DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 February 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 24 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable for what has been done.
The drawings remain objected to because figs 1, 2, and 5 are cross-sectional views but are lacking proper cross-hatching. See 37 CFR 1.84 (h)(3). Further, shading should not be used for cross-sectional views. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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 § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulie
(US 2023/0102097).
In regards to claims 1 and 9, Soulie discloses a cryogenic fluid voltage transfer line (10,
see fig. 5) (CVL) having a first end and second end, the CVL adapted to receive and pass a
cryogenic fluid through the CVL and not reduce any voltage difference between the first end and
the second end of the CVL, the CVL comprising:
a cylindrical inner vessel (28) and having a first outer diameter,
a cylindrical outer vessel (26) and having a second inner diameter,
wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter,
the inner vessel disposed inside the outer vessel (shown in fig. 5),
wherein the inner vessel does not physically contact the outer vessel (shown in fig. 5),
a first radial flange (22) disposed at the first end of the CVL, the first radial flange
adapted to:
form a first hermetic seal at the first end between the inner vessel and the outer
vessel (see 54, 56),
space the inner vessel from the outer vessel so that the inner vessel and the outer
vessel do not contact one another at the first end (shown in fig. 5), and
provide a first attachment point to the CVL at the first end (see bolts 22.3), and
a second radial flange (24) disposed at the second end of the CVL, the second radial
flange adapted to:
form a second hermetic seal at the second end between the inner vessel and the
outer vessel (see seals 54, 56),
space the inner vessel from the outer vessel so that the inner vessel and the outer
vessel do not contact one another at the second end (shown in fig. 5), and
provide a second attachment point to the CVL at the second end (see bolts 24.3).
Soulie discloses the claimed invention except for making the inner and outer vessels from
an electrically insulating material. However, polyethylene is a known material used for
hydrogen pipelines It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having
ordinary skill in the art to modify Soulie by making the inner and outer vessels from
polyethylene due to its chemical resistance, strength, etc., since it has been held to be within the
general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the
intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416
(CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 2, Soulie further discloses a thermally insulating vacuum (32) drawn
between the inner vessel and the outer vessel (see paragraph [0040]).
In regards to claim 4, Soulie further discloses material (30) disposed between the inner
vessel and the outer vessel.
Soulie discloses the claimed invention except for the material being thermally and
electrically insulating. However, polyethylene is a known material used for hydrogen pipelines
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art
to modify Soulie by making the material (30) from polyethylene due to its chemical resistance,
strength, etc., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select
a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design
choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulie as applied to
claim 1 above, and further in view of Grande (US 2022/0042639).
Soulie discloses the CVL of claim 1 but does not disclose an electrically insulating
reflective coating disposed between the inner vessel and the outer vessel.
However, Grande teaches a similar device, comprising an electrically insulating reflective
coating (70, 80) in a vacuum space (75).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the
art to provide the CVL of Soulie with an electrically insulating reflective coating in order to
suppress heat transfer to the external environment, as taught by Grande at paragraph [0174].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that polyethylene could not be used with cryogenic hydrogen or other cryogenic liquids. This is not found persuasive. While Soulie discloses liquid hydrogen lines as one use for the pipeline, it is not the only application. If the pipeline of Soulie was used in another application, for example to transport gaseous hydrogen (see paragraph [0029]), then polyethylene would be an obvious material choice as outlined in the rejection. Further, polyethylene was cited as merely one example of a known electrically insulating material that could be used. Other known materials with lower thermal operating temperatures such as polyamide would also be obvious modifications if used with liquid hydrogen.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-0505. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Matthew D. Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ZACHARY T DRAGICEVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679 07/20/2026
Prosecution Insights