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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Amendment dated 7/23/2026, that was in response to the Office action dated 5/6/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending, claim(s) 1 has/have been amended, while claim(s) 2-20 are presented as originally claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons for the applicant’s remarks not being persuasive are given below.
Claim 1 has been amended to now recite “wherein the at least one hydrogen cartridge is portable and configured to be removably inserted into the first housing.” Applicant respectfully submits that Kaye, Murray or Conrad do not teach, suggest or make obvious the invention as claimed, and that Kaye does not read on “at least on hydrogen cartridge” in that the device 14 of Kaye does not show capabilities of being housed in itself. Because of this, applicant respectfully submits that the device is not portable.
Kaye describes the device 14 in paragraph 0035 as: Hydrogen storage device 14 may also include a solid-hydrogen storage system such as a metal or carbon-based hydrogen storage device known to those of skill in the art. An outlet of hydrogen storage device 14 detachably couples to fuel delivery system 15 (or some intermediate line or plumbing) so that storage device 14 may be replaced when depleted. The office action states that the first housing is element 15, and “detachably coupled” is reasonably interpreted as “removably insertable”. Examiner however acknowledges that this could also be interpreted as directly coupled to the plumbing, without first being inserted into a housing. This feature, being new to at least the claims, was not initially relied upon from Kaye, however it will be shown that the feature is obvious. For these reasons, the applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, and the previously applied prior art still shows the invention in combination with the updated search.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye et al [20060029848], further in view of Murray et al [20070163598] and Griffith et al [20150255816].
With respect to claim 1, Kaye discloses: A supply system comprising: at least one hydrogen module (14) comprising a portable first housing (15) and at least one hydrogen cartridge housed in the first housing [paragraph 0035, 0048]; and a fuel cell module (20) comprising a portable second housing (422) and a fuel cell housed in the second housing [paragraph 0113], wherein the fuel cell module and the hydrogen module are mechanically (at least via line 33 or 35) and electrically [paragraph 0056 with regard to the sensors] connected [see FIG 1C], and the fuel cell is capable of generating electric power from hydrogen gas supplied by the hydrogen module [paragraph 0037].
Kaye however does not show the wheel included on the first and second housing or that the hydrogen cartridge is removable insertable in the housing.
Kaye shows in paragraph 0035 that the device 14 is detachably coupled to the system 15, showing a matter of transportability and separable elements.
Murray makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 1, cont’d} the first housing (12) including at least one wheel [see FIG 5] and the second housing (50) including at least one wheel (68) [see FIGs 5 and 6, paragraph 0049-0050].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kaye with the teachings of Murray because Murray provides a known module arrangement that assists in portability.
Griffith makes up for the further deficiencies of Kaye by showing:
{cl. 1, cont’d} and the at least one hydrogen cartridge (78) is portable and configured to be removably inserted into the first housing (70) [see FIG 2A, abstract, paragraph 0079].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kaye with the teachings of Griffith because Griffth provides an arrangement of parts that allows for replaceability and maintenance with ease.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye et al [20060029848], in view of Murray et al [20070163598] and Griffith et al [20150255816], further in view of Conrad [2007021063].
With respect to claim 19, Kaye discloses: A hydrogen cooking system comprising: the supply system according to claim 1 [see response to claim 1 above] however does not disclose the cooking system as further claimed.
Kaye shows:
From claim 19: a pressure reducing valve (23) configured to reduce pressure of hydrogen gas supplied by the supply system to a predetermined pressure [see abstract, FIG 2C, paragraph 0032, 0074]; and is capable of providing heat by burning hydrogen gas whose pressure has been reduced by the pressure reducing valve [paragraph 0040, 0055].
Conrad makes up for the deficiencies of Kaye by teaching:
{cl. 19, cont’d} and a cooking system [paragraph 0105], wherein the cooking system comprises: a first cooker (lower cooking surface) capable of heating and cooking by electric power supplied by the supply system [paragraph 0506]; and a second cooker (upper cooking surface) capable of heating and cooking by burning hydrogen gas whose pressure has been reduced by the pressure reducing valve [see FIG 14, paragraph 0483, 0498, 0501].
Conrad further teaches:
{cl. 20} The hydrogen cooking system according to claim 19, wherein the cooking system further comprises a storage (154) capable of housing the hydrogen module and the fuel cell module [see FIG 14, paragraph 0528].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kaye with the teachings of Conrad because Conrad provides use of a heater using hydrogen fuel that allows for cooking with two different methods efficiently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-18 are 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 limitations are not found in the prior art to be obvious or are allowable through
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
9/9/2026
Prosecution Insights