CTNF 18/597,017 CTNF 96876 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control unit in claims 1-4. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as comprising, a computer that includes a CPU which is a processor and a memory in which control programs and control data are stored (Applicant Specification Publication [0031-0032]) and its equivalents. The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since: (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder, (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “control”), and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-4 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 re claim 2 , the phrases "receive input of output of a power plant" “and of temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the phrase means or how to interpret the claim with respect to the remaining recitation of claim 1. For purposes of examination: as best understood by the Examiner, this phrase/term is interpreted as wherein the control unit is configured to receive input or output of a power plant to which the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer is supplied, and a temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer Claims 3-4 are rejected at least by virtue of its dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (JP2004316779A) in view of Prittinen (WO2019179594A1) . In re Claim 1, Shimada discloses a hydrogen supply device (See Fig. 1) comprising: a heater (10) that heats a heating medium ([0011]: water is heated by 10) ; a vaporizer (5) that vaporizes liquid hydrogen (11) into hydrogen gas (See [0011-0012]: vaporization of the liquid hydrogen) using the heating medium that is heated (12) ; a circulation flow path (at least 12, 13, 14) that circulates the heating medium (water) between the heater (10) and the vaporizer (5) . However, Shimada does not explicitly teach, a bypass flow path connected to the circulation flow path so as to bypass the heater; a switching valve that switches flow paths between a first flow path in which the heating medium flows through the heater and does not flow through the bypass flow path, and a second flow path in which the heating medium flows through the bypass flow path and does not flow through the heater; and a control unit that adjusts operation of the switching valve, wherein the control unit is configured to switch a flow path of the heating medium to the first flow path by the switching valve when a temperature of the heating medium flowing into the vaporizer is lower than a set temperature, and switch the flow path of the heating medium to the second flow path by the switching valve when the temperature of the heating medium flowing into the vaporizer is no lower than the set temperature. On the other hand, Prittinen teaches (Fig. 1) a bypass flow path (35) connected to the circulation flow path (30) so as to bypass the heater (32) ; a switching valve (52) that switches flow paths between a first flow path (path through 32) in which the heating medium ([0037]) flows through the heater (32 corresponding to Shimada 10) and does not flow through the bypass flow path (35) , and a second flow path (40) in which the heating medium flows through the bypass flow path (35) and does not flow through the heater (32) ; and a control unit (50) that adjusts operation ([0035]: The three way control valve 52 controls the heat power transferred in the fourth heat exchanger to the heat transfer medium. The operation of the control valve 52 is controlled based on the measurement data of the third temperature probe 50) of the switching valve (52) . wherein the control unit (50) is configured to switch a flow path of the heating medium to the first flow path (path through 32) by the switching valve (52) when a temperature of the heating medium () flowing into the vaporizer (24 corresponding to Shimada 5) is lower than a set temperature ([0035]) , and switch the flow path of the heating medium to the second flow path (40) by the switching valve (52) when the temperature of the heating medium flowing into the vaporizer (24 corresponding to Shimada 5) is no lower than the set temperature ([0035]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Shimada and to have modified them by having a bypass flow path connected to the circulation flow path of Shimada so as to bypass the heater of Shimada as taught by Prittinen; a switching valve that switches flow paths between a first flow path in which the heating medium flows through the heater of Shimada and does not flow through the bypass flow path, and a second flow path in which the heating medium flows through the bypass flow path and does not flow through the heater of Shimada as taught by Prittinen; and a control unit that adjusts operation of the switching valve, wherein the control unit is configured to switch a flow path of the heating medium to the first flow path by the switching valve when a temperature of the heating medium flowing into the vaporizer is lower than a set temperature, and switch the flow path of the heating medium to the second flow path by the switching valve when the temperature of the heating medium flowing into the vaporizer is no lower than the set temperature as taught by Prittinen, in order to control the flow proportion of heat transfer medium via the heat exchanger and via the by-pass conduit (See Prittinen [0035]) without yielding unpredictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (JP2004316779A) as modified by Prittinen (WO2019179594A1) further in view of Sainflou et al (FR 2917821 A1) . In re Claim 2, Modified Shimada does not explicitly teach, wherein the control unit is configured to receive input of output of a power plant to which the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer is supplied, and of temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer, and calculate the set temperature based on the temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer, and the output of the power plant. On the other hand, Sainflou teaches wherein the control unit (9) is configured to receive input of a power plant (R,Ha, Hb) to which the gas (L) flowing out from the vaporizer is supplied (the air temperature T2 in the supply line after passage through the heat exchanger L ) , and of temperature of the gas flowing out from the vaporizer (T2) , and calculate the set temperature based on the temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer (T2) , and the output of the power plant (T3) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Shimada and to have modified them by wherein the control unit is configured to receive input of a power plant to which the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer of modified Shimada is supplied, and of temperature of the hydrogen gas of modified Shimada flowing out from the vaporizer of Shimada, and calculate the set temperature based on the temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer of modified Shimada as taught by Sainflou, and the output of the power plant as taught by Sainflou, in order to in order to allow the control of the various regulation means (See Sainflou Page ¶2) , without yielding unpredictable results. In re Claim 3, Modified Shimada teaches wherein the control unit (9) is configured to calculate a base set temperature based on the temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer (Sainflou Page 10¶2: control logic 9 which can modify the setting of the control means, provides a precise control of the temperature T2) , calculate a set temperature correction value based on the output of the power plant (Sainflou Page 10¶3: provides a rise in temperature of the battery during starts in freezing conditions due to the use of the heating means 7 for heating the inner compartment R for heat regulation of the fuel cell) , and set a sum of the base set temperature and the set temperature correction value as the set temperature (Sainflou Page 10¶3: allows the use of the heat released by the battery to heat the intake air when the temperature rise T1 of air in the compressor A is not sufficient, which occurs in the case Low speed by room temperature; See also Prittinen [0035]: second branch point 40 by means of which the temperature of the mixture of the heat transfer medium flows from the main circuit section 30' and the auxiliary circuit section 30" is measured. This way the mixing temperature of the returning flows combined in the second branch point 40 is taken into account and used as a variable for controlling the power of the fourth heat exchanger) . In re Claim 4, Modified Shimada teaches wherein the control unit (9) is configured to calculate the base set temperature (original T2) such that the base set temperature (original T2) becomes lower as the temperature of the hydrogen gas flowing out from the vaporizer (T2) rises, and calculate the set temperature correction value such that the set temperature correction value increases as the output of the power plant increases (Sainflou Page 10¶3: provides a rise in temperature of the battery during starts in freezing conditions due to the use of the heating means 7 for heating the inner compartment R for heat regulation of the fuel cell) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM. 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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. /IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 2 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 3 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 4 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 5 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 6 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 7 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 8 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 9 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 10 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 11 Art Unit: 3763 Application/Control Number: 18/597,017 Page 12 Art Unit: 3763
Prosecution Insights