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 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Claim 1 is not directed to organizing human activity. Claim 1 is not a set of rules for commerce or human behavior. Rather, claim 1 recites a technological solution for managing the physical flow of hydrogen fuel. Each limitation of amended claim 1 is tied to a tangible operation involving the production, chemical conversion, storage, transportation, or delivery of hydrogen. For example, amended independent claim 1 requires hydrogenation of chemicals to form LOHC molecules, dehydrogenation at depots, compression of released hydrogen, and filling of defined”. The Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to a processor sending directions to perform operations on hydrogen cylinders. The claims then determine transportation routes and output collected inventory information. The claim is indeed abstract. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, being “tied to” an operation involving hydrogen is insufficient to make the claim eligible.
Applicant further argues, “Even if amended claim 1 recites abstract concept, claim 1 integrates it into a practical application. The server and processor are not merely generic components used for bookkeeping but are explicitly configured to solve a technological problem in hydrogen logistics: ensuring safe, efficient, and optimized distribution of hydrogen across a network. The claimed steps impose meaningful limits because they:
. require chemical conversion of hydrogen into and out of LOHC molecules;
. involve physical compression and storage into specific container formats (tube
trailers, cascades, low/high-pressure tanks)…”. The Examiner disagrees. There is no practical application because the recited additional elements a being used as a tool to perform the abstract steps. Applicant appears to admit as much in the remarks -see pg. 13 para. 2; “The processor’s role is…but to control and optimize physical chemical processes and logistics flows within the hydrogen distribution system.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Prong 2B, 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. Applicant merely lists the steps. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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, 4-8, 10-12 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;
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.
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”, 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, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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