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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US 20080156809) in view of Sawada (US 20210135255), Jiang (CN 214492696), and Flessner (US 20080110421).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno teaches a hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle 20 ([0023], Fig. 1) comprising:
a tank storage portion 50 ([0025], Fig. 2) disposed at a main body unit, the tank storage portion structuring a portion of a vehicle outer profile (Fig. 3; the vehicle outer profile includes the storage area where the hydrogen tanks are kept), and a plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions 39 being provided at the tank storage portion (Figs. 1 and 5); and
a fuel cell stack 40a/40b that is supplied with hydrogen from the hydrogen tanks 30 and generates electric power ([0023], the hydrogen tanks supply hydrogen fuel to the fuel cells).
Mizuno does not explicitly teach drive wheels. However, Sawada teaches a hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle main body unit that is movable by driving of driving wheels 16 ([0029], Fig. 2A of Sawada).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle of Mizuno to have the front wheels be drive wheels as Sawada teaches in order to advantageously provide driving force to the vehicle ([0029] of Sawada).
Mizuno as modified does not teach the plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions being stacked upon each other in a height direction.
However, Jiang teaches a hydrogen tank mounting portion in the roof of a vehicle wherein the plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions 110, 210 are provided at the tank storage portion (Paragraph 38; the sum of frame elements 100 and 200 is the tank storage portion) and stacked upon one another in a height direction of the main body unit (Abstract, Figs. 1-3 of Jiang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle of Mizuno to mount the tanks in a height direction as is done in Jiang in order to advantageously provide a tank storage portion which is of simple structure and does not interfere with the vehicle running track (Abstract of Jiang).
Regarding the limitation of “each hydrogen tank mounting portion being configured to removably store a hydrogen tank”, Mizuno is silent on the removability of the hydrogen tanks.
However, Flessner teaches a fuel cell powered vehicle with hydrogen tanks which are removable ([0049] of Flessner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hydrogen tanks of Mizuno removable as in Flessner in order to advantageously make the hydrogen tanks replaceable ([0049] of Flessner).
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno as modified teaches wherein the tank storage portion is exposed at the exterior ([0023], Fig. 2; the tank storage area is exposed to the outside through ventilation openings 52).
Regarding claims 3 and 4 (same limitations, different dependencies), Mizuno as modified teaches wherein the driving wheels are provided at a front side of the main body unit (See claim 1 rejection above; [0029], Fig. 2A of Sawada), and the tank storage portion is provided at an upper side relative to the driving wheels (Fig. 1; the tanks are stored at the roof of the bus, which is at an upper side relative to all the wheels).
Regarding claim 14, Mizuno as modified teaches wherein the main body unit includes:
a frame portion (Fig. 3; the summation of the roof, walls, and bottom portion of the bus that supports the fuel cells, passenger area, hydrogen tanks, etc.…) that structures an outer profile of the main body unit (Figs. 1 and 3; the outer profile of the bus body is part of the frame), and
a cavity portion 24 that penetrates in an axial direction of the driving wheels through an inner side of the frame portion ([0023], Fig. 1; the passenger area is an inner cavity, within the vehicle frame, that protrudes from one side to the other in an axial direction of the driving wheels).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Sawada, Flessner, and Jiang, and further in view of Mizuno (US 20050224265, hereinafter Mizuno-265).
Regarding claims 5-7 (same limitations, different dependencies), Mizuno as modified teaches removable hydrogen tanks for a fuel cell powered vehicle. Mizuno as modified does not teach the hydrogen tanks being removable from a front side of the main body unit.
However, Mizuno-265 teaches a vehicle with fuel cells 20 and a hydrogen tank 21, wherein the hydrogen tank is on a front side of the main body unit 10 ([0026], Fig. 1 of Mizuno-265; the hydrogen tank is located at the front wheel axle at the front portion of the vehicle ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the removable hydrogen tanks of Mizuno to be located at the front side of the vehicle body as it is in Mizuno-265 in order to advantageously save vehicle space and position the weight above the wheel axle ([0026] of Mizuno-265).
While Mizuno-265 does not expressly teach the hydrogen tank being removable, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the removable hydrogen tanks of the modified assembly of Mizuno/et.al. being advantageously located towards the front of the vehicle to save storage in the back as it is in Mizuno-265 and thus configured to be removable from a front side of the vehicle body.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Sawada, Flessner, and Jiang, and further in view of Lo (US 20210389053).
Regarding claims 8-10 (same limitations, different dependencies), Mizuno as modified teaches securing hydrogen tanks in place within the vehicle, but is silent on the locking arrangements of the tanks.
However, Lo teaches a mounting arrangement for a hydrogen tank 3 further comprising a lock mechanism that is configured to enable mounting or removal of each hydrogen tank at a hydrogen tank mounting portion 23 ([0050], Figs. 9-10 of Lo).
Mizuno teaches a base device which differs from the claimed invention by having undisclosed mounting arrangements of the hydrogen tanks. Locking mechanisms that allow for mounting or removal of the hydrogen tanks are well known in the art and are taught by Lo. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mounting arrangements of Lo for the mounting arrangements of Mizuno and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and provided the advantage of locking the hydrogen tanks in place on the vehicle ([0050] of Lo).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Sawada, Flessner, Jiang, and Mizuno-265, and further in view of Lo.
Regarding claim 11, Mizuno as modified teaches securing hydrogen tanks in place within the vehicle, but is silent on the locking arrangements of the tanks.
However, Lo teaches a mounting arrangement for a hydrogen tank 3 further comprising a lock mechanism that is configured to enable mounting or removal of each hydrogen tank at a hydrogen tank mounting portion 23 ([0050], Figs. 9-10 of Lo).
Mizuno teaches a base device which differs from the claimed invention by having undisclosed mounting arrangements of the hydrogen tanks. Locking mechanisms that allow for mounting or removal of the hydrogen tanks are well known in the art and are taught by Lo. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mounting arrangements of Lo for the mounting arrangements of Mizuno and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and would have provided the advantage of locking the hydrogen tanks in place on the vehicle ([0050] of Lo).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Sawada, Flessner, Jiang, and Lo, and further in view of Janko (US 4972971).
Regarding claim 12, Mizuno as modified teaches a locking mechanism but does not teach a cam groove mounting the tank in its place.
However, Janko teaches a gas canister mounting arrangement wherein the lock mechanism includes a cam groove 23 provided at each tank 18 mounting portion (Fig. 1), a projection portion 20 provided at each tank 18 and being configured to engage with the cam groove 23 (Col. 4, lines 43-59 of Janko), and the cam groove converting rotary movement rotating each hydrogen tank in a circumferential direction thereof to linear movement moving the hydrogen tank in an axial direction thereof (Col. 4, lines 43-59 of Janko; as the threaded projections engage the threads of the cam groove, rotary movement is converted into linear movement and the tank is screwed in and locked in place).
Mizuno as modified teaches a base device which differs from the claimed invention by using ribs and slots to mount the canister in place rather than a cam groove. Using a cam groove to mount a rotatable object in place is well known in the art and is taught by Janko. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cam groove and threads of Janko for the ribs and slots of the modified locking mechanism of Mizuno/et.al. and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of manually actuating the gas canister as it is inserted in the vehicle (Col. 8, lines 23-37 of Janko).
Regarding claim 13, Mizuno as modified does not teach a handle portion on the hydrogen tanks.
However, Lo teaches wherein a handle portion that enables handling is provided at one end in a length direction of each hydrogen tank (Figs. 9A and 10A of Lo; there is a handle provided on an end of the hydrogen tank), and a locked state or lock release state of the hydrogen tank by the locking mechanism can be verified from an exterior by a position of the handle portion relative to a hydrogen tank mounting portion. (Fig. 9A of Lo shows the handle indicating the canister is mounted in the open position; Fig. 10A of Lo shows the handle indicating the canister is mounted in the lock position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified hydrogen tanks of Mizuno/et.al. to include the locking system with handles of Lo in order to advantageously lock the canister in place ([0050] of Lo).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Sawada, Flessner, and Jiang, and further in view of Ellis (US 20150217669).
Regarding claim 15, Mizuno does not teach the driving wheels being spaced apart in a larger width direction than the vehicle frame.
However, Ellis teaches a vehicle wherein a width dimension of the main body unit is smaller than a width dimension of the driving wheels in an axial direction thereof (Fig. 4 of Ellis; the wheel axles extend further in a width direction than the vehicle frame).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention change the length of wheel axle to protrude further than the vehicle frame is it does in Ellis in order to advantageously provide lateral support.
Additionally, and in the alternative, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Sawada, Scott (US 6367573), and Flessner.
Regarding claim 16, Mizuno teaches a hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle 20 ([0023], Fig. 1) comprising:
a tank storage portion 50 ([0025], Fig. 2) disposed at a main body unit, the tank storage portion structuring a portion of a vehicle outer profile (Fig. 3; the vehicle outer profile includes the storage area where the hydrogen tanks are kept), and a plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions 39 being provided at the tank storage portion in a height direction of the main body unit (Figs. 1 and 5; the hydrogen tanks are mounted to the roof, which is in a height direction of the vehicle main body); and
a fuel cell stack 40a/40b that is supplied with hydrogen from the hydrogen tanks and generates electric power ([0023], the hydrogen tanks supply hydrogen fuel to the fuel cells).
Mizuno does not explicitly teach drive wheels. However, Sawada teaches a hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle main body unit that is movable by driving of driving wheels 16 ([0029], Fig. 2A of Sawada).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle of Mizuno to have the front wheels be drive wheels as Sawada teaches in order to advantageously provide driving force to the vehicle ([0029] of Sawada).
Mizuno as modified does not teach wherein the hydrogen tanks are mounted so that they are aligned in a front-rear direction.
However, Scott teaches a CNG tank-loaded vehicle wherein the plurality of tank mounting portions 46 are formed to store the tanks such that a longitudinal direction of each of the tanks is aligned in a front-rear direction of the hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle (Col. 3, lines 63-67, Figs. 1-3 of Scott).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle of Mizuno to mount the tanks in a front-rear direction as is taught by Scott in order to advantageously support the tanks within the longitudinal vehicle frame (Abstract of Scott).
Regarding the limitation of “each hydrogen tank mounting portion being configured to removably store a hydrogen tank”, Mizuno is silent on the removability of the hydrogen tanks. However, Flessner teaches a fuel cell powered vehicle with hydrogen tanks which are removable ([0049] of Flessner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hydrogen tanks of Mizuno removable as in Flessner in order to advantageously make the hydrogen tanks replaceable ([0049] of Flessner).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Sawada, Scott, and Flessner, and further in view of Yang (CN 1482032).
Regarding claim 17, Mizuno as modified teaches removable hydrogen tanks for a fuel cell powered vehicle. Mizuno as modified does not teach the hydrogen tanks being removable from a front side of the plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions.
However, Yang teaches a hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle 1 wherein the hydrogen tanks 6 are configured to be removable from a front side of the plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions 51 (Figs. 8-10 of Yang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle of Mizuno/et.al. to have the tanks loaded and stored in the front portion of the vehicle in order to advantageously achieve weight balance of the vehicle (Paragraph 43 of Yang).
Additionally, and in the alternative, Mizuno as modified discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the hydrogen tanks are configured to be removable from a front side of the plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount and insert the hydrogen tanks at the vehicle front side, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Scott and Flessner, and further in view of Jiang.
Mizuno as modified does not teach the plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions being stacked upon each other in a height direction.
However, Jiang teaches a hydrogen tank mounting portion in the roof of a vehicle wherein the plurality of hydrogen tank mounting portions 110, 210 are provided at the tank storage portion (Paragraph 38; the sum of frame elements 100 and 200 is the tank storage portion) and stacked upon one another in a height direction of the main body unit (Abstract, Figs. 1-3 of Jiang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle of Mizuno to mount the tanks of the modified hydrogen tank-loaded vehicle of Mizuno/et.al. in a height direction as is done in Jiang in order to advantageously provide a tank storage portion which is of simple structure and does not interfere with the vehicle running track (Abstract of Jiang).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617