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 .
The amendment filed 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 duplicate punctuation (“cryogenic fluid, , comprising…”) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: errant punctuation (“that is less than half of, the diameter…”) Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an anti-stratification device for homogenizing the temperature of the fluid vertically in the tank” in claim 1, the sufficient structure being “the anti-stratification device comprising a single heat-transfer wall comprising a material with a coefficient of thermal conductivity of greater than 30 W-m-1-K-1”, “said heat-transfer wall being arranged parallel to the longitudinal direction of the tank and extending vertically over 20% to 100% of the height of the storage shell and extending longitudinally over at least 50% of the length of the storage shell”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the transfer wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (i.e. claim 1 recites “a heat-transfer wall”, and it is therefore unclear whether these recitations reference the same “heat-transfer wall” of claim 1).
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.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,742,554 (Immel hereinafter) in view of US PG Pub No. 2012/0312500 (Jorgenson hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Fig. 5, Immel discloses: A tank (70) for storing fluid (“hydrogen”, column 5, lines 9-11) comprising a storage shell (12) with a cylindrical overall shape extending in a longitudinal direction that is horizontal (column 5, lines 12-18), the storage shell comprising, within it, an anti-stratification device (72) for homogenizing the temperature of the fluid vertically in the tank (column 5, lines 43-45), the anti-stratification device comprising a single heat-transfer wall (72 cylindrical shaped and is therefore one wall and not shown as being separate walls) comprising a material with a coefficient of thermal conductivity (“aluminum”, column 5, lines 23-26), the storage shell comprising a height and a length, said heat-transfer wall being arranged parallel to the longitudinal direction of the tank and extending vertically.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Shell Length)][AltContent: textbox (Transfer Wall Length)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Fin)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Transfer Wall Height)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shell Height)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
333
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (“for cryogenic fluid”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
Immel fails to disclose wherein the aluminum heat-transfer wall has a specific range of coefficient of thermal conductivity of greater than 30 W /(mꞏK).
However, Jorgenson discloses a fuel cooler assembly wherein aluminum is taught to have a thermal conductivity of 255 W/(mꞏC) [255 W/(mꞏK]) (see paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized an aluminum with a high coefficient of thermal conductivity for the thermal-conducting aluminum wall of Immel as taught by Jorgenson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, page 4, lines 15-17, and page 5, lines 7-9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
While Immel does not state the said transfer wall extending vertically over 20% to 100% of the height, Immel does state “Further, the width of the gap 78 is small enough so that the majority of the volume of the container 70 is within the vessel 72.” (column 5, lines 52-55). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have designated said transfer wall extending vertically over 20 to 100% and over at least 50% since values in these range would be required for a majority of the volume to be filled as taught by Immel. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 4, lines 13-27, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention including wherein the heat-transfer wall extends vertically over 60% to 100% of the height of the storage shell (see Fig. 5 above, as in re claim 1 above).
Again, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 4, lines 13-27, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention including wherein the heat-transfer wall extends longitudinally over at least 80% of the length of the storage shell (as in re claim 1 above, see Fig. 5 above).
Again, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 4 lines 13-27, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention including wherein the heat-transfer wall is comprised of aluminium (“aluminum”, column 5, lines 23-26).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention except wherein the heat-transfer wall has a thickness of between 1 mm and 8 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a desired range of thickness of the wall capable of transferring heat of Immel in view of Jorgenson since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 2, line 20, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention including wherein the heat-transfer wall has on or more fins extending transversely relative to the transfer wall (see fig. 5 above).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention including wherein the storage shell comprises a diameter (column 5, lines 9-19), and wherein the one or more fins extend transversely relative to the heat-transfer wall over a distance transverse to the heat-transfer wall that is ~52% of the diameter of the storage shell (see Fig. 5 above), but not less than half of[,] the diameter of the storage shell with a cylindrical overall shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have slightly decreased the extending distance of the fin from ~52% to 49% of the diameter of the storage shell, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 5, lines 23-27, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention including wherein the heat-transfer wall is fastened to the storage shell by welding (column 5, lines 26-30).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Immel in view of Jorgenson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Us Patent No. 10,859,208 (Tamburello et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention except a set of circuitry and equipment in the storage shell, the [heat-]transfer wall forming a support for at least some of the circuitry and/or equipment.
However, Tamburello et al. discloses a heat transfer unit for a vessel, wherein a heat transfer element (14/50) can have thereon attached an auxiliary device (“an auxiliary device 60 may be a sensor, such as a chemical sensor; a sampling device, such as a pitot tube; a thermocouple; or a pressure transducer”) within the storage shell (20) (see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated “circuitry and equipment” as would be expected to be found in the auxiliary device (sensor, thermocouple, etc.) on the heat-transfer element of Tamburello et al. on the heat-transfer wall of Immel in view of Jorgensen for the purposes of utilizing the equipment to monitor and measure various characteristics of the fluid within the vessel, take samples of the fluid, etc. (see Tamburello et al. column 5, lines 55-62).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Immel in view of Jorgenson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub no. 2017/0159883 (Lapena Rey et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Immel in view of Jorgenson disclose the claimed invention except a double-walled configuration with a space comprising thermal insulation.
However, a cryogenic tank for storing liquid hydrogen is formed as a double-walled tank including a space for an insulation barrier between the first wall 104 and second wall 106 (paragraphs 0048 and 0051, see Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the tank of Immel in view of Jorgenson to have included a double walled configuration with a space for thermal insulation as taught by Lapena Rey et al. for the predictable purposes of preventing external heat from further heating the stored liquid of Immel in view of Jorgenson in order to prevent the liner from excess heating (“so as to not significantly increase the temperature of the liner 14” Immel column 4,lines 34-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 of the Remarks that it is not possible for Immel to perform as an anti-stratification device as the word “liquid” is not found in Immel. However, the word “liquid” is also not found in Applicant’s current claims. Further, in response to applicant's argument that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, a structure which can cause homogenization of the temperature of contents of a tank via a metal wall spanning a height of the tank is what is taught by Immel, and claimed recitation of an intended use such as “anti-stratification” of contents is not a structural limitation, and limitations from the Applicant’s specification will not be read in to the claims. Further note that Immel does indeed provide for “fluid communication”: “the gap and the fill chamber are in fluid communication, wherein the fill gas is caused to flow through the adapter into the gap”, as in Immel’s claims 1, 10, and 20-22.
No further arguments are presented.
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights