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 .
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 8, 12, and 13-15 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.
In claim 8, the phrase “such as” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the neural network or the artificial intelligence recitations are in fact limitations are merely non-limiting examples.
In claims 12 and 13, a use claim and a method claim in combination with claim 1’s apparatus renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is constructed then used.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected for their dependency from claim 13.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
For fee calculating purposes, Applicant's claim 9 was initially determined to be a dependent claim because of its reference to claim 1 (MPEP §608.01(n) II.). However, claim 9’s reference to claim 1 simply functions as a cross reference. The reference to claim 1 is not phrased so as the charging station of claim 1 further limits the aerodrome of claim 9. Instead, claim 9 is phrases as: claim 9 is drawn to a aerodrome that incorporates the limitations of claim 1.
While a dependent claim is required to make an express reference to a prior claim from which it depends (35 U.S.C. §112 (d)/4th paragraph), it does not follow that reference to another/prior claim indicates the claim is intended to be a dependent claim. Therefore, Applicant is required to cancel the claim, or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or rewrite, in unequivocal terms, the claim in independent form.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under the similar rationale as above.
Claims 14-15 are rejected for their dependency from rejected base claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0261010 to Pickles et al. (“Pickles”) in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0155108 to Martin et al. (“Martin”).
As to independent claim 1 and similarly recited claim 13, a charging station for electrical vehicles (¶ 0001, 0058. Pickles teaches a supply station configured to charge EVs, including electric cars and trucks.), the charging station comprising: a storage for (¶ 0032, 0034. Pickles teaches a hydrogen gas storage system 4.); a conversion unit for generating electrical energy with hydrogen from the storage (¶ 0032, 0033, 0043. Pickles teaches device 5, which receives hydrogen from hydrogen gas storage system 4 and converts that hydrogen into electrical power, including by use of a fuel cell.); a battery system for storing electrical energy generated by the conversion unit (¶ 0040, 0065. Pickles teaches the hydrogen derived electrical power from device 5/fuel cell is delivered to and used to charge or replenish storage battery system 2.); and at least one charging pile for charging an electrical vehicle with electrical energy from the battery system (¶ 0033, 0039, 0046, claim 12. Pickles teaches charger 6, which is connected to storage battery system 2 and charges an electric vehicle using electricity supplied from the storage battery system.).
The difference between Pickles and claim 1 is not the overall charging station architecture or the claimed intended energy flow; rather, the difference is Pickles stores hydrogen gas, while claim 1 requires storage of liquefied hydrogen.
Martin is directed to a charging station that uses locally stored hydrogen to generate electrical power for charging EVs (¶ 0006). Martin teaches liquid hydrogen storage is a known alternative to compressed hydrogen gas storage that is one of the commercially available forms of the very hydrogen storage container that supplies hydrogen to the charging station’s fuel cell system (¶ 0032).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSTIA to modify the hydrogen gas storage system of Pickles to store hydrogen in liquefied form, as taught by Martin. Such a modification amount to the predictable substitution of one known hydrogen storage form for another and would retain Pickles’s existing operation.
As to claim 3, the charging station of claim 1, wherein the conversion unit comprises at least one fuel cell (Pickles: ¶ 0043, claim 18).
As to claim 6 and similarly recited claim 15, the charging station of claim 1, further comprising an automated charging system for autonomous or semi-autonomous charging of an electrical vehicle (Martin: ¶ 0006, 0028-0030, 0039-0043. Martin teaches an automated or semi-autonomous charging system that receives a charging request, determines a route to the vehicle, moves the charging station to the vehicle, and enables transfers of charging current to the vehicle battery.).
As to claim 9, an aerodrome for electrical vehicles, the aerodrome comprising a charging station according to claim 1, wherein the electrical vehicles are electrical airplanes, electrical drones and/or electrical helicopters (Martin: ¶ 0010, 0020, 0030-0031. Martin teaches its charging system recharges electric drive vehicles, the vehicles include aircraft, its charging stations may be located at vehicle parking/servicing location, and the charging stations are “adapted for use with charging aircraft”.).
As to claim 10, a mooring location for electrical vehicles, the mooring location comprising a charging station according to claim 1, wherein the electrical vehicles are electrical vessels, electrical submersible drones, electrical submarines, electrical hovercrafts, and/or electrical seaplanes (Martin: ¶ 0010, 0031. Martin teaches electric drive vehicles, including watercraft, that may be docked at a dock and charging stations adapted for charging such watercraft.).
As to claim 12, use of a charging station of claim 1, for charging an electrical vehicle, wherein the electrical vehicle is an electrical car, an electrical bus, an electrical motorbike, an electrical truck, an electrical scooter, an electrical bicycle, an electrical airplane, an electrical drone, an electrical helicopter, an electrical vessel, an electrical submersible drone, an electrical submarine, an electrical hovercraft, or an electrical seaplane (Pickles: ¶ 0058, Martin: ¶ 0003).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickles in view of Martin and in further view of US Pub. No. 2020/0044427 to Aycock et al. (“Aycock”).
The combination of Pickles and Martin does not teach placing the hydrogen storage, conversion unit, and battery system below ground.
Aycock is directed to underground enclosure for various electronic equipment (¶ 0002). Aycock teaches an in-ground enclosure specifically adapted to house the same types of energy storage and energy conversion equipment recited in claim 2 (¶ 0099). Accordingly, Aycock teaches the known practice of placing below ground the same classes of components corresponding to the battery system, conversion unit, and hydrogen storage of Pickles as modified by Martin.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to place the hydrogen storage, conversion unit, and battery system of Pickles, as modified by Martin, in an in-ground enclosure as taught by Aycock, in order to reduce the above ground footprint of the charging station equipment and to protect the equipment while retaining access thereto for servicing.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickles in view of Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0039378 to Heyne et al. (“Heyne”).
Pickels in view of Martin teaches a storage battery system connected to a charger and an on-site storage battery system supplying charging power (Pickles: ¶ 0033, 0059, 0064-0067), but does not expressly teach the battery system comprises multiple batteries or that each charger is connected to at least two batteries.
Heyne is directed to a charging station for EVs (¶ 0002). Heyne teaches a charging station battery system having two separately identifiable battery strings electrically connected to the same charging connection (¶ 0023-0025). Under BRI, the two battery strings constitute multiple battery units of the battery system. Moreover, because Heyne’s claim 8 has a single charging connection, that charging connection is connected to both battery strings, thereby teaching the claimed arrangement in which each charging pile is connected to at least two batteries. Heyne also recognizes charging stations may include a plurality of charging points and that charging columns supply electrical energy to electric vehicles (¶ 0003-0005).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the storage battery system and charger arrangement of Pickles, as modified by Martin, to employ Heyne’s multiple battery string arrangement, with the charger electrically connected to at least two battery strings, in order to increase available battery storage capacity and provide a modular, expandable charging station architecture capably of supplying increased charging demand (e.g., Heyne: ¶ 0024, 0025).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickles in view of Martin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0225091 to Wheatley et al. (“Wheatley”).
Pickles in view of Martin does not teach the charging station itself comprises an auxiliary power source comprising an array of solar panels and/or one or more turbines.
Wheatley is directed to EV charging stations employing renewable energy sources (¶ 0001). Wheatly teaches an EV charging station having auxiliary renewable power sources comprising both a solar array formed from a plurality of solar panels and a wind turbine, with electrical energy generated by those auxiliary sources applied to the station’s storage battery for subsequent EV charging (¶ 0006, 0016-0022).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the charging station of Pickles, as modified by Martin, to additionally include Wheatley’s solar array and/or wind turbine as an auxiliary power source in order to supplement the electrical energy available to the charging station and its battery system with locally generated renewable energy.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickles in view of Martin as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0076902 to Gao et al. (“Gao”).
Pickles in view of Martin does not teach the charging connection itself is robotic and automatically couples the charging connection to the electrical vehicle.
Gao is directed to a robotically operated vehicle charging station for an EV (¶ 0002). Gao teaches a robotic charging connection comprising a controller-controlled robotic arm carrying an electrical charging end effector, wherein the controller automatically guides the end effector into coupled electrical engagement with the charging receptacle of an EV (¶ 0030, 0035-0037, 0041, 0045).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the automated charging station of Pickles in view of Martin to employ Gao’s controller-operated robotic charging connection in order to automate physical connection of the charging connector to the vehicle and thereby reduce or eliminate the need for a user to manually connect the vehicle to the charger.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickles in view of Martin as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0351783 to Goei (“Goei”).
Pickles in view of Martin does not teach the machine-readable instructions include a self-learning component or AI.
Goei is directed to a mobile EV charging system (¶ 0002). Goei teaches a computer-controlled EV charging system having a software-based controller modules supervised by AI controller that may itself be self-learning, with the AI controller cooperating with the EV charging controller to control vehicle charging protocols (¶ 0048, 0049, 0052).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the machine-readable automated charging system in the Pickles/Martin combination, to employ Goei’s AI/self-learning controller in order to improve automated decision making and adapt control of EV charging operations based on charging system and vehicle conditions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickles in view of Martin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/127887 to Shenzhen (“Shenzhen”).
Pickles in view of Martin teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, the combination, however, does not teach a production facility for producing and liquefying hydrogen and a transport vehicle for transporting liquefied hydrogen from the production facility to the charging station.
Shenzhen teach these additional limitations. Specifically, Shenzhen teaches hydrogen production station produces hydrogen ga, the hydrogen liquefier converts the gaseous hydrogen into liquid hydrogen, and the liquid hydrogen storage tank stores and transports the resulting liquid hydrogen (Abstract, ¶ 0039), and a long-tube trailer is used to transport the liquid hydrogen from the hydrogen production station to a remotely located charging station (¶ 0018, 0037, 0039).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSTIA to supply the liquid hydrogen of Pickles/Martin’s charging station using the production, liquefaction, and trailer delivery arrangement taught by Shenzhen to permit convenient replenishment of liquid hydrogen while reducing the size and equipment requirements at the charging station site.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickles in view of Martin as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0176135.
Pickles in view of Martin does not teach boiling-off hydrogen gas to the fuel cell for conversion into electrical energy.
Saito teaches these limitations. Specifically, Saito teaches a source of liquid hydrogen providing gaseous hydrogen in response to absorption of heat, a fluid connection between the gaseous hydrogen and the anodes of a fuel cell stack, and operation of the fuel cell to produce electric power in response to hydrogen gas boiling off from said source of liquid hydrogen (claim 1). Saito further teaches that liquid hydrogen naturally boils during periods of non-use and that, rather than purging the resulting boil-off hydrogen to ambient, the boil-off hydrogen is supplied to the fuel cell to generate electrical power (¶ 0002, 0006, 0008, clam 1.).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the liquid hydrogen storage and fuel cell arrangement of Pickles in view of Martin to utilize Saito’s known boil-off technique, by feeding hydrogen gas boiling off from the liquid hydrogen storage to the fuel cell for electrical generation, in order to reduce fuel loss and address safety concerns associated with releasing hydrogen to the environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046, and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email (suresh.memula@uspto.gov) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang, can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SURESH MEMULA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights