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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figs. 2 and 3, it is very difficult to delineate between the first part and the second part of the coupling, due to the small size of the drawings and the shading. Applicant is required to amend the figures such that it is easy to discern the first and second parts and their respective components.
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 23-24 and 29 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 23 recites the limitation "the warm gas channel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It seems that claim 23 is to depend from claim 21.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the warm gas channel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 30 is 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 30 seeks to define the coupling of the method claim 28, yet the coupling is already directly defined in claim 28.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takami et al (US 2018/187821 A1).
As to claim 16 and with reference to the following annotated figure, Takami et al discloses a coupling for liquefied gas comprising a first part and a second part to be coupled to each other by insertion of the first part into the second part (see [0036]), each part comprises an internal liquefied gas conduit to be fluidly connected for transfer of liquefied gas through the coupling (see [0036]), the coupling further comprises a warm seal and a cold seal wherein the coupling further comprises a warm gas inlet arranged to receive a heated gas flow for heating the warm seal.
PNG
media_image1.png
752
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 17, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, wherein the warm seal and the cold seal are arranged to seal the interface between the first part and the second part forming a space between the parts located between the warm seal and the cold seal, wherein the warm seal is arranged to seal the space from the outside atmosphere and the cold seal is arranged to seal the liquefied gas conduit from the space. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 19, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, wherein the coupling comprises more than one warm seal. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 20, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, wherein the warm gas inlet is in fluid connection with the outside atmosphere through the interface between the first part and the second part. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure and [0036], [0045], [0046].
As to claim 21, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, wherein the warm gas inlet is fluidly connected to a warm gas channel (10; [0036]) delimited at one side of an intermediate part arranged between the warm gas channel and the warm seal, wherein the intermediate part is heated by the heated gas flow. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 22, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 21, wherein the intermediate part is arranged such that the intermediate part heats the warm seal. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 23, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, wherein the warm gas channel further comprises an outlet position arranged at the open end of the interface between the first part and the second part. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 24, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 23, wherein the outlet position is the opening to the outside atmosphere formed in the interface between the first and second coupling parts. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 25, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, wherein the coupling is a vacuum insulated coupling (see [0042]). Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 26, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, wherein the coupling is a coupling for transfer of cryogenic liquefied gas. Refer to [0033] - [0036].
As to claim 27, Takami et al discloses the coupling part for a coupling according to claim 16, comprising an internal liquefied gas conduit to be fluidly connected for transfer of liquefied gas through the coupling, wherein with the first part and second parts interconnected the coupling comprises a warm seal and a cold seal in the coupling part further comprise a warm gas inlet adapted to receive a heated gas, and wherein the warm gas inlet is connected to a warm gas channel heating part of the coupling such that the warm seal is indirectly heated. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 28, Takami et al discloses a method in a coupling for liquefied gas comprising a first part (4) and a second part (3) to be coupled to each other by insertion of the first part into the second part [0036], each part comprises an internal liquefied gas conduit to be fluidly connected for transfer of liquefied gas through the coupling [0036], the coupling further comprises a warm seal and a cold seal in the coupling further comprise a warm gas inlet and method comprises the step of: supplying a heated gas flow to the warm gas inlet (see [0036], [0045], [0046]). Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 29, Takami et al discloses the method according to claim 28, wherein the heated gas flow enters the coupling at the warm gas inlet, flows through the warm gas channel, and leaves the coupling in the interface between the first part and the second part. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure.
As to claim 30, Takami et al discloses the method according to claim 28 wherein the coupling is a coupling for liquefied gas comprising a first part and a second part to be coupled to each other by insertion of the first part into the second part, each part comprises an internal liquefied gas conduit to be fluidly connected for transfer of liquefied gas through the coupling, the coupling further comprises a warm seal and a cold seal wherein the coupling further comprises a warm gas inlet arranged to receive a heated gas flow for heating the warm seal. Refer to the foregoing annotated figure and the foregoing 112(d) rejection.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al in view of Carns et al (US 2009/0127848)
As to claim 18, Takami et al discloses the coupling according to claim 16, except that the coupling further comprise a leak detection seal arranged between the warm seal and the outside atmosphere forming a leak detection space between the warm seal and the leak detection seal.
However, Carns et al teaches a flanged, double-walled, vacuum-insulated pipe fitting with a leak sensor port. As shown in Fig. 13 and described in paragraphs [0050] - [0060], a leak detection port (238) is disposed between two seals (240, 242). An outer leakage collection conduit is attached to the leak detection space (238).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Takami et al such that the coupling further comprise a leak detection seal arranged between the warm seal and the outside atmosphere forming a leak detection space between the warm seal and the leak detection seal, as taught by Carns et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish a protection against, indicator for, and collection means for leaks between the warm seal and the outside atmosphere.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gustafson discloses a cryogenic fluid coupling, including a warm seal and a cold seal.
Lange et al discloses a plug-in coupling for cryogenic lines, including a warm seal and a cold seal.
Light et al discloses a liquid cryogen pumping system.
Box et al discloses a detachable high-pressure, vacuum-insulated coupler.
Lambert discloses a cryogenic coupling device.
Tocha discloses a coupling for connecting vacuum-insulated line ends.
Kopplin et al discloses an insulated pipe coupling, including a warm seal and a cold seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights