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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of July 3, 2026 which amended claims 1, 3, 14, 16 and also withdrawn claim 21.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sealing member” in claims 1 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passa et al (French patent 2715197) in view of Vonalt (USPN 4,978,283).
With regards to claim 14, Passa et al disclose a low-pressure for use in a hydrogen pumping system (The recitation that “for use in a hydrogen pumping system” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kroppa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951)), comprising: a hydrogen (the use of the pump to pump Hydrogen is considered an intended use and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) pump cylinder (2) configured to be supplied (the opening 5 provides a mechanism to supply fluid to be pumped and configures the cylinder as claimed) with hydrogen from a fluid reservoir; a piston assembly (8) positioned within the hydrogen pump cylinder; a hydrogen cylinder rod portion (13) at least partially positioned within the hydrogen pump cylinder; and a plunger assembly (12, labeled in the annotated figures below) including a sealing member (labeled in the annotated figure below) and including a presser component (18, labeled in the annotated figure), the plunger assembly operably connected to the hydrogen cylinder rod portion (clearly shown), a guide (labeled in the annotated figure) operably connected (“operably connected” is a broad limitation and the rod reciprocating within the guide is considered to “operably connect” the two members under a broadest reasonable interpretation) to the hydrogen cylinder rod portion and configured to center (the guide centers the rod in the cylinder as clearly shown) the hydrogen cylinder rod portion within the hydrogen pump cylinder, wherein the sealing member is configured to seal with a valve body (the circular opening portion labeled in the annotated figure) of the piston assembly with the presser component not contacting the piston assembly (as in Fig. 1), and the presser component is configured to selectively force (Fig. 2; note arrow G) the valve body in a direction toward the sealing member (when the rod 13 is traveling downwards the presser 18 forces the piston assembly and the valve body towards, i.e., in the direction of, the sealing member).
Passa et al do not disclose that the guide is connected to the hydrogen cylinder rod portion within the hydrogen pump cylinder and configured to move with and center the hydrogen cylinder rod portion within the hydrogen pump cylinder.
Vonalt discloses a similar reciprocating plunger pump having a piston and valve assembly (70, see Fig. 2) coupled to be reciprocated by a cylinder rod portion (30, 42) and being connected to a guide (16) that is connected to the cylinder rod portion (at the top of rod 22 in Figs. 2 and 3) within the pump cylinder (12 and the portion surrounding element 14 in Figs. 2 and 3)) and configured to move with and center (via the packings and opening in the portion of cylinder 12 as clearly shown in Figs. 2 and 3) the cylinder rod portion within the hydrogen pump cylinder.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to substitute a cylinder end-cap structure (12), packing structure, and the guide of for the similar rod, seal and end-ca of Passa et al in order to obtain better and adjustable sealing via the packing on the larger guide member (16) of Vonalt that will allow for ease replacement and servicing of the packing due to the multi-component nature of the drive rod train.
With regards to claim 15, Passa et al in view of Vonalt disclose the pump of claim 14 and additionally disclose wherein: the piston assembly, the hydrogen pump cylinder, and the plunger assembly define at least in part a variable volume compression chamber (9, labeled in the annotated figure) above the piston assembly when the sealing member is sealed with the valve body (Fig. 1); the hydrogen cylinder rod portion defines a longitudinal axis (labeled in the annotated figure); and the presser component is located beneath the sealing member along the longitudinal axis (clearly shown).
With regards to claim 16, Passa et al in view of Vonalt disclose the pump of claim 15, further comprising: the guide is operably connected to a lower (the term lower is considered as just a naming adjective of the of the portion of the cylinder rod since not orientation of the rest of the pump element being vertical or the arrangement of the portion of the rod relative to the other pump components is set forth) end portion (the end portion of the rod element 42 in Fig. 2) of the hydrogen cylinder rod portion.
With regards to claim 17, Passa et al disclose the pump of claim 16, wherein the guide is located beneath (clearly shown) the presser component.
With regards to claim 18, Passa et al disclose the pump of claim 17, wherein the piston assembly includes: a hollow body (labeled in the annotated figures); a piston ring (labeled in the annotated figures) positioned about the hollow body; and a presser surface (labeled in the annotated figure) axially aligned with the presser component with respect to the longitudinal axis and configured to be contacted by the presser component (see Fig. 2) to selectively force the valve body in the direction toward the sealing member, wherein the valve body is a circular valve body (the valve body forms a circular contact surface and thus would also be considered circular).
With regards to claim 19, Passa et al disclose the pump of claim 18, wherein: the plunger assembly comprises a plunger (17, labeled in the annotated figures) operably connected to the hydrogen cylinder rod portion; the sealing member is a circular sealing member (the sealing member forms a circular contact surface, and is also half a circle in cross section, and thus would also be considered circular); the circular sealing member is supported by the plunger (clearly shown); and the presser component is located beneath the plunger along the longitudinal axis (clearly shown).
With regards to claim 20, Passa et al disclose the pump of claim 19, wherein: an upper surface of the sealing member is spaced apart from a lower surface of the presser component by a first distance (labeled in the annotated figures) along the longitudinal axis; the sealing member is configured to seal with a lower surface of the valve body (see Fig. 1); the lower surface of the valve body is spaced apart from the presser surface by a second distance (labeled in the annotated drawing) along the longitudinal axis; and the second distance is greater than the first distance (clearly shown), such that the sealing member cannot seal with the lower surface of the valve body when the presser component is in contact with the presser surface (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
823
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passa et al in view of Vonalt, as applied to claims 14-20, and further in view of Ashahara et al (USPAP 2021/0102558).
The limitations of claims 1-7 are substantially the same as claims 14-20 and, as set forth above, Passa et al in view of Vonalt, anticipates these claims. Passa et al in view of Vonalt, does not disclose that there is a fluid reservoir connected to the pump cylinder as set forth in claim 1.
Ashahara et al, in Fig. 1, discloses a reciprocating piston (90) pump having a fluid reservoir (62) connected to a pump cylinder 88.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pump of Passa et al with a reservoir as a common mechanism to hold and readily provide a relatively large amount of fluid to be pumped.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 8-13 are considered allowable because the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious a hydrogen pump as set forth in claims 1-7, further comprising a pump head assembly located at an upper end of the hydrogen pump cylinder, the pump head assembly including a low-pressure pump unit outlet, the hydrogen cylinder rod portion extending through the pump head assembly; an insulation vessel positioned around the hydrogen pump cylinder; a thermal decoupling rod portion operably connected to the hydrogen cylinder rod portion within the insulation vessel at a location above the pump head assembly; and a cold end portion top plate sealing an upper end of the insulation vessel, wherein the thermal decoupling rod portion extends through the cold end portion top plate. Claims 9-13 are allowable for their dependency from claim 8.
The closest prior art to Passa et al discloses that the cylinder rod extends downwards through the lower end of the cylinder and thus does not teach or make obvious having the cylinder rod portion extending through a pump head assembly that includes a low-pressure pump unit outlet; or teach or make obvious an insulation vessel being positioned around the hydrogen pump cylinder, a cold end portion top plate sealing an upper end of the insulation vessel, and wherein the thermal decoupling rod portion extends through the cold end portion top plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically the Vonalt reference teaches of a guide as broadly included, and argued, by the amendment of July 3, 2026, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights