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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/173091 A1, of which a complete copy of the Japanese document with a machine translation was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated May 17, 2023, and further in view of WO 2014/033277 A1, of which a copy of this reference is provided with this Office Action (see PTO-892).
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claims 6-10 and 16, WO ‘091 discloses at least one energy storage pressure vessel for use in a hydrogen vehicle, including a truck or a passenger car (abstract; pages 37-44 of translation; and Figures 2A, 2B, 4A, and 5A-5C), in which the at least one energy storage pressure vessel (exterior body (10)) comprise(s) the following structural features (in referring to Figures 2A, 2B, and 5A):
a pressure vessel (hydrogen storage chamber (18)) for containing hydrogen gas for fuel cells of the hydrogen vehicle, the pressure vessel (18) being cylindrically shaped (see the 2nd paragraph on page 37 of translation; and Figures 2A and 2B) and radially surrounded by a membrane defining an outer perimeter of the pressure vessel (18), wherein the membrane includes one or more concentric layers of carbon fiber electrodes between the exterior body (10) and wrapped around the outer perimeter of the pressure vessel (18) – see the paragraph bridging pages 38 and 39 of translation; and Figures 2A and 2B; and
an energy storage system (C2), the energy storage system (C2) being provided in the membrane and comprising the layers, wherein all layers are provided in a structural electrolyte matrix in the membrane (see pages 37 and 38 of translation; and Figure 2A),
wherein the energy storage system is a battery (C2) provided in the membrane and is composed of either a single battery cell or at least two serially connected or parallel connected battery cells (see the paragraph bridging pages 38 and 39 of translation; and Figure 2A).
WO ‘091 does not explicitly disclose that the energy storage system is a structural battery that also comprises carbon fiber electrodes that act both as electrodes and as a main structural element of the membrane.
However, WO ‘277 discloses an energy storage system in the form of a structural battery (abstract; and paragraphs [0010]-[0032] and [0038]), in which the structural battery also comprises carbon fiber electrodes that act both as electrodes and as a main structural element of a membrane of the structural battery, for the purpose of providing strength against mechanical load while reducing battery weight for a vehicle (see paragraphs [0016]-[0022] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was made to modify the energy storage pressure vessel for use in a hydrogen vehicle, as disclosed by WO ‘091, by using the energy storage system in the form of a structural battery, as taught by WO ‘277, in order to provide strength against mechanical load while reducing battery weight for a vehicle (WO ‘277; paragraphs [0022] and [0032]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the combined teachings of WO ‘091 and WO ‘277 not only disclose and/or suggest that the structural battery comprises carbon fiber electrodes that act both as electrodes and as a main structural element of the membrane, but also disclose and/or suggest wherein the membrane (of WO ‘091) comprises alternating layers of negative electrodes (14), separators (15), and positive electrodes (16), and further including a structural battery electrolyte dispersed throughout the alternating layers (see the 1st and 2nd full paragraphs on page 39 of translation of WO ‘091; and Figures 2A and 2B of WO ‘091, as well as paragraphs [0022] and [0032] of WO ‘277).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, and in referring to the rejection of independent claim 1 and claim 10 by the combined teachings of WO ‘091 and WO ‘277 above, the hydrogen vehicle would further include an electric traction motor, as well as a cabin for housing a driver of the vehicle and for holding electronic components, wherein the at least one energy storage system (C2) of WO ‘091 is configured to provide the electric traction motor with electricity for driving the hydrogen vehicle, in which the at least one energy storage system (C2) is configured to provide the electronic components with electricity (see the paragraph bridging pages 38 and 39 of translation of WO ‘091; and Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 13, although the combined teachings of WO ‘091 and WO ‘277 disclose and/or suggest the features of independent claim 1 and claim 10 in the above 35 USC 103 rejection section, neither WO ‘091 nor WO ‘277 explicitly discloses the use of at least two energy storage pressure vessels that are vertically stacked in the hydrogen vehicle. However, since WO ‘091 discloses at least one energy storage pressure vessel (10) – see pages 37 and 38 of translation; and Figures 2A and 2B, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing at least one additional energy storage pressure vessel (10) would be operable to increase the range and/or power of the hydrogen vehicle, and a vertically stacked arrangement would increase occupant and/or trunk space in the hydrogen vehicle as compared to horizontal stacking of the multiple energy storage pressure vessels (10) disclosed by WO ‘091. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, although the combined teachings of WO ‘091 and WO ‘277 disclose and/or suggest the features of claims 1, 10, and 12 in the above 35 USC 103 rejection section, including that the hydrogen vehicle would include a cabin for housing a driver of the vehicle and for holding electronic components, neither WO ‘091 nor WO ‘277 explicitly discloses that the at least one energy storage system is placed behind the cabin. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the at least one energy storage system would be readily placed behind the cabin, for the purpose of increasing occupant and/or trunk space in the hydrogen vehicle, as well as to increase safety to the occupants.
Regarding claim 15, although the combined teachings of WO ‘091 and WO ‘277 disclose and/or suggest the features of independent claim 1 and claim 10 in the above 35 USC 103 rejection section, neither WO ‘091 nor WO ‘277 explicitly discloses that each of at least one further pressure vessel is radially surrounded by a membrane being without any energy storage system. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing at least one further pressure vessel would be operable to increase the range and/or power of the hydrogen vehicle. With regard to the limitation of each at least one further pressure vessel to be radially surrounded by a membrane being without any energy storage system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a radial arrangement would be advantageous for making the overall assembly more compact, thus increasing open space surrounding the at least one further pressure vessel. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing at least one additional pressure vessel would be operable to increase the range and/or power of the hydrogen vehicle when used in combination. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s after final amendment received by the USPTO on June 3, 2026. The amendment overcomes prior objections to the specification. Since applicant has cancelled claim 3 and included its limitations into claim 1 (but earlier had amended claim 1 in the amendment dated February 9, 2026 that was addressed as a final rejection mailed April 7, 2026), this Office Action is again made final. Claims 1 and 4-16 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference (WO 2014/033277 A1), and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights