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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 May, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pressure builder” described in claims 5 and 9, and expressly recited in paragraph [0083] of the originally-filed specification to not be shown, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“17” describing a valve to be controlled by the control board “112” in paragraph [0060] of the originally-filed specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“115a” shown in figure 8
“115b” shown in figure 8
“115c” shown in figure 8
“115d” shown in figure 8
“115e” shown in figure 8
“115f” shown in figure 8
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract recites “The present disclosure discloses…” which is an implied phrase, and should be removed.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heating device” recited within claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4, 6, and 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “heating device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide what the corresponding structure is to the “heating device”, as claimed. Specifically, paragraphs [0052] and [0081] discusses the “heating device”, but fails to provide the corresponding structure of the “device” intended of carrying out the claimed function of “heating”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 6 recites “the opening /closing valve” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as an opening/closing valve.
Claim 6 recites “the fuel cell” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a fuel cell.
Claim 8 recites a plurality of positively recited conditions that are in conflict with one another. Specifically,
1a) “in the case that it is determined that all of the plurality of converted temperature values are the same in the determining whether all of the plurality of converted temperature values are the same, determining whether the plurality of temperature values are within a first temperature range;”
2a) “in case that it is determined that the plurality of temperature values are within the first temperature value range in the determining whether the plurality of temperature values are within the first temperature value range, determining that the inner tank is full of liquid hydrogen;”
2b) “in case that is determined that the plurality of temperature values exceed a second temperature value higher than the first temperature value range in the determining whether the plurality of temperature values are within the first temperature value range, determining whether a pressure value of the storage space of the inner tank is smaller than a first pressure value;”
3a) “in response to it being determined that the pressure value of the inner tank is smaller than the first pressure value in the determining whether the pressure value of the storage space of the inner tank is smaller than the first pressure value, determining that the storage space of the inner tank is empty up to a warning level;”
3b) “in response to it being determined that the pressure value of the inner tank is not smaller than the first pressure value in the determining whether the pressure value of the inner tank is smaller than the first pressure value, determining that the level of the storage space of the inner tank is at an empty level;”
1b) “in response to it being determined that all of the plurality of converted temperature values are not the same in the determining whether all of the plurality of converted temperature values are the same, determining whether a temperature value of a temperature sensor located in a middle and a temperature value of a temperature sensor installed at a position having a lowest height among the plurality of temperature sensors are within the first temperature value range;”
4a) “in response to it being determined that the temperature value of the temperature sensor located in the middle and the temperature value of the temperature sensor installed at the position having the lowest height among the plurality of temperature sensors are within the first temperature value range in the determining whether the temperature value of the temperature sensor located in the middle and the temperature value of the temperature sensor installed at the position having the lowest height among the plurality of temperature values are within the first temperature value range, determining that the level of the storage space of the inner tank is at a medium level;” and
“in response to it being determined that the temperature value of the temperature sensor located in the middle and the temperature value of the temperature sensor installed at the position having the lowest height are within the first temperature value range in the determining whether the temperature value of the temperature sensor located in the middle and the temperature value of the temperature sensor installed at the position having the lowest height among the plurality of temperature values are within the first temperature value range, determining that whether the temperature value of the temperature sensor installed at the position having the lowest height is within the first temperature value range;”
4b) “in response to it being determined that the temperature value of the temperature sensor installed at the position having the lowest height is within the first temperature value range, determining that the level of the storage space of the inner tank is at a low level;”
4c) “in response to it being determined that the temperature value of the temperature sensor installed at the position having the lowest height is not within the first temperature value range, determining that the level of the storage space of the inner tank is at an empty level.”
, which renders the claim indefinite, due to the multiple positive recitations of conditions that are in conflict with one another. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be reasonably determined, in view of such conflicting positively recited conditions, and at least for examination purposes, it is being interpreted that these claim limitations are to be recited as contingent conditions which may or may not have occurred, so as to remove the indefinite and conflicting nature of the method limitations.
Claim 9 recites a plurality of positively recited conditions that are in conflict with one another. Specifically,
1a) “switching a pressure builder for adjusting a pressure in the storage space of the inner tank to a predetermined pressure to an operating status in case that a measured pressure value is smaller than a first pressure value”
1b) “switching the operating status of the pressure builder to an interrupted status in case that the measured pressure value is larger than a second pressure value higher than the first pressure value”
, which renders the claim indefinite, due to the multiple positive recitations of conditions that are in conflict with one another. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be reasonably determined, in view of such conflicting positively recited conditions, and at least for examination purposes, it is being interpreted that these claim limitations are to be recited as contingent conditions which may or may not have occurred, so as to remove the indefinite and conflicting nature of the method limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by VARRASSI (US 11,946,594 B2 – effectively filed 14 January, 2021).
As to claim 1, VARRASSI discloses a liquid hydrogen tank control device comprising:
a control board (8; col.5, lines 41-47) capable of wireless communication and measuring a level of liquid hydrogen (col.5, lines 53-60, in view of capability of the system to be applicable to hydrogen fluid stated in abstract and col. 6, lines 66-67) stored in a storage space of an inner tank (2; col.3, lines 47-48) of a liquid hydrogen tank (abstract; figure 1 and 3) based on a plurality of temperature values measured by a plurality of temperature sensors (6; col. 4, line 62 – col.5, line 40; col. 6, lines 38-39) provided at different heights from each other on an outer surface of the inner tank (figures 1-3; col. 5, lines 13-37) located inside an outer tank of the liquid hydrogen tank (3; col.3, lines 55-57).
As to claim 3, VARRASSI discloses wherein the control board is configured to determine a status of the liquid hydrogen tank based on a pressure value measured by a pressure sensor (9; col.6, lines 24-27) capable of wireless communication(in view of col. 5, lines 41-5 and 28-52 and figures 1 and 3 which provide wireless connection to the sensor, 9; wherein the control board may be in communication through wireless or wired means to obtain the data) and configured to measure pressure in the storage space of the inner tank(col. 6, lines 24-27).
As to claim 7, VARRASSI discloses a method of controlling a liquid hydrogen tank using a liquid hydrogen tank control device,
wherein the liquid hydrogen tank control device comprises
a plurality of temperature sensors (6; col. 4, line 62 – col.5, line 40; col. 6, lines 38-39) provided at different heights from each other on an outer surface of the inner tank (figures 1-3; col. 5, lines 13-37) located inside an outer tank of the liquid hydrogen tank (3; col.3, lines 55-57);
at least one pressure sensor (9; col.6, lines 24-27) configured to measure pressure in a storage space in which liquid hydrogen in the inner tank is stored(col. 6, lines 24-27); and
a control board (8; col.5, lines 41-47) capable of wireless communication and measuring a level of liquid hydrogen (col.5, lines 53-60, in view of capability of the system to be applicable to hydrogen fluid stated in abstract and col. 6, lines 66-67) stored in the storage space of the inner tank (2; col.3, lines 47-48) based on a plurality of temperature values measured by the plurality of temperature sensors (6; col. 4, line 62 – col.5, line 40; col. 6, lines 38-39),
wherein the method comprises:
determining a level of liquid hydrogen in the inner tank based on the temperature values measured by the plurality of temperature sensors (col. 4, line 62 – col.5, line 40; col. 6, lines 38-39); and
determining whether pressure in the inner tank is within an appropriate pressure range based on pressure values measured by the pressure sensor(col. 6, lines 24-27, in view of col. 6, lines 4-21).
As to claim 9, VARRASSI, further, discloses wherein the determining whether the pressure of the inner tank is within the appropriate pressure range based on the pressure values measured by the pressure sensor (see rejection of claim 7), wherein it has been previously determined the remainder of the claim, for examination purposes, are found to be contingent, based on conditions which have not occurred to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04 – II. Therefore, based on the disclosure of the prior art, the claimed invention is anticipated.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARRASSI (US 11,946,594 B2 – effectively filed 14 January, 2021), in view of FINNE ( US 2022/0196211 A1 – published 23 June, 2022).
As to claim 2, VARRASSI discloses wherein the control board is configured to determine that liquid hydrogen is filled from a bottom of the storage space of the inner tank to a height of a temperature sensor (col. 4, lines 32-40; col. 4, line 62-col.5, line 40).
However, VARRASSI does not expressly disclose wherein the output from the temperature sensor is a temperature value equal to or lower than a predetermined temperature value based on temperature values measured by the plurality of temperature sensors.
FINNE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic liquefied gas tank (abstract). FINNE teaches a plurality of temperature sensors (31) connected to a computer unit (36; par. 48) wherein the temperature sensors output a temperature value equal to or lower than a predetermined temperature (figure 2, at the location of the surface of the held cryogenic liquid, which outputs a temperature value from a sensor near the surface of the held cryogenic liquid that is lower than a predetermined temperature, such as the temperature output by sensors within the body of the held cryogenic liquid) based on temperature values measured by the plurality of temperature sensors. Particularly, FINNE provides this enables the system to determine the liquid level within the tank (par. 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify VARRASSI, in view of FINNE, to include the functional requirement of “a temperature sensor outputting a temperature value equal to or lower than a predetermined temperature value base don temperature values measured by the plurality of temperature sensors” so as to effectively determine, by the change in the temperature to be lower than or equal to a predetermined temperature based on the measured temperatures, the level of the liquid within the tank (par. 50).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARRASSI (US 11,946,594 B2 – effectively filed 14 January, 2021), in view of LEASE (US 10,684,157 B2 – published 16 June, 2020) and CRESPI (FR 3067820 A1 – published 21 December, 2018; see English machine translation for citations).
As to claim 4, VARRASSI fails to further disclose the requirements set forth by the claim.
First, LEASE is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic liquid gas tank (col. 4, lines 5-33). LEASE teaches wherein such systems are known to include a memory (194) configured to store status information including a received temperature value of the tank (col. 2, lines 13-31; col.9, lines 62-66; col. 12, line 62- 67) and a display (60) configured to display status information including the received temperature value of the tank (col. 7, lines 4-17; col.9, lines 3-13; col. 12, line 62- 67). LEASE teaches wherein the memory and display are used to store received information and display the determined information, such as temperature measurements from inside the tank. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify VARRASSI, in view of LEASE, to include the memory and display, as set forth by the claims, for this reason.
Second, CRESPI is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic liquid gas tank (par. 2 at pg. 2). CRESPI teaches a controller (31) configured to control the operation of a heating device (32) within the liquid cryogen (6) to increase pressure within the tank (par. 2 at pg. 3) so as to adjustably control the pressure within the tank and the subsequent flow rate achieved by the fluid in the transfer circuit from the tank (par. 2 at page 6). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify VARRASSI, in view of the teachings of CRESPI, so as to control the pressure and flow rate of the tank and transfer system from the tank (par. 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARRASSI (US 11,946,594 B2 – effectively filed 14 January, 2021), in view of JUERY (US 2015/0063409 A1 – published 5 March, 2015).
As to claim 6, VARRASSI fails to further disclose the requirements set forth by the claim.
JUERY, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic liquid gas tank (abstract). JUERY teaches a control panel (13) provided and configured to allow a user to control at least the on/off of an opening/closing valve (par. 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify VARRASSI, in view of JUERY, to include the control panel configured to allow a user to control at least the on/off of the opening/closing valve, as set forth by the claims, for the purpose of controlling the system through at least user input (par. 26).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VARRASSI (US 11,946,594 B2 – effectively filed 14 January, 2021), in view of FINNE ( US 2022/0196211 A1 – published 23 June, 2022) and BRITANNICA (NPL: "Thermometer." Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 24 Aug. 2020. academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/thermometer/72086#. Accessed 9 Jan. 2026.)
As to claim 8, VARRASSI discloses wherein the determining the level of liquid hydrogen stored in the storage space of the inner tank based on the temperature values measured by the plurality of temperature sensors (col. 4, lines 32-40; col. 4, line 62-col.5, line 40), comprises:
converting electrical signals received from the plurality of temperature sensors into a plurality of temperature values (MPEP 2112.02 – I -- Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); See NPL by BRITANNICA)
However, VARRASSI does not expressly disclose determining whether all of the plurality of converted temperature values are the same.
FINNE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a cryogenic liquefied gas tank (abstract). FINNE teaches a plurality of temperature sensors (31) connected to a computer unit (36; par. 48) wherein it is determined the temperature values output are different (figure 2, at the location of the surface of the held cryogenic liquid, which outputs a temperature value from a sensor near the surface of the held cryogenic liquid that is lower than the other temperatures sensed and output). Particularly, FINNE provides this enables the system to determine the liquid level within the tank (par. 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify VARRASSI, in view of FINNE, to include the determination of the temperature values being different in the determination step so as to effectively determine, by the change in the temperature based on the measured temperatures, the level of the liquid within the tank (par. 50).
Lastly, as stated for the purpose of examination (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), the remainder of the claim limitations are found to be contingent, based on conditions which have not occurred to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claims. See MPEP 2111.04 – II. Therefore, based on the combination of prior art, the claimed invention is obvious, in view of the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when considered, as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to set forth the requirements of dependent claim 5, and specifically, the requirement that the control board carries out control of: the on/off of an opening/closing valve provided in a gas discharge pipe connected to the liquid hydrogen tank, electrical output of a fuel cell, and on/off of a pressure builder through the same wireless communication module. While, VARRASSI teaches the operability of the control board to communicate wirelessly, VARRASSI does not include wherein the control board necessarily produces the claimed control through a wireless communication module. The prior art makes clear it is known to provide on/off of an opening/closing valve in a gas discharge pipeline (US 2023/0023222 A1), electrical output of a fuel cell (US 2023/0023222 A1; KR 20210125123 – cited on the IDS filed on 30 May, 2023), and on/off of a pressure builder (FR 3067820 A1), the prior art does not provide wherein such control occurs over the same wireless communication module. Absent some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established. As such, the preponderance of evidence supports allowability of the claimed subject matter of dependent claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 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 supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 1/9/2025
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763