DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed July 20, 2023. Claims 1-13 are currently pending, of which claims 1-13 are currently rejected.
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: “fuel management module”, “fuel inventory module”, “system maintenance module”, “an electronic recorder”, in claims 1, 11, and 12.
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.
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 6 is/are 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 6 recites the limitation "the flow power interruption" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is further indefinite because it is unclear what this term means and Applicant’s disclosure does not mention this term outside of the claim language.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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, 7, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrol et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0241391; hereinafter “Carrol”) and further in view of Nagafuchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2001/0056315; hereinafter “Nagafuchi”).
As per claim 1, Carroll teaches a system, comprising:
a network (See Carrol Fig. 7 and paras. [0204]: communications network connecting filling stations and fuel inventory management system components);
a server comprising (See Carrol Fig. 7 and paras. [0204-206] and [0216]: fuel inventory management system can be provided via a remote server:
a system management module comprising:
a fuel management module configured to selectively control an amount of fuel being dispensed at the fuel station (See Carrol paras. [0050-53] and [0063]: fuel tank inventory management system with the ability to stop the supply of fuel from the tank);
a fuel inventory module configured to monitor an amount of fuel in the fuel station (See Carrol para. [0050]: measuring stored fuel information); and
a system maintenance module configured to monitor an alarm of the system, a notification of the system, a health of a component of the system, a performance metric of the component of the system, or a combination thereof (See Carrol paras. [0063] and [0102]: alarms/alerts related to the fuel storage tank inventory. This can “provide a warning that the amount of stored fuel has reached, or dropped below, a predetermined minimum value”);
a user device configured to communicate with the system management module over the network using a first communication protocol (See Carrol Fig. 7 and paras. [0207-208]: operator uses communications device to interact with the system and its networked components. The display of information from the measurement sensors is a first communication protocol).
However, while Carroll teaches the fuel station (See Carrol paras. [0033-34]), Carroll does not teach a power station.
Nagafuchi teaches a power station and [a fuel station] (of Carroll) electrically, communicatively, or mechanically coupled to the power station (See Nagafuchi paras. [0019-21]: power generating facilities, including generators).
Moreover, Carrol teaches shutting off the supply of fuel from a tank in the system (See Carol paras. [0050] and [0063]). However, Carrol does not explicitly teach this being performed at the user device with specific levels of control.
Nagafuchi further teaches that controller of Carrol being configured to communicate with the user device using a second communication protocol, wherein the controller and the user device are configured to selectively control the amount of fuel being dispensed at the fuel station (See Nagafuchi paras. [0034] and [0071]: remote tuning of control values to adjust functions; paras. [0019-20]: valves regulating rate of fuel).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the fuel monitoring and shutoff of Carrol with the flow control of Nagafuchi. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose fuel inventory and flow management, and Nagafuchi improves the control system of Carrol by providing efficient fault supervision and diagnosis, while also improving the flexibility of the system by increasing its remote cabilities, allowing for more efficient management of more resources (See Nagafuchi paras. [0045] and [0053]).
As per claim 7, Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches the system of claim 1. However, Carrol does not explicitly teach the power station.
Nagafuchi teaches wherein the power station further comprises a genset, a battery, one or more solar panels, a direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) inverter, or a combination thereof (See Nagafuchi paras. [0019-21]: power generating facilities, including generators).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol with the teachings of Nagafuchi for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, Carrol/Nagafuchi further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fuel station further comprises a fuel tank, a pump, an electric motor, one or more manually operated mechanical valves, one or more pressure-relief valves, one or more ball valves, one or more bypass valves, one or more electromechanical valves, or a combination thereof (See Carrol Fig. 1 and paras. [0033-37]: multiple pumps and fuel tanks).
As per claim 12, Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches the system of claim 1. Carrol further teaches wherein the fuel station further comprises: a measurement controller coupled to one or more sensors attached to a tank and configured to provide data from the one or more sensors (See Carrol para. [0050]: measuring means connected to the fuel management system under the control of the controller).
However, while Carrol teaches the fuel management system, Carrol does not explicitly disclose a flow controller that can activate the flow of fuel.
Nagafuchi teaches a flow controller coupled to at least one of a pump, a valve, a power supply, or a combination thereof; and an electronic recorder configured to provide the flow controller with control signals to activate and deactivate a flow of fuel, adjust a flowing rate of the fuel, or activate and deactivate a power supply responsive to the data (See Nagafuchi paras. [0020-21]: power generating facilities with fuel flow valves; paras. [0039-42]: control functions based on change in total fuel amount).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol with the teachings of Nagafuchi for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 13, Carrol/Nagafuchi further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fuel station further comprises:
one or more sensors attached to a fuel tank of the fuel station (See Carrol para. [0050]: measuring means connected to the fuel management system under the control of the controller); and
an inventory measurement controller configured to receive at least one of a level of fuel, an internal temperature, and an internal pressure, and further configured to determine fuel density inside the fuel tank, and further configured to provide at least one of the level of fuel, the internal temperature, the internal pressure, or the fuel density inside the fuel tank to the user device (See Carrol Figs. 2, 3, and paras. [0050-53], [0074], and [0204-208]: measuring means connected to filling station site controller which provides amount of fuel in each tank to the fuel tank inventory management system, which in turn can be presented in a user interface on the management system and/or the user device).
Claims 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrol/Nagafuchi, as applied above, and further in view of McGill (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0065068).
As per claim 2, Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches the system of claim 1. However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches alerting the operator of a shutoff/fuel stoppage (See Carrol para. [0063]), Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly disclose an emergency shutoff button. Carrol/Nagafuchi also teaches the flow of power from the power station to the fuel station (See Carrol paras. [0033-34]; see also Nagafuchi paras. [0019-21]).
McGill teaches an emergency stop button, wherein the emergency stop button is configured to interrupt a flow of power from the power station to one or more electrical components of the fuel station, one or more electromechanical components of the fuel station, or a combination thereof (See McGill paras. [0084]: panic button associated with a security system that could activate the valve; paras. [0030] and [0075]: valve with actuator to change flow of gas).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the fuel flow shutoff and control of Carrol/Nagafuchi with the valve actuation and components of McGill. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose gas flow management, and McGill improves the control system of Carrol/Nagafuchi by increasing the safety of the system in response to various emergencies via remote access and emergency shutoffs while also allowing for easy monitoring and replacement (See McGill paras. [0003] and [0088]).
As per claim 3, Carrol/Nagafuchi/McGill teaches the system of claim 2. However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches alerting the operator of a shutoff/fuel stoppage (See Carrol para. [0063]), Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly disclose an emergency shutoff button. Carrol/Nagafuchi also teaches the flow of power from the power station to the fuel station (See Carrol paras. [0033-34]; see also Nagafuchi paras. [0019-21]).
McGill further teaches a remote actuation emergency stop button, wherein the remote actuation emergency stop button is configured to communicate with a relay of the emergency stop button using a radio communication protocol, and wherein the relay activation is configured to interrupt the flow of power from the power station to the one or more electrical components of the fuel station, the one or more electromechanical components of the fuel station, or a combination thereof (See McGill paras. [0084]: panic button associated with a security system that could activate the valve; paras. [0030] and [0075]: valve with actuator to change flow of gas; paras. [0095-96]: radio frequencies can be used to remotely control shut off valve).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol/Nagafuchi with the teachings of McGill for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
As per claim 4, Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second communication protocol comprises a threshold range (See Carrol paras. [0013] and [0062-63]: threshold to maintain minimum amount of fuel in tank. If the amount of stored fuel drops below this minimum amount, “the supply of fuel from the tank can be stopped”).
However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi controls the flow of fuel, Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly teach mechanical closing of electromechanical components.
McGill teaches wherein the controller is configured to mechanically close one or more electromechanical components of the fuel station responsive to a separation greater than the threshold range between the user device and the controller (See McGill paras. [0084]: panic button associated with a security system that could activate the valve; paras. [0030] and [0075]: valve with actuator to change flow of gas. These feature3s and closures of McGill would be responsive to the thresholds and shutoffs disclosed in Carrol/Nagafuchi).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol/Nagafuchi with the teachings of McGill for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
As per claim 5, Carrol/Nagafuchi further teaches the system of claim 1. However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches stopping the flow of power from the power station to the fuel station (See Carrol paras. [0033-34] and [0063]; see also Nagafuchi paras. [0019-21]), Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly disclose mechanical valve closures.
McGill teaches wherein the mechanical closure of the one or more electromechanical components interrupts a flow of fuel from a tank of the fuel station (See McGill paras. [0030] and [0075]: valve with actuator to change/shutoff flow of gas)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol/Nagafuchi with the teachings of McGill for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
As per claim 6, Carrol/Nagafuchi/McGill further teaches The system of claim 5. However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches stopping the flow of power from the power station to the fuel station (See Carrol paras. [0033-34] and [0063]; see also Nagafuchi paras. [0019-21]), Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly disclose mechanical valve closures.
McGill teaches wherein the one or more electromechanical components of the fuel station are configured to mechanically close responsive to the flow power interruption (See McGill paras. [0084]: panic button associated with a security system that could activate the valve; paras. [0030] and [0075]: valve with actuator to change flow of gas; Alternatively, para. [0166]: shut-off member can interrupt communication between electrical device interfaces to shut off the electricity).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol/Nagafuchi with the teachings of McGill for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
Claims 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrol/Nagafuchi, as applied above, and further in view of Breed (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0047329).
As per claim 9, Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches the system of claim 1. However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches sensors to monitor fuel levels, Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly teach ultrasonic sensors to do so.
Breed teaches wherein the fuel station further comprises an ultrasonic level sensor for measuring the amount of fuel in the fuel station (See Breed paras. [0436] and [0469]: ultrasonic sensors used to determine the level of fluid in the storage tank, such as in the storage tanks of Carrol/Nagafuchi).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the fuel monitoring and control of Carrol/Nagafuchu with the sensors of Breed. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose fuel inventory management and monitoring, and Breed further enhances the accuracy and monitoring capabilities of the sensors of Carrol/Nagafuchu, reducing the amount of contact they would have with the changing fuel levels and thus minimizing failures and extending lifespan.
As per claim 10, Carrol/Nagafuchi/Breed teaches the system of claim 9. However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches the fuel station measurements as well as Internet connectivity, Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly teach an IoT device.
Breed teaches wherein the fuel station further comprises an Internet-of-Things device (See Breed paras. [0340] and [0439]: different wireless communications to couple the sensors to the monitoring systems, such as the monitoring systems of Carrol/Nagafuchi. This includes Bluetooth, WI-FI, Wibree, and others.in the form of Internet-based monitoring systems).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol/Nagafuchi with the teachings of Breed for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 9.
As per claim 11, Carrol/Nagafuchi/Breed teaches the system of claim 10. However, while Carrol/Nagafuchi teaches the fuel station measurements as well as Internet connectivity, Carrol/Nagafuchi does not explicitly teach an IoT device.
Breed teaches wherein the Internet-of-Things device is configured to communicate with the ultrasonic level sensor using a third communication protocol and communicate with the system management module over the network using the first communication protocol (See Breed paras. [0340] and [0439]: different wireless communications to couple the sensors to the monitoring systems, such as the monitoring systems of Carrol/Nagafuchi. This includes Bluetooth, WI-FI, Wibree, and others.in the form of Internet-based monitoring systems).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Carrol/Nagafuchi with the teachings of Breed for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nixdorf et al. (U.S. 2018/0209353) discloses regulating an emergency fuel system in a power plant with a gas turbine, which includes a control valve that can control the proportion of gas flowing while also tracking the amount of liquefied gas stored in gas tanks (See Nixdorf paras. [0037-38] and [044-46]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118