. Patent 5,860,857 to Wasastjerna et al. (Wasastjerna).
In reference to claim 1, Binder teaches a connection space (42, FIG. 2) for a hydrogen supply arrangement (40, FIG. 2) having an inner region (region enclosed by housing 42, FIG. 2) surrounded by the connection space for receiving components (50, FIG. 2) of the hydrogen supply arrangement (40, FIG. 2), an inert gas supply device (10, FIG. 2) for flushing the inner region with an inert gas (abstract; inert gas is generated from 18, FIG. 1), and an exhaust gas system (54, FIG. 2) for discharging the inert gas from the inner region (region enclosed by housing 42, FIG. 2), but does not teach explicitly wherein the inert gas supply device is designed to continuously supply the inert gas to the connection space and/or to maintain a constant inert gas pressure in the connection space. Wasastjerna teaches a method and apparatus for controlling the atmosphere of an essentially closed space (FIG. 1) wherein the inert gas supply device (3, FIG. 1) is designed to continuously supply the inert gas (nitrogen) to the connection space (within 1, FIG. 1) in order to provide desired atmosphere within the system with respect to the oxygen content (col 1, lines 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Binder, to include the inert gas supply device that is designed to continuously supply the inert gas to the connection space and/or to maintain a constant inert gas pressure in the connection space, as taught by Wasastjerna, in order to provide desired atmosphere within the system with respect to the oxygen content.
In reference to claim 2, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Binder additionally teaches wherein the exhaust gas system (54, FIG. 2) opens out of the connection space (42, FIG. 2) at a highest point of the inner region (region enclosed by housing 42, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 3, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but they do not teach wherein the exhaust gas system has a siphon at least partially filled with a liquid.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various heat transfer systems utilizing syphon as fluid transfer means to be obvious in order to provide fluid transfer means without extra cost or moving parts.
In reference to claim 4, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, but they do not teach wherein the siphon is arranged at least partially below a floor of the connection space.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various heat transfer systems utilizing syphon located below the floor level as fluid transfer means to be obvious in order to provide fluid transfer means without extra cost or moving parts, utilizing gravity.
In reference to claim 5, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, but they do not teach a sensor for monitoring the liquid collected in the siphon.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various heat transfer systems utilizing syphon as fluid transfer means, along with a sensor to monitor the liquid level to be obvious in order to provide fluid transfer means without extra cost or moving parts, utilizing gravity.
In reference to claim 6, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above, but they do not teach that the exhaust gas system has a bypass line which is guided around the siphon, and wherein the bypass line is sealed by means of a rupture disk.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various heat transfer systems utilizing syphon as fluid transfer means, along with a bypass line sealed with a rupture disk to be obvious in order to provide fluid transfer means without extra cost or moving parts, utilizing gravity.
In reference to claim 7, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but they do not teach wherein the connection space is completely or partially surrounded by an insulating layer.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various heat transfer systems wherein the connection space is completely or partially surrounded by an insulating layer to be obvious in order to prevent heat loss to the atmosphere.
In reference to claim 8, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but they do not teach wherein the connection space has a stainless steel layer facing the inner region.
However, the Examiner takes the Official Notice of facts not in the record by relying on “common knowledge” of various cryo-heat transfer systems wherein the connection space has a stainless steel layer facing the inner region to be obvious in order to allow for high pressure and low temperature fluid to be stored within the cryo-vessel.
In reference to claim 9, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Binder also teaches wherein the inert gas supply device (10, FIG. 2) has an inert gas storage vessel (12, FIG. 2) in particular a gas cylinder, and an inert gas supply line (14, FIG. 2) for supplying the inert gas from the inert gas storage vessel (12, FIG. 2) to the connection space (42, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 10, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Binder also teaches an oxygen sensor, a hydrogen sensor and/or a pressure sensor (par 0034; implicit, for leakage purposes), which are arranged in the inner region (42, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 11, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach wherein the connection space has a flat, pyramid-shaped or conical ceiling.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Binder and Wasastjerna by having the connection space has a flat, pyramid-shaped or conical ceiling, since applicant has not disclosed that having ceiling at this specific shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the connection space would perform equally well with the ceiling having any shape.
In reference to claim 12, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Binder also teaches wherein there is an overpressure in the inner region compared to an environment of the connection space (par 0036).
In reference to claim 13, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Binder also teaches a hydrogen supply arrangement (40, FIG. 2) having a connection space (42, FIG. 2) according to claim 1 and components (50, FIG. 2) received in the inner region (FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 14, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 13 above, and Binder also teaches a storage vessel (44, FIG. 2) for receiving hydrogen, wherein the storage vessel is connected to the components (50, FIG. 2) by means of a pipeline (48, FIG. 2).
In reference to claim 15, Binder and Wasastjerna teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 14 above, and Binder also teaches wherein the storage vessel (44, FIG. 2) is arranged in the inner region (region enclosed by housing 42, FIG. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights