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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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) 1-4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carter (US 20120060935 A1).
In re Claim 1, Carter discloses a method for transferring a liquefied cryogenic fluid (Fig. 7A: 224L) from a cryogenic tank (242) containing the liquefied cryogenic fluid (244L) having a gas phase (224V) in equilibrium with the liquid phase (244L),
the transfer of liquefied cryogenic fluid (transfer via 245) to a receiver (248) being realized at least in part by way of a pressure difference (pump 242 necessarily works by creating a pressure difference) between the cryogenic tank (242) and the receiver (250),
the method comprising the steps of: measuring a first pressure within the cryogenic tank ([0077]);
pressurizing the liquefied cryogenic fluid ([0077]: pressurized by pump 245) contained in the cryogenic tank (242);
withdrawing liquid (248; See [0077]: withdrawn via 248) from the pressurized cryogenic tank (242);
measuring a volume flow rate of withdrawn liquid (flowrate measured using sensor 254) from the pressurized cryogenic tank (242); and
determining a mass of withdrawn liquid ([0149]: mass of 244L) from the measured volume flow rate of withdrawn fluid and the density of the withdrawn fluid ([0149]),
wherein the density of the withdrawn fluid (See[0076] and [0149]: the density is determined via the volumetric and mass flow rate detected and controlled by 254 and 256) is determined from the first pressure ([0149]: the fuel pressure at entry, i.e., the first pressure).
In re Claim 2, Carter discloses further comprising following the pressurizing step, measuring a second pressure of the liquefied cryogenic fluid ([0061]: pressure P2 measured) in the cryogenic tank (242).
In re Claim 3, Carter discloses wherein the density of the withdrawn fluid (248) is calculated from a determined table giving the density of the fluid as a function of its pressure ([0061] and [0149]: the density is derived from the set pressure), wherein D is the density in kg/m3 (these units are inherent to density) and P is the pressure in bar abs (these units are inherent to pressure).
In re Claim 4, Carter discloses wherein the step of determining the mass of withdrawn liquid comprises calculating said mass by multiplying the density by the value of the measured volume flow rate of withdrawn fluid ([0024]: multiplying the volumetric flowrate by density to get variable mass flowrates is a routine mathematical operation)1.
In re Claim 7, Carter discloses wherein the step of measuring the volume flow rate of withdrawn fluid is realized with a volumetric flowmeter (See [0077] and [0132]: a meter is used to measure flowrate and volumetric flowrate using 254).
In re Claim 9, Carter discloses a device (Fig. 7A) for transferring a liquefied cryogenic fluid (244),
the device comprising:
a cryogenic tank (242) configured to contain the liquefied cryogenic fluid (244) having a gas phase (244V) in equilibrium with a liquid phase (244L);
a liquid transfer duct (248) having an upstream end connected to the cryogenic tank (FF1) and a downstream end (end of 248) configured to be connected to a receiver (250),
the liquid transfer duct (248) comprising a volumetric flowmeter (248);
a pressurizing system (245) configured to pressurize the liquefied cryogenic fluid (244) contained in the cryogenic tank (242) before withdrawal (See Fig. 7A and [0077]);
a pressure sensor ([0077]: pressure sensor of 254) configured to measure the pressure within the cryogenic tank ([0077]);
a temperature sensor ([0077]: temperature sensor of 254); and
an electronic data storage and processing component (256) comprising a microprocessor ([0077]: programmed ECM, i.e., a microprocessor),
the electronic data storage and processing component (256) being configured to determine a density of the liquefied cryogenic fluid (See[0076] and [0149]: the density is determined via the volumetric and mass flow rate detected and controlled by 254 and 256) withdrawn by the transfer duct (248) from a pressure value ([0149]) from the pressure sensor (pressure sensor of 254) prior to the pressurizing system ([0149]) pressurizing the liquefied cryogenic fluid (244L).
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 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.
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (US 20120060935 A1) in view of Ammouri (US 20100250157 A1).
In re Claim 5, Carter does not explicitly teach, wherein the step of determining the mass of withdrawn liquid comprises a step of correcting the value of the measured volume flow rate.
However, Ammouri teaches a step of correcting the value of the measured volume flow rate ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Carter and to have modified them by having the step of determining the mass of withdrawn liquid of Carter comprise a step of correcting the value of the measured volume flow rate as taught by Ammouri, in order to control and limit thermal losses from the cryogenic fluid (See Ammouri [0013] and [0134]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 6, Modified Carter teaches wherein the step of the value of the measured flow rate comprises using a multiplying coefficient (Ammouri [0013] and [0029]: a coefficient is used to multiply the flow rate).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (US 20120060935 A1) in view of Allidieres (US 20240218977 A1).
In re Claim 8, Carter does not explicitly teach, wherein the liquefied cryogenic fluid is liquid hydrogen.
On the other hand, Allidieres teaches wherein the liquefied cryogenic fluid is liquid hydrogen ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Carter and to have modified them by having the liquefied cryogenic fluid of Carter be liquid hydrogen, since the structures of Carter and Allidieres perform the same function and as such can be viewed as obvious in view of one another. without since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)
Prosecution Insights