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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 25 February 2026 is acknowledged and entered.
Claim 4 was previously canceled, and Claims 8 -20 were previously withdrawn.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claim 1 and (previously withdrawn) Claims 8 and 16. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b): Applicant’s arguments traversing the previous rejection of Claim 6 under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) is persuasive, and said rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 25 February 2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7, under USC § 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made to the amended claims as explained in the Section below titled “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munshi et al.
(US 2009/0064586 A1), in view of Szego (US 4,930,651), and Kikutani (US 5,540,208).
Regarding Claim 1, Munshi et al. discloses a system, comprising: a first fuel (para 15, and para 19, wherein a “first gaseous fuel” is identified as natural gas in liquefied form) arranged in an interior volume of a first tank (“first thermally insulated space” 304 of tank 302, per paras 35-36); and a second fuel (para 36, wherein a “second gaseous fuel” is identified as hydrogen) arranged in an interior volume of a second tank (“second thermally insulated space” 306 of tank 308, per paras 35-36), the second tank arranged in the interior volume of the first tank (see at least Claim 1 and Fig 3, wherein tank 308 is “disposed within” tank 302) and in contact with the first fuel (shown at Fig 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
814
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, Munshi et al. teaches limitations of Claim 1, to include first and second tanks containing first and second fuels, but is silent on a relief valve, wherein the relief valve is arranged in a top wall of the first tank and coupled to a headspace of the first tank. However, relief valves are well known, as evidenced by Szego, who teaches a relief valve (Fig 5, “pressure-relief valve 19”), wherein the relief valve is arranged in a top wall (Examiner’s annotations) of the first tank and coupled to a headspace (Examiner’s annotations) of the first tank.
PNG
media_image2.png
646
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Munshi and Szego references each teach fuel storage via a tank. The Szego reference teaches a well-known method to prevent overpressure via a pressure relief valve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to add a pressure relief valve as taught by Szego to the top of the tank disclosed by the Munshi reference, in order to prevent tank over-pressurization.
Further regarding Claim 1, the above combination of the Munshi and Szego references detail fuel storage within a tank, and are therefore silent on “a fuel modification unit to adjust a characteristic of the first fuel or the second fuel for supply to an engine of a vehicle for combustion”, as claimed in the amended Claim 1.
Examiner notes that the claim limitation “fuel modification unit to adjust a characteristic of the first fuel or the second fuel” is extremely broad, and describes any apparatus or component capable of modifying any characteristic of the fuel prior to its delivery to an engine. Applicant’s disclosure does not define “a characteristic”; under broadest reasonable interpretation, “a characteristic” could include the temperature, pressure, density, viscosity, or amount of the affected fuel.
Examiner further notes that it has been extremely well-known for decades in the art to modify a fuel that is in either liquefied gas or solid form for supply to an internal combustion engine, normally through vaporization in which the fuel is converted back into gaseous form for consumption by said engine.
One of the many examples of the prior art is provided by Kikutani, who teaches “a system for vaporizing liquefied gas fuel supplied from a fuel tank and supplying it to an internal combustion engine” (see Abstract). Specifically, Kikutani teaches (please see Col 4, lines 3-7 and lines 11-14):
- “The liquefied gas fuel 1a is vaporized by fuel supply means, for example, a fuel supply path, 2 and, then, supplied to a fuel injector (not shown) of an internal combustion engine (not shown).”
- “The fuel supplying path 2 includes in the named serial order from the fuel tank 1 to the fuel injector, a pump 4, a vaporizer 6, a pressure adjusting valve, for example, a relief valve 8, and a surge tank 10.”
The Munshi, Szego, and Kikutani references each teach liquified fuel gas distribution. The Kikutani reference additionally teaches a well-known method to safely convert liquified gas into gaseous form for actual consumption by an internal combustion engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the fuel path 2 as taught by Kikutani to the modified system of Munshi et al., in order to gain the advantage of safely converting the liquified gas stored in the Munshi system to a gaseous form for use by an internal combustion engine.
Regarding Claim 2, Munshi et al., as modified above, teaches a system wherein the second tank is hermetically sealed from the interior volume of the first tank (Munshi et al., para 36 defines volume spaces 304 and 306 as each being "thermally insulated" wherein fluent material enters/exits each volume via separate entry points 312 and 318. Since the gas/liquid of the two separate volumes do not mix, Examiner applies Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the phrase "hermetically sealed", and concludes this teaching of Munshi et al. reads upon the claim).
Regarding Claim 3, Munshi et al., as modified above, teaches a system wherein the second tank is submerged in the first fuel (Munshi et al., Fig 3 shows second tank 308 completely enclosed within first tank 302).
Regarding Claim 5, Munshi et al., as modified above, teaches a system further comprising a cooling system (Munshi et al., reforming reactor 330 and heat exchanger 340) configured to cool the second tank (Munshi et al., 308) via the first fuel (Munshi et al., Para 36: " Before the second gaseous fuel is delivered to second storage vessel 308 it is pre-cooled in heat exchanger 340 by transferring heat from the second gaseous fuel to the first gaseous fuel that is supplied to reforming reactor 330 from first thermally insulated space 304").
Regarding Claim 6, Munshi et al. as modified above, teaches a system wherein the second fuel (hydrogen) is a cryogenic liquid or a solid fuel.
See Munshi et al., para 6, wherein the reference states it is known to store hydrogen in liquefied form in order to increase the energy density of the hydrogen. Examiner acknowledges that the Munshi reference appears to teach away from actually storing hydrogen in this matter, saying that doing so is “problematic”. Nonetheless, the reference does teach Applicant’s claim as being known to the prior art, and additionally describes a situation (para 6) wherein this known tank contains hydrogen in both cryogenic and vapor forms, which would require venting. Examiner concludes that this known situation exactly describes the combined limitations of Applicant’s Claims 1 and 6, wherein the second tank contains hydrogen in both gaseous and cryogenic liquid forms (as taught at least by Munshi, paras 6 and 11), vented by a pressure relief valve (as taught by Szego, Fig 5, “pressure-relief valve 19”).
Regarding Claim 7, Munshi et al., as modified above, teaches a system wherein the first fuel (Munshi et al., natural gas, see at least para 13) is different than the second fuel (Munshi et al., hydrogen, also disclosed in para 13), and wherein the first fuel and the second fuel comprise two of diesel, hydrogenation-derived renewable diesel, biodiesel, syn-gas, alcohol, gasoline, kerosene, ether, natural gas, ammonia, and hydrogen (the Munshi reference teaches the use of natural gas and hydrogen as shown above).
Conclusion
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