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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment of 09/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 12/03/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2025 and 10/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At p. 8 ll. 19-20 “a gas supply system” should read --a gas supply system 14--.
At p. 8 l. 23 “the outlet line” should read --an outlet line 24--.
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:
“a cooling device” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “device” is linked by linking word “which is configured to” to the functional limitation “cool a recirculation flow supplied by the main engine and/or the auxiliary engine” without reciting the structure of the device capable of performing the recited function.
“a gas supply system” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “system” is linked by linking word “which is configured to” to the functional limitation “provide propulsion liquefied petroleum gas to the main engine or the auxiliary engine” without reciting the structure of the system capable of performing the recited function.
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. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
heat exchanger 26 (as schematically drawn in Fig. 1)
gas supply system 14 comprising at least a pump 48 (Fig. 1)
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 Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 line 5 “or” should read --and/or--.
At claim 1 line 9 “or” should read --and/or--.
At claim 1 line 11 “in a in a” should read --in a--.
At claim 4 line 4 “sensing” should read --sense--.
At claim 5 line 9 “if a defined minimum pressure in the recirculation tank falls short” should read --if the pressure in the recirculation tank falls short of a defined minimum pressure--.
At claim 7 line 4 “in a in a” should read --in a--.
At claim 7 line 8 “or” should read --and/or--.
At claim 8 line 3 “a liquefied petroleum gas tank” should read --the liquefied petroleum gas tank--.
At claim 8 line 4 “in a in a” should read --in a--.
At claim 9 lines 3-4 “is designed to claim 1” should read --is designed according to claim 1--.
At claim 10 line 3 “method” should read --the method--.
At claim 10 line 4 “supplying of” should read --supply--.
At claim 10 line 6 “cooling of” should read --cooling--.
At claim 10 line 7 “supplying of” should read --supplying--.
At claim 10 line 11 “supplying of” should read --supplying--.
At claim 11 line 2 “flushing of” should read --flushing--.
At claim 12 line 3 “supplying of” should read --supplying--.
At claim 12 lines 4-5 “if a defined minimum pressure in the recirculation tank falls short” should read --if a pressure in the recirculation tank falls short of a defined minimum pressure--.
At claim 12 line 6 “opening of” should read --opening--.
At claim 13 line 4 “a recondenser” should read --the recondenser--.
At claim 13 line 7 “providing of” should read --providing--.
At claim 13 line 8 “mixing of” should read --mixing--.
At claim 10 line 10 “onto” should read --to--.
At claim 13 lines 10-11 “a main engine and/or auxiliary engine” should read --the main engine and/or auxiliary engine--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “, in particular, recirculated propulsion liquefied petroleum gas of a main engine and/or auxiliary engine of a ship” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the limitation is optional or required in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --of a main engine and/or auxiliary engine of a ship--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “, in particular, completely supplied into the gas supply system” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the limitation is optional or required in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --completely supplied into the gas supply system--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the pressure sensor” in line 6. It is unclear to which pressure sensor the limitation refers. For examination purposes the limitation “, and wherein the pressure sensor is connected in a data-conducting manner to the control device” in lines 6-7 has been considered as --and is connected in a data-conducting manner to the control device--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “in particular,” in line 10. It is unclear whether the succeeding limitation is optional or required in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “in particular,” has been considered as omitted.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “in particular” in line 5. It is unclear whether the succeeding limitation is optional or required by the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “in particular” has been considered as omitted.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the recirculation flows” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim because only one recirculation flow has been introduced in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the recirculation flow--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “A ship, in particular a cargo ship,” in line 1. It is unclear whether the claim requires the ship to be a cargo ship. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --A cargo ship--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “to a gas supply system, in particular a recondenser of the gas supply system,” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether the recondenser is optional or required by the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --to a recondenser of a gas supply system--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “, in particular in a supply line,” in line 9. It is unclear whether the limitation is optional or required in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --in a supply line--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the recirculation flows” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim as only one recirculation flow has been introduced. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the recirculation flow--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “imposing of the mixture” in line 10. The intended meaning of the verb impose in this context is not understood and the specification does not provide a definition for the term in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “imposing of the mixture and supplying the propulsion gas” has been considered as --supplying the mixture--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “in particular,” in line 3. It is unclear whether the succeeding limitation is optional or required by the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “in particular,” has been considered as omitted.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the…propulsion fluid” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “liquefied petroleum gas” throughout the claims has been considered as --liquefied propulsion fluid--.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 1 because the claims do not recite any judicial exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 1 because the claim does not recite a statutory category of invention.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMADA WO (WO 2023/162325).
Regarding claim 1, YAMADA WO discloses a return system for returning recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid (ammonia, 0005 line 4; liquefied petroleum gas inasmuch as ammonia is LPG in claim 14) of a main engine (0011 lines 4-5) of a ship (1, Fig. 1), with:
a recovery device (47 upstream of 75 and components thereon, Fig. 3), wherein the recovery device is connected by a supply line (47, Fig. 3) to the main engine in a fluid-conducting manner (Fig. 3) and comprises a cooling device (51) which is configured to cool a recirculation flow supplied by the main engine (0023 lines 4-7),
a gas supply system (44-46, Fig. 3), which is configured to provide liquefied propulsion fluid to the main engine (0019 lines 3-4), wherein the gas supply system is connected to the recovery device (47 upstream of 75 and components thereon, Fig. 3) via a recirculation line (74, 76, and 47B downstream of 74) in a fluid-conducting manner and wherein a control valve (76) is assigned to the recirculation line for setting a fluid flow through the recirculation line (setting is broad, 0041 lines 10-13), and
a recirculation tank (70), which is connected to the recovery device (47 upstream of 75 and components thereon, Fig. 3) via an inlet line (47A downstream of 75) and to the gas supply system (44-46, Fig. 3) via an outlet line (47B upstream of 74).
Regarding claim 7, YAMADA WO discloses the return system according to claim 1.
YAMADA WO further discloses wherein the gas supply system comprises a recondenser (85, Fig. 5, see discussion below, 0054 lines 7-8; n.b. Fig. 5 corresponds to Fig. 4, which corresponds to Fig. 3, 0047 line 1 and 0051 lines 1-2),
wherein the recirculation line (74, 76, and 47B downstream of 74) is connected to the recondenser in a fluid-conducting manner (47B is fluidly connected to 85 via 44, 45, 246A, and 246B, Fig. 5), and
wherein the gas supply system also comprises a compression device (246A,246B, Fig. 5) connected in a fluid-conducting manner to the recondenser (via 45, Fig. 5), which is configured to transfer the recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid (i.e., from recirculation line 47B, Fig. 5) and the liquefied propulsion fluid taken from a liquefied propulsion fluid tank (10, Fig. 5, via fuel tank outlet line 41) to an inlet pressure of the main engine (implied/inherent as document discloses a purportedly functioning fuel system for an engine).
One of ordinary skill would recognize the claim term “recondenser” as a heat exchanger configured to cool and reliquefy vapor in a liquefied gas system. Therefore, the limitation “recondenser” is considered to recite the structure of a heat exchanger accompanied by the functional language of reliquefying vapor. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill would recognize the combination of pressure-increasing pumps 246A and 246B followed by a cooling heat exchanger 85 as possessing the capability of reliquefying vapor in the system.
Regarding claim 8, YAMADA WO discloses the return system according to claim 7.
YAMADA WO further discloses the recondenser (85, Fig. 5) is connected to a liquefied propulsion fluid tank (10, Fig. 5) via a liquefied propulsion fluid line (41, Fig. 5) in a fluid-conducting manner (via 45, 246A, and 246B, Fig. 5) and wherein a heating device (43, Fig. 5) is assigned to the liquefied propulsion fluid line (45)(n.b. the statement in Yamada at 0054 lines 8-9 “in situations where a fifth heat exchanger 85 is installed, the first heat exchanger 43 described above may be omitted” is considered to disclose that the heat exchanger 43 may optionally be omitted).
YAMADA WO further discloses the heating device regulates the temperature of the liquefied propulsion fluid (0017 lines 1-2; n.b. Fig. 5 corresponds to Fig. 4, which corresponds to Fig. 3, which corresponds to Fig. 2, 0034 lines 5-7, 0036 line 1, 0047 line 1 and 0051 lines 1-2).
The limitation “[the heating device] is configured to heat the liquefied propulsion fluid to a temperature above a solidification point of a machine oil contained in the recirculation flow” is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the heating device of YAMADA WO is considered capable of heating the liquefied propulsion fluid to a temperature above a solidification point of a machine oil contained in the recirculation flow.
Regarding claim 10, YAMADA WO discloses a method for the recirculation of recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid (ammonia, 0005 line 4; liquefied petroleum gas inasmuch as ammonia is LPG in claim 14) using a return system according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
supplying a recirculation flow of a main engine (0011 lines 4-5) to a recovery device (47 upstream of 75 and components thereon, Fig. 3)(Fig. 3),
cooling the recirculation flow in the recovery device (0023 lines 4-7),
supplying the cooled recirculation flow to a recondenser of a gas supply system (optional limitation), wherein a counterpressure of the recirculation flow in a supply line, is set in such a way that the recirculation flow remains in a liquid phase (continuation of optional limitation), or
supplying the cooled recirculation flow to a recirculation tank (70) and collecting the recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid in the recirculation tank (0037 lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, YAMADA WO discloses the method according to claim 10.
YAMADA WO further discloses supplying an uncooled recirculation flow via a bypass line to the recirculation tank if a defined minimum pressure in the recirculation tank falls short (optional limitation), and/or
opening a drain valve of the recirculation tank when a defined maximum pressure in the recirculation tank is exceeded (0039 lines 4-6).
Claims 1, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NOH (KR 102242749, provided by Applicant on 09/24/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, NOH discloses a return system for returning recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid of a main engine (E) of a ship (100), with:
a recovery device (fuel recovery unit 30, Fig. 1), wherein the recovery device is connected by a supply line (L30) to the main engine in a fluid-conducting manner (0076 lines 1-2) and comprises a cooling device (cooler 32) which is configured to cool a recirculation flow supplied by the main engine (0082 lines 1-5),
a gas supply system (fuel supply unit 20), which is configured to provide liquefied propulsion fluid to the main engine (0049 lines 1-2), wherein the gas supply system is connected to the recovery device via a recirculation line in a fluid-conducting manner (0084 lines 1-4) and wherein a control valve (31) is assigned to the recirculation line for setting a fluid flow through the recirculation line (implied, i.a. 0063 lines 5-6), and
a recirculation tank (33), which is connected to the recovery device via an inlet line (i.a. Fig. 2) and to the gas supply system via an outlet line (i.a. Fig. 2; n.b. the claim does not require the recirculation tank to be directly connected to the gas supply system).
Regarding claim 9, NOH discloses a cargo ship (0023 lines 4-5), having a liquefied propulsion fluid propulsion system (i.a. 0033 lines 6-7) and a return system (30) for the recirculation of recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid, wherein the return system is designed according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, NOH discloses a method for the recirculation of recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid using a return system according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises:
supplying a recirculation flow of a main engine (E) to a recovery device (fuel recovery unit 30, Fig. 1)(0072 lines 1-2),
cooling the recirculation flow in the recovery device (0082 lines 1-5),
supplying the cooled recirculation flow to a recondenser of a gas supply system (optional limitation), wherein a counterpressure of the recirculation flow in a supply line (optional limitation), is set in such a way that the recirculation flow remains in a liquid phase (optional limitation), or
supplying the cooled recirculation flow to a recirculation tank (33) and collecting the recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid in the recirculation tank (0088 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, NOH discloses the method according to claim 10.
NOH further discloses the steps:
flushing the return system with inert gas (purging gas, 0089 line 3)(0089 lines 1-5), and
collecting the inert gas used for flushing in the recirculation tank (0089 line 5).
Regarding claim 14, NOH discloses use of a return system according to claim 1 for the recirculation of recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid intended for propulsion of a main engine (E) of a ship (100), wherein the liquefied propulsion fluid is LPG (0029 line 4).
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 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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA WO (WO 2023/162325) in view of YAMADA `234 (EP 4 357 234).
Regarding claim 2, YAMADA WO discloses the return system according to claim 1.
YAMADA WO further discloses a) in a first mode of operation (when the abnormality occurs, 0041 lines 9-10), to release the control valve (second switching valve 76) of the recirculation line (74) so that the recirculation flow is completely supplied into the gas supply system (“completely” implied by switching destination to “either…or” the second pressurized tank or the bypass line, 0041 lines 10-13), and
b) to shut off the control valve (second switching valve 76) in a second mode of operation (abnormality does not occur, 0041 lines 9-10) so that recirculated liquefied propulsion fluid is supplied to the recirculation tank by the recovery device (0041 lines 10-13).
YAMADA WO is silent regarding how the control valve is controlled.
YAMADA `234 teaches a control device (150a) configured to control a switching valve (128a,129a).
Absent guidance from YAMADA WO on how the control valve is controlled, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the control valve of YAMADA WO with a control device as taught by YAMADA `234 to control the control valve in a manner common place in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA WO (WO 2023/162325) in view of YAMADA `709 (EP 4 331 709).
Regarding claim 4, YAMADA WO discloses the return system according to claim 1.
YAMADA WO further discloses a level sensor (77) is assigned to the recirculation tank (70), which is configured to sense a fluid level in the recirculation tank (0040 lines 5-6), and to release the outlet line when a defined level in the recirculation tank is exceeded (implied, 0040 lines 7-10).
YAMADA WO is silent regarding how the outlet line is released when a defined level in the recirculation tank is exceeded.
YAMADA `709 teaches a level sensor (S3, Fig. 2) is assigned to a recirculation tank (100), which is configured to sense a fluid level in the recirculation tank (col. 6 lines 52-54), wherein the level sensor is connected to the control device in a data-conducting manner (col. 6 line 54 - col. 7 line 1) and the control device is configured to release the outlet line when a defined level in the recirculation tank is exceeded (col. 11 lines 41-49).
Absent guidance from YAMADA WO on how the outlet line is released when a defined level in the recirculation tank is exceeded, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the return system of YAMADA WO to utilize a control device to release the outlet line when a defined level in the recirculation tank is exceeded based on data received from the level sensor as taught by YAMADA `709 to provide a functional system that prevent overfilling of the recirculation tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, and 13 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, YAMADA WO is relied upon teach intervening claim 2. YAMADA WO does not disclose a pressure sensor on the recirculation line as required in claim 3. Furthermore, as YAMADA WO discloses the control valve (76) on the recirculation line is normally closed and is opened when an abnormality occurs, 0041 lines 9-10), it would not be obvious to modify YAMADA WO to control the control valve based on a back pressure in the supply line in such a way the recirculation flow remains in a liquid phase as required by claim 3. No other suitable base reference to teach claim 2 is available.
Claim 5 is indicated allowable for depending upon claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach the concept of an electronically-controlled valve transferring fluid from a recirculation tank to a collection tank when the recirculation tank pressure exceeds a threshold as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, YAMADA WO is relied upon to teach intervening claim 10. YAMADA WO does not disclose providing liquefied propulsion fluid from a liquefied propulsion fluid tank to the recondenser and providing the cooled recirculation flow to the recondenser as recited in claim 13 because in YAMADA WO the two flows are mixed in tank 44 (Fig. 5) prior to the mixed flows being provided to the recondenser (85, Fig. 5) via line 45.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SON (KR 2020-0096094) teaches a liquefied propulsion fluid line (L20, Fig. 1) from a liquefied propulsion fluid tank (10, Fig. 1, 0051 lines 1-3), wherein a heating device (22) is assigned to the liquefied propulsion fluid line (Fig. 1), which is configured to heat the liquefied propulsion fluid to a temperature above a solidification point of a machine oil contained in a recirculation flow (from L30, Fig. 1)(0062 lines 1-4) to control the temperature of the liquefied gas so that when the liquefied gas transferred from the fuel storage unit to a high-pressure pump (i.e., analogous to Yamada 246A and 246B) and the liquefied gas transferred from the fuel recovery unit (i.e., analogous to recovery device of Yamada 47 upstream of 75 and components thereon, Fig. 3) to the high-pressure pump are mixed, the temperature of the liquefied gas is above the freezing point of the lubricating oil (0063 lines 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights