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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 & 5-8 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-6 were rejected in the 3/23/2026 office action. Applicant cancelled claim 4 and incorporated its claim limitations into claim 1. Applicant added new claims 7-8.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 6/22/2026 amendment, in response to the 3/23/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant's arguments and claim amendments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that CN112682689A machine translation (Li) “is not directed to a vehicle equipped with a plurality of receptacles for a plurality of hydrogen tanks” (Remarks p.5). Examiner disagrees.
Li teaches that “The hydrogen filling tank is set to be used in the interior or exterior of the… vehicle” (page 6, lines 31-32). From the context of this sentence, it seems that this “hydrogen filling tank” includes Li’s hydrogen storage devices 410, 420, & 430. Thus, Li’s hydrogen storage devices 410, 420, & 430 can be “used in the interior… of the… vehicle”. It is not clear from the above sentence (Li page 6, lines 31-32) whether Li’s receptacles 310 & 320 are on/in the vehicle.
Li also teaches nozzles 210 & 220 connected to receptacles 310 and 320, and that receptacles 310 and 320 connect to hydrogen storage devices 410 & 420, respectively, for filling the storage devices with hydrogen (page 6, lines 39-46; figure 3). Based on the way the nozzles 210 & 220 and the receptacles 310 and 320 are illustrated in figure 3, and use of the terms “nozzles” and the “receptacles”, it is obvious that the receptacles remain with the vehicle along with the hydrogen storage devices, and that the nozzles are associated with the hydromachine 100 off of the vehicle, and remain on the ground when the nozzles disconnect from the receptacles.
Thus, Li’s hydrogen storage devices [claim 1 hydrogen tanks] and Li’s receptacles [claim 1 receptacles], along with flow channels between them, remain with the vehicle.
Next, Applicant argues that the check valve (claim 6) would not have been obvious (Remarks pp.5-6). Examiner disagrees. Check valves have been used in piping systems for decades for one-way flow. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use a check valve in Li’s piping to ensure flow only in the desired direction.
The design engineer, of the piping system, selects the check valve location based on where fluid backflow would cause a problem. It would have been obvious to select the optimal location for prevention of back flow.
Claims 1 & 7 require a check valve between the receptacle and the confluence point (note that claim 1 refers to a “valve”, but describes it as a check valve). There is only one other possible location for a check valve between the receptacle and the hydrogen tanks: between the confluence point and the hydrogen tanks. Although either location would preserve hydrogen from the hydrogen tanks, the location of claims 1 & 7 has the advantage of less hydrogen loss in case of receptacle failure, because the check valve is closer to the receptacle. Thus, it would have been obvious to the design engineer to have selected this location.
Claim 1 also states:
“a flow sectional area of the flow channel from the confluence point to each of the hydrogen tanks is greater than a flow sectional area of the flow channel from each of the receptacles to the confluence point”
In the prior office action, Examiner argued that this claim limitation was obvious because it is one of only three options, and that it was within the skill of an engineer to select pipe size by balancing undesirable pressure drop with desirable cost saving of smaller flow cross-sectional area.
Regarding the above claim limitation, Applicant argues (Remark p.6):
“Designing the flow path cross-sectional area on the hydrogen tank side to be larger than that on the receptacle side is also intended to suppress an increase in pressure loss across the entire flow path due to the provision of a plurality of receptacles (see paragraphs [0023] and [0025]), and thus addresses a problem specific to a vehicle having a plurality of receptacles. Li and Yoshitomi do not describe such a problem, and the Examiner's assertion that the design of the flow path cross sectional area would have been obvious is also not justified.”
Examiner’s reasoning, for selection of cross-sectional area, is different from Applicant’s reasoning. MPEP 2144(IV) provides the law for this issue:
“The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.”
Thus, there is no requirement that the prior art describe selecting flow cross-sectional area based on having a plurality of receptacles. A granted patent claim protects the claimed structure, but not the mental process used to conceive of that claimed structure.
Regarding the above claim limitation, Applicant also argues that “lacking any teaching and/or suggestion of each and every claim limitation of claim 1, Li, fails to anticipate or render obvious the same” (Remark p.6). MPEP 2144(I) provides guidance for this issue:
“The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale… may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles”
Thus, failure of the prior art to provide rationale for the above cross-sectional area claim limitation does not prevent an obviousness rejection based on established scientific principles.
Claim 1 is amended with the following limitation:
“a flow sectional area of the flow channel from the confluence point to the hydrogen tank with the first capacity is greater than a flow sectional area of the flow channel from the confluence point to the hydrogen tank with the second capacity”
Applicant argues that this claim limitation makes claim 1 patentable. Examiner won’t address this new claim limitation here, because this is the first time it is presented. This claim limitation is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 7 states “the check valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Claim 1 describes a check valve, but calls it a “valve”. For present examination, Examiner presumes that the claim 1 “valve” is the same as the claim 7 “check valve”.
Claim 8 refers to “two check valves”. Claim 1 describes a check valve, but calls it a “valve”. It is unclear whether the claim 1 valve is one of the two check valves of claim 8.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112682689A machine translation (Li) in view of US20210104756A1 (Yoshitomi) and US20200232603A1 (Kawase).
Li teaches the following claim 1 limitations (see also Figure A below):
A hydrogen storage device provided in a vehicle (page 6, lines 31-32 & 39-46) that uses hydrogen as a fuel (page 4, lines 34-41; page 6, lines 28-32), the hydrogen storage device comprising:
a plurality of receptacles (page 8, lines 11-14; figure 3: first container 310, second container 320);
a plurality of hydrogen tanks (page 8, lines 11-16; page 7, lines 41-42; figure 3: first hydrogen storage device 410, second hydrogen storage device 420, third hydrogen storage device 430); and
a flow channel through which hydrogen flows from the receptacles (310, 320) to the hydrogen tanks (410, 420, 430), wherein: the flow channel has a confluence point configured such that the hydrogen merges into one on a downstream side of the receptacles (310, 320); and the flow channel is configured to branch from the confluence point into the plurality of hydrogen tanks (410, 420, 430)
Figure A: Annotated Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
608
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites:
at least one valve that allows flow in a direction from a receptacle side of the flow channel towards the confluence point, and restricts the flow in the opposite direction is provided in the flow channel
Li’s system is designed for filling the hydrogen storage devices 410, 420, & 430 in a direction from the receptacle side to the confluence point of Figure A above (Li page 5, line 39 through page 6, line 3; page 8, line 11 through page 9, line 21; figures 3-4).
Li doesn’t teach a check valve to require flow only in the desired direction. Check valves, however, are a common industry valve for ensuring one-way flow. For example, a check valve is useful to prevent loss of the stored gas in case of a leak at the supply side. Another use would be to prevent any gas contaminant from the hydrogen storage tank from returning to and contaminating the hydrogen supply. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a check valve in Li’s piping to ensure flow only in the desired direction, as discussed above.
Yoshitomi provides additional guidance. Yoshitomi teaches use of a check valve in hydrogen gas supply piping to ensure flow in one direction (paragraph 46). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a check valve in Li’s piping, as taught by Yoshitomi, to ensure flow only in one direction.
Regarding valve location, there are only two possible locations for a valve between the receptacle and the hydrogen tanks: (1) between the receptacle and the confluence point or (2) between the confluence point and the hydrogen tanks. Although either location would preserve hydrogen from the hydrogen tanks, the location of claim 1 (option 1 above) has the advantage of less hydrogen loss in case of receptacle failure, because the check valve is closer to the receptacle. Thus, it would have been obvious to the design engineer to have selected this location.
Claim 1 also recites:
a flow sectional area of the flow channel from the confluence point to each of the hydrogen tanks is greater than a flow sectional area of the flow channel from each of the receptacles to the confluence point
Although Li discusses tubing size (page 8, lines 20-24; page 9, line 45 through page 10, line 2; page 10, lines 12-16), Li fails to fully teach this claim limitation.
Regarding this claim limitation, there are only three options:
flow sectional area for confluence point to hydrogen tanks is greater (as claimed)
flow sectional area for confluence point to receptacle to hydrogen tanks is greater (opposite of claimed)
flow sectional area is the same for confluence point to hydrogen tanks and confluence point to receptacles
MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) provides guidance for this issue:
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
With only three reasonable options for relative sizing, it would have been obvious, to try each option and to reach the claimed arrangement.
Furthermore, the ability of one skilled in the art must be considered. One skilled in the art would most likely be an engineer with at least a bachelor’s degree, including a fluid dynamics class. A basic principle, of a fluid dynamics class, is pressure drop and energy loss based on piping characteristics, including pipe size.
It would have been obvious, to an engineer, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify piping size based on cost and desired tank filling time, and to arrive at this limitation.
Li fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Kawase:
the plurality of hydrogen tanks includes hydrogen tanks with different capacities (paragraphs 20-21; figure 1: first & second high pressure containers 12a & 12b have different capacities)
Kawase is directed to a vehicle fuel cell with a reliable high pressure hydrogen container system (paragraphs 7 & 20). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Li’s hydrogen storage devices 410 & 420, to have different capacities, as taught by Kawase, as part of a fuel cell vehicle with a reliable high pressure hydrogen container system.
Claim 1 also recites:
a flow channel from the confluence point to the hydrogen tank with a first capacity is shorter than a flow channel from the confluence point to the hydrogen tank with a second capacity less than the first capacity; and
a flow sectional area of the flow channel from the confluence point to the hydrogen tank with the first capacity is greater than a flow sectional area of the flow channel from the confluence point to the hydrogen tank with the second capacity
Li fails to teach these relative lengths and areas.
With hydrogen coming from the same confluence point to each of the hydrogen tanks, if piping length and flow sectional area are the same for all tanks, then it will take longer to fill the larger hydrogen tank. This will undesirably increase throughput time.
Reducing throughput time is an important engineering principle in order to complete more product / processes with the same equipment. Regarding filling vehicle hydrogen tanks, reduced throughput time allows the driver to resume driving sooner. This allows that driver to achieve more work in the same time.
Shorter pipe length, with larger flow sectional area pipe, to the larger tank [claimed first capacity] reduces the time for filling the large tank. Filling the large tank is the bottleneck of the process, so reducing the time to fill it will reduce throughput time. Thus, it would have been obvious to use shorter pipe length, with larger flow sectional area pipe, to the larger tank.
With regard to claim 2, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 2 recites:
in the flow channel, a length of a flow channel from each of the receptacles to the confluence point is shorter than a length of a flow channel from the confluence point to each of the hydrogen tanks
Li and Kawase fail to teach these relative lengths. Pipe lengths are selected based on location of the equipment. Industrial and machine pipe length is selected for connection of desired components. Some pipes are shorter than others because some components are closer together than others. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for piping from Li’s containers 310 & 320 [claimed receptacles] to the confluence point to be shorter than a length from Li’s confluence point to the hydrogen storage devices 410, 420, and 430 [claimed hydrogen tanks] for convenience in placement of the containers and pipes.
MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) provides additional guidance for this issue:
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
Here, there is a design need to install pipes to connect components. There are pipes on both sides of the confluence point, which have lengths X and Y. There are three options: X > Y, X = Y, and X < Y. Selecting one of these options is not innovation but rather ordinary skill.
With regard to claim 3, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Li also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
at least part of a flow channel from the receptacles (320) to the confluence point (figure 3 below) is a flow channel inside a distributor (figure 3 below)
Annotated Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
688
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Li illustrates a T connector and a cross connector, which together distribute the hydrogen, and are therefore interpreted as distributors. The hydrogen would flow inside of the distributor as it flows toward the confluence point.
With regard to claim 5, modified Li teaches the following claim 5 limitations:
the hydrogen storage device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above); and
a fuel cell system configured to generate electricity from hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen tanks of the hydrogen storage device (page 4, lines 34-41; page 6, lines 28-32)
With regard to claim 7, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 7 states:
the check valve is disposed between the receptacle and the confluence point
The “valve” of claim 1, which has the same properties as a check valve, is in the same location as the “check valve” of claim 7. Claim 7 limitations are rejected for the same reasons as the claim 1 valve.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112682689A machine translation (Li) in view of US20210104756A1 (Yoshitomi) and US20200232603A1 (Kawase), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of JP2006200563A machine translation (Yoshida). Modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 6 recites:
at least one check valve that allows flow in a direction from the confluence point toward each of the plurality of hydrogen tanks and restricts flow in the opposite direction is provided in each branch of the flow channel
As discussed under claim 1, Yoshitomi teaches a single check valve. An engineer of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the desirability of a check valve in each branch in order prevent backflow from one tank from entering another.
Yoshida provides additional guidance. Yoshida teaches a check valve in each branch (page 3, lines 22-27; page 6, lines 1-6; figure 1: check valves RV3 to RV5). Yoshida’s check valves are turned a different direction than would be desired in Li, and are used for a different purpose than they would be used for in Li; however, Yoshida does provide the simple concept of use of a check valve in each branch. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a check valve in each branch / for each hydrogen storage tank, as illustrated by Yoshida, for the well-known purpose of preventing backflow from one tank from entering another.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112682689A machine translation (Li) in view of US20210104756A1 (Yoshitomi) and US20200232603A1 (Kawase), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of “Backflow Prevention Manual” (BPM) by the West Virginia Office of Environmental Health Services (2007). Li fails to teach the following claim 8 limitations, which are taught by BPM (pages 7-8):
two check valves that allow flow in a direction from the receptacle side toward the confluence point and restrict flow in the opposite direction are provided in each flow channel from each of the receptacles to the confluence point
BPM teaches a series of two check valves in a single pipe line for preventing backflow (pages 7-8). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include two check valves in each of Li’s flow channels, as taught by BPM, for preventing backflow.
Backflow is also the problem confronted by the present inventors, solved by two check valves (present specification, paragraph 24).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights