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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “multiple nozzles of the same or different design”, “a submerged pump inside the first cryotank”, “a submerged pump inside the second cryotank” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites “a first control valve” and “a second control valve” which are considered indefinite as the claims have already recited “a set of valves configured to control flow” which renders claim 1 indefinite as it is unclear how these valves are related and if they are separate valves or a repetition of the same. Further, the claims only require the presence of either the first or second control valve and not both valves. For the purpose of examination, the first and second control valve are each considered to be one of the valves of the set of valves.
Claim 1 repeatedly uses alternative limitation using an “or” statement which renders claim 1 indefinite. As written claim is not reciting two conditions of operation but only requiring providing either flow through the first control valve or flow through the second control valve which results in the final paragraph of claim 1 being indefinite as it is unclear how during the condition when the claim positively recites the first control valve there would be flow to the bottom of the second cryotank to increase its pressure or how during the condition when the flow is through the second control valve there would be flow to the nozzle. For the purpose of examination, under the configuration where the first control valve is positively considered fluidly connected, the transfer pump is configured to pass fluid through the nozzle and under the configuration where the second valve is positively considered fluidly connected the transfer pump is configured to pass fluid to the bottom of the storage tank.
Claim 1 recites “thereby maintaining the pressure of the second cryotank at a desired level while the second cryotank is being filled with no vent loss” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation is. This limitation follows two alternative limitations for operation that are both not required by the claims and it is unclear if this limitation is meant to limit the claims or is only the intended purpose of the invention. Further, the limitation appears to be defining why something is done but not specifically requiring any limitations that narrow the claim to in a way that result in the configuration as claimed For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not considered to further limit the claims and as long as there is pressure control by either flow, the limitation is met.
Claim 1, lines 10 and 13 recites “the nozzle” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 has previously recited “a nozzle” or “multiple nozzles” which results in the limitation being indefinite as it is unclear how many nozzles are required by the claim for the transfer pump. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that the nozzle or one of the nozzles of the multiple nozzles provides such configuration.
Claim 3 recites “the nozzle” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 has previously recited “a nozzle” or “multiple nozzles” which results in the limitation being indefinite as it is unclear how many nozzles are required by the claim for the transfer pump. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is configured such that the nozzle or one of the nozzles of the multiple nozzles provides such configuration.
Claim 3 recites “the nozzle comprises a diffuser with a pipe having single or multiple orifices places substantially uniformly along the pipe” which is considered indefinite. A pipe having multiple orifices placed along the pipe would not be considered one nozzle but multiple nozzles working together as a spray bar, a well-known configuration in the art. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the pipe having multiple orifices is understood to be that there are multiple nozzles placed along the pipe of which the one claimed nozzle is a part of.
Claim 3 recites “one or more showerheads” and “one or more sprinkler type devices” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how one nozzle can be multiple showerheads or multiple sprinkler type devices. For the purpose of examination, the “or more” limitations are understood to only refer to when there are multiple nozzles.
Claim 3 recites “sprinkler type devices” as adding “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite “MPEP 2173.05(b)III(E). Further the limitation of “devices” render is unclear how it further limits the limitation as well for similar reasons. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that as long as there is a central jet and a deflector plate the limitation is met.
Claim 4 recites “the nozzle” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 has previously recited “a nozzle” or “multiple nozzles” which results in the limitation being indefinite as it is unclear how many nozzles are required by the claim for the transfer pump. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is configured such that the nozzle or one of the nozzles of the multiple nozzles provides such configuration.
Claim 4 recites “the nozzle comprise a fixed geometry nozzle, and a variable orifice nozzle” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear how a single nozzle can comprise two separate nozzles. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the nozzle comprises a fixed geometry nozzle or a variable orifice nozzle.
Claims 5-7 all recite “the droplet size as characterized by”, which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. First, claim 1 only requires the presence of “droplets of millimeter diameter size” in an alternative recitation limitation and does not positively require a recitation of the millimeter diameter size. Further it is unclear what “as characterized” means in this context. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are only considered to be present under the configuration when the transfer pump is configured to flow through the nozzle and “as characterized by” is not considered to be present in the claims.
Claim 8 recites “a desired flow rate” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the limitation of “desired” and if it is actually limitation the claim or only reciting what is a desired, non-limiting limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the transfer pump has to be capable of producing such flow rate.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation 10 to 300 gallons per minute (0.038 to 1.1 m3/min), and the claim also recites preferably 20 to 200 gpm (0.076 to 0.76 m3/min), more preferably 20 to 100 gpm (0.076 to 0.38 m3/min) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that only the first limitation is required.
Claim 9 recites “a desired flow rate” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the limitation of “desired” and if it is actually limitation the claim or only reciting what is a desired, non-limiting limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the transfer pump has to be capable of producing such flow rate.
Claim 10 recites “a desired flow rate” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the limitation of “desired” and if it is actually limitation the claim or only reciting what is a desired, non-limiting limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the transfer pump has to be capable of producing such flow rate.
Claim 11 recites “a desired discharged pressure” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the limitation of “desired” and if it is actually limitation the claim or only reciting what is a desired, non-limiting limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the transfer pump has to be capable of producing such pressure.
Claim 12 recites “a desired discharged pressure” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required by the limitation of “desired” and if it is actually limitation the claim or only reciting what is a desired, non-limiting limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the transfer pump has to be capable of producing such pressure.
Claim 14 recites “a centrifugal pump, a positive displacement pump, or any suitable design” which is considered indefinite. This limitation does not appear to limit the pump to any specific design because as long as the pump is capable of providing the transfer it would inherently have “any suitable design”. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to not further limit the claims.
Claim 15 recites “generating liquid droplets of the liquefied gas having a diameter size of millimeter level using the transfer pump through the nozzle”. First, claim 1 has previously recited “a nozzle” or “multiple nozzles” which results in the limitation being indefinite as it is unclear how many nozzles are required by the claim for the transfer pump. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is configured such that the nozzle or one of the nozzles of the multiple nozzles provides such configuration. Second claim 1 has not positively required the presence of liquid droplets being generated and only provided it as a possible configuration and it is unclear if this is a repeated limitation or a required limitation regardless of the configuration of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that regardless of the configuration of claim 1, the nozzle generates liquid droplets through the nozzle as claimed.
Claim 15 recites “so as to maintain the pressure of the second cryotank at a desired level while the second cryotank is being filled with no vent loss” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation is. The limitation appears to be defining why something is done but not specifically requiring any limitations that narrow the claim to in a way that result in the configuration as claimed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not considered to further limit the claims and as long as there is pressure control by the flow, the limitation is met.
Claim 16 recites “a first control valve” and “a second control valve” which are considered indefinite as the claims have already recited “a set of valves configured to control flow” which renders claim 1 indefinite as it is unclear how these valves are related and if they are separate valves or a repetition of the same. Further, the claims only require the presence of either the first or second control valve and not both valves. For the purpose of examination, the first and second control valve are each considered to be one of the valves of the set of valves.
Claim 16 repeatedly uses alternative limitation using an “or” statement which renders claim 16 indefinite. As written claim is not reciting two conditions of operation but only requiring providing either flow through the first control valve or flow through the second control valve which results in the final paragraph of claim 1 being indefinite as it is unclear how during the condition when the claim positively recites the first control valve there would be flow to the bottom of the second cryotank to increase its pressure or how during the condition when the flow is through the second control valve there would be flow to the nozzle. For the purpose of examination, under the configuration where the first control valve is positively considered fluidly connected present the transfer pump is configured to pass fluid through the nozzle and under the configuration where the second valve is positively considered fluidly connected the transfer pump is configured to pass fluid to the bottom of the storage tank.
Claim 16 recites “thereby maintaining the pressure of the second cryotank at a desired level while the second cryotank is being filled with no vent loss” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation is. This limitation follows two alternative limitations for operation that are both not required by the claims and it is unclear if this limitation is meant to limit the claims or is only the intended purpose of the invention. Further, the limitation appears to be defining why something is done but not specifically requiring any limitations that narrow the claim to in a way that result in the configuration as claimed For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not considered to further limit the claims and as long as there is pressure control by either flow, the limitation is met.
Claim 16, lines 11 and 14 recites “the nozzle” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 has previously recited “a nozzle” or “multiple nozzles” which results in the limitation being indefinite as it is unclear how many nozzles are required by the claim for the transfer pump. For the purpose of examination, these limitation are understood to refer to the nozzle or one of the nozzles of the multiple nozzles provides such configuration.
Claim 18 recites “the nozzle” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 has previously recited “a nozzle” or “multiple nozzles” which results in the limitation being indefinite as it is unclear how many nozzles are required by the claim for the transfer pump. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is configured such that the nozzle or one of the nozzles of the multiple nozzles provides such configuration.
Claim 18 recites “the nozzle comprises a diffuser with a pipe having single or multiple orifices places substantially uniformly along the pipe” which is considered indefinite. A pipe having multiple orifices placed along the pipe would not be considered one nozzle but multiple nozzles working together as a spray bar, a well-known configuration in the art. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the pipe having multiple orifices is understood to be that there are multiple nozzles placed along the pipe of which the one claimed nozzle is a part of.
Claim 18 recites “one or more showerheads” and “one or more sprinkler type devices” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how one nozzle can be multiple showerheads or multiple sprinkler type devices. For the purpose of examination, the “or more” limitations are understood to only refer to when there are multiple nozzles.
Claim 18 recites “sprinkler type devices” as adding “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite “MPEP 2173.05(b)III(E). Further the limitation of “devices” render is unclear how it further limits the limitation as well for similar reasons. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that as long as there is a central jet and a deflector plate the limitation is met.
Claim 19 recites “the nozzle” which is considered indefinite. Claim 1 has previously recited “a nozzle” or “multiple nozzles” which results in the limitation being indefinite as it is unclear how many nozzles are required by the claim for the transfer pump. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is configured such that the nozzle or one of the nozzles of the multiple nozzles provides such configuration.
Claim 19 recites “the nozzle comprises a fixed geometry nozzle, and a variable orifice nozzle” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear how a single nozzle can comprise two separate nozzles. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the nozzle comprises a fixed geometry nozzle or a variable orifice nozzle.
While this is meant to be a comprehensive list of all issues in regard to 35 USC 112 in the claims, due to the length and nature of the claims, it may not be possible to indicate every issue in regard to 35 USC 112 and the Applicant is requested to perform a thorough review of the claims for any outstanding issues in regard to 35 USC 112. The applicant is also requested to proofread any future amendments for any potential issues in regard to 35 USC 112 that can arise from the amendments due to the complexity of the claims.
Claims 20 recites “the droplet size as characterized by”, which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. First, claim 19 only requires the presence of “droplets of millimeter diameter size” in an alternative recitation limitation and does not positively require a recitation of the millimeter diameter size. Further it is unclear what “as characterized” means in this context. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is only considered to be present under the configuration when the transfer pump is configured to flow through the nozzle and “as characterized by” is not considered to be present in the claims.
Claims 2, 13, 17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites ““a centrifugal pump, a positive displacement pump, or any suitable design” which does not further limit the claim as it only requires any pump that is capable of providing transfer and thus the already present transfer pump inherently meets this limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “transfer pump of high flow and low discharge pressure” is understood that the transfer pump is configured to allow a high flow through it and is configured to have a low discharge pressure.
The limitation “sprinkler type devices” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the interpretation for indefiniteness.
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) 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20200138563), hereinafter referred to as Kim and further in view of Barres (EP2236904), hereinafter referred to as Barres.
With respect to claim 1, Kim (Figure 1) teaches a system for zero boiloff and vent loss of a liquefied gas application, comprising
a first cryotank as a source tank configured to supply a liquefied gas (storage tank 101 supplies liquefied gas stored in storage tank, paragraph 17, which liquefied gas can be LNG, paragraph 19, which makes 101 a cryotank);
a second cryotank configured to receive and store the liquefied gas from the first cryotank (102 receives the liquefied gas from 101, paragraph 17 which also makes it a cryotank);
a set of valves configured to control flow of the liquefied gas from the first cryotank to the second cryotank (V1 and V2, paragraph 17);
a nozzle with single or multiple orifices (spray means 105 which can include a nozzle, paragraph 22, which as there is a nozzle would have either single or multiple orifices);
a transfer pump (pump P, paragraph 17), fluidly connected to the said first cryotank and the second cryotank through a second control valve to the bottom of the second cryotank (via V1 fluid flows to provide liquefied gas, paragraph 17, which can be seen in the figure, fluid flows to the bottom part of the tank 102)
whereby the transfer pump is configured to flow liquid to the bottom of the second cryotank to increase its pressure (liquid is flown into the bottom of the tank via the pump as seen in the figure), thereby maintaining the pressure of the second cryotank at a desired level while the second cryotank is being filled with no vent loss (pumping fluid into the tank would provide some control of the pressure).
Kim as modified does not teach the pump has a high flow.
Kim teaches that the flow rate of the pump can be increased in order to liquefy the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank and lower the pressure of the tank. As such the flow rate through the pump is a result effective variable, chosen in order to ensure there is enough flow to cool the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kim to have had the flow rate through the pump to have been a high flow as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kim to have had the pump had a high flow as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Kim does not teach the pump has a low discharge pressure.
Barres teaches that a pump (3) which pumps LNG from one tank (2) to another (1) has an outlet pressure of 9 bara (paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Kim as modified to have based on Barres had the discharge pressure of the tank be 9 bara (which meets applicant’s disclosure of low pressure) as applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating the pressure is 2 to 20 barg, preferably 5 to 15 barg paragraph 9 of the instant specification) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 2, Kim as modified teaches wherein the liquefied gas comprises liquid natural as (LNG is the liquid, paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 3, Kim as modified teaches the nozzle comprises a diffuser with a pipe having multiple orifices placed substantially uniformly along the pipe to cover substantially a length of the cryotank (the spray means 105 that is a nozzle, paragraph 22 that is provided by the spray line L2 in Figure 1 depicts this configuration, where the multiple nozzles are placed along the pipe).
Claims 5-7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
With respect to claim 8, Kim as modified does not teach wherein the transfer pump has a desired flow rate from 10 to 300 gallons per minute (0.038 to 1.1 m3/min).
Kim teaches that the flow rate of the pump can be increased in order to liquefy the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank and lower the pressure of the tank. As such the flow rate through the pump is a result effective variable, chosen in order to ensure there is enough flow to cool the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kim to have had the flow rate through the pump to have been a flow rate within the claimed range as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kim to have had the pump had a flow rate of 10 to 300 gallons per minute (0.038 to 1.1 m3/min) a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 9, Kim as modified does not teach wherein the transfer pump has a desired flow rate of from 20 to 200 gpm (0.076 to 0.76 m3/min).
Kim teaches that the flow rate of the pump can be increased in order to liquefy the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank and lower the pressure of the tank. As such the flow rate through the pump is a result effective variable, chosen in order to ensure there is enough flow to cool the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kim to have had the flow rate through the pump to have been a flow rate within the claimed range as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kim to have had the pump had a flow rate of 20 to 200 gallons per minute (0.076 to 0.76 m3/min) a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 10, Kim as modified does not teach wherein the transfer pump has a desired flow rate of from 20 to 100 gpm (0.076 to 0.38 m3/min).
Kim teaches that the flow rate of the pump can be increased in order to liquefy the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank and lower the pressure of the tank. As such the flow rate through the pump is a result effective variable, chosen in order to ensure there is enough flow to cool the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kim to have had the flow rate through the pump to have been a flow rate within the claimed range as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kim to have had the pump had a flow rate of 20 to 100 gallons per minute (0.076 to 0.38 m3/min n) a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 11, Kim as modified teaches wherein the transfer pump has a desired discharge pressure of from 2 to 20 barg (as modified the pressure is 9 bara which is ~8 barg).
With respect to claim 12, Kim as modified teaches wherein the transfer pump has a desired discharge pressure of from 5 to 15 barg (as modified the pressure is 9 bara which is ~8 barg).
With respect to claim 13, Kim as modified teaches wherein the transfer pump comprise a submerged pump inside the first cryotank (this is the configuration as seen in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 14, Kim teaches wherein the transfer pump is a centrifugal pump, a positive displacement pump, or any suitable design (the pump provides the transfer and thus meets the limitation as claimed).
With respect to claim 16, Kim (Figure 1) teaches a system for zero boiloff and vent loss of a liquefied gas application, wherein the system is configured to be coupled with a first cryotank, the first cryotank as a source tank configured to supply a liquefied gas (storage tank 101 supplies liquefied gas stored in storage tank, paragraph 17, which liquefied gas can be LNG, paragraph 19, which makes 101 a cryotank), the system comprising:
a second cryotank configured to receive and store the liquefied gas from the first cryotank (102 receives the liquefied gas from 101, paragraph 17 which also makes it a cryotank);
a set of valves configured to control flow of the liquefied gas from the first cryotank to the second cryotank (V1 and V2, paragraph 17);
a nozzle with single or multiple orifices (spray means 105 which can include a nozzle, paragraph 22, which as there is a nozzle would have either single or multiple orifices);
a transfer pump (pump P, paragraph 17), fluidly connected to the said first cryotank and the second cryotank through a second control valve to the bottom of the second cryotank (via V1 fluid flows to provide liquefied gas, paragraph 17, which can be seen in the figure, fluid flows to the bottom part of the tank 102)
whereby the transfer pump is configured to flow liquid to the bottom of the second cryotank to increase its pressure (liquid is flown into the bottom of the tank via the pump as seen in the figure), thereby maintaining the pressure of the second cryotank at a desired level while the second cryotank is being filled with no vent loss (pumping fluid into the tank would provide some control of the pressure).
Kim as modified does not teach the pump has a high flow.
Kim teaches that the flow rate of the pump can be increased in order to liquefy the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank and lower the pressure of the tank. As such the flow rate through the pump is a result effective variable, chosen in order to ensure there is enough flow to cool the evaporated gas inside the fuel tank. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kim to have had the flow rate through the pump to have been a high flow as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Kim to have had the pump had a high flow as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Kim does not teach the pump has a low discharge pressure.
Barres teaches that a pump (3) which pumps LNG from one tank (2) to another (1) has an outlet pressure of 9 bara (paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Kim as modified to have based on Barres had the discharge pressure of the tank be 9 bara (which meets applicant’s disclosure of low pressure) as applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range (indicating the pressure is 2 to 20 barg, preferably 5 to 15 barg paragraph 9 of the instant specification) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 17 Kim as modified teaches wherein the liquefied gas comprises liquid natural gas (LNG is the liquid, paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 18, Kim as modified teaches the nozzle comprises a diffuser with a pipe having multiple orifices placed substantially uniformly along the pipe to cover substantially a length of the cryotank (the spray means 105 that is a nozzle, paragraph 22 that is provided by the spray line L2 in Figure 1 depicts this configuration, where the multiple nozzles are placed along the pipe).
Claim 20 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Barres and further in view of deLesdernier et al (US PG Pub 20190151868), hereinafter referred to as dLesdernier.
With respect to claim 4, Kim as modified does not wherein the nozzle comprises a fixed geometry nozzle, and a variable orifice nozzle.
deLesdernier teaches that nozzle can be used in spray cooling include fixed orifice nozzles and spring loaded variable orifice nozzles (paragraph 5 and 8) and that it is known that flow rate may need to vary (paragraph 3) and specifically teahces a orifice having a different adjustable orifice sizes can be used (Figures 7A, 7B) and that adjusting the size of the orifice gap can be used to provide greater control of the spray (paragraph 22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of deLesdernier to have utilized a variable orifice nozzle in Kim as modified as one of the nozzles since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a variable orifice nozzle would provide what is common knowledge in the art of being able to adjust the cooling provided by the nozzle and thus make a system that is able to compensate for changes in cooling needed.
With respect to claim 19, Kim as modified does not wherein the nozzle comprises a fixed geometry nozzle, and a variable orifice nozzle.
deLesdernier teaches that nozzle can be used in spray cooling include fixed orifice nozzles and spring loaded variable orifice nozzles (paragraph 5 and 8) and that it is known that flow rate may need to vary (paragraph 3) and specifically teahces a orifice having a different adjustable orifice sizes can be used (Figures 7A, 7B) and that adjusting the size of the orifice gap can be used to provide greater control of the spray (paragraph 22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of deLesdernier to have utilized a variable orifice nozzle in Kim as modified as one of the nozzles since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a variable orifice nozzle would provide what is common knowledge in the art of being able to adjust the cooling provided by the nozzle and thus make a system that is able to compensate for changes in cooling needed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Barres and further in view of Rini et al. (US PG Pub 20060117782), hereinafter referred to as Rini.
With respect to claim 15, Kim teaches supplying a liquefied gas from the first cryotank to the second cryotank (liquefied gas is provided to 102 from 101 via either V1 or V2); and generating liquid droplets of the liquefied gas using the transfer pump through the nozzle (the nozzle 105 would provdied liquid droplets through the pump P when in operation) so as to maintain the pressure of the second cryotank at a desired level while the second cryotank is being filled with no vent loss (the nozzles are used to suppress the internal pressure of the fuel tank, paragraph 7-8 which meets the limitation as claimed and thus could provide a prevention of vent loss, which is further what is taught happens when pressure exceeds a set pressure in the prior art, paragraph 3).
Kim does not teach the droplets having a diameter size of millimeter level.
Rini teaches that droplet size and velocities can be variable and that using small droplets can make it easier to provide coverage (paragraph 57). As such, droplet size is a result effective variable which is variable and is known to affect coverage provided. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kim as modified to have had a droplet size within the claimed range, as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the droplet size in Kim as modified have a diameter size of a millimeter level as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights