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
Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 01/20/2026 in which claims 2,4-6,8 and 12 are currently amended, claim 1 has been canceled while claims 3,7,9-11 remain as originally presented. By this amendment, claims 2-12 are now pending in the application.
With respect to newly added or amended claims 2,6,8 and 12, applicant is requested to point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims, in accordance with MPEP §714.02, MPEP § 2163.04, and § 2163.06. Specifically, the underlined limitations of, “…and the battery in parallel to power the vehicle motor and…”, as recited in amended claims 2 and 6, and the limitations of, “…powering the motor and partially charging the vehicle battery in parallel…” as recited in amended claims 8 and 12 are not found in the specification as originally filed and thus are considered new matter.
The amendments to the specification filed on 01/20/2026 have been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/20/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described anywhere in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the underlined limitations of, “…and the battery in parallel to power the vehicle motor and…”, as recited in amended claims 2 and 6, and the limitations of, “…powering the motor and partially charging the vehicle battery in parallel…” as recited in amended claims 8 and 12 are not found in the specification as originally filed and thus are considered new matter.
Claims 3-5 depend directly from claim 2 and thus are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7 depends directly from claim 6 and thus is also rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9-11 depend directly from claim 8 and thus are also rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3,5,8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez USPAT 10,087,896 in view of Nada et al., (Nada) US 2016/0315338 A1 .
Regarding claims 2 and 8: Perez at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-4: A system(100) for powering a vehicle(hybrid vehicle; see abstract)(note- The outlet of the fuel control valve 120 is adapted to connect to a fuel inlet of, for example, an internal combustion engine 122 of a hybrid vehicle; see col. 7, lines 16-24) comprising: a fuel tank(102) configured to contain a cryogenic liquid with a headspace(not given any patentable weight absent a showing of it in the drawings) above the cryogenic liquid containing cryogenic vapor(note-The cold LLH fuel entering into the fuel tank 102, causes vaporized LLH fuel in the tank 102 to condense and to reduce the tank 102 pressure. Furthermore, the digital control unit could vent the excess vaporized LLH fuel to the atmosphere through a safety valve 112; see col. 3, lines 36-38 ; col. 4, lines 52-62); a battery(135); a vehicle motor(140)(see col. 7, lines 30-65); a fuel cell(122) (see col. 5, lines 18-26)configured to convert cryogenic fluid from the fuel tank to electricity to power the vehicle motor(140) and charge the battery(135); a vent valve(112) configured(as measured by pressure sensor 115 and when the fuel tank 102 pressure reaches a pre-set upper threshold, the safety relief valve 112 may vent vaporized LLH fuel from the fuel tank 102 to atmosphere to prevent the tank pressure from exceeding the tank 102 design limits)to direct excess cryogenic vapor from the headspace to the fuel cell(122) when a pressure in the fuel tank(102) exceeds a predetermined pressure level so that the battery(135) is charged(col. 4, lines 52-63).
Perez does not expressly teach the limitations:
circuitry configured to direct electricity from the fuel cell to the vehicle motor and the battery in parallel(not given any patentable weight as pertaining to new matter and absent a showing of support in the application as originally filed) to power the vehicle motor and charge the battery.
Nada discloses and shows in Fig. 1, circuitry(power distribution controller 140) configured to direct electricity from the fuel cell(100) to the vehicle motor(150) and the battery(130) in parallel to power the vehicle motor(150) and charge the battery(130)(see [0025]-[0026]; see prongs 1) to 3)).
Perez and Nada are fuel cell control systems analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nada with Perez to provide circuitry configured to direct electricity from the fuel cell to the vehicle motor and the battery in parallel to power the vehicle motor and charge the battery, as recited, in order to supplement power and to ensure that there is sufficient power to dive the vehicle immediately after start, as per the teachings of Nada ([0025]).
Accordingly claims 2 and 8 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Perez in view of Nada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2 and respectively claim 8. Perez discloses, further comprising a heat exchanger(410)(see Fig. 4) configured to receive cryogenic fluid from the fuel tank and to direct warmed cryogenic fluid to the fuel cell.
Regarding claim 5, Perez in view of Nada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Perez discloses, wherein the cryogenic liquid(as contained in tank 102) is liquid hydrogen(note-the fuel tank 102 must contain LLH fuel at a cryogenic temperature between about −170° C and about −120° C and at a pressure between about 15 psi and about 300 psi. The LLH fuel may be any suitable liquefied light hydrocarbons. For example, the light hydrocarbons may be selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methane, natural gas, ethane, ethylene, propane, isopropane, propylene, propane gas, butane, isobutane, isobutene, butylene, petroleum gas and mixtures thereof; see col. 5, lines 43-59)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez USPAT 10,087,896 in view of Nada et al., (Nada) US 2016/0315338 A1 and in further view of Van Bebber et al., (Bebber) USPAT 10,369,919 B2
Regarding claim 4, Perez in view of Nada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 2. Perez discloses, further comprising a controller and circuitry(DCU 142) that are configured to only partially charge the battery while the vehicle is in operation and to more fully charge the battery using electricity produced by the fuel cell using excess cryogenic vapor from the vent valve when the vehicle is idle(col. 7, line 66 to col. 8, line 10)(note-During regenerative braking, the electrical motor 140 acts as a generator and the inverter 138 returns electrical energy to the battery 135 in the form of DC. If the battery charge reaches a pre-set upper threshold, then a digital control unit (DCU) 142 could draw electrical energy from the battery into a resistor bank 145 or, as a last resort, vent vaporized LLH fuel to the atmosphere through the safety relief valve 112. The resistor bank 145 may be used to dissipate electrical energy from the battery 135 to prevent overcharging when the vehicle is idle and the internal combustion engine 122 is run to consume excess vaporized LLH fuel and to reduce the fuel tank 102 pressure).
However, Perez does not expressly teach that the controller is operatively connected to the circuitry so that the controller and the circuitry are configured to only partially charge the battery while the vehicle is in operation.
Nada discloses and shows in Fig. 1, teach that the controller(110) is operatively connected to the circuitry(140)(see Fig. 1)(note- The controller 110 controls the operations of the fuel cell 100 and the secondary battery 130, based on the value of a required output signal obtained from the required output detector 120; see [0024]). The power distribution controller 140 receives a command from the controller 110 and comprehensively controls, for example, (1) electric power output from the fuel cell 100 to the drive motor 150; (2) electric power output from the secondary battery 130 to the drive motor 150; and (3) electric power regenerated by the drive motor 150 and output to the secondary battery 130; see [0026]).
The combination of Perez and Nada still fails to expressly teach the limitations of:
that the controller and the circuitry are configured to only partially charge the battery while the vehicle is in operation
Bebber teaches and shows in Fig. 5, factual evidence of, the rechargeable battery 310 of the motorcycle 300 is connected electrically in parallel with a battery 240 of the passenger car 200 in the secured operating state. In the secured operating state, the rechargeable battery 310 of the motorcycle 300 is charged by a charging apparatus for the battery 240 of the passenger car 200, and is, therefore, always in an at least partially charged state in the detached operating state of the motorcycle 300 (see col. 6, lines 50-61).
Perez, Nada and Bebber are vehicle analogous art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Perez in view of Nada to have the controller in Perez and the circuitry as taught by Nada configured to only partially charge the battery while the vehicle is in operation in order to always have at least the battery of the passenger car to be at least in a partially charged state in the detached operating state, as per the teachings of Bebber (col. 6, lines 57-61).
Accordingly claim 6 would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 6-7,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez USPAT 10,087,896 in view of Nada et al., (Nada) US 2016/0315338 A1 and in further view of Hasegawa USPAT 8,384,342.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Perez at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1-4, A system for powering a vehicle(hybrid vehicle; see abstract)(note- The outlet of the fuel control valve 120 is adapted to connect to a fuel inlet of, for example, an internal combustion engine 122 of a hybrid vehicle; see col. 7, lines 16-24) comprising: a fuel tank(102) configured to contain a cryogenic liquid with a headspace(not given any patentable weight absent a showing of it in the drawings) above the cryogenic liquid containing cryogenic vapor(note-The cold LLH fuel entering into the fuel tank 102, causes vaporized LLH fuel in the tank 102 to condense and to reduce the tank 102 pressure. Furthermore, the digital control unit could vent the excess vaporized LLH fuel to the atmosphere through a safety valve 112; see col. 3, lines 36-38 ; col. 4, lines 52-62); a battery(135); a vehicle motor(140) (see col. 7, lines 30-65); a fuel cell(122) (see col. 5, lines 18-26)configured to convert cryogenic fluid from the fuel tank to electricity to power the vehicle motor(140) and charge the battery(135); a vent valve(112) configured to direct excess cryogenic vapor from the headspace to the second fuel cell when a pressure in the fuel tank exceeds a predetermined pressure level(as measured by pressure sensor 115 and when the fuel tank 102 pressure reaches a pre-set upper threshold, the safety relief valve 112 may vent vaporized LLH fuel from the fuel tank 102 to atmosphere to prevent the tank pressure from exceeding the tank 102 design limits) (col. 4, lines 52-63).
Perez discloses all the claimed invention except for the limitations of:
circuitry configured to direct electricity from the fuel cell to the vehicle motor and the battery in parallel(not given any patentable weight absent a showing of support in the specification as originally filed) to power the vehicle motor and charge the battery.
a second fuel cell
Nada discloses and shows in Fig. 1, circuitry(power distribution controller 140) configured to direct electricity from the fuel cell(100) to the vehicle motor(150) and the battery(130) in parallel to power the vehicle motor(150) and charge the battery(130)(see [0025]-[0026]; see prongs 1) to 3)).
Perez and Nada are fuel cell control systems analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nada with Perez to provide circuitry configured to direct electricity from the fuel cell to the vehicle motor and the battery in parallel to power the vehicle motor and charge the battery, as recited, in order to supplement power and to ensure that there is sufficient power to dive the vehicle immediately after start, as per the teachings of Nada ([0025]).
The combination of Perez and Nada still fails to expressly disclose the limitations of:
a second fuel cell
However, Hasegawa teaches and shows in Fig. 1 factual evidence of a second fuel cell(construed as more individual fuel cells; col. 3, lines15- 20).
Perez, Nada and Hasegawa are fuel system analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second fuel cell into the system of Perez as modified by Nada in order to increase the output power requirement to avail of enough supply to power the vehicle.
Accordingly claim 6 and 12 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Perez in view of Nada and Hasegawa discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 6. Perez further discloses, wherein the cryogenic liquid(as contained in tank 102) is liquid hydrogen(as contained in tank 102)(note-the fuel tank 102 must contain LLH fuel at a cryogenic temperature between about −170° C and about −120° C and at a pressure between about 15 psi and about 300 psi. The LLH fuel may be any suitable liquefied light hydrocarbons. For example, the light hydrocarbons may be selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, methane, natural gas, ethane, ethylene, propane, isopropane, propylene, propane gas, butane, isobutane, isobutene, butylene, petroleum gas and mixtures thereof; see col. 5, lines 43-59).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Perez USPAT 10,087,896 in view of Nada et al., (Nada) US 2016/0315338 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Perez in view of Nada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 8 but does not expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein partially charging the battery includes charging the battery to less than 90%”. Perez only teaches that If the battery charge reaches a pre-set upper threshold, then a digital control unit (DCU) 142 could draw electrical energy from the battery into a resistor bank 145 or, as a last resort, vent vaporized LLH fuel to the atmosphere through the safety relief valve 112. The resistor bank 145 may be used to dissipate electrical energy from the battery 135 to prevent overcharging when the vehicle is idle(col. 7, line 66 to col. 8, line 10).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Perez as modified by Nada, wherein partially charging the battery includes charging the battery to less than 90%, as recited in order to improve the efficiency of the charging and to prevent the battery from overcharging and thereby increase the battery useful life and performance, as per the teachings of Perez(col. 8, lines 11-21).
Regarding claim 10, Perez in view of Nada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 9 but does not expressly disclose the limitations of, “wherein partially charging the battery include charging the battery to between 80 and 90%”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Perez wherein partially charging the battery includes charging the battery to between 80 and 90%, as recited, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, when a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious.
Accordingly claims 9-10 would have been obvious.
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 M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, TAELOR KIM can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 February 18, 2026