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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I and Species B in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6 and 17-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 11/29/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2022-0162740 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 3, paragraph [0015], line 1, “Ehen” should read “When”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 2, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the hydrogen” in claim 2, lines 5-6 and 9-10 should read “the supply of hydrogen”.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “the hydrogen” in claim 10, line 3 should read “the supply of hydrogen”.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “the hydrogen” in claim 12, lines 1-2 should read “the supply of hydrogen”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 2-4, 8-10, and 12-16 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the pressure-adjusted hydrogen” in claim 2, lines 6-7 lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “a pressure-adjusted hydrogen”.
Regarding claims 3-4, 8-10, and 12-16, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (Pub. No. KR 102447512 B1) in view of Lu (CN 108011114) in view of Jung et al. (Pub. No. KR 20240055460 A) in view of Nagata (Pub. No. US 20160305354 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a fuel cell system (hydrogen fueled wired drone, Fig. 1, see [0057]), comprising: a three-way valve (80, Fig. 1, see [0033]) installed on a hydrogen supply line (70, Fig. 1, see [0033]) between a fuel cell stack (20, Fig. 1, see [0039]) and a hydrogen supply (40, Fig. 1, see [0033]); a first hydrogen supply valve (100, Fig. 2, see [0033]) installed on a first hydrogen supply line (60, Fig. 2, see [0033]) branching off by the three-way valve (80, Fig. 1, see [0033]); a second hydrogen supply valve (90, Fig. 2, see [0033]) installed on a second hydrogen supply line (50, Fig. 2, see [0033]) branching off by the three-way valve (80, Fig. 1, see [0033]); and a controller (120, Fig. 1, see [0033]) configured to control a supply of hydrogen (hydrogen flowing from 40, Fig. 1, see [0042] where 40 supplies hydrogen) to one of the first hydrogen supply line (60, Fig. 2, see [0033]) and the second hydrogen supply line (50, Fig. 2, see [0033]) according to a state of the hydrogen supply (see [0045] controller controls valves on three way valve, see [0046] where 120 incorporates data from pressure sensors and determines which valves to open based on where the fuel needs to be sent) while the fuel cell stack (20, Fig. 1, see [0039]) operates (see [0015] the fuel cell stack operates and powers the drone, see Fig. 1 the drone is in the air therefore it is operating), but fails to teach wherein the hydrogen supply is a hydrogen tank, wherein the first hydrogen supply valve is configured to variably adjust a hydrogen supply pressure, and wherein the second hydrogen supply valve is configured to adjust the hydrogen supply pressure to a constant pressure.
However, Lu teaches wherein the hydrogen supply (see [0027] where the supply of hydrogen is provided by the tank 16) is a hydrogen tank (16, Fig. 1, see [0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho such that the hydrogen supply 40 is a high-pressure hydrogen tank as taught by Lu as an art effective equivalent hydrogen supply source for a fuel cell system. Further Cho teaches that modifications can be made (see [0071] of Cho).
Cho in view of Lu fails to teach wherein the first hydrogen supply valve is configured to variably adjust a hydrogen supply pressure, and wherein the second hydrogen supply valve is configured to adjust the hydrogen supply pressure to a constant pressure.
However, Jung teaches a second hydrogen supply valve (micro flow control valve, see [0062]) is configured to adjust the hydrogen supply pressure (constant pressure and flow rate, see [0062]) to a constant pressure (constant pressure, see [0062]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho in view of Lu such that the supply valve 90 is a micro flow control valve to adjust the hydrogen flow and pressure to a constant flow and pressure as taught by Jung to ensure smooth supply of hydrogen to increase efficiency (see [0046] of Jung). Further Cho in view of Lu teaches that modifications can be made (see [0071] of Cho).
Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung fails to teach wherein the first hydrogen supply valve is configured to variably adjust a hydrogen supply pressure.
However, Nagata teaches wherein the first hydrogen supply valve (small-flow regulating valve, see [0023]) is configured to variably adjust a hydrogen supply pressure (see [0023] the valve can variably control the flow rate which would also adjust the hydrogen supply pressure in the process), and wherein the first hydrogen supply valve (small-flow regulating valve, see [0023]) comprises a solenoid valve (solenoid, see [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung such that the first hydrogen supply valve 100 is a solenoid regulating valve as taught by Nagata to allow adjustable control of the valve between fully closed to fully open allowing control of flow rate through the valve (see [0023] of Nagata). Further Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung teaches that modifications can be made (see [0071] of Cho).
Regarding claim 2, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches wherein the three-way valve (80, Fig. 1, see [0033]) includes: a first port (First port, see Fig. 2 below) through which the supply of hydrogen (hydrogen flowing from 40, Fig. 1, see [0042] where 40 supplies hydrogen) being supplied from the hydrogen tank (40, Fig. 1, see [0033], see where 40 is a tank in modifications above) is introduced (see Fig. 2 below the arrows show the flow paths of hydrogen, hydrogen is introduced from the first port); a second port (second port, Fig. 2 below) configured to variably adjust a pressure (see modifications above where 100 controls flow, therefore modifies the pressure in the process) of the hydrogen (hydrogen flowing from 40, Fig. 1, see [0042] where 40 supplies hydrogen) introduced through the first port (First port, see Fig. 2 below) and discharge the pressure-adjusted hydrogen (hydrogen after passing through 90 and/or 100, see modifications above) through the first hydrogen supply line (60, Fig. 2, see [0033]); and a third port (third port, Fig. 2 below) configured to adjust the pressure (see modifications above where 90 controls constant pressure of hydrogen, therefore modifies the pressure in the process) of the hydrogen (hydrogen flowing from 40, Fig. 1, see [0042] where 40 supplies hydrogen) introduced through the first port (First port, see Fig. 2 below) and discharge the pressure-adjusted hydrogen (hydrogen after passing through 90 and/or 100, see modifications above) through the second hydrogen supply line (50, Fig. 2, see [0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches wherein the controller (120, Fig. 1, see [0033]) controls opening or closing of one or more of the first port (First port, see Fig. 2 above), the second port (second port, Fig. 2 above), and the third port (third port, Fig. 2 above, see [0045] controller controls valves on three way valve, see [0046] where 120 incorporates data from pressure sensors and determines which valves to open based on where the fuel needs to be sent) by determining whether an internal pressure (supply pressure of 70 measured using sensor 130, Fig. 1, see [0048] where the controller measures pressure of 70 using 130, which would be the pressure supplied by 40 therefore the Examiner considers this pressure measure equivalent to an internal pressure measure of 40) and a state of fuel (SoF) (see [0052] the controller determines if the fuel of 40 is required to be sent through 100) of the hydrogen tank (40, Fig. 1, see [0033], see where 40 is a tank in modifications above) satisfy a reference pressure condition (pressure of 130 exceeds reference value and 40 is required to send fuel through 100, see [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches wherein, when the internal pressure (supply pressure of 70 measured using sensor 130, Fig. 1, see [0048] where the controller measures pressure of 70 using 130, which would be the pressure supplied by 40 therefore the Examiner considers this pressure measure equivalent to an internal pressure measure of 40) of the hydrogen tank (40, Fig. 1, see [0033], see where 40 is a tank in modifications above) exceeds a reference pressure (pressure measured by 130 is greater than set value while 40 is required to send fuel through 100, see [0052]) or the SoF of the hydrogen tank exceeds a reference value, the controller (120, Fig. 1, see [0033]) determines that the reference pressure condition (pressure of 130 exceeds reference value while 40 is required to send fuel through 100, see [0052]) is satisfied (see [0052] where when pressure of 130 exceeds reference value while pressure of 140 is less than a value, it determines the reference pressure condition of opening 90, 100, and 110 is satisfied).
Regarding claim 7, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches wherein the first hydrogen supply valve (100, Fig. 2, see [0033]) comprises a solenoid valve (solenoid, see [0023] of Nagata, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 8, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches wherein, when the state of the hydrogen tank (see [0045] controller controls valves on three way valve, see [0046] where 120 incorporates data from pressure sensors and determines which valves to open based on where the fuel needs to be sent) does not satisfy the reference pressure condition (pressure of 130 exceeds reference value and 40 is required to send fuel through 100, see [0052]), the controller (120, Fig. 1, see [0033]) closes the second port (second port, Fig. 2 above, see [0054] where the pressure of 130 exceeds the reference value, but 40 is not required to send fuel through 100 and therefore 100 of the second port is closed) and opens the third port (third port, Fig. 2 above, see [0054] where the pressure of 130 exceeds the reference value, but 40 is not required to send fuel through 100 and therefore 90 is open which means the third port is open).
Regarding claim 9, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches wherein, when the second port (second port, Fig. 2 above) is closed (see [0054] where 100 of second port is closed), the controller (120, Fig. 1, see [0033]) controls a duty of the first hydrogen supply valve (100, Fig. 2, see [0033]) to 0% (see [0054] 100 is closed which in turn shuts off the second port as seen in Fig. 2 above, therefore the duty is 0%).
Regarding claim 10, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches when the third port (third port, Fig. 2 above) is opened (see [0054] where 90 of the third port is opened), the second hydrogen supply valve (90, Fig. 2, see [0033]) adjusts the pressure (see modifications above where 90 controls constant pressure of hydrogen, therefore modifies the pressure in the process) of the hydrogen (hydrogen flowing from 40, Fig. 1, see [0042] where 40 supplies hydrogen) to the constant pressure (constant pressure, see [0062] of Jung, see modifications above) and supplies the pressure-adjusted hydrogen (hydrogen after passing through 90 and/or 100, see modifications above) to the fuel cell stack (20, Fig. 1, see [0039], see Fig. 2 where hydrogen moving through 90 goes through tube 50 which supplies to Fuel cell stack 20 as seen in [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Cho in view of Lu in view of Jung in view of Nagata teaches wherein the second hydrogen supply valve (90, Fig. 2, see [0033]) comprises a constant pressure regulating valve (micro flow control valve, see [0062] of Jung where the flow valve controls the pressure to a constant pressure, see modifications above where 90 is a micro flow control valve).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 12-16 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:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach or otherwise render obvious in combination with all the claim limitations of claims 10, 8, 3, 2, and 1 upon which claim 12 is dependent upon “the controller operates in a low output hydrogen constant pressure mode and transmits a load decrease request signal to a vehicle controller of a flight vehicle employing the fuel cell system”.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights