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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-6 were rejected in the 12/10/2025 office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference with a line through it, in the information disclosure statement submitted on 2/27/2026, has not been considered by the examiner, because a translation was not provided.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 2/27/2026, in response to the 12/10/2025 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 was amended with the following new limitation:
“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”
Applicant provides the following benefit of this new limitation:
“by increasing the flow sectional area of the flow channel on the hydrogen tank side, the overall pressure loss in the hydrogen supply flow path can be reduced when filling the hydrogen from the hydrogen filling device” Remarks page 4.
The primary reference, CN112682689A machine translation (Li), fails to fully teach this limitation. Li does, however, discuss use of differently-sized tubing to the hydrogen tanks, based on desired filling time and hydrogen tank capacity (page 8, lines 20-24; page 9, line 45 through page 10, line 2; page 10, lines 12-16). Li’s teachings alone are insufficient to teach this new claim limitation, with the flow sectional area on one side of the confluence point being greater than on the other side.
The ability of one skilled in the art, however, must also be considered. One skilled in the art would have taken 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 before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify piping size based on cost and desired tank filling time, and to arrive at the new claim limitation.
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), together “modified Li”.
Li teaches the following claim 1 limitations (see also Figure A below):
A hydrogen storage device provided in a vehicle 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.
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 in chemical engineering, 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 a chemical 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.
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 fails to explicitly teach these relative lengths. 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)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112682689A machine translation (Li) in view of US20210104756A1 (Yoshitomi), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of US20200232603A1 (Kawase). Modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Li, however, fails to teach the following claim 4 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 4 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
Li and Kawase fail to teach these relative lengths. As discussed under claim 2, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to achieve these relative lengths while selecting piping length for convenience in placement of pipes and tanks. It would have been obvious due to the limited number of options (X > Y, X = Y, or X < Y).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112682689A machine translation (Li) in view of US20210104756A1 (Yoshitomi), 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.
Conclusion
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