DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 is: “communication module” in the claims.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “monitor a state of the
hydrogen refueling station based on the obtained sensing data by calculating, for each of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted, a risk degree based on the identification information and the measured values, and calculating a safety reliability of the hydrogen refueling station based on a quotient of : a sum of the risk degree of each of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted and a number of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted,” and “risk degree of any one of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted exceeding a preset threshold,” are abstract ideas, as they involve a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. To explain further, the generically recited claims under the BRI, there is nothing to suggest that monitoring cannot be done mentally and quotient and sum are mathematical concept. Furthermore, the dependent claim 8 is an abstract idea, as it recites usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, the claims additionally recite “a monitoring system for a hydrogen refueling station, the monitoring system comprising: an Internet of things (IoT) sensor mounted on each of components of the hydrogen refueling station and configured to generate sensing data by measuring preset monitoring elements,” “an analysis server configured to obtain the sensing data,” “computing device,” and “one or more processors, a memory,” are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, and recitation of general-purpose computer for monitoring and analyzing the collected sensor data. The claims also recite “generate an alarm that is sent, via the communication module, to a present administrator based on the risk degree of any one of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted exceeding a preset threshold,” but said limitation is merely an extra-solution activity that is insignificant. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of monitoring the hydrogen refueling station. However, the improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract idea and not eligible under the 101. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “a monitoring system for a hydrogen refueling station, the monitoring system comprising: an Internet of things (IoT) sensor mounted on each of components of the hydrogen refueling station and configured to generate sensing data by measuring preset monitoring elements,” “an analysis server configured to obtain the sensing data,” “computing device,” and “one or more processors, a memory,” are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, and recitation of general-purpose computer for monitoring and analyzing the collected sensor data, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “generate an alarm that is sent, via the communication module, to a present administrator based on the risk degree of any one of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted exceeding a preset threshold,” but said limitation is merely an extra-solution activity that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-11 and 14-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1. The prior arts do not teach or suggest a combination, including an Internet of things (IoT) sensor mounted on each of the components of the hydrogen refueling station and configured to generate sensing data by measuring preset monitoring elements, monitor a state of the hydrogen refueling station based on the obtained sensing data by calculating, for each of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted, a risk degree based on the identification information and the measured values, and calculating a safety reliability of the hydrogen refueling station based on a quotient of : a sum of the risk degree of each of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted and a number of the components of the hydrogen refueling station on which the IoT sensor is mounted.
Similar reasons also apply to other independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" may obtain a patent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the focus of the claimed invention is in “calculating the safety reliability of the hydrogen refueling station and evaluating if the risk degree exceeds preset threshold”, an abstract idea, as it recites a combination of mental process (such as evaluating if the risk degree exceeds a preset threshold) and usage of mathematical concept (such as summing, quotient).
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “calculating the safety reliability of the hydrogen refueling station and evaluating if the risk degree exceeds preset threshold” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101 on its own.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “calculating the safety reliability of the hydrogen refueling station and evaluating if the risk degree exceeds preset threshold” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
various limitations as identified and discussed above,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, and recitation of a general-purpose computer and memory for processing the collected data and storing the resulting processed data and sending alarm to administrator, recited at high level of generality, that are all also well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional sensor, communication module and general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information and transmission of data (unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation).
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with the various sensor, processor and communication module, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said sensors and processing device, etc as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “calculating the safety reliability of the hydrogen refueling station and evaluating if the risk degree exceeds preset threshold”, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those sensors and processing device, etc as tools to determine the safety reliability and degree of risk.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology under the practical application criteria. At most, the claimed invention is an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the safety reliability and degree of risk. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract idea. The fact that the additional elements are recited at high level of generality (such as reciting generic sensor and communication module) are additional evidence that they are insignificant additional elements.
Furthermore, limiting the claims to the technological environment of hydrogen refueling station, without the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application or without the additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract ideas (Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post-solution components did not make the concept patentable” Bilski v. Kappos, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (U.S. 2010).
Finally, Applicant’s discussion of CardioNet is not persuasive. Foremost, it is a non-precedential decision. The claims in CardioNet also have different fact patterns (directed to improved heart monitoring) from the claims in the instant application (directed to monitoring risk in hydrogen refueling station). Furthermore, the Court did not find any application to be practical (in fact, the phrase “practical application” does not even appear anywhere). Finally, and most importantly, the court found the claims ineligible under the 101.
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “calculating the safety reliability of the hydrogen refueling station and evaluating if the risk degree exceeds preset threshold”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights