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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 18/302,074and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 03/04/2026.
Claims 1-5 are previously pending, of those claims, claim 1 has been amended, and claims 3-4 have been canceled. All amendments have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 2021/0116073 A1) in view of GREEN (US 2022/0123332 A1) and YOSHIDA (US 2021/0388947 A1).
With respect to claim 1. LEE teaches a hydrogen filling system (paragraph 0029). The system includes a first receptacle 310 and a second receptacle 320 (paragraph 0044). The receptacles are configured to connect with nozzles 210 and 220 (paragraph 0030). The system then includes a first and second hydrogen tanks 410 and 420 (paragraph 0044). There is then a control valve 500 which may be opened or closed to control a flow of hydrogen gas from the receptacles 310 and 320 into the first and second tanks 420 (paragraph 0044). As seen in Figure 2 there is a first and second flow paths between the receptacle 310 and the storage tank 410, and the receptacle 320 and the storage tank 420 (Figure 2). The control valve 500 then be opened and closed to introduce hydrogen into the hydrogen storage with hydrogen (paragraph 0043). The control valve 500 may be closed or opened to control the flow of hydrogen gas introduced from a first or second receptacle 310 or 320 (paragraph 0044).
LEE teaches a control valve 500 (paragraph 0044) but does not explicitly teach the control valve is a solenoid valve.
GREEN teaches a hydrogen fuel storage system 100 comprising a plurality of hydrogen storage tanks 102 (paragraph 0026). There may be a control system 200 includes a valve assembly 206 which is configured to regulate the pressure in the storage tank (paragraph 0027). The valve assembly 206 includes a solenoid valve 212 (paragraph 0028). There is a controller 304 which transmits signals to activate the solenoid valves (paragraph 0032). The controller monitors and records the feedback from the solenoid valve of the storage tank (paragraph 0036).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the control valve of LEE with the solenoid valve of GREEN as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results, as both LEE and GREEN teaches the use of control valves, and then GREEN teaches that a solenoid valve is a known type of control valve.
LEE then specifically teaches that the control valve is closed or open to control a flow of hydrogen gas introduced from the receptacles (paragraph 0044). This is taken to be the control device configured to control the opening of the valve and performed a calculation for determining whether to open or close the solenoid valve based on a condition of the hydrogen filling device.
LEE and GREEN do not explicitly teach the control device is configured to perform control to open the solenoid valve when at least one of the receptacles to which hydrogen is not supplied.
YOSHIDA teaches a hydrogen filling apparatus that can quickly fill vehicles equipped with multiple fuel tanks with hydrogen gas (abstract). A plurality of fuel tanks are provided and are connected to hydrogen filling receptacles 61-3 and 61-4 (paragraph 0026). Figure 4 shows a hydrogen filling apparatus 100 having two filling systems 101 and 102 (paragraph 0038). When not filling with two nozzles, the process proceeds to step S4 (paragraph 0038). In step S4, since it is determined that two nozzles are not used, it is determined that the hydrogen filling apparatus fills only with one of the filling systems (paragraph 0039).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the control method that one of the receptacles to which hydrogen is not supplied as taught by YOSHIDA for the control of the hydrogen supply of LEE, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results. Specifically LEE teaches the control valve to open or close to control a flow of hydrogen gas introduced form a first or second receptacle (paragraph 0044). YOSHIDA then teaches a known control system that determines if both the filling systems are used, or if the filling system is performed with only one of the two nozzles (paragraph 0038-0039). Therefore the combination of the filling and opening of the control valve of LEE with the determination of the only using one of the filling nozzles would have the control device open the valve when only one of the receptacles is hooked up with the hydrogen supply.
LEE does not explicitly teach a pressure sensor used to control the valve based on a pressure difference between the first and second flow paths.
YOSHIDA further teaches that hydrogen gas is suppled to the tank on the vehicle side within an appropriate pressure range according to pressure difference form the tank on the vehicle side to perform hydrogen filling (paragraph 0029). There is the use of the pressure gauge 15 and the control device 20, to acquire data such as the pressure, and communicates with the filling systems (paragraph 0035). The control device then operates based on this detected pressure (paragraph 0037).
Therefore at the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the pressure gauge and the control based on the measured pressure, as taught by YOSHIDA for the system of LEE, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results, as YOSHIDA teaches control based on the measured pressure of the system.
With respect to claim 2. LEE teaches a third flow path connecting the first and second flow paths, the control valve is located on this third flow path (see Figure 2). Specifically tie first flow path is between the receptacle 310 and the first hydrogen storage 410, the second flow path is between the second receptacle 320 and the second hydrogen storage 420, the third flow path is the flow path that includes the control valve 500, and connects the first and the second flow paths (see Figure 2).
With respect to claim 5. LEE teaches the hydrogen storage may be used for a vehicle (paragraph 0037). GREEN then teaches the hydrogen storage tank for a vehicle (abstract). The vehicle may then include a fuel cell system (paragraph 0021).
Therefore at the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the fuel cell in the vehicle as taught by GREEN for the system of LEE as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 4-5 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection 1-2 and 5 in view of LEE and GREEN, and claims 3-4 further in view of YOSHIDA.
On pages 4-5 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitations from claims 2-3. On page 5 Applicant argues that none of the prior art references of record teach or suggest specifying when the solenoid valve on the vehicle side is to be closed and when the solenoid valve is to be opened as in claim 1. Applicant argues that the opening and closing of LEE is different from the timing in the present claims. Specifically Applicant argues that the valve in YOSHIDA is provided on the supply side and not the vehicle side. These arguments are not persuasive.
As noted above, the claim has been amended to recite the limitations from claims 3-4 which was rejected in view of LEE, GREEN, and YOSHIDA. Claim 1 recites “A hydrogen storage device that is included in a vehicle using hydrogen fuel and that is configured to store hydrogen supplied from a hydrogen filling device”. Therefore the Examiner notes that the hydrogen storage device is on the vehicle side, the hydrogen filling device is not claimed as being on the vehicle side, but rather a supply side. Specifically the flow paths are from the receptacles to the hydrogen tanks. Therefore the argument that the valve of YOSHIDA is on the supply side and not the vehicle side is not persuasive, as it is drawn to non-claimed subject matter. Specifically the claim 1 recites “a flow path through which hydrogen flows from the receptacles towards the hydrogen tanks; a solenoid valve located in the flow path”. Therefore as argued above only the hydrogen storage device is vehicle side, the hydrogen filling device, including the receptacles and the flow path may be on the supply side.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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 supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights