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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: delete the duplication of purge in line 5 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 12, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romanos (2019/0101245, cited on the 6 February 2025 IDS).
In re claim 1, Romanos discloses a cryogenic storage assembly (100) comprising:
a cryogenic storage container (102) having an interior volume;
a differential pressure system (112, para.56) configured to obtain a differential pressure measurement within the interior volume;
a thermistor array assembly (114, para.56) positioned within the interior volume, the thermistor array including a plurality of thermistors positioned at predetermined depths within the interior volume (para.56);
a cryogenic storage control system (110) including a processor (130) and a memory (204), the cryogenic storage control system being configured to:
obtain, via the differential pressure system, a pressure at a top of the interior volume and a pressure proximate to a bottom of the interior volume, and determine an estimated fill level of cryogenic liquid within the interior volume (para.67);
obtain, via the thermistor array, a resistance of each thermistor indicative of a temperature at each of the predetermined depths, and determine a second estimated fill level of cryogenic liquid within the interior volume based on the temperature (para.68);
compare the estimated fill level to the second estimated fill level (para.81); and
based on a difference between the estimated fill level and the second estimated fill level being above a threshold, generate an alert indicating malfunction of at least one of the differential pressure system or the thermistor array assembly (para.81).
In re claim 9, Romanos discloses the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 1, wherein, upon failure of the differential pressure system, the cryogenic storage control system is configured to determine a liquid level within the interior volume based only on signals obtained from the thermistor array assembly (para.42).
In re claim 10, Romanos discloses the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 1, wherein, upon determination at the cryogenic storage control system that a liquid level determined from sensed signals obtained from the differential pressure system is inconsistent with a liquid level determined from sensed signals obtained from the thermistor array assembly, generating a graphical alert (figs.14-18, paras.41, 85).
In re claim 11, Romanos discloses the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 1, wherein the cryogenic storage control system includes a main control unit (202) and an input/output unit (212) communicatively connected thereto.
In re claims 12, the method is anticipated by the normal use of the device as rejected in claim 1, supra.
In re claim 16, see the rejection of claim 1, supra. Additionally, Romanos discloses a display (figs.14-18) communicatively coupled to the controller, the display providing a control user interface (paras. 41, 85).
In re claim 17, Romanos discloses the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 16, wherein the control user interface is configured to display the alert indicating malfunction (figs.14-18, paras.41, 85).
In re claim 18, Romanos discloses the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 16, wherein the display presents a plurality of user interfaces including an interface useable to define threshold settings used in obtaining temperatures via the thermistor array (figs.14-18, paras.41, 85).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanos combined with the following reasons.
In re claim 8, Romanos discloses an array of thermistors. However, Romanos fails to explicitly disclose the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of thermistors includes a first thermistor at a depth of 1 inch, a second thermistor at a depth of 3 inches, a third thermistor at a depth of 5 inches, a fourth thermistor at a depth of 7 inches, a fifth thermistor at a depth of 13 inches, and a sixth thermistor at a depth of 34 inches.
However, the applicant is advised that it has been held by the courts that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 2-5, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanos in view of Naval Group (FR3088460, provided on the 10 June 2025 IDS).
In re claim 2, Romanos fails to explicitly recite, but Naval Group teaches another discloses the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 1, wherein the memory stores control instructions for operation of the cryogenic storage control system, and wherein the control instructions cause the cryogenic storage control system to perform: determining whether an event has occurred that triggers a purge process; and in response to determining whether an event has occurred that triggers the purge process, actuating a valve assembly to route cryogenic gas through one or more conduits within the cryogenic storage assembly to expel moisture therefrom (Original document: p.6 ln.35 – p.7 ln.1, translation found on the 9th paragraph on page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the teachings of Naval Group in Romanos for the purpose of improving storage safety by preventing overpressure events.
In re claim 3, Naval Group fails to disclose the specifically claimed purge events. However, selection of a particular triggering event to purge is an obvious engineering design choice in order to increase safety of the system.
In re claim 4, Naval Group further teaches the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 2, wherein the valve assembly includes a plurality of electronically-actuatable valves (70).
In re claim 5, Romanos fails to explicitly disclose the cryogenic storage assembly of claim 2, wherein the control instructions further cause the cryogenic storage control system to perform a calibration process comprising: performing a pressure calibration process to calibrate a pressure reading from within the interior volume of the cryogenic storage container while at a pressure greater than an atmospheric pressure; after performing the pressure calibration process, initiating a fill level calibration process; and receiving calibration values as to one or both of the pressure calibration process or the pressure calibration process.
However, the Examiner takes official notice that the periodic calibration of instruments Is well known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a PHOSTIA before the effective filing date of the invention to program the controller accordingly for the purpose of ensuring proper operation of the instruments, thereby ensuring safety.
In re claims 13-14, the method is anticipated/obviated by the normal use of the device as rejected in claim 2, supra.
In re claim 15, the method is anticipated/obviated by the normal use of the device as rejected in claim 5, supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy P. Kelly whose telephone number is (571)270-7615. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET) on Monday, Thursday, and Friday.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Timothy P. Kelly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753