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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12V electrolyzers are known in the art. The Applicant does not separately argue against the art rejections of any of the dependent claims. The art rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allo (US 2021/0104764) in view of Potts (US 2018/0009684), Liu (US 2016/0144737) and Martin (US 2021/0155108).
With respect to claims 1 and 4, Allo discloses an apparatus (fig 2, 15; par 47-62, 95, 97) comprising:
a power source (any one or more of solar panels 120, wind source, AC grid, converter 122);
a water supply (126 with or without 127);
an electrolyzer (124) connected to the power source adapted to separate water from the water supply into hydrogen and oxygen;
a fuel cell (134) adapted to generate electrical power using the separated hydrogen and oxygen (hydrogen is provided via tank 132; the output of the fuel cell includes oxygen; this indicates that oxygen is input to the fuel cell – this inputted oxygen is interpreted as including at least some of the separated oxygen);
a power conditioning unit (any one or more of 136 in figure 2, 328 in fig 15, or 329 in fig 15) adapted to output a configured electrical power output to a vehicle (the AC output in figure 2 can obviously be provided to a vehicle through level 1 or level 2 charging; the DC output in fig 15 is explicitly defined as being for connection to a vehicle; see par 97);
circuitry adapted to connect the vehicle battery to the apparatus and to output electrical power from the power conditioning unit to the vehicle battery (the obvious charging cable that would be present in fig 15; Allo does not disclose any wireless charging and, therefore, any wired connection between the apparatus and the vehicle is “circuitry” that is adapted to connect the two parts); and
a microcontroller adapted to configure the electrical power output from the power conditioning unit to the vehicle battery by increasing or decreasing an amount of the electrical power output from the power conditioning unit (par 99) to the vehicle battery;
wherein the apparatus is external to the vehicle (see fig 15).
Allo discloses an electrolyzer/fuel-cell loop with an electricity output that is either AC (fig 2) or DC (fig 15). Both types of power are known to be acceptable for charging electrified vehicle batteries. While the AC power of figure 2 can obviously be provided to a vehicle, Allo discloses actually providing the DC power to a vehicle (fig 15).
In figure 15, the vehicle may either be to the right of charger (329) or it is possible that the charger is included within the vehicle. In either case, the apparatus includes power conditioning and a wired circuitry to connect to the vehicle (and the vehicle then obviously has the necessary connections from the charging port to its battery). Or, in figure 2, the vehicle would be where the “house” label is located (also connected via a wired “circuitry”).
Allo does not expressly disclose the power source is operable to develop 12v across terminals of the electrolyzer. Potts discloses an apparatus (fig 3) comprising a power source (44) and an electrolyzer (20), wherein the power source is operable to develop a potential difference of 12v between cathode/anode of the electrolyzer (par 18).
Allo and Potts are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely electrolyzers. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the 120VAC driven electrolyzer taught by Allo with the 12v driven electrolyzer taught by Potts. The motivation for doing so would have been to satisfy the needs of the user. The replacement of one type of electrolyzer for another is an obvious design choice. Further, Allo already discloses how its power source is “operable to develop” 12v. Thus, within the combination, Allo already provides the necessary voltage for operating the Potts electrolyzer.
Allo does not expressly disclose the power conditioning unit includes a high-power stabilizer, that the apparatus comprises a user interface, or that the microcontroller stores and analyzes data to derive a charging strategy.
Liu discloses an apparatus (fig 3; pages 3-4) comprising:
a power source (315);
circuitry adapted to connect the vehicle battery to the apparatus (see fig 3, cable 317) and to output electrical power from the power conditioning unit to the vehicle battery (see fig 3);
user interface circuitry (335; par 7, 39, 47 – par 38 and 41 indicate that the user input can be external to the vehicle and have all of the same functionality as input 305) adapted to enable user input of available time for charging, max/min required time of charge, and desired percentage of charge of the vehicle battery; and
wherein the apparatus is external to the vehicle (see fig 3).
Liu discloses the vehicle comprises a power conditioning unit adapted to output a configured electrical power and includes a high-power stabilizer (313 and/or 301; par 46-47) to reduce and minimize an impact of sudden current demands and surges.
Regarding the stabilizer, Liu’s controller regulates the charge/discharge rate of the battery. This provides a level of control to reduce “current demands and surges”. The term “minimize” is subjective and does not place any target/limits on what is required to be done. That Liu’s regulation provides satisfactory control is evidence that negative events (demands, surges) are “minimized”. The term “high-power” is also subjective and does not have any basis for comparison. For whatever power level the combination carries, it is interpreted as “high-power”.
Liu’s stabilizer is on-board the vehicle. The combination moves the stabilizer to be external, as discussed below.
Liu further discloses a user Interface circuitry. Liu’s interface enables user input of available charging time. Liu states, “the user inputs departure time… The departure time represents the first time that the car will be needed after completing the next charge cycle.” (par 39). By setting a departure time, the user can control the available charging time. Liu’s interface also enables user input of max/min time required of charge. Paragraph 39 discloses that the user has control over the charge times and driving distance. If it is 7am and the user sets a departure time of 8am, they have set the maximum time required of charge. The driving distance sets the amount of power needed for the next drive. This sets the minimum time of charge (enough energy to meet the demand for the next drive). Lastly, Liu’s interface enables the user input of desired percentage of charge. Paragraph 47 recites “desired upper charge level (SOC)”. That this is desired indicates that it is the user’s preference and that the interface “enables” this desire to define how the vehicle operates.
Liu discloses that all of these features would be available from an external device (335; par 38, 41). In the combination, this Liu external device is part of the combination’s apparatus.
Allo and Liu are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely vehicle chargers. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Allo apparatus to include the Liu user interface and stabilizer. For the user interface, the motivation would have been to give the vehicle operator more control over the system (both the source of power [Allo] and the vehicle’s battery [Liu]). For the stabilizer, the motivation would have been to realize the protection benefits provided by the stabilizer at the source (not just at the load). This would allow Allo to offer stabilizer protection to all vehicles (even those without onboard stabilizers).
Martin discloses an apparatus (fig 1, item 20; par 21-35) comprising:
a fuel cell (70; par 32-34) adapted to generate electrical power using separated hydrogen and oxygen;
circuitry (cable 32; par 24) adapted to connect the apparatus to the vehicle (and its battery); and
a microcontroller (60; par 28-29) adapted to configure the electrical power output from the apparatus and operable to storage and analyze data (the follow quotes are all from par 35) from the apparatus (“a route from the charger’s current location or other original, to one or more of the charger’s charging stops or other destination.”), geolocation data (“geolocation diagrams”), maps (“geolocation diagrams that map the beacons 82 to the parking facility”), and vehicle routes (“Using the route planning tool”).
Martin discloses a fuel-cell based charging apparatus (20) that stores and analyzes data (to determine how it is going to navigate to the next vehicle to be charged). Martin discloses obtaining and storing the same data points as claimed (see par 35). As noted above, the claim does not recite how the apparatus gets this information, what the information actually is (aside from what can be inferred from its name), or what it actually does with it once its stored (“analyze” and “derive” are too broad to distinguish over the prior art). The Applicant has not provided any clarifying comments or amendments to address this issue.
The combination and Martin are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely vehicle charging apparatuses. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination’s microcontroller to include the stored/analyzed data and the derived strategy, as taught by Martin. The motivation for doing so would have been either: 1) optimizing the navigation of the charging station between vehicles (i.e. in this interpretation the combination’s charging station is mobile, as taught by Martin); or 2) the obviousness of gathering and analyzing information. The claim simply recites the derivation of a charging strategy – there is no indication in the claim (or the specification) that this strategy is ever used to controls future functionality of the apparatus. Gathering information, storing it, and generically analyzing it to produce a never-used “strategy”, would have been within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Allo discloses the power source comprises a battery (par 33, last sentence).
With respect to claim 3, Allo discloses the power source comprises a renewable power source, including at least one of solar cells, wind generator, or other renewable power source (par 33).
With respect to claim 5, Allo discloses storage for the water supply (126).
With respect to claim 6, Allo discloses the water supply is refillable (see arrowing leading to water storage 126; this indicates refilling the storage tank).
With respect to claims 9-13, The combination discloses the claimed system, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6, respectively. Liu further discloses a vehicle (fig 3) comprising wheels (unlabeled in the figure) driven by an electrical drive motor (not claimed – see Liu item 307); and a battery (309) configured to supply electrical power to the drive motor and further configured to connect to an apparatus external to the vehicle (via 313, cable 317 and/or the unlabeled plug at the end of the cable).
The motor is not a distinct claimed limitation. It is only mentioned as part of a passive voice (“driven”) phrase to describe how the wheels spin. The Applicant has not addressed this issue – thus, the Examiner’s interpretation is presumed to be correct.
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allo in view of Potts, Liu, Martin and Hollinger (US 2017/0051665).
Allo discloses generating hydrogen and oxygen, but does not expressly disclose storing the gases under pressure. Hollinger an electrolyzer and fuel-cell system (fig 2B) that comprises storage tanks (18, 20) and a compressor to comprises the gases (par 36).
Allo and Hollinger are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely electrolyzers that produce hydrogen and oxygen gases. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Allo system to include storage tanks storing gases under pressure, as taught by Hollinger. The motivation for doing so would have been to store the gases for later use when there is power demand (Hollinger par 32).
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 ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights