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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is currently 21 words in length in which it should be 50-150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “a pressure reader” should be amended to –the pressure reader--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8, “the high-pressure accumulator” should be amended to –a high-pressure accumulator--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 8-9, the space needs to be reduced between “other” and “safety valve”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2:
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2 contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application which includes a high-pressure tank, a first piping configuration, a first indirect heater, a second piping configuration, a first piping branch, a first valve, a first fail-close valve, a first control valve, a first inverse acting valve, a first controller, a second piping branch, a second valve, a second fail-close valve, a second inverse acting valve, a second controller, a third piping configuration, a second indirect heater, a fourth piping configuration, a third control valve and a compressor.
Additionally, claim 1 of US 11359767 B2 contains the additional limitations of “wherein the second indirect heater is closer to the first control valve than the first fail-close valve, and the second direct heater is closer to the second control valve than the second fail-close valve”, “the third control valve is controlled by a third controller, wherein the third controller is connected to a pressure reader connected to the fourth piping configuration”, and “wherein the compressor and a gas analyzer are located on a fifth piping configuration, and wherein the gas analyzer is located after the third control valve” which are not included in the present application.
Thus, the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claim 1 of the present application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species” where an obviousness analysis is not required (See MPEP 804 II B 2 as well as In re Goodman (1993)). Since claim 1 of the present application of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of US 11359767 B2, it is not patentably distinct from Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a third controller communicates with a fourth control valve and the fourth control valve is located on a sixth piping configuration.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the first controller closes the first control valve when a pressure reading is below a particular threshold.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a temperature reader.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a pressure reader sends pressure information to a third controller.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the pressure information includes information that gas pressure is above a particular threshold.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the pressure information includes information that gas pressure is below a particular threshold, and wherein the controller keeps the valve open based on the pressure information being below the particular threshold.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the apparatus is moveable.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 requires a high-pressure accumulator and claim 19 requires a mid-pressure accumulator that is connected to the first controller and the second controller which is seen in claim 9 of US 11359767 B2.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. 11359767 B2 contains all of the limitations of claim 9 of the present application which includes:
A method for supplying gas, comprising:
connecting a fail-close valve to a first piping section;
connecting a first control valve to the first piping section;
connecting a safety valve to the first piping section, wherein the first control valve is located between to the safety valve and the fail-close valve;
connecting the first control valve to a first controller;
sending gas through the fail-close valve, wherein the gas sent through the fail- close valve is first sent through the high-pressure accumulator;
sending the gas through the control valve, wherein the gas is sent through the fail- close valve prior to the gas being sent to the first control valve;
controlling, by the first controller, a quantity of gas sent through the first control valve;
sending the gas to an indirect heater;
heating, by the indirect heater, the gas;
sending the gas through a pressure reader after the gas is heated;
sending pressure information of the heated gas to a second controller; and
controlling a second control valve based on the pressure information sent to the second controller, wherein the second valve is connected to a third piping section that is connected to a compressor.
Additionally, claim 10 of US 11359767 B2 contains the additional limitations of “connecting a high-pressure accumulator to a second piping section”, “sending gas through the high-pressure accumulator”, “sending gas through the fail-close valve, wherein the gas sent through the fail-close valve is first sent through the high-pressure accumulator”, “wherein the gas is sent through the fail-close valve prior to the gas being sent to the first control valve”, “sending gas to an indirect heater after the gas is sent through the first control valve”, and “supplying the gas to a gas system” which are not included in the present application.
Thus, the invention of claim 10 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claim 9 of the present application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species” where an obviousness analysis is not required (See MPEP 804 II B 2 as well as In re Goodman (1993)). Since claim 9 of the present application of the present application is anticipated by claim 10 of US 11359767 B2, it is not patentably distinct from Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the second controller controls the amount of the gas sent to the compressor.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require turning the compressor on based on the pressure information sent to the second controller.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require compressing the gas by the compressor and the gas enters a high-pressure accumulator.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a fiscal analyzer is placed between the compressor and a gas analyzer.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require sending the natural gas to a fourth piping section instead of the first piping section; the fourth piping section including another fail-close valve, a third control valve, and another safety valve; and the other fail-close valve, the third control valve, and the other safety valve provides 100% redundancy if at least one of the fail-close valve, the second control valve, and the safety valve fails.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the gas is heated by another indirect heater prior to sending the gas to the fail-close valve.
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require opening, by a third controller, the third control valve, based on the third controller receiving a first pressure information, wherein only the third controller or the first controller operates at one time.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11359767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require prior to receiving the first pressure information, the third controller receives initial pressure information from a mid-pressure accumulator.
U.S. Patent No. 122287251 B2:
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 122287251 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 1222875251 B2 contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application which includes a high-pressure tank, a first piping configuration, a first indirect heater, a second piping configuration, a first piping branch, a first valve, a first fail-close valve, a first control valve, a first inverse acting valve, a first controller, a second piping branch, a second valve, a second fail-close valve, a second inverse acting valve, a second controller, a third piping configuration, a second indirect heater, a fourth piping configuration, a third control valve and a compressor.
Additionally, claim 1 of US 1222875251 B2 contains the additional limitations of “the third control valve is controlled by a third controller” and “wherein the third controller is connected to a pressure reader connected to the fourth piping configuration” which are not included in the present application.
Thus, the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claim 1 of the present application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species” where an obviousness analysis is not required (See MPEP 804 II B 2 as well as In re Goodman (1993)). Since claim 1 of the present application of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of US 122287521 B2, it is not patentably distinct from Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 is of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a third controller communicates with a fourth control valve and the fourth control valve is located on a sixth piping configuration.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the first controller closes the first control valve when a pressure reading is below a particular threshold.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a temperature reader.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the pressure reader sends pressure information to a third controller.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the pressure information includes information that gas pressure is above a particular threshold.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the pressure information includes information that gas pressure is below a particular threshold and the controller keeps the valve open based on the pressure information being below the particular threshold.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the apparatus is moveable.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a high-pressure accumulator.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a mid-pressure accumulator that is connected to the first controller and the second controller.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. 122287521 B2 contains all of the limitations of claim 9 of the present application which includes:
A method for supplying gas, comprising:
connecting a fail-close valve to a first piping section;
connecting a first control valve to the first piping section;
connecting a safety valve to the first piping section, wherein the first control valve is located between to the safety valve and the fail-close valve;
connecting the first control valve to a first controller;
sending gas through the fail-close valve, wherein the gas sent through the fail- close valve is first sent through the high-pressure accumulator;
sending the gas through the control valve, wherein the gas is sent through the fail- close valve prior to the gas being sent to the first control valve;
controlling, by the first controller, a quantity of gas sent through the first control valve;
sending the gas to an indirect heater;
heating, by the indirect heater, the gas;
sending the gas through a pressure reader after the gas is heated;
sending pressure information of the heated gas to a second controller; and
controlling a second control valve based on the pressure information sent to the second controller, wherein the second valve is connected to a third piping section that is connected to a compressor.
Additionally, claim 11 of US 122287521 B2 contains the additional limitation of “supplying the gas to a gas system” which is not included in the present application.
Thus, the invention of claim 11 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claim 9 of the present application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species” where an obviousness analysis is not required (See MPEP 804 II B 2 as well as In re Goodman (1993)). Since claim 9 of the present application of the present application is anticipated by claim 11 of US 122287521 B2, it is not patentably distinct from Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the second controller controls the amount of the gas sent to the compressor.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require turning the compressor on based on the pressure information sent to the second controller.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require compressing the gas by the compressor and the gas enters a high-pressure accumulator.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require a fiscal analyzer is placed between the compressor and a gas analyzer.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require sending the natural gas to a fourth piping section instead of the first piping section; the fourth piping section including another fail-close valve, a third control valve, and another safety valve; and the other fail-close valve, the third control valve, and the other safety valve provides 100% redundancy if at least one of the fail-close valve, the second control valve, and the safety valve fails.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require the gas is heated by another indirect heater prior to sending the gas to the fail-close valve.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require opening, by a third controller, the third control valve, based on the third controller receiving a first pressure information, wherein only the third controller or the first controller operates at one time.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 122287521 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims require prior to receiving the first pressure information, the third controller receives initial pressure information from a mid-pressure accumulator.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest pieces of prior art are Okawachi (US 20120205003 A1) in view of Vega Perez (US 20160258578 A1) in further view of Allam (US 7559213 B2), Mori (US 20120298256 A1), and Eckerdal (US 20190128205 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Okawachi discloses an apparatus (10, Figure 15, the hydrogen station is the apparatus), comprising:
a high-pressure tank (100, Figure 15);
a first piping configuration connected to the high-pressure tank (100, Figure 15) to a pre-cooler (120, Figure 15);
a second piping configuration connected to an exit side of the pre-cooler (120, Figure 15) and the second piping configuration branches off into two piping branches (Figure 15, the second piping configuration is the pipe leading to the first (180) and second (185) control valves), with:
a first piping branch (170, Figure 15) including a first control valve (180, Figure 15) and the first control valve is connected to a first controller (150, Figure 15), and
a second piping branch (175, Figure 15) including a second control valve (185, Figure 15);
a third piping configuration that occurs after the first control valve and the second control valve, wherein the third piping configuration is a combination of the first piping branch and the second piping branch (Figure 15, the third piping configuration are the first (170) and second (175) piping branches);
and a compressor (110, Figure 15).
Vega Perez teaches a loading assembly, comprising:
a first fail-close valve (60, Figure 1) , wherein the first fail-close valve (60, Figure 1) is connected to a first inverse acting valve (180, Figure 1) and the first control valve (51, Figure 1) is connected to a first controller (50, Figure 1).
Allam teaches an apparatus for liquifying hydrogen, comprising:
a first indirect heater (12, Figure 1), a second indirect heater (68, Figure 1), and a fourth piping configuration (72, Figure 1) connected to an exit side of the second indirect heater (68, Figure 1).
Mori teaches a gas filling system, comprising:
a third control valve (17, Figure 2) located on an exit side of the precooler (16, Figure 2).
Eckerdal teaches a gas tank system, comprising:
a first valve (220a, Figure 2).
Okawachi, Vega Perez, Allam, Mori, and Eckerdal discloses the claimed invention except for a second valve, a second fail-close valve, the second fail-close valve is connected to a second inverse acting valve and the second control valve is connected to a second controller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second piping branch have the same configuration as the first piping branch to include a second valve, a second fail-close valve, the second fail-close valve is connected to a second inverse acting valve and the second control valve is connected to a second controller, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious:
a third piping configuration that occurs after the first valve, the first fail-close valve, the first control valve, the second valve, the second fail-close valve, and the second control valve, wherein the third piping configuration is a combination of the first piping branch and the second piping branch;
a second indirect heater that is connected to a third piping configuration, wherein the second indirect heater is closer to the first control valve than the first fail-close valve; and
wherein a third control valve is located on the fourth piping configuration.
The limitations in view of all other limitations of claim 1 are not taught or obvious in view of the prior art of record. If any additional reference were to be added it would lead to potential hindsight.
The closest pieces of prior art are Mori (US 20120298256) in view of Vega Perez (US 20160258578 A1) in further view of Allam (US 7559213 B2).
Regarding Claim 9:
Mori discloses a gas filling system, comprising:
connecting a first control valve (17, Figure 2) to the first piping section (13, Figure 2, the gas channel is the first piping section);
connecting the first control valve (17, Figure 2) to a first controller (5, Figure 2); and
sending the gas through the control valve (Paragraphs [0044] and [0062]),
controlling, by the first controller (5, Figure 2), a quantity of gas sent (Paragraphs [0044-0045] and [0062]) through the first control valve (17, Figure 2).
Vega Perez teaches a loading assembly, comprising:
connecting a fail-close valve (160, Figure 1 and Paragraph [0066]) to a first piping section (30, Figure 1, the spool part conduit is the first piping section);
connecting a safety valve (180, Figure 1) to the first piping section (30, Figure 1);
sending gas (Paragraph [0042], the gas goes from the send out header (10) towards the loading arm (500)) through the fail-close valve (160, Figure 1), wherein the gas sent through the fail-close valve is first sent through a valve (Figure 2, the gas will leave the send out header (10) and go through the fail-close valve (160) and then to the valve (60)); and
connecting a safety valve (180) to the first piping section (30).
Allam teaches an apparatus for liquifying hydrogen, comprising:
sending the gas to an indirect heater (68, Figure 1); and
heating, by the indirect heater, the gas (Column 12, Lines 7-13).
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious:
wherein the first control valve is located between to the safety valve and the fail-close valve;
wherein the gas sent through the fail- close valve is first sent through the high-pressure accumulator;
wherein the gas is sent through the fail- close valve prior to the gas being sent to the first control valve;
sending the gas through a pressure reader after the gas is heated;
sending pressure information of the heated gas to a second controller; and
controlling a second control valve based on the pressure information sent to the second controller, wherein the second valve is connected to a third piping section that is connected to a compressor.
The limitations in view of all other limitations of claim 9 are not taught or obvious in view of the prior art of record. If any additional reference were to be added it would lead to potential hindsight.
However, a full determination of allowability with further search and considerations will be made one all rejections and objections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagura (US 20170146001 A1) teaches an apparatus for gas filling comprising a high-pressure tank, a controller, a valve, and a compressor.
Niedwiecki (US 6755225 A) teaches a moveable refueling station.
Handa (US 20140272671 A1) teaches a fuel cell system comprising a gas, a high-pressure tank, a pressure reader, a temperature reader, an accumulator, and two controllers.
Smith (US 20200164840 A1) teaches a compressed-gas distribution apparatus comprising valves, a controller, and a high-pressure tank.
O’Brien (US 20180205102 A1) teaches a hydrogen gas dispensing system comprising a compressor, a controller, and an accumulator.
Nagura 2 (US 10883662 B2) teaches a gas supply device comprising a high-pressure accumulator, control valves, a controller, pressure gauges, and a compressor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights