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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 11/26/25. Claims 1 and 2 are amended. Claims 1-6 are pending and are rejected finally.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gas sensor" in the fourth from last and second from last indented limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that Applicant intended to claim “the pressure sensor” since the claimed amendment includes a new limitation to a pressure sensor … configured to detect a gas pressure. In order to expedite prosecution, the limitations will be interpreted as directed to “the pressure sensor.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanishi et al. (US 2020/0091529) in view of Kawase et al. (US 2020/0232603).
Regarding claim 1, Yamanishi teaches a gas supply system, or fuel cell system, comprising:
a first tank (2a) and a second tank (2b) configured to store gas ([0045]);
a gas consumption device, or fuel cell stack (50), configured to consume gas;
a first valve (3a) and second valve (3b) configured to switch between supply and shutoff of the gas from the respective tanks ([0054]);
a storage device, or control device (1), that stores computer-executable instructions ([0048]);
one or more processors, or CPU (10), that executes the operation defined in the program ([0048]) to cause the gas supply system to perform opening/closing of the valves (3a, 3b) ([0054]-[0055]);
wherein
the storage device stores a first pressure threshold value, or standard value, for determining whether or not to supply the gas from the first tank to the gas consumption device, via opening or closing one or both of control valves (3a, 3b), when a decrease in pressure exceeds a standard value (Figures 5 and 10, [0014], [0132]-[0143]);
wherein the processors cause the gas supply system to:
open both valves (Figure 4);
acquire a gas pressure of the gas supplied to the gas consumption device via pressure sensor in tank ([0013]) and acquire the tank temperatures via temperature sensors (23a, 23b) (Figure 1);
and open and close valves based on measured and threshold values (Figures 5 and 10).
With further regard to claim 1, Yamanishi teaches a first pipe (92a), a second pipe (92b), and a common pipe (93) as well as pressure sensors as discussed above, but fails to teach a pressure sensor in the common pipe.
Kawase teaches a gas supply system comprising first and second tanks (12a, 12b), a gas consumption device (11a), first and second pipes (20, 22), a common pipe (24), and pressure sensors (34, 36) disposed on the common pipe and configured to detect a gas pressure of the gas supplied to the gas consumption device (Figure 1). Kawase further teaches that using multiple pressure sensors on the common pipe to determine pressures within a gas supply system is desirable for ensuring reliability of pressure values used for controlling the system in the event of an abnormality in a pressure sensor ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include pressure sensors on the common line of Yamanishi such as suggested by Kawase in order to ensure reliability of pressure values used for controlling the system in the event of an abnormality in a pressure sensor.
As for claim 2, the storage device and processor of Yamanishi meets the limitations for both the first and second tanks as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Yamanishi teaches an adjustment valve, or pressure reducing valve (57), configured to adjust an amount of gas supplied to the gas consumption device ([0056]). The examiner finds that the processor cases the gas supply system to control the adjustment valve under all operating conditions, including if the first valve is closed and the second valve is opened (see Figure 5).
As for claim 6, Yamanishi teaches the gas supply system of claim 1 including a heat exchanger (4) attached to the first tank via connecting passage (91), wherein the heat exchanger absorbs heat from a portion other than the first tank, or the cooling water passages from the fuel cell stack, and releases heat to the first tank (Figures 1 and 5, [0075]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanishi in view of Kawase as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukatsu (US 2020/0014043).
The teachings of Yamanishi and Kawase as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Yamanishi in view of Kawase teaches the gas supply system of claim 1, but fails to teach warming an inside of a tank compartment as required by claims 4 and 5.
Fukatsu teaches a gas supply system, or fuel cell system, including first and second tanks, or storage containers (71), accommodated in tank compartments, or hydrogen storage units (70), which are caused by a processor, or control unit (11), to be warmed by a heat medium (6) that passes through a discharge port, which remains open allowing flow, via branch passage (Figure 1 , [0030]-[0031]). Fukastu further teaches that, when a new tank (70) is provided, the tank is heated to the predetermined temperature (Figures 2-5).
Fukatsu further teaches valves (73) associated with the tanks (71) and controlled by the control unit (11) (Figure 1, [0032]).
For instances when the pressure in the tank is below the predetermined temperature, the skilled artisan would be motivated to use the system of Fukatsu to close the valve (73) and heat the tank in order to ensure that the hydrogen provided to the fuel cell is in an adequate state.
Further, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to substitute the tanks and heating system of Fukatsu in the system of Yamashita in view of Kawase in order to provide more control of the heating of the tanks and allow for providing new tanks as needed. It has been held that substituting known parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2143 I B
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/26/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Yamanishi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kawase, above.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights