DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/05/2025 amending Claims 1, 3, 4, and 18 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 are examined.
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:
- "gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly" in Claims 1, 2, 9, 17, and 18 is interpreted as an “assembly for delivering gaseous hydrogen” which invokes 112(f) interpretation. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1990 defined assembly as “5. A: The fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine. B: a collection of parts so assembled”. Therefore, ‘assembly’ is a generic placeholder that does not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed 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.
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 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, 2, 9, 17, and 18 recite limitation “gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation “gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly" is interpreted as an “assembly for delivering gaseous hydrogen” which invokes 112(f) interpretation. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1990 defined assembly as “5. A: The fitting together of manufactured parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine. B: a collection of parts so assembled”. The scope of the collection of structures/parts fitted together into the “gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly" is unclear because the written description failed to disclose the corresponding structure(s) for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure(s) to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2 – 17 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 19 and 20 depend from Claim 18 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 10, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muldoon et al. (2022/0381185A1) in view of Wolff et al. (6,907,735) in view of Uchino et al. (7,399,166) in view of Rebhan et al. (7,380,402).
Regarding Claim 1, Muldoon teaches, in Figs. 1 - 7, the invention as claimed, including a fuel system for a vehicle (400 – Fig. 4) having an engine (20 – Fig. 1, 200 – Fig. 2, 306 – Fig. 3, 402 – Fig. 4, 512 – Fig. 5, 610 – Fig. 6, 708 – Fig. 7), the fuel system comprising: a liquid hydrogen fuel tank (224 – Fig. 2 – Para. [0041]; 302 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 508 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 602 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 702 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]) for holding a first portion of hydrogen fuel in a liquid phase; a gaseous hydrogen fuel tank (304 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 510 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 604 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 704 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]) for holding a second portion of hydrogen fuel in a gaseous phase; and a fuel delivery assembly comprising a liquid hydrogen delivery assembly (226 – Fig. 2; arrow between 302 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrows between 508 and 512 – Fig. 3; dashed arrow between 602 and 610 – Fig. 6) in fluid communication with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank (224 – Fig. 2 – Para. [0041]; 302 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 508 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 602 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 702 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]), the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly comprising a pump (228 – Para. [0042] “flow controller 228 (e.g., pump(s), valves(s), or the like”) for pumping, in the liquid phase, the first portion of hydrogen fuel through the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly (226); a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly (As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, ‘gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly’ has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly’ is equivalent to the assembly of gaseous hydrogen pipe lines that delivered gaseous hydrogen from the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank to the engine. For example, arrow between 304 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrow between 604 and 610 – Fig. 6; arrow between 704 and 708 – Fig. 7) in fluid communication with the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank (304 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 510 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 604 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 704 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]), the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly (arrow between 304 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrow between 604 and 610 – Fig. 6; arrow between 704 and 708 – Fig. 7) extending in a parallel arrangement (shown in Figs. 3 and 6) with the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly (226 – Fig. 2; arrow between 302 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrows between 508 and 512 – Fig. 3; dashed arrow between 602 and 610 – Fig. 6), the engine (20 – Fig. 1, 200 – Fig. 2, 306 – Fig. 3, 402 – Fig. 4, 512 – Fig. 5, 610 – Fig. 6, 708 – Fig. 7) when installed in the vehicle (400 – Fig. 4).
Muldoon, as discussed above, is silent on a regulator assembly is in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for providing gaseous hydrogen fuel to the engine, wherein the regulator assembly includes a buffer tank in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for receiving gaseous hydrogen fuel from both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly, wherein the buffer tank defines a fluid inlet including an inlet valve, a fluid outlet including an outlet valve, an internal cavity, and an exhaust including an exhaust valve.
Wolff teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, a similar hydrogen fuel system having a regulator assembly (24, 26) comprises a buffer tank (26 – Col. 3, ll. 20 - 30) in fluid communication with a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for receiving gaseous hydrogen fuel from the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for delivery to an engine (28), wherein the buffer tank (26) defines a fluid inlet (line from 16 to 26) including an inlet valve (24), a fluid outlet (required for the gaseous hydrogen fuel to flow out of the buffer tank, see Wolff – Fig. 1, arrow from 26 to 28), an internal cavity (inherent that the buffer tank walls formed an internal cavity contained the gaseous hydrogen) and an exhaust including an exhaust valve (34 - Wolff – Fig. 1, Col. 3, ll. 28 – 32 “To prevent over-pressurization, additional pressure relief valves 34 may be coupled to the buffer tank 26 to vent the excess gas to the atmosphere.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muldoon, with the regulator assembly is in fluid communication with a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly, the regulator assembly includes a buffer tank that defines a fluid inlet including an inlet valve, a fluid outlet, an internal cavity, and an exhaust including an exhaust valve, taught by Wolff, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the fuel delivery assembly comprising a liquid hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank, a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, and a regulator assembly includes a buffer tank that defines a fluid inlet including an inlet valve, a fluid outlet, an internal cavity, and an exhaust including an exhaust valve, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the regulator assembly including a buffer tank into the fuel system of Muldoon so that said buffer tank fluid inlet including an inlet valve would have been in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly would have facilitated varying the flowrate of gaseous hydrogen fuel into said buffer tank. Furthermore, the exhaust including an exhaust valve would have facilitated increasing safety by a controlled venting of excess hydrogen gas into the atmosphere thereby preventing an uncontrolled explosive rupture of the buffer tank due to over-pressurization that would have released all the gaseous hydrogen fuel within the buffer tank to atmosphere. The designed and intended purpose of the buffer tank was to temporarily store and release gaseous hydrogen fuel when there was a mismatch between the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine (from the buffer tank fluid outlet) and the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet. When the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine was greater than the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet, then the buffer tank would have released sufficient gaseous hydrogen fuel from the buffer tank fluid outlet to satisfy the mass flow rate demanded/consumed by the engine. Consequently, the total mass of gaseous hydrogen stored within the buffer tank would have decreased. Conversely, when the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine was less than the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet, then the buffer tank would have stored the excess gaseous hydrogen fuel flowing into the buffer tank fluid inlet while supplying the lesser mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel demanded/consumed by the engine. Consequently, the total mass of gaseous hydrogen stored within the buffer tank would have increased. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, as discussed above, is silent on said fluid outlet including an outlet valve.
Uchino teaches, in Figs. 1 – 3, Col. 2, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 4, ll. 10 – 55, an outlet valve (29 – control valve), wherein the outlet valve (29) is a variable throughput valve configured to vary the flowrate of the fluid (Col. 2, ll. 45 – 55 “the control valve controlling in accordance with a slide position of the spool at least one of pressures within the first and second fluid-pressure chambers to oscillate the cam ring for variable control of a flow rate of the fluid…”) from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet, and wherein the outlet valve is configured to be controlled based on a pressure difference between the internal cavity and a downstream side of the fluid outlet (Col. 2, ll. 45 – 55 “a control valve operated by a pressure difference between upstream and downstream sides of the orifice…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, with the outlet valve is a variable throughput valve configured to vary the flowrate of the fluid from a fluid inlet to a fluid outlet, and wherein the outlet valve is configured to be controlled based on a pressure difference between an upstream side of the fluid inlet and a downstream side of the fluid outlet, taught by Uchino, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the fuel delivery assembly comprising a liquid hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank, a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, a regulator assembly having a buffer tank in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly, and an outlet valve is a variable throughput valve configured to vary the flowrate of the fluid from a fluid inlet to a fluid outlet, and wherein the outlet valve is configured to be controlled based on a pressure difference between an upstream side of the fluid inlet and a downstream side of the fluid outlet, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating an outlet valve at the fluid outlet of the buffer tank would have facilitated varying the flowrate of the gaseous hydrogen fuel from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet based on a pressure difference between the internal cavity and a downstream side of the fluid outlet. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Muldoon, i.v., Wolff and Uchino, as discussed above, teaches a fuel system for a vehicle having an engine, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Muldoon, i.v., Wolff and Uchino, as discussed above, is silent on a controller is in operable communication with at least one of the inlet valve, the outlet valve, or the exhaust valve to control operation of the respective at least one of the inlet valve, the outlet valve, or the exhaust valve based on an input including a fuel flowrate.
Rebhan teaches, in Fig. 2, a similar fuel system having an engine (31 – Col. 5, ll. 35 – 40 - gas turbine), said fuel system having a regulator assembly [mass flow rate measurement (ṁCV2) and control valve (CV2) in fuel line 52 and control valve (CV4) in fuel line 54 - Col. 5, ll. 55 – 67] in fluid communication with both sources of gaseous fuel (GPI and GPII - Col. 5, ll. 35 – 40) for providing gaseous fuel (via gaseous fuel line 52) to the engine (31) and a reservoir (43) wherein a controller (39) is in operable communication (arrow lines from 39 to 49 and 50) with at least one of an inlet valve (CV2) or an outlet valve (CV4) to control operation of the respective at least one of the inlet valve or the outlet valve based on an input including a fuel flowrate (ṁCV2 or ṁCV4). Rebhan teaches, in Col. 5, l. 59 to Col. 6, l. 5, “The fuel mass flow rate in the respective main fuel feeding line 51, 52 can be controlled with a control valve CV1 and/or CV2. ... The various fuel mass flow rates indicated in FIG. 2 and measured at the respective locations (ṁx, x = I, II, 1, 2, CV1, … ,CV4; C2+ext,Res) are controlled with a load controller 39 via two control devices 49, 50 based on the power or load required from the network, with the devices on one hand controlling the entire fuel mass flow rate per combustion chamber 35, 36 via control valves CV1 and CV2…”.
Thus, improving a particular system (fuel system for a vehicle having an engine), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Rebhan, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the fuel system for a vehicle having an engine of Muldoon, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating the regulator assembly arrangement, taught by Rebhan, into the fuel system of Muldoon, i.v., Wolff and Uchino, would have facilitated controlling the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel flowing into and out of the buffer tank and would have facilitated controlling the engine power output by controlling the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the engine from the buffer tank, wherein the supplied gaseous hydrogen fuel could have been only from the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly or only from the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly or a mixture from both the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly and the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 3, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the buffer tank is configured to vary a flowrate of the gaseous hydrogen fuel from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet. As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, the designed and intended purpose of the buffer tank was to temporarily store and release gaseous hydrogen fuel when there was a mismatch between the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine (from the buffer tank fluid outlet) and the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet. When the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine was greater than the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet, then the buffer tank would have released sufficient gaseous hydrogen fuel from the buffer tank fluid outlet to satisfy the mass flow rate demanded/consumed by the engine. Conversely, when the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine was less than the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet, then the buffer tank would have stored the excess gaseous hydrogen fuel flowing into the buffer tank fluid inlet while supplying the lesser mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel demanded/consumed by the engine.
Re Claim 4, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the buffer tank (26) is configured to purge gaseous hydrogen fuel from within the buffer tank (26) through the exhaust valve (34 - Wolff - Col. 3, ll. 25 – 30 “To prevent over-pressurization, additional pressure relief valves 34 may be coupled to the buffer tank 26 to vent the excess gas to the atmosphere.”) when an internal pressure of the buffer tank exceeds an upper threshold, wherein the inlet valve (24) is [Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to ensure the gaseous hydrogen fuel only flows into the internal cavity through the fluid inlet” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Wolff can perform the function because the buffer tank only has a single inlet.] configured to ensure the gaseous hydrogen fuel only flows into the internal cavity through the fluid inlet, wherein the outlet valve is a variable throughput valve configured to vary the flowrate of the gaseous hydrogen fuel from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet, and wherein the outlet valve is configured to be controlled based on a pressure difference between the internal cavity and a downstream side of the fluid outlet, refer to the Claim 1 rejection above.
Re Claim 5, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Muldoon further teaches, in Fig. 2, wherein the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly further comprises a heat exchanger (232, 236) located downstream of the pump (228 – Para. [0042] “flow controller 228 (e.g., pump(s), valves(s), or the like”) for converting the first portion of hydrogen fuel from the liquid phase to a gaseous phase, Para. [0046], middle “…store the hydrogen fuel on the aircraft in liquid form to improve energy density and then convert to a gaseous state for the combustion process (e.g., along the fuel supply line 226 from the hydrogen fuel tank 224 to the combustor 210)”.
Re Claim 6, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Muldoon further teaches, wherein the engine (200 – Fig. 2) comprises an accessory system (Para. [0044] “The supplemental heating heat exchanger 236 may be configured to receive the heated (but potentially still relatively cold) hydrogen as a first working fluid and as the second working fluid may receive one or more aircraft system fluids, such as, without limitation, engine oil, environmental control system fluids, pneumatic off-takes, or cooled cooling air fluids.”), and wherein the heat exchanger (236) is in thermal communication with the accessory system of the engine when installed in the vehicle (aircraft).
Re Claim 7, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Muldoon further teaches, in Para. [0062], wherein the liquid hydrogen fuel tank is configured to be maintained at a pressure greater than one bar (14.5 psi) and less than 10 bar (145 psi, Muldoon’s “about 20 psi” was within the claimed range), and wherein the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank is configured to be maintained at a pressure greater than 100 bar (1,450 psi) and less than 1,000 bar (14,503.8 psi, Muldoon’s “5 – 10 K psi” = 5,000 to 10,000 psi was within the claimed range).
Re Claim 8, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the liquid hydrogen fuel tank provides at least 60% of a maximum fuel storage capacity for the fuel system, and wherein the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank provides at least 5% of the maximum fuel storage capacity for the fuel system. However, Muldoon further teaches, in Para. [0048], middle, “…minimize the volume of the dedicated GH2 starting tank because a gaseous hydrogen tank will be heavier by volume than the LH2 main tanks”. As discussed in Claim 7 rejection above, Muldoon further teaches, in Para. [0062], that the pressure inside the liquid hydrogen fuel tank was about 20 psi while the pressure inside the gaseous hydrogen tank was 5,000 to 10,000 psi which meant that the gaseous hydrogen tank would have required thicker walls than the liquid hydrogen fuel tank to contain the significantly higher pressure inside the gaseous hydrogen tank; therefore, for the same volume a gaseous hydrogen tank would have been significantly heavier than a liquid hydrogen fuel tank.
Therefore, the percentage of the maximum fuel storage capacity of the gaseous hydrogen tank and the liquid hydrogen fuel tank was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the larger the percentage of the maximum fuel storage capacity of the gaseous hydrogen tank relative to a smaller percentage of the maximum fuel storage capacity of the liquid hydrogen tank would have increased the weight of the fuel system because the for the same volume a gaseous hydrogen tank would have been significantly heavier than a liquid hydrogen fuel tank. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., that the liquid hydrogen fuel tank and the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank had percentages of the maximum fuel storage capacity for the fuel system that summed up to 100%, were disclosed in the prior art by Muldoon, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fuel system taught by Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, to have the liquid hydrogen fuel tank provide at least 60% of a maximum fuel storage capacity for the fuel system, and have the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank provides at least 5% of the maximum fuel storage capacity for the fuel system. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re Claim 9, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Muldoon further teaches, in Fig. 7 and Paras. [0060] – [0061], wherein the fuel delivery assembly further comprises a boil-off tank (710) in fluid communication with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank (702), and wherein the boil-off tank (710) is further in fluid communication with the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly (704 to 708).
Re Claim 10, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Muldoon further teaches, in Para. [0062], wherein the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank is configured to be maintained at a pressure greater than 100 bar (1,450 psi) and less than 1,000 bar (14,503.8 psi, Muldoon’s “5 – 10 K psi” = 5,000 to 10,000 psi was within the claimed range). Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, as claimed and as discussed above, is silent on wherein the boil-off tank is configured to be maintained at a pressure of between 100 bar (1,450 psi) and 400 bar (5,801.5 psi). Muldoon further teaches, in Fig. 7 and Para. [0061], a pump (712) to increase the pressure of the hydrogen gas from the boil-off tank to a sufficiently high pressure for the boosted boil-off hydrogen gas to flow into the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank. Muldoon further teaches, in Para. [0048], middle, “…minimize the volume of the dedicated GH2 starting tank because a gaseous hydrogen tank will be heavier by volume than the LH2 main tanks”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, so that the boil-off tank would have been configured to be maintained at a pressure of between about 100 bar (1,450 psi) and about 400 bar (5,801.5 psi) to facilitate the weight of the boil-off tank per volume being equal to or less than the weight of the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank per volume. If the boil-off tank and the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank were configured to maintain the same pressure, e.g., 100 bar (1,450 psi), then the boil-off tank and the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank would have had similar per volume weight since the same wall thickness would have been required to contain the same gas pressure. Conversely, if the boil-off tank were configured to maintain a lower pressure, e.g., 100 bar (1,450 psi), then the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank pressure, e.g., 1,000 bar (14,503.8 psi), then the boil-off tank would have had a lower per volume weight compared to the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank per volume weight, since the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank would have had to have thicker walls to contain the higher pressure gas.
Re Claim 12, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Muldoon further teaches, in Fig. 2, wherein the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly further comprises a heat exchanger (232, 236) located downstream of the pump (228 – Para. [0042] “flow controller 228 (e.g., pump(s), valves(s), or the like”), wherein the engine (20) comprises a lubrication oil system (Para. [0044] “The supplemental heating heat exchanger 236 may be configured to receive the heated (but potentially still relatively cold) hydrogen as a first working fluid and as the second working fluid may receive one or more aircraft system fluids, such as, without limitation, engine oil, environmental control system fluids, pneumatic off-takes, or cooled cooling air fluids.”) and an exhaust section (216), wherein the heat exchanger (232, 236) is in thermal communication with both the lubrication oil system (engine oil) and the exhaust section (216) during at least certain operations when installed in the vehicle (aircraft).
Re Claim 17, Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, Uchino, and Rebhan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Muldoon further teaches, in Para. [0048], wherein the fuel delivery assembly is configured to provide substantially all of a commanded fuel flowrate for starting the engine from the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank through the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly. Muldoon further teaches, in Para. [0048], “…a dedicated, pressurized gaseous hydrogen (GH2) tank may be used to supply gaseous hydrogen to start one or more engines”.
Regarding Claim 18, Muldoon teaches, in Figs. 1 - 7, the invention as claimed, including a propulsion system for a vehicle (400 – Fig. 4), the propulsion system comprising: an engine (20 – Fig. 1, 200 – Fig. 2, 306 – Fig. 3, 402 – Fig. 4, 512 – Fig. 5, 610 – Fig. 6, 708 – Fig. 7); and a fuel system for providing hydrogen fuel (GH2 and LH2) to the engine comprising: a liquid hydrogen fuel tank (224 – Fig. 2 – Para. [0041]; 302 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 508 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 602 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 702 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]) for holding a first portion of hydrogen fuel in a liquid phase; a gaseous hydrogen fuel tank (304 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 510 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 604 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 704 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]) for holding a second portion of hydrogen fuel in a gaseous phase; and a fuel delivery assembly comprising a liquid hydrogen delivery assembly (226 – Fig. 2; arrow between 302 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrows between 508 and 512 – Fig. 3; dashed arrow between 602 and 610 – Fig. 6) in fluid communication with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank (224 – Fig. 2 – Para. [0041]; 302 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 508 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 602 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 702 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]), the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly comprising a pump (228 – Para. [0042] “flow controller 228 (e.g., pump(s), valves(s), or the like”) for pumping, in the liquid phase, the first portion of hydrogen fuel through the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly (226); a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly (As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, ‘gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly’ has been interpreted to invoke 112(f) interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly’ is equivalent to the assembly of gaseous hydrogen pipe lines that delivered gaseous hydrogen from the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank to the engine. For example, arrow between 304 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrow between 604 and 610 – Fig. 6; arrow between 704 and 708 – Fig. 7) in fluid communication with the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank (304 – Fig. 3 – Para. [0051]; 510 – Fig. 5 – Para. [0053]; 604 – Fig. 6 – Para. [0057]; 704 – Fig. 7 – Para. [0060]), the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly (arrow between 304 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrow between 604 and 610 – Fig. 6; arrow between 704 and 708 – Fig. 7) extending in parallel (shown in Figs. 3 and 6) with the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly (226 – Fig. 2; arrow between 302 and 306 – Fig. 3; arrows between 508 and 512 – Fig. 3; dashed arrow between 602 and 610 – Fig. 6), the engine (20 – Fig. 1, 200 – Fig. 2, 306 – Fig. 3, 402 – Fig. 4, 512 – Fig. 5, 610 – Fig. 6, 708 – Fig. 7) when installed in the vehicle (400 – Fig. 4).
Muldoon, as discussed above, is silent on a regulator assembly is in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for providing gaseous hydrogen fuel to the engine, wherein the regulator assembly includes a buffer tank in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for receiving gaseous hydrogen fuel from both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly, wherein the buffer tank defines a fluid inlet including an inlet valve, a fluid outlet including an outlet valve, an internal cavity, and an exhaust including an exhaust valve.
Wolff teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, a similar hydrogen fuel system having a regulator assembly (24, 26) comprises a buffer tank (26 – Col. 3, ll. 20 - 30) in fluid communication with a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for receiving gaseous hydrogen fuel from the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly for delivery to an engine (28), wherein the buffer tank (26) defines a fluid inlet (line from 16 to 26) including an inlet valve (24), a fluid outlet (required for the gaseous hydrogen fuel to flow out of the buffer tank, see Wolff – Fig. 1, arrow from 26 to 28), an internal cavity (inherent that the buffer tank walls formed an internal cavity contained the gaseous hydrogen) and an exhaust including an exhaust valve (34 - Wolff – Fig. 1, Col. 3, ll. 28 – 32 “To prevent over-pressurization, additional pressure relief valves 34 may be coupled to the buffer tank 26 to vent the excess gas to the atmosphere.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muldoon, with the regulator assembly is in fluid communication with a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly, the regulator assembly includes a buffer tank that defines a fluid inlet including an inlet valve, a fluid outlet, an internal cavity, and an exhaust including an exhaust valve, taught by Wolff, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the fuel delivery assembly comprising a liquid hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank, a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, and a regulator assembly includes a buffer tank that defines a fluid inlet including an inlet valve, a fluid outlet, an internal cavity, and an exhaust including an exhaust valve, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the regulator assembly including a buffer tank into the fuel system of Muldoon so that said buffer tank fluid inlet including an inlet valve would have been in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly would have facilitated varying the flowrate of gaseous hydrogen fuel into said buffer tank. Furthermore, the exhaust including an exhaust valve would have facilitated preventing the buffer tank from exploding due to excessive internal pressure by venting excess gas to the atmosphere so that the buffer tank internal pressure did not exceed its maximum designed operating pressure. The designed and intended purpose of the buffer tank was to temporarily store and release gaseous hydrogen fuel when there was a mismatch between the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine (from the buffer tank fluid outlet) and the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet. When the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine was greater than the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet, then the buffer tank would have released sufficient gaseous hydrogen fuel from the buffer tank fluid outlet to satisfy the mass flow rate demanded/consumed by the engine. Consequently, the total mass of gaseous hydrogen stored within the buffer tank would have decreased. Conversely, when the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel consumed by the engine was less than the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel supplied to the buffer tank fluid inlet, then the buffer tank would have stored the excess gaseous hydrogen fuel flowing into the buffer tank fluid inlet while supplying the lesser mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen fuel demanded/consumed by the engine. Consequently, the total mass of gaseous hydrogen stored within the buffer tank would have increased. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, as discussed above, is silent on said fluid outlet including an outlet valve.
Uchino teaches, in Figs. 1 – 3, Col. 2, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 4, ll. 10 – 55, an outlet valve (29 – control valve), wherein the outlet valve (29) is a variable throughput valve configured to vary the flowrate of the fluid (Col. 2, ll. 45 – 55 “the control valve controlling in accordance with a slide position of the spool at least one of pressures within the first and second fluid-pressure chambers to oscillate the cam ring for variable control of a flow rate of the fluid…”) from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet, and wherein the outlet valve is configured to be controlled based on a pressure difference between the internal cavity and a downstream side of the fluid outlet (Col. 2, ll. 45 – 55 “a control valve operated by a pressure difference between upstream and downstream sides of the orifice…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Muldoon, i.v., Wolff, with the outlet valve is a variable throughput valve configured to vary the flowrate of the fluid from a fluid inlet to a fluid outlet, and wherein the outlet valve is configured to be controlled based on a pressure difference between an upstream side of the fluid inlet and a downstream side of the fluid outlet, taught by Uchino, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the fuel delivery assembly comprising a liquid hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the liquid hydrogen fuel tank, a gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly in fluid communication with the gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, a regulator assembly having a buffer tank in fluid communication with both the liquid hydrogen delivery assembly and the gaseous hydrogen delivery assembly, and an outlet valve is a variable throughput valve configured to vary the flowrate of the fluid from a fluid inlet to a fluid outlet, and wherein the outlet valve is configured to be controlled based on a pressure difference between an upstream side of the fluid inlet and a downstream side of the fluid outlet, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating an outlet valve at the fluid outlet of the buffer tank would have facilitated varying the flowrate of the gaseous hydrogen fuel from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet based on a pressure difference between the internal cavity and a downstream side of the fluid outlet. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Muldoon, i.v., Wolff and Uchino, as discussed above, teaches a fuel system for a vehicle having an engine, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Muldoon, i.v., Wolff and Uchino, as discussed above, is silent on a controller is in operable communication with at least one of the inlet valve, the outlet valve, or the exhaust valve to control operation of the respective at least one of the inlet valve, the outlet valve, or the exhaust valve based on an input including a fuel flowrate.
Rebhan teaches, in Fig. 2, a similar fuel system having an engine (31 – Col. 5, ll. 35 – 40 - gas turbine), said fuel system having a regulator assembly [mass flow rate measurement (ṁCV2) and control valve (CV2) in fuel line 52 and control valve (CV4) in fuel line 54 - Col. 5, ll. 55 – 67] in fluid communication with both sources of gaseous fuel (GPI and GPII - Col. 5, ll. 35 – 40) for providing gaseous fuel (via gaseous fuel line 52) to the engine (31) and a reservoir (43) wherein a controller (39) is in operable communication (arrow lines from 39 to 49 and 50) with at least one of an inlet valve (CV2) or an outlet valve (CV4) to control operation of the respective at least one of the inlet valve or the outlet valve based on an input including a fuel flowrate (ṁCV2 or ṁCV4). Rebhan teaches, in Col. 5, l. 59 to Col. 6, l. 5, “The fuel mass flow rate in the respective main fuel feeding line 51, 52 can be controlled with a control valve CV1 and/or CV2. ... The various fuel mass flow rates indicated in FIG. 2 and measured at the respective locations (ṁx, x = I, II, 1, 2, CV1, … ,CV4; C2+ext,Res) are controlled with a load controller 39 via two control devices 49, 50 based on the power or load required from the network, with the devices on one hand controlling the entire fuel mass flow rate per combustion chamber 35, 36 via control valves CV1 and CV2…”.
Thus, improving a particular system (fuel system for a vehicle having an engine), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Rebhan, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the fuel system for a vehicle having an engine of Muldoon, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating the regulator assembly arrangement, taught by Rebhan, into the fuel system of Muldoon, i.v., Wolff and Uchino, would have facilitated controlling the mass flow rate of gaseous hydrogen f