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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2025 have been fully. Applicant argues that prior art Li does not teach “pressure reducer, said gas filter and said overpressure safety valve being mutually separate internal components.” However, as seen in Li Fig. 2, the pressure reducer (3/4), gas filter (2) and overpressure safety valve (7) are separate components, as evidenced by their separate reference numerals. Therefore, the pressure reducer, gas filter and overpressure safety valve are mutually separate internal components.
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.
Claims 20–21 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 20, Line 3, “to at least one of.” This language does not make sense.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15, 17, 19–21 and 27–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schule (US PGPub 20090055077 A1) in view of Li (CN 206816874 U).
Regarding Claim 15, Schule discloses a fuel system for installation in a hydrogen-powered vehicle and for one or more hydrogen pressure tanks (2) configured for a high-pressure level of at least 200 bar (Para. 22), the fuel system comprising: a connection for an input line (3); a connection for an output line (5); internal components including at least a pressure reducer (42), a shut-off valve (41), a vent valve (49) and a pressure sensor (44); said pressure reducer (42) configured to reduce a pressure of hydrogen from a pressure tank (2) being at a high-pressure level to a medium pressure level of between 3 bar and 30 bar (Para. 22); gas lines interconnecting said internal components (Fig. 1); and an integral and self-supporting unit (Para. 23), said internal components and said gas lines being disposed in said integral and self-supporting unit (Fig. 1). Schule does not disclose a gas filter, an overpressure safety valve or the pressure reducer having two stages.
Li teaches a filter (2) used in order to prevent unwanted particles from entering the system (Para. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet line of Schule with a filter as taught by Li in order to prevent particles from entering the system which results in wear on the valve.
Per the Schule–Li combination, Li’s filter 21 is located on Schule’s inlet line 3.
Li teaches an overpressure safety valve (7) used in order to release the pressure in the system (Para. 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the line of Schule with an overpressure safety valve as taught by Li in order to over–pressurization that causes damage to the system.
Li teaches pressure reducer (3/4) with a second stage (See Fig. 2 which shows that the valves are combined in the same housing) in order to ensure that the output pressure is the desired pressure (Para. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure reducer of Schule with a two-stage pressure reducer as taught by Li in order to ensure that the output pressure is the desired pressure. This is accomplished by including an intermediate stage that is capable of venting and further decreasing the pressure, in the event there is excessive pressure.
Per the Schule–Li combination Li’s pressure reducer replaces Schule’s pressure reducer 42.
The Schule–Li combination teaches having a first stage reducing the pressure from said pressure tank (Schule 2) to an intermediate level (Li Para. 24, where the intermediate level is the gas that flows out of the first stage pressure reducer, before the gas enters the second stage) of between 40 and 80 bar (Schule Para. 22, where the pressure ranges on a high end of 200 bar to 100 bar and on a low end of 3-15 bar. It is inherent that range of 40 bar and 80 bar must occur in order to decrease the pressure to the lowest possible level) and a second stage further reducing the pressure to the medium pressure level (Li Para. 24, where second stage reduces the pressure to the target pressure); and said integral and self-supporting unit (Schule Para. 23), and said pressure reducer (Li 3/4), said gas filter (Li 2) and said overpressure safety valve (Li 7) being mutually separate internal components (Li Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, the Schule–Li combination teaches said integral and self-supporting unit includes a tank nozzle (Li 11).
Regarding Claim 19, the Schule–Li combination teaches said pressure sensor is one of a plurality of sensors (Li 8), an electronic tank control unit is fastened to and supported by said integral and self-supporting unit and said tank control unit is configured for receiving and for processing signals from said plurality of sensors for generating one or more output signals (Li Para. 48).
Regarding Claim 20, the Schule–Li combination teaches tank control unit is configured receive a pressure sensor signal from each of the pressure tanks (Li Para. 48).
Regarding Claim 21, the Schule–Li combination teaches said tank control unit is configured to at least one of communicate with a hydrogen fueling station or control a fueling process (Li Para. 48).
Regarding Claim 27, the Schule–Li combination teaches the internal components, input line (Schule 3) to said connection for said output line (Schule 5) in a throughflow direction as follows: said gas filter (Li 2), said pressure reducer (Li 3/4), said vent valve (Schule 49), said safety valve (Li 7) and said shut-off valve (Schule 41), but does not explicitly teach these internal components in this configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to order the internal parts in the sequence “gas filter, said pressure reducer, said vent valve, said safety valve and said shut-off valve,” since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). In this case the Schule–Li combination teaches a configuration that accomplishes the same purpose as Applicant’s invention which is to provide a separate apparatus that can safely contain and disperse hydrogen gas at high pressures.
Regarding Claim 28, the Schule–Li combination teaches said integral and self-supporting unit is formed of a plurality of sub-units being fastened to one another to form a self-supporting unit (Li Fig. 1, where the components are threaded into a block).
Regarding Claim 29, the Schule–Li combination teaches said integral and self-supporting unit includes a sub-unit having a housing (Li Fig. 1), and at least said pressure reducer, said pressure sensor, said vent valve, said overpressure safety valve and said shut-off valve are disposed in said housing.
Regarding Claim 30, the Schule–Li combination teaches said housing is formed of a cast aluminum material (Li Para. 35).
Regarding Claim 31, the Schule–Li combination teaches said integral and self-supporting unit has fastenings configured to fasten the fuel system to a supporting structure fastening the pressure tanks in the vehicle (Li Para. 41, where it is inherent that the unit is attached to the car).
Claim(s) 16 and 22–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schule (US PGPub 20090055077 A1) in view of Li (CN 206816874 U), in further view of Chen et al. (CN 116818018 A).
Regarding Claim 16, the Schule–Li combination does not explicitly teach a plurality of tank nor a non-return valve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize additional tanks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Here, a vehicle may be designed to require multiple tanks. Additionally, incorporation of more tanks would require the necessary connections to ensure the system works as intended.
Therefore, the Schule–Li combination teaches a plurality of tank lines leading out of said integral and self-supporting unit, a distribution system leading to said plurality of tank lines, and connections provided for each of the hydrogen pressure tanks.
Chen teaches internal components including a non-return valve (64, and as seen in Fig. 3) in order to prevent back–flow (Para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the integral and self-supporting unit of the Schule–Li combination with a non-return valve as taught by Chen in order to prevent back–flow.
Regarding Claims 22 and 26, the Schule–Li combination does not explicitly teach the internal components including a temperature sensor and a hydrogen-purity sensor.
Chen teaches the inclusion of a temperature (5), a pressure sensor (4) and a hydrogen-purity sensor (3) within the internal components, in order to ensure the safety of the system by detecting the conditions within the internal components (Para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the integral and self-supporting unit of the Schule–Li combination with a temperature, a pressure sensor and a hydrogen-purity sensor as taught by Chen in order to ensure the safety of the system by detecting the conditions within the internal components.
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, the Schule–Li–Chen combination teaches said internal components include one pressure sensor and one temperature sensor each disposed upstream of said pressure reducer as internal sensors (Li Para. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal components to have one configuration of including only a single pressure sensor and a single temperature sensor as part of the internal components or a second configuration of adding additional pressure sensors and additional temperature sensors as part of the internal components. It has been held that “choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Here, there are only two options when installing sensors, either including a single sensor or including multiple sensors.
Regarding Claim 25, the Schule–Li–Zahn combination teaches one of said pressure sensors (Schule 44) and one of said temperature sensors (Schule 43) are disposed upstream of said pressure reducer (Li 3/4), and another of said pressure sensors (Schule 46) and another of said temperature sensors (Schule 45) are disposed downstream of said pressure reducer (Schule Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitation “comprises a cooling device disposed on said pressure reducer” is the language that makes claim 18 allowable.
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 Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753