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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 March 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 Oct 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Doorn (US 9,442,495) in view of Miki et al (US 20060246177).
Regarding Claim 11, Van Doorn discloses a method for operating a drive unit operated with gaseous fuel (Col 5, lines 46-51), the gaseous fuel being provided under high pressure in a plurality of pressure tanks (8, 10, 12) that can be connected via a supply line (Figure) and with a metering valve via which the gaseous fuel can be dispensed to the drive unit (Col 5, lines 46-51)1. The method comprising the following steps:
providing one of the pressure tanks (8, 10, or 12) as a high-load pressure tank (where the “high-load” functionally occurs when the pressure is required, thereby any of the tank function as the “high-load” tank when they are utilized to fully supply the source; Col 4, lines 35-44), which is connected to the supply line (20) only at high load of the drive unit (when they are utilized to fully supply the source; Col 4, lines 35-44);
simultaneously disconnecting from the supply line (20) the pressure tanks in which a lower gas pressure than in the high-load pressure tank prevails (Col 4, lines 35-44),
but fails to expressly disclose measuring, via pressure sensors associated with the pressure tanks, respective tank pressures and transmitting the measured tank pressures to a control unit, wherein the control unit automatically controls shut-off valves based on the measured tank pressures to connect or disconnect the pressure tanks to or from the supply line according to a load state of the drive unit.
Miki et al teach a method for operating a drive unit (Figure 1 of drive unit 20) operated with gaseous fuel (¶ 63), the gaseous fuel being provided under high pressure in a plurality of pressure tanks (51, 52, 53 and 54; ¶ 64) and measuring, via pressure sensors (P1, P2 and P3 and P4 of Figure 1) associated with the pressure tanks (Figure 1 with each 51, 52, 53 and 54), respective tank pressures (¶ 64) and transmitting the measured tank pressures to a control unit (80), wherein the control unit automatically controls shut-off valves (VT1. VT2, VT3 and VT4) based on the measured tank pressures to connect or disconnect the pressure tanks to or from the supply line according to a load state of the drive unit (¶ 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank system of Van Doorn with the pressure sensor measuring as taught by Miki et al for the advantage of allowing pressure information to provide data to determine the state of the gas and the tanks to provide power to the drive unit, as taught by Miki et al (¶ 67).
Regarding Claim 12, Van Doorn discloses where the high-load pressure tank (8, 10 or 12) is connected to the supply line (20) only when the gas pressure in the remaining pressure tanks is no longer sufficient to supply the drive unit at high load (Col 4, lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 13, Van Doorn discloses where each of the pressure tanks (8, 10 or 12) can be connected to the supply line (20) via a connecting line (28, 30 or 32), wherein a shut-off valve of the shut-off valves is arranged in each connecting line (14, 16 or 18).
Regarding Claim 14, Van Doorn discloses where the shut-off valves (14, 16 or 18) are controlled electrically (via 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Van Doorn discloses where several high-load pressure tanks (8, 10 or 12) are present, at least one of which is connected to the supply line when the drive unit is at high load (Col 4, lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 16, Van Doorn discloses where all of the high-load pressure tanks (8, 10 or 12) are always connected together to the supply line (20; Figure).
Regarding Claim 17, Van Doorn discloses where only one of the high-load pressure tanks (8, 10 or 12) is connected to the supply line (20) when the drive unit is at high load (Col 4, lines 35-44), until the one of the high-load pressure tanks has the same gas pressure as the remaining pressure tanks (Col 4, lines 35-44), and a next one of the high-load pressure tanks is subsequently connected to the supply line when the drive unit is at high load (Col 4, lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 18, Van Doorn discloses where the drive unit operated with gaseous fuel is an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell including an electric motor powered by the fuel cell (Col 5, lines 46-51).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Doorn (US 9,442,495) in view of Miki et al (US 20060246177) in further view of Smith et al (US 3,608,660).
Regarding Claim 19, Van Doorn discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose a pressure reducer is arranged in the supply line between the pressure tanks and the metering valve.
Smith et al teach a high-pressure system (Figure 7), with a pressure reducer (67) arranged in a supply line (39) between the pressure tanks (65) and a metering valve (69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Doorn, as modified by Miki et al, with the pressure reducer and metering valve as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of reducing the pressure of the gas from the tank for use by the metering valve thereby taking advantage of the full capacity of the storage tanks, as taught by Smith et al (Col 7, lines 1-6 and Col 7, lines 38-42).
Regarding Claim 20, Van Doorn discloses all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose several metering valves are connected to the supply line.
Smith et al teach metering valve (69) where the metering valve comprises several metering valves are connected to the supply line (where the engine comprises more than one cylinder and therefore more than one metering valve as taught by Col 4, lines 29-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Van Doorn, as modified by Miki et al with the metering valve as taught by Smith et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the metering valves of Smith et al with the system of Van Doorn) to yield predictable results (to meter the flow of gas to the cylinders of an engine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
1 The recitation “the gaseous fuel being provided under high pressure in a plurality of pressure tanks that can be connected via a supply line and with a metering valve via which the gaseous fuel can be dispensed to the drive unit” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).