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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims are directed to determining an optimal route for vehicles and outputting report. This is done by determining the appropriate supply chain, based on use-case scenario, optimizing the inventory, route, and storage of Hydrogen in a distribution network. There is plainly certain methods of organizing human activity, namely, business relations.
Applicant further argues, “Amended independent claim 1 is not directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity," as alleged by the Examiner. Amended independent claim 1 recites a technologically integrated hydrogen production and distribution system that includes specific chemical transformations, including hydrogenation of chemicals to store hydrogen in a Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) molecule and dehydrogenation at depots to release hydrogen at approximately 50 bar. These are industrial chemical processes involving transformation of matter and controlled pressure conditions. Such subject matter does not fall within fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, or methods of organizing human behavior.” The Examiner disagrees. Applicant describe these abstract processes are being performed by a general-purpose computer/processor.
Applicant further argues, “Further, amended independent claim 1 recites specific physical operations including compression of released hydrogen to 200-700 bar and filling into high-pressure tube trailers or flat-bed cylinder cascades. These limitations define concrete industrial handling and processing of hydrogen under specified pressure ranges. The inclusion of defined bar ranges and specialized storage architectures demonstrates that the claim is rooted in hydrogen engineering and energy infrastructure management, not in abstract commercial planning. Although amended independent claim 1 includes determining optimal routes using an iterative vehicle routing problem based on distance minimization and vehicle capacity satisfaction, such optimization is inseparably tied to the physical distribution of compressed hydrogen subject to vehicle capacity constraints and daily hydrogen demand. The routing logic is not performed in the abstract; it operates within and controls a real-world hydrogen logistics network. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 as a whole is directed to a technological system for hydrogen supply chain optimization, not to organizing human activity.” The Examiner disagrees. As stated above, the portion that Applicant is referring to is a part of the abstract idea of the claimed invention. Contrary to Applicant’s belief, abstract ideas can include physical operations especially those that can be implemented and our performed with human intervention. Applicant’s desire to provide piecemeal analysis of the claims by parsing out the supply chain portions is improper. The claims mean to provide a supply chain solution to a field that involves a real-world hydrogen logistics network. When looked at in its entirety, the claims recite an abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant further argues, “amended independent claim 1 clearly integrates any such concept into a practical application. The processor is configured to control and coordinate hydrogen production, hydrogenation into LOHC molecules, transportation of hydrogenated LOHC, dehydrogenation at depots, compression to specified high-pressure ranges, and distribution into defined storage systems. The routing determination directly affects how physical hydrogen is transported and delivered within this engineered infrastructure.
Amended independent claim 1 imposes meaningful technological constraints, including pressure levels (approximately 50 bar release and 200-700 bar compression), defined storage configurations (tube trailers, cascades, buffer cylinders), and daily hydrogen consumption requirements. These limitations ensure that the routing logic is applied in a manner that directly governs operation of industrial hydrogen processing equipment and transportation systems. Thus, any alleged abstract concept is applied in a manner that improves and controls a specific technological environment.
The Examiner disagrees. As Applicant admits above, the aforementioned step is performed by a generic computer. Applicant’s claims plainly recite a processor performing the abstract steps. In other words, the additional element is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, “Moreover, amended independent claim 1 requires outputting a graph representing connected retailers served via optimal routes, wherein retailers without connectivity are treated independently. This limitation reflects structured control of a physical distribution network rather than mere presentation of information. The graph corresponds to operational relationships in the hydrogen distribution infrastructure and enables coordinated servicing of retailers based on inventory and capacity conditions. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a concrete and practical hydrogen distribution system.”
Again, Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea. .
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to those in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC 15-1763, the Examiner disagrees. Unlike Bascom, the instant Application does not describe how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement. Again, Applicant's supposed improvement is not a technology-based solution to a problem rooted in computer technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
trigger to produce at least one of a gas Hydrogen and a liquid Hydrogen;
store in one or more hydrogen cylinders, the produced at least one of the gas Hydrogen and the liquid Hydrogen, in a Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) molecule, based on hydrogenation of chemicals;
transmit instructions for transporting the hydrogenated LOHC molecule(102); dehydrogenate, the hydrogenated LOHC molecule to release the hydrogen at low pressure
compress, the released hydrogen and fill the compressed hydrogen;
dehydrogenate at the one or more depots, the hydrogenated LOHC molecule to release the hydrogen at approximately 50 bar low pressure, upon receiving the one or more tanker trucks at the one or more depots;
compress, at the one or more depots, the released hydrogen to 200-700 bar and fill the compressed hydrogen in one or more high-pressure tube trailers or flat- bed cylinder cascades;
determine one or more optimal routes for distribution;
wherein for determining the one or more optimal routes
for one or more transportation vehicles,
ascertain iteratively vehicle routing problem for optimal routes, based on distance
minimization and vehicle capacity satisfaction, for daily requirement of the one or
more retailers or the consumption sites
receive information, upon arrival;
store, the compressed hydrogen in one or more low-pressure tanks or one or more high-pressure buffer cylinders; and
output information corresponding to an inventory of the one or more low-pressure tanks or one or more high-pressure buffer cylinders.
wherein for outputting, provide a graph
via the one or more optimal routes, and wherein, does not have a route in which they are connected to another one, such is considered independently.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)** and
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “facilities, consumption sites, server, depot, trailer, cylinder cascades, transportation vehicles, memory, processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being business relations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “facilities, consumption sites, server, depot, trailer, processor, memory, processor, cylinder cascades, processor, memory, processor-executable instructions, transportation vehicles”, These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (server, processor, memory, processor-executable instructions)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(facilities, consumption sites, depot, trailer, processor, cylinder cascades, transportation vehicles)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claims 3 describes a processor; 4-retailer, consumption sites, 6-tanker trucks, depot and retailers; 9-transportation vehicles, processor; 10-retailers and depots; 11-retailers, transportation vehicles; 12-tube trailers and cylinder cascades, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights