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 .
Pending claims: 1, 3-7 and 10-21.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/7/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10-15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (GB 2557596).
Regarding claim 1, the Jackson et al. reference discloses an off-highway vehicle (e.g., a tractor unit and trailer; see paragraphs [0002] and [0022]), comprising: a portable refueler (100) for storing a quantity of gaseous fuel for refueling an end- user vehicle (see Abstract), comprising: a plurality of storage tanks (132), each storage tank comprising at least one cylinder which is horizontally arranged within an enclosure (142), wherein the enclosure is configured to be carried by a vehicle (see Figure 6), and, a refueling nozzle (inherent) for discharging a quantity of the gaseous fuel to the end- user vehicle (e.g., hydrogen generator or lighting platform) during refueling; and further wherein the enclosure comprises: a first part (118) that receives a first subset (122, 126) of the plurality of storage tanks (132); and a second part (116) that receives a second subset (120, 124) of the plurality of storage tanks (132), wherein the enclosure is assembled by stacking the second part on top of the first part subsequent to the first subset of the plurality of storage tanks being received by the first part. The first and second parts (118, 116) are modularized compartments, which accept modules (120, 122, 124, 126) being “stacked” as seen Figures 1, 2, 6 and 8. The modules further comprise removable housings (142; see page 8, para. 0034 – page 9, para. 0038), which are capable of being subsequentially stacked, as defined above. Furthermore, a self-propelled van or aquatic vehicle meet the claim limitation of an off-highway vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, wherein a wall of the enclosure comprises a plurality of user access panels (114, 116, 118; Figure 1) for providing access to one or more controls or displays (see para. [0030)).
Regarding claim 5, comprising a first user access panel (114) which conceals an electrical interface (i.e., control compartment; para. [0031]), and a second access panel (116) which conceals a gas interface (see para. [0033)).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the electrical interface is intrinsically sealed with respect to the storage tanks. This is inherent to systems that operate with hydrogen and oxygen to avoid electrical spark and possible explosion.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the electrical interface comprises a power source and a controller for controlling discharging of the storage tanks during refueling of an end-user vehicle. See para. [0040].
Regarding claim 10, wherein each storage tank may comprise a tank valve for discharging the respective tank, wherein, optionally, the tank valves are electrically operated. See para. [0037].
Regarding claim 11, wherein the tank valves are independently controlled. See para. [0040].
Regarding claim 12, wherein each storage tank (132) comprises corresponding first and second ends (see Figure 3), wherein the tank valves are mounted to the respective first ends (the valves are mounted on one end or the other end).
Regarding claim 13, see claim 5 rejection and Figure 3.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the plurality of tanks is arranged in four banks (Figure 2), wherein each of the four banks is configured to be individually controlled for discharge. Each bank is capable of individual control.
Regarding claim 15, further comprising an electronic control unit configured to control the charging and discharging of the plurality of storage tanks. See para. [0030- 0033].
Regarding claim 19, wherein the vehicle is a tractor. See para. [0002].
Regarding claim 20, wherein the vehicle comprises an operator cab (unlabeled), wherein the portable storage device has a maximum height approximately in line with the height of the operator cab. Further, tractors are known to have operator cabs.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. in view of Udivich et al. (6685404).
Regarding claim 3, the Jackson et al. reference discloses the invention, as claimed, but doesn’t disclose the enclosure comprising a pair of sleeves for receiving a pair of fork lift forks for loading the storage device on to the vehicle. However, the Udivich et al. reference discloses another portable refueler (Figure 5) having sleeves (i.e., openings 15) for receiving fork lift tines to load the pallet (10) onto a vehicle trailer or other vehicle for transport. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the enclosure of the Jackson et al. device to have sleeves as, for example, taught by the Udivich et al. reference in order to enable one to move the enclosure to another vehicle for transport.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. in view of Sirosh et al. (2016/0033085).
Regarding claim 16, the Jackson et al. reference discloses the invention, as claimed, but doesn’t disclose wherein the tank valves comprise at least one sensor for measuring a tank pressure and/or temperature. However, the Sirosh et al. reference discloses a compressed gas storage unit having a tank (102), PRD (104), valve (302) having (pressure and/or temperature sensors; see para. [0093] and [0146]) to notify the user if unsafe pressure or temperature values are detected. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Jackson et al. device to have temperature/pressure sensor within the tank valves as, for example, taught by the Sirosh et al. reference in order to notify the user if unsafe pressure or temperature values are detected.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. in view of Princiotta et al. (5954009).
Regarding claim 17, the Jackson et al. reference discloses the invention, as claimed, but doesn’t disclose wherein each of the plurality of storage tanks comprises a thermal pressure response device (i.e., PRD 15), TPRD, configured to vent the gaseous fuel when the temperature rises to beyond a predetermined value.
However, the Princiotta et al. reference discloses another vehicle for storing a quantity of gaseous fuel in a plurality of storage tanks. The plurality of storage tanks comprise a thermal pressure response device (i.e., PRD 15), TPRD, configured to vent the gaseous fuel when the temperature rises to beyond a predetermined value. See column 6, lines 25 - 40. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Jackson et al. device to have thermal pressure response device as, for example, taught by the Princiotta et al. reference in order to vent the gaseous fuel when the temperature rises to beyond a predetermined value.
Regarding claim 18, Princiotta et al. further disclose wherein the TPRD are mounted directly to the tank. See column 6, lines 31-34.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. in view of Ridgley (5975161).
Regarding claim 21, the Jackson et al. reference discloses the invention, as claimed, including a ground-engaging propulsion structure (i.e., tractor unit or self- propelled van), but doesn’t disclose a body supported by the ground-engaging propulsion structure (i.e., front and rear wheels), wherein the body includes a platform and wherein the enclosure is carried by the platform. The Ridgley reference discloses an off-highway vehicle (i.e., tractor 12) having a body platform (28) which carries a tank (44) to different field locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Jackson et al. device to have the off-highway tractor configuration as, for example, taught by the Ridgley reference, since off-highway vehicles, which carry tanks on a platform to remote field
locations, are well-known, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Pittroff et al. (8752572) reference discloses another vehicle for gas delivery where the containers are bundled in a frame and subsequently stacked (see Figures).
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753