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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 2,291,678 to Benz et al. (Benz).
In reference to claim 1, Benz teaches an installation for storing and distributing a cryogenic fluid (FIG. 1), the installation comprising a cryogenic reservoir (5, FIG. 1) which is buried below the ground (FIG. 1); a liquid withdrawal circuit comprising an upstream end (6, FIG. 1) connected to the reservoir (5, FIG. 1) and a downstream end (8, FIG. 1) located above the ground and configured to be connected to a consumer (17, FIG. 1), wherein the liquid withdrawal circuit further comprises a cryogenic pump (7, FIG. 1) arranged above the ground (FIG. 1); and a pipe (12, FIG. 1) for the recovery of vaporization gas generated inside the cryogenic pump (7, FIG. 1), having an upstream end (at 9, FIG. 1) connected to the cryogenic pump (7, FIG. 1) and a downstream end (12, FIG. 1) connected to the reservoir (5, FIG. 1), wherein the pipe for the recovery of the vaporization gases (12, FIG. 1) comprises at least one control device (11, FIG. 1) configured to control the pressure and/or flow rate of the vaporization gas returned to the reservoir, wherein the control device (11, FIG. 1) is further configured to control the pressure inside the reservoir at a pressure level which is greater than the pressure at the inlet of the cryogenic pump (intended use recitation; said valve 11 in FIG. 1 is capable of performing said functional language).
In reference to claim 2, Benz teaches the installation as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Benz additionally teaches wherein the control device (11, FIG. 1) is further configured to control the pressure inside the reservoir (5, FIG. 1) at a level of between 5 mbar and 500 mbar above the pressure at the inlet of the cryogenic pump (7, FIG. 1) (intended use recitation; said system in FIG. 1 is capable of performing said functional language).
In reference to claim 7, Benz teaches the installation as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Benz additionally teaches wherein the pipe for the recovery of the vaporization gases (12, FIG. 1) comprises a branching T-piece (12-21, FIG. 1) provided with a valve (22, FIG. 1) toward a discharge zone (7-8, FIG. 1).
In reference to claim 9, it claims the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claim 1, thus, it is rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benz in view of DE 10-2017-125125 to Ratzka (Ratzka).
In reference to claim 3, Benz discloses the installation as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the control device comprises at least one of a heat exchanger. Ratzka teaches a method for carrying out a pressure test of a liquefied gas tank (FIG. 1) wherein the control device comprises at least one of a heat exchanger (23, FIG. 1) in order to evaporate any liquid before returning gas to the storage tank.
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 Benz, to include at least one of a heat exchanger, as taught by Ratzka, in order to evaporate any liquid before returning gas to the storage tank.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benz in view of FR 3122717 to Fayer (Fayer).
In reference to claim 8, Benz discloses the installation as explained in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach a pressurization device configured to pressurize the reservoir, wherein the pressurization device is autonomous and separate from the pipe for the recovery of the vaporization gases and the control device. Fayer teaches a device for storing and supplying cryogenic fluid (FIG. 1) comprising a pressurization device (10, FIG. 1) configured to pressurize the reservoir (1, FIG. 1), wherein the pressurization device (10, FIG. 1) is autonomous and separate from the pipe for the recovery of the vaporization gases (8, FIG. 1) and the control device (7, FIG. 1) in order to provide a backup pressurization system for the reservoir in case one pressurization system for the reservoir fails.
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 Benz, to include a pressurization device configured to pressurize the reservoir, wherein the pressurization device is autonomous and separate from the pipe for the recovery of the vaporization gases and the control device, as taught by Fayer, in order to provide a backup pressurization system for the reservoir in case one pressurization system for the reservoir fails.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 10-11 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
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
8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights