coNotice 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 provides a list of metal groups and then provides specific metals within those groups which renders the claim repetitive, as the specifical metals within those groups are already effectively include in the listing of the groups.
Claim 18 provides a list of metal groups and then provides specific metals within those groups which renders the claim repetitive, as the specifical metals within those groups are already effectively include in the listing of the groups.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “energy conversion system” in claims 2 and 12 is understood to refer to a propulsion system, a fuel cell, a gas turbine, or an internal combustion engine.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 10, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the energy conversion system is operative to receive the liquid from the primary storage tank”. While the specification recites the phrase “discharging the liquid from the primary storage tank directly to the energy conversion system” there is no description of how this is done in either the specification or drawings. Liquid cannot be utilized in an energy conversion system, as the hydrogen would have to be gaseous, so as such it is not clear the specification has support for such reception by the energy conversion system. The drawings also do not show such a connection as the only connection provided between the primary storage tank the energy conversion system is a line (124) which states that “the boil-off gas along with liquid in the primary storage tank can be released from the primary storage tank” but the line shown would not be capable of providing that. The specification also provides a recitation that said line can included a compressor which means that it would not be a liquid line. As such, the specification lacks written description for passing any liquid from the primary storage tank to the energy conversion system, at least as a liquid itself..
Claim 13 recites “discharging the liquid from the primary storage tank directly to the energy conversion system”. While the specification recites the phrase “discharging the liquid from the primary storage tank directly to the energy conversion system” there is no description of how this is done in either the specification or drawings. Liquid cannot be utilized in an energy conversion system, as the hydrogen would have to be gaseous, so as such it is not clear the specification has support for such reception by the energy conversion system. The drawings also do not show such a connection as the only connection provided between the primary storage tank the energy conversion system is a line (124) which states that “the boil-off gas along with liquid in the primary storage tank can be released from the primary storage tank” but the line shown would not be capable of providing that. The specification also provides a recitation that said line can included a compressor which means that it would not be a liquid line. As such, the specification lacks written description for passing any liquid from the primary storage tank to the energy conversion system, at least as a liquid itself.
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 2, 5, 10, 13, 18 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 2 recites “wherein the energy conversion system is operative to receive the liquid from the primary storage tank” which is considered indefinite. An energy conversion system (as claimed and understood in view of applicant’s specification) cannot receive liquid, it can only receive gas. The specification and drawings do not show how the energy conversion system as claimed can receive liquid. The energy conversion system as claimed is a fuel cell, internal combustion engine, gas turbine, or propulsion system, all of which operate using gaseous fuel. While the fuel can originate as a liquid, for it to be received and utilized by the claimed energy conversion system it must first me a gas. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that in addition to the boil-off gas which was passed to the energy conversion system via the secondary storage tank, additional fuel is passed from the primary storage tank which originates as liquid in the primary storage tank is also passed to the energy conversion system.
Claim 5 recites “metal cluster is selected from the group consisting of a transition metal, a post transition metal, an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, a lanthanide, a actinide, calcium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, magnesium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, ruthenium, zinc, zirconium, an ion thereof, a hydrate thereof, a salt thereof, a halide thereof, a fluoride thereof, a chloride thereof, a bromide thereof, an iodide thereof, a nitrate thereof, an acetate thereof, a sulfate thereof, a phosphate thereof, a carbonate thereof, an oxide thereof, a formate thereof, a carboxylate thereof, or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing”. First, the listing of the individual metal groups encompasses all metals. Second, the listing of the individual “an ion thereof, a hydrate thereof, a salt thereof, a halide thereof, a fluoride thereof, a chloride thereof, a bromide thereof, an iodide thereof, a nitrate thereof, an acetate thereof, a sulfate thereof, a phosphate thereof, a carbonate thereof, an oxide thereof, a formate thereof, a carboxylate thereof” is indefinite as it is unclear what “thereof” refers to as it is not specifically. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that as long as the metal cluster has metal as part of it, the limitation is met.
Claim 13 recites “discharging the liquid from the primary storage tank directly to the energy conversion system”. An energy conversion system (as claimed and understood in view of applicant’s specification) cannot receive liquid, it can only receive gas. The specification and drawings do not show how the energy conversion system as claimed can receive liquid. The energy conversion system as claimed is a fuel cell, internal combustion engine, gas turbine, or propulsion system, all of which operate using gaseous fuel. While the fuel can originate as a liquid, for it to be received and utilized by the claimed energy conversion system it must first me a gas. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that in addition to the boil-off gas which was passed to the energy conversion system via the secondary storage tank, additional fuel is passed from the primary storage tank which originates as liquid in the primary storage tank is also passed to the energy conversion system.
Claim 18 recites “metal cluster is selected from the group consisting of a transition metal, a post transition metal, an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, a lanthanide, a actinide, calcium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, magnesium, manganese, iron, nickel, copper, ruthenium, zinc, zirconium, an ion thereof, a hydrate thereof, a salt thereof, a halide thereof, a fluoride thereof, a chloride thereof, a bromide thereof, an iodide thereof, a nitrate thereof, an acetate thereof, a sulfate thereof, a phosphate thereof, a carbonate thereof, an oxide thereof, a formate thereof, a carboxylate thereof, or a combination comprising at least one of the foregoing”. First, the listing of the individual metal groups encompasses all metals. Second, the listing of the individual “an ion thereof, a hydrate thereof, a salt thereof, a halide thereof, a fluoride thereof, a chloride thereof, a bromide thereof, an iodide thereof, a nitrate thereof, an acetate thereof, a sulfate thereof, a phosphate thereof, a carbonate thereof, an oxide thereof, a formate thereof, a carboxylate thereof” is indefinite as it is unclear what “thereof” refers to as it is not specifically. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that as long as the metal cluster has metal as part of it, the limitation is met.
Claim 10 is rejected for 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 4-7 and 17-20 are 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. Claims 4 and 17 both recite “the metal organic framework comprise a metal cluster and an organic linker” which is the basic definition of a metal organic framework and as such does not further limit the claims. 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.
Claims 5-7, 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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) 1, 3, 9, 11-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Arnold (US Patent No. 7516752), hereinafter referred to as Arnold
With respect to claim 1, Arnold teaches (Figure 2A-2C) storage system for storing low latent heat of vaporization gases, the system comprising:
a primary storage tank for storing a liquid having a latent heat of vaporization of less than or equal to 1000 joules per gram (storage vessel 22 which has liquid hydrogen, Column 2, lines 42-43, which is a liquid which as a latent heat of vaporization less than 1000 joules/g);
and a secondary storage tank comprising a porous sorbent for reversibly storing a boil-off gas released from the primary storage tank (purge container 24 which has an inner tank 48 which receives cold gaseous hydrogen can include metal-organic compounds for absorbing hydrogen, Column 3, lines 8-35 and later desorbing it, Column 4, lines 25-26, which be porous by its absorbing nature).
With respect to claim 3, Arnold teaches wherein the porous sorbent is a metal organic material (the high surface material which absorbs the hydrogen can be a metal-organic compound, Column 3, lines 31-35).
With respect to claim 9, Arnold teaches wherein the liquid comprises liquid hydrogen (the liquid is liquid hydrogen).
With respect to claim 11, Arnold (Figure 2A) teahces a method of storing low latent heat of vaporization gases, the method comprising: discharging a boil-off gas released from a primary storage tank to a secondary storage tank (storage vessel 22 contains liquid hydrogen and discharges via a pipe 28 evaporated hydrogen into the inner tank of a purge container 48, Column 2, lines 42-60, Column 3, lines 30-35);
wherein the primary storage tank is operative to store a liquid having a latent heat of vaporization of less than or equal to 1000 joules per gram (liquid hydrogen is the fluid in the primary storage tank and is a liquid which has a latent heat of vaporization less than or equal to 1000 j/g);
and wherein the secondary storage tank comprises a porous sorbent for reversibly storing the boil- off gas discharged from the primary storage tank (purge container 24 which has an inner tank 48 which receives cold gaseous hydrogen and can include metal-organic compounds for absorbing hydrogen, Column 3, lines 8-35 and later desorbing it, Column 4, lines 25-26, which would be porous by its absorbing nature).
With respect to claim 12, Arnold teaches desorbed boil- off gas from the secondary storage tank to an energy conversion system (desorbed hydrogen is removed via valve 58 and passed to the fuel cell stack Column 4, lines 25-27); wherein the energy conversion system comprises a fuel cell (the energy conversion system is a fuel cell stack).
With respect to claim 15, Arnold teaches wherein the conversion system is operative to generate energy (the fuel cell stack generates electricity, Column 3, line 54).
With respect to claim 16, Arnold teaches wherein the porous sorbent is a metal organic material (the high surface material which absorbs the hydrogen can be a metal-organic compound, Column 3, lines 31-35).
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) 2, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Andersson et al. (US PG Pub 20200025337), hereinafter referred to as Andersson.
With respect to claim 2, Arnold teaches wherein the storage system further comprises an energy conversion system in fluid communication with both the primary storage tank and the secondary storage tank (fuel cell stack 12 receives evaporated hydrogen from the inner tank, Column 3, lines 57-60, which would put it in communication with both the first and second tank fluidically), wherein the energy conversion system is operative to receive a desorbed boil-off gas from the secondary storage tank (the hydrogen coming from the inside of the tank is desorbed hydrogen, Column 4, lines 26-27); and wherein the energy conversion system is operative to generate energy (the fuel cell stack generates electricity, Column 3, lines 53-54).
Arnold does not teach wherein the energy conversion system is operative to receive the liquid from the primary storage tank.
Andersson teaches (Figure 1) that liquid from a storage tank of fuel is withdrawn (5) and along with evaporated gas from the same tank is passed to be used as fuel (paragraphs 63-65).
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 Andersson to have in addition to the gas that originated as evaporated hydrogen from the tank of Arnold to have passed fluid that originated as liquid in the tank from the tank to the fuel cell stack since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that both the liquid in the tank and boil-off gas can be utilized as fuel which allows for ensuring the proper amount of fuel is delivered for use.
With respect to claim 10, Arnold as modified teaches wherein the energy conversion system comprise a fuel cell (the energy conversion system is a fuel cell stack).
With respect to claim 13, Arnold does not teach further comprising discharging the liquid from the primary storage tank directly to the energy conversion system.
Andersson teaches (Figure 1) that liquid from a storage tank of fuel is withdrawn (5) and along with evaporated gas from the same tank is passed to be used as fuel (paragraphs 63-65).
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 Andersson to have in addition to the gas that originated as evaporated hydrogen from the tank of Arnold to have passed fluid that originated as liquid in the tank from the tank to the fuel cell stack since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that both the liquid in the tank and boil-off gas can be utilized as fuel which allows for ensuring the proper amount of fuel is delivered for use.
Claim(s) 3-6, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Wood et al. (US PG pub 20180104638), hereinafter referred to as Wood.
In a different interpretation of claim 3 with respect to claims 4-6:
Arnold teaches the porous sorbent is selected from a metal organic compound (see claim 1) but does not teach the metal organic compound is a metal organic framework in combination with a porous organic polymer.
Wood teaches that using a microporous organic polymer in a gas storage composition with metal organic framework provides a increased storage efficiency (paragraph 3). Specifically Wood teaches that the metal organic framework can be HKUST-1 (paragraph 79).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Arnold used as the metal organic compound HKUST-1 (a metal organic framework) along with a microporous organic polymer based on the teaching of Wood to have provided efficient storage of the hydrogen.
With respect to claim 4, Arnold as modified teaches wherein the metal organic framework comprise a metal cluster and an organic linker (metal organic frameworks are a combination of a metal cluster and an organic linker, so HKUST-1 would be as well).
With respect to claim 5, Arnold as modified does not specifically recite what metal cluster is selected from and as such does not teach that includes copper.
Wood teaches that the metal ion or cluster for a metal organic framework includes one metal selected from group Ib of the periodic table (paragraph 75). Copper is one of the metals of group Ib of the periodic table.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when utilizing a metal organic framework in Arnold to have based on Wood used copper (or another element from group Ib, which are all transition metals) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art to choose from a known and suitable metal as the metal cluster to provide the required metal component of the metal organic framework.
With respect to claim 6, Arnold as modified teaches wherein the organic linker is benzenetricarboxylate (HKUST-1 is made of benezene-1,3,5,tricarboxylate).
In a different interpretation of claim 16 with respect to claims 17-19:
Arnold teaches the porous sorbent is selected from a metal organic compound (see claim 1) but does not teach the metal organic compound is a metal organic framework in combination with a porous organic polymer.
Wood teaches that using a microporous organic polymer in a gas storage composition with metal organic framework provides an increased storage efficiency (paragraph 3). Specifically Wood teaches that the metal organic framework can be HKUST-1 (paragraph 79).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Arnold used as the metal organic compound HKUST-1 (a metal organic framework) along with a microporous organic polymer based on the teaching of Wood to have provided efficient storage of the hydrogen.
With respect to claim 17, Arnold as modified teaches wherein the metal organic framework comprise a metal cluster and an organic linker (metal organic frameworks are a combination of a metal cluster and an organic linker, so HKUST-1 would be as well).
With respect to claim 18, Arnold as modified does not specifically recite what metal cluster is selected from and as such does not teach that includes copper.
Wood teaches that the metal ion or cluster for a metal organic framework includes one metal selected from group Ib of the periodic table (paragraph 75). Copper is one of the metals of group Ib of the periodic table.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when utilizing a metal organic framework in Arnold to have based on Wood used copper (or another element from group Ib, which are all transition metals) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art to choose from a known and suitable metal as the metal cluster to provide the required metal component of the metal organic framework.
With respect to claim 19, Arnold as modified teaches wherein the organic linker is benzenetricarboxylate (HKUST-1 is made of benezene-1,3,5,tricarboxylate).
In a different interpretation of claims 3 and 16 with respect to claims 7 and 20
Claim(s) 3-4 and 16-17 being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Wood.
With respect to claim 3, Arnold teaches the porous sorbent is selected from a metal organic compound (see claim 1) but does not teach the metal organic compound is a metal organic framework in combination with a porous organic polymer framework.
Wood teaches that using a microporous organic polymer in a gas storage composition with metal organic framework provides an increased storage efficiency (paragraph 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Arnold used as the metal organic compound metal organic framework along with a microporous organic polymer based on the teaching of Wood to have provided efficient storage of the hydrogen.
With respect to claim 4, Arnold as modified teaches wherein the metal organic framework comprise a metal cluster and an organic linker (metal organic frameworks are a combination of a metal cluster and an organic linker).
With respect to claim 16, Arnold teaches the porous sorbent is selected from a metal organic compound (see claim 1) but does not teach the metal organic compound is a metal organic framework in combination with a porous organic polymer framework.
Wood teaches that using a microporous organic polymer in a gas storage composition with metal organic framework provides an increased storage efficiency (paragraph 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Arnold used as the metal organic compound metal organic framework along with a microporous organic polymer based on the teaching of Wood to have provided efficient storage of the hydrogen.
With respect to claim 17, Arnold as modified teaches wherein the metal organic framework comprise a metal cluster and an organic linker (metal organic frameworks a combination of a metal cluster and an organic linker).
Claim(s) 7 and 20 being unpatentable over Arnold/Wood and further in view of Gong et al. (US PG Pub 20250205683), hereinafter referred to as Gong and Diab (US PG Pub 20260200953), hereinafter referred to as Diab.
With respect to claim 7, Arnold as modified does not teach the metal cluster comprises iron and the organic linker comprises at least one of 2,5-dioxido-l,4-benzenedicarboxylate.
Gong teaches that for a metal organic framework that the metal can be iron and the organic ligand can be 2,5-dioxido-l,4-benzenedicarboxylate (paragraphs 131-133) which is a porous structure use for capture (paragraph 128) which would be sorption.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when using a metal organic framework in Arnold as modified for the metal organic framework have been iron with 2,5-dioxido-l,4-benzenedicarboxylate based on the teaching of Gong since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having common knowledge in the art would choose from known metals and organic linkers (also called ligands) when determining what specific form the metal organic framework would be chosen from to provide a system to provide the require sorption. Any metal in a metal organic framework would be part of the metal cluster.
Arnold as modified does not teach the metal cluster also comprises manganese, cobalt and nickel.
Diab teaches a metal organic framework (title) use for sorption (paragraph 1) can include combinations which include nickel, iron, cobalt and manganese (clm5) which from the cluster (paragraph 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Diab to have in the metal cluster of Arnold also included nickel, cobalt and manganese since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that multiple metals can be used to form a metal cluster within a metal organic framework and choosing between the available metals or combinations of variable metals is obvious to produce the desired framework.
With respect to claim 20, Arnold as modified does not teach the metal cluster comprises iron and the organic linker comprises at least one of 2,5-dioxido-l,4-benzenedicarboxylate.
Gong teaches that for a metal organic framework that the metal can be iron and the organic ligand can be 2,5-dioxido-l,4-benzenedicarboxylate (paragraphs 131-133) which is a porous structure use for capture (paragraph 128) which would be sorption.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when using a metal organic framework in Arnold as modified for the metal organic framework have been iron with 2,5-dioxido-l,4-benzenedicarboxylate based on the teaching of Gong since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having common knowledge in the art would choose from known metals and organic linkers (also called ligands) when determining what specific form the metal organic framework would be chosen from to provide a system to provide the require sorption.
Arnold as modified does not teach the metal cluster also comprises manganese, cobalt and nickel.
Diab teaches a metal organic framework (title) use for sorption (paragraph 1) can include combinations which include nickel, iron, cobalt and manganese (clm5) which from the cluster (paragraph 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Diab to have in the metal cluster of Arnold also included nickel, cobalt and manganese since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that multiple metals can be used to form a metal cluster within a metal organic framework and choosing between the available metals or combinations of variable metals is obvious to produce the desired framework.
Claim(s) 8 being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Stager et al. (US PG Pub 20220204337), hereinafter referred to as Stager and Gladstone (US Patent No. 4887556).
With respect to claim 8, Arnold does not teach wherein the primary storage tank further comprises a pressure sensor operative to detect pressure of the boil-off gas within the primary storage tank.
Stager (Figure 3) teaches that a pressure sensor (122) is provided to measure the vapor pressure inside a storage tank and is used to adjust the flow rate of the vapor out of the tank based on the pressure (paragraphs 55, 61).
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 provided a pressure sensor to detect the vapor pressure (pressure of the boil-off gas) in the first tank of Arnold as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the sensor would provide what is common knowledge in the art of being able to adjust the flow rate out of the tank based on the pressure which would allow the vapor pressure to be maintained within a desired level to ensure safe operation of the tank.
Arnold as modified does not teach wherein the secondary storage tank further comprises a pressure sensor operative to detect pressure of the desorbed boil-off gas within the secondary storage tank.
Gladstone teaches that a pressure sensor can be provided for detecting the pressure of pressurized hydrogen gas within the interior of a tank which includes hydrogen absorbing material which can measure the hydrogen gas pressure during discharge of the hydrogen to determine if its below a lower limit (Column 3, line 50 – Column 4, line 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a sensor in the second tank of Arnold as modified (the inner tank 48) to measure the pressure of the hydrogen being discharged (which is the desorbed hydrogen) based on the teaching of Gladstone since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using the sensor would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of being able to ensure that the tank was operating within the desired pressure levels.
Claim(s) 14 being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Sonderegger et al. (US PG pub 20180372273), hereinafter referred to as Sonderegger.
With respect to claim 14, Arnold does not teach wherein the boil-off gas is discharged to the secondary storage tank via a relief valve.
Sonderegger (Figure 3) teaches that when passing vapor from a liquid gas tank (104) to a second tank (108) (paragraphs 48) that it can be passed via a pressure relief valve (paragraph 55).
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 Sonderegger provide a pressure relief valve allow discharge of the boil-off gas to the second tank (48) of Arnold from the first tank (22) for transfer to have been provided via pressure relief valve since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a pressure relief valve would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of preventing over pressurization of the first tank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Antonelli (US PG Pub 20150362129) and Mirica (US PG Pub 20220404308).
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
