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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the deflection arm fixed to an immobile object” of Claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 contains the following verbiage: “…the support structure comprises a rollable carrier that can role in all directions in a horizontal plane.” Here, the word “role” should be changed to “roll”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulz et al. (US 2020/0071155).
Note: Claims are presented in order of dependency.
Regarding Claim 1, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement comprising a transfer line for fluids and a support structure attached to the transfer line, wherein the transfer line comprises
- flexible sections (first and second flexible lines 9 and 10) enabling pivotable movement of the transfer line around an axis (see at least para 19: "In order to move the first flexible line 9 into a particular lateral position, the device 1 is rotated about the longitudinal axis of the foundation pillar 3 (arrow 3a)"), such that
- one end of the transfer line (10) is connectable to a connector (rigid pipe elbow 12, see Fig 2) at a fluid source for a fluid (Figs 1 and 2 show items 10 and 12 to the left, and therefore towards the source of fueling, per at least para 16) and
- the other end of the transfer line (9) is connectable with a connector (14) at a tank to be filled with fluid (Fig 1 shows items 9 and 14 to the right, and therefore towards the vehicle to be refueled, per at least para 16)
- characterized in that the transfer line comprises vacuum insulated multiwalled tubes (disclosed at paras 9 and 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement, wherein the transfer line arrangement comprises (as shown above in the rejection of Claim 1) rigid (12 and 14) and flexible sections (9 and 10) enabling compensating distance and difference in height between the connector of the fluid source and the connector of the tank to be filled (horizontal and lateral movement is described at paras 17-19. See also Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement, wherein the transfer line comprises rigid multiwalled tube sections connected by the flexible sections (see Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement, wherein multiwalled corrugated tubes form the flexible sections of the transfer line (described at para 20).
Regarding Claim 4, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement, wherein the flexible sections are provided with gimbals (pivot joints 6, 7) limiting the degrees of freedom of the flexible sections. Schulz et al., para 15 teaches pivot joints 6,7, as moving "in the common vertical plane of the longitudinal axes thereof, as indicated by the arrows 6a, 7a." From Fig. 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Schulz reference further teaches restricted movement of the pivot joints, limited by the presence of second support 4.
Regarding Claim 6, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement, wherein the support structure is movable in a horizontal plane (see paras 17-19 and Claim 1, which describe foundation pillar 3, and therefore the entire structure, as being "rotatable around a longitudinal axis". This teaching describes movement in the horizontal plane, as claimed by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 7, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement, wherein the support structure comprises a deflection arm (foundation pillar 3) fixed to an immobile object. Per para 14, the entire device of Schulz et al. can be situated either on a mooring quay on land (which is "immobile”, as claimed by Applicant) or on a bunker ship.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al, in view of Von Meyerinck (WO 2007036254 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Schulz et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a transfer line arrangement comprising pivotable flexible and rigid sections and related support structure, as shown above in the rejection of Claim 1. The Schulz reference additionally teaches (see para 14) the entire device as being fixed (e.g. “situated either on a mooring quay on land”), or mobile (e.g. “on a bunker ship”). The reference, however, does not explicitly recite the device, nor the support structure, as compris(ing) a rollable carrier that can
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the mobile device of Schulz “rollable” and suitable for land-based vehicle refueling, if so desired. Applicant is advised that the courts have held that the fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.04. In the present case, modifying the Schulz reference to operate on a rolling carrier would have the predictable results of being applicable to land-based mobile applications, and Applicant has not provided any evidence of unexpected or novel results in doing so.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner also relies on Von Meyerinck, who teaches the support structure comprises a rollable carrier (see at least Fig. 13 and Abstract, "self-propelled tank vehicle 1, further comprising vehicle frame 2 and a motorised drive train for driving drive wheels”) that can
PNG
media_image2.png
652
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Schulz and Von Meyerinck references each teach mobile fuel transfer devices capable of horizontal and vertical positioning to a fuel receptacle. The Von Meyerinck reference additionally teaches land-based mobility for such applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the transfer device 1 of Shultz et al. to the mobile platform of Von Meyerinck, in order to gain the ability to conduct land-based fueling operations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Schulz et al. discloses a transfer line arrangement, wherein the transfer line is composed in its entirety by a multiwalled flexible tube resting on the support structure. The Schulz reference teaches multiwalled flexible tubing (see the rejection of Claim 1 above and paras 9 and 20).
Although the Schulz reference does not explicitly recite the transfer line being "composed in its entirety by a multiwalled flexible tube", Applicant admits it is known to do this within the prior art. See Specification, para 5. Examiner notes that in this Specification teaching, Applicant appears to actually teach away from the claimed subject matter of Claim 9.
Examiner therefore concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the device of Schulz et al. using only multiwalled flexible tubing, if so desired, since doing was already known to the prior art.
Conclusion
Examiner offers the following additional comments on the patentability of the present set of claims. The current disclosure teaches applicability to the transfer of liquefied cryogenic hydrogen, and states “development of cryogenic liquid hydrogen transfer technologies is urgently needed” (see Specification, paras 2-7). The disclosure appears to be further drawn to “a transfer line arrangement that is leak tight by design” (see para 1).
However, the current claim set is extremely broad, wherein independent Claim 1 merely requires flexible vacuum insulated multiwalled tubing, that is capable of 1) transferring any fluid, and 2) being connected to any structure that has a pivoting/rotating/swiveling component. The current set of claims are not specifically drawn to any cryogenic fluid transfer, fueling, aviation, hydrogen, nor leak mitigation applications. Given the broad nature of the claims, Examiner asserts that at least Claim 1 could be anticipated by a number of prior art examples across many fields of endeavor where fluid flows from one point to another.
In light of the above, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the prior art below is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- The following references are at least appropriate for refueling applications and feature a flexible, insulated transfer line capable of pivotable movement: US 20080236703 A1, US 20240308625 A1, and US 20160362163 A1.
- US 12479715 (assigned to Applicant, yet featuring a different joint inventive entity) additionally features many, if not all, limitations of the present independent claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights