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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the orifice in claim 1, plurality of the sonic choke connected in parallel in claim 2 and a plurality of storage bank valves must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-4, “up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke enables higher hydrogen density and lower linear velocity as hydrogen flows” should be amended to -- up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower linear velocity as hydrogen flows --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-4, “up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows” should be amended to -- up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-4, “up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows” should be amended to -- up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-4, “up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows” should be amended to -- up to 90% pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 11-12, “a vehicle storage system” should be amended to – the vehicle storage system --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 6-8 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 2 recites the limitation "further comprising a plurality of the sonic choke" in lines 1-2. Paragraph [00019] of the Specification, submitted 7 March 2024, states that the plurality of sonic chokes are the first, second and third sonic chokes. Also, Paragraph [00019] states that the compressed hydrogen vehicle refueling system may contain additional sonic chokes connected in parallel. The limitation is unclear if there is a typographical error in which the plurality of sonic choke in claim 2 is the additional sonic chokes or if is referring to the plurality of sonic chokes seen in claim 1. The Office recommends adding additional limitations to make the claim better understandable. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as additional sonic chokes.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the sonic choke" in line 1 in line 2. The limitation is unclear if it is part of the plurality of sonic chokes seen in claim 1 or if it is the embodiment seen Paragraph [00026] that only has one sonic choke in the entire compressed hydrogen fueling system. The Office recommends adding additional limitations with support from the Specification to make the claim better understandable. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be considered as part of the plurality of sonic chokes seen in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a plurality of sonic chokes” in line 5-6. The limitation is unclear if the plurality of sonic chokes in claim 6 are the same sonic chokes as seen in claim 1 or if it is additional sonic chokes within the system. The Office recommends adding additional limitations with support from the Specification to make the claim better understandable. For purpose of examination, the limitation will be considered as the same plurality of sonic chokes seen in claim 1.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 contains the limitation “a plurality of the sonic choke connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at desired flow rates”. Claim 2 does not further limit claim 1 as the plurality of sonic chokes, plurality of hydrogen storage banks, and the desired flow rates are found in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 contains limitations requiring the sonic choke connected in parallel with the hydrogen storage banks and a plurality of storage bank valves provide a flow of compressed gas to a plurality of sonic chokes. Claim 6 does not further limit claim 1 as the limitations of claim 6 are found in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 5597020 A) in view of Fukunaga (US 20210003256 A1) in further view of Egan (US 20060263283 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Miller discloses a gas dispensing system, comprising:
a sonic choke (52, Figure 1, the sonic nozzle is the sonic choke) having an orifice (442, Figure 2, the orifice is the inlet section) defined in a generally cylindrical body (Figure 2, the sonic choke has a generally cylindrical body), wherein an end of the body defines a frustoconical portion (Figure 2, the end of the body has a diverging section (444) which is the frustoconical portion);
a plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) connected in parallel with a hydrogen inlet (114, Figure 5 and Column 18, Lines 29-31, the input line is the hydrogen inlet) and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at desired flow rates (Column 6, Lines 1-4 and Column 8, Lines 61-66, the vehicle is provided with hydrogen gas at a desired flow rate).
Miller does not disclose:
A compressed hydrogen vehicle fueling system, comprising:
a plurality of sonic chokes connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at desired flow rates;
a plurality of storage bank valves configured to provide a flow of compressed hydrogen from the plurality of hydrogen storage banks to the plurality of sonic chokes; and
a plurality of flow control valves configured to direct the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of sonic chokes.
Fukunaga discloses a compressed hydrogen vehicle fueling system (500, Figure 1, the fuel supply system is the compressed hydrogen vehicle fueling system), comprising:
a plurality of orifices (35a and 35b, Figure 1) connected in parallel (Figure 1, the orifices are connected in parallel) with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle (200, Figure 1) at desired flow rates (Paragraph [0053], the flow rate is at a desired flow rate dependent on which orifice it goes through);
a plurality of storage bank valves (22, 24, and 26, Figure 1) configured to provide a flow of compressed hydrogen from the plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) to the plurality of orifices (35a and 35b, Figure 1); and
a plurality of flow control valves (34a and 34b, Figure 1, the valves are the flow control valves) configured to direct the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of orifices (Paragraph [0040], the valves direct the flow of hydrogen to the plurality of orifices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller to include a compressed hydrogen vehicle fueling system, a plurality of orifices connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at desired flow rates, a plurality of storage bank valves configured to provide a flow of compressed hydrogen from the plurality of hydrogen storage banks to the plurality of orifices, and a plurality of flow control valves configured to direct the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of orifices as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to reduce potential leaks in the system that could release to the environment and lengthen refueling times.
Miller and Fukunaga do not expressly teach:
a plurality of sonic chokes configured to provide compressed hydrogen at desired flow rates.
Egan teaches a gas blending and compressing system, comprising:
a plurality of sonic chokes (18, Figure 1, the chocking device is the sonic choke) configured to provide compressed hydrogen at desired flow rates (Paragraph [0038], the flow rate can be set to a desired flow rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Fukunaga to include a plurality of sonic chokes configured to provide compressed hydrogen at desired flow rates as taught by Egan with the motivation to control the rate to the amount that is required for dispensing to meet multiple parameters.
Through the combination of Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan, the orifices in Fukunaga would be replaced by the sonic chokes of Miller that will have the desired flow rates as seen in Egan.
Regarding Claim 2:
Miller discloses:
The plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5).
Miller does not disclose:
further comprising a plurality of the sonic choke connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at desired flow rates.
Egan teaches:
The plurality of sonic chokes (18, Figure 1) has desired flow rates (Paragraph [0038]).
Miller and Egan do not teach:
further comprising a plurality of the sonic choke connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at desired flow rates.
Fukunaga teaches:
a plurality of orifices (35a and 35b, Figure 1) connected in parallel (Figure 1, the orifices are connected in parallel) with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle (200, Figure 1) at desired flow rates (Paragraph [0053], the flow rate is at a desired flow rate dependent on which orifice it goes through).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Egan to include a plurality of orifices connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at desired flow rates as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to send gas through one or both the orifices to achieve a desired flow rate during fueling.
Miller, Egan and Fukunaga discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of the sonic choke. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an additional plurality of sonic choke in addition to the sonic chokes taught by Miller, Egan and Fukunaga, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 6:
Miller discloses:
the sonic choke (52, Figure 1) configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at a desired flow rate Column 6, Lines 1-4 and Column 8, Lines 61-66, the vehicle is provided with hydrogen gas at a desired flow rate; and
a flow of compressed hydrogen (114, Figure 5) to a plurality of sonic chokes.
Miller does not disclose:
the sonic choke connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at a desired flow rate; and
a plurality of storage bank valves configured to provide a flow of compressed hydrogen from the plurality of hydrogen storage banks to a plurality of sonic chokes.
Egan teaches:
The plurality of sonic chokes (18, Figure 1) has desired flow rates (Paragraph [0038]).
Miller and Egan do not teach:
the sonic choke connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at a desired flow rate; and
a plurality of storage bank valves configured to provide a flow of compressed hydrogen from the plurality of hydrogen storage banks to a plurality of sonic chokes.
Fukunaga teaches:
the orifice (35a, Figure 1) connected in parallel (Figure 1, the orifice is connected in parallel with the storage banks) with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle (200, Figure 1) at a desired flow rate (Paragraph [0053], the flow rate is at a desired flow rate dependent on which orifice it goes through); and
a plurality of storage bank valves (22, 24, and 26, Figure 1) configured to provide a flow of compressed hydrogen from the plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) to a plurality of orifices (35a and 35b, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Egan to include the orifice connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks and configured to provide compressed hydrogen to a vehicle at a desired flow rate and a plurality of storage bank valves configured to provide a flow of compressed hydrogen from the plurality of hydrogen storage banks to a plurality of orifices as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to send gas through one or both the orifices to achieve a desired flow rate during fueling.
Regarding Claim 10:
Miller discloses a gas dispensing system, comprising:
a plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 1, the sonic nozzle is the sonic choke); and
directing the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 1) to regulate a flowrate of hydrogen to a vehicle storage system (Column 6, Lines 1-4 and Column 8, Lines 61-66, the vehicle is provided with hydrogen gas at a desired flow rate).
Miller does not disclose:
A method of fueling a vehicle with a compressed hydrogen, comprising:
providing a flow of compressed hydrogen from a plurality of hydrogen storage banks to a plurality of sonic chokes connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks using a plurality of storage bank valves; and
directing the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of sonic chokes to regulate a flowrate of hydrogen to a vehicle storage system.
Fukunaga teaches a method of fueling a vehicle (200, Figure 1) with a compressed hydrogen, comprising:
providing a flow of compressed hydrogen (Paragraph [0075]) from a plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) to a plurality of orifices (35a and 35b, Figure 1) connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) using a plurality of storage bank valves (22, 24, and 26, Figure 1); and
directing the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of orifices to regulate a flowrate of hydrogen (Paragraphs [0040] and [0075-0078], the valves direct the flow of hydrogen to the plurality of orifices which regulates the flow rate) to a vehicle storage system (202, Figure 1, the fuel tank is the vehicle storage system).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller to include providing a flow of compressed hydrogen from a plurality of hydrogen storage banks to a plurality of orifices connected in parallel with a plurality of hydrogen storage banks using a plurality of storage bank valves and directing the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of orifices to regulate a flowrate of hydrogen to a vehicle storage system as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to reduce potential leaks in the system that could release to the environment and lengthen refueling times.
Miller and Fukunaga do not teach:
directing the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of sonic chokes to regulate a flowrate of hydrogen to a vehicle storage system.
Egan teaches a gas blending and compressing system, comprising:
directing the flow of compressed hydrogen and natural gas (Paragraph [0042], the valves direct the flow of compressed hydrogen and natural gas) to the plurality of sonic chokes (18, Figure 1, the chocking device is the sonic choke) to regulate a flowrate of hydrogen (Paragraph [0038], the flow rate can be set to a desired flow rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Fukunaga to include directing the flow of compressed hydrogen to the plurality of sonic chokes to regulate a flowrate of hydrogen as taught by Egan with the motivation to control the rate to the amount that is required for dispensing to meet multiple parameters.
Through the combination of Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan, the orifices in Fukunaga would be replaced by the sonic chokes of Miller that will have the regulated flow rates as seen in Egan.
Claims 3, 17, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Fukunaga in further view of Egan, Cohen (US 8418732 B2) and Fox Venturi Products (See: https://web.archive.org/web/20240901201618/https://www.foxvalve.com/venturi-flow-controls/sonic-choke).
Regarding Claim 3:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) and a fueling hose assembly (28 and 48, Figure 5, the dispensing hose and hose couplers are the fueling hose assembly).
Miller and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower linear velocity as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into the vehicle.
Fukunaga teaches:
as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components (Paragraph [0040], the dispenser components are the components after the orifices within the dispenser (30)) and into the vehicle (200, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Egan to as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and into the vehicle as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to filter and control the flow of hydrogen to the vehicle.
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower linear velocity as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into the vehicle.
Cohen teaches blending compressed gases, comprising:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke (130 and 138, Figure 1, the critical flow venturi is the sonic choke) as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower linear velocity as hydrogen flows (Column 5, Lines 66-67 to Column 6, Lines 1-5, the density increases and the gas velocity is choked).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower linear velocity as hydrogen flows as taught by Cohen with the motivation to control the mass flow rate of the gas while having some pressure recovery.
Miller, Fukunaga, Cohen, and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke.
Fox Venturi Products teaches a sonic choke and critical flow venturi, comprising:
wherein use of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke (Paragraph after the Question: How does a Pressure Drop or
∆
P
Affect Flow? It Doesn’t, the sonic choke provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, Cohen, and Fukunaga to include use of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke as taught by Fox Venturi Products with the motivation to motivation to deliver stable, uniform, and unchanging gas flow rates.
Miller, Egan, Cohen, and Fox Venturi Products each teach the sonic choke and through the combination of prior art references, the plurality of sonic chokes would provide the same benefits as seen in claim 3 as the result of the sonic chokes containing similar structures.
Regarding Claim 7:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) and a fueling hose assembly (28 and 48, Figure 5, the dispensing hose and hose couplers are the fueling hose assembly).
Miller and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into the vehicle.
Fukunaga teaches:
as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components (Paragraph [0040], the dispenser components are the components after the orifices within the dispenser (30)) and into the vehicle (200, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Egan to as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and into the vehicle as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to filter and control the flow of hydrogen to the vehicle.
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into the vehicle.
Cohen teaches blending compressed gases, comprising:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke (130 and 138, Figure 1, the critical flow venturi is the sonic choke) as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows (Column 5, Lines 66-67 to Column 6, Lines 1-5, the density increases and the gas velocity is choked).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows as taught by Cohen with the motivation to control the mass flow rate of the gas while having some pressure recovery.
Miller, Fukunaga, Cohen, and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke.
Fox Venturi Products teaches a sonic choke and critical flow venturi, comprising:
wherein use of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke (Paragraph after the Question: How does a Pressure Drop or
∆
P
Affect Flow? It Doesn’t, the sonic choke provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, Cohen, and Fukunaga to include use of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke as taught by Fox Venturi Products with the motivation to deliver stable, uniform, and unchanging gas flow rates.
Miller, Egan, Cohen, and Fox Venturi Products each teach the sonic choke and through the combination of prior art references, the plurality of sonic chokes would provide the same benefits as seen in claim 7 as the result of the sonic chokes containing similar structures.
Regarding Claim 13:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) and a fueling hose assembly (28 and 48, Figure 5, the dispensing hose and hose couplers are the fueling hose assembly).
Miller and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into the vehicle storage system.
Fukunaga teaches:
as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components (Paragraph [0040], the dispenser components are the components after the orifices within the dispenser (30)) and into the vehicle storage system (202, Figure 1, the fuel tank is the vehicle storage system).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Egan to as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and into the vehicle as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to filter and control the flow of hydrogen to the vehicle.
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into the vehicle storage system.
Cohen teaches blending compressed gases, comprising:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke (130 and 138, Figure 1, the critical flow venturi is the sonic choke) as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows (Column 5, Lines 66-67 to Column 6, Lines 1-5, the density increases and the gas velocity is choked).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as hydrogen flows as taught by Cohen with the motivation to control the mass flow rate of the gas while having some pressure recovery.
Miller, Fukunaga, Cohen, and Egan do not teach:
wherein use of the plurality of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke.
Fox Venturi Products teaches a sonic choke and critical flow venturi, comprising:
wherein use of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke (Paragraph after the Question: How does a Pressure Drop or
∆
P
Affect Flow? It Doesn’t, the sonic choke provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, Cohen, and Fukunaga to include use of the sonic choke as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the sonic choke as taught by Fox Venturi Products with the motivation to deliver stable, uniform, and unchanging gas flow rates.
Miller, Egan, Cohen, and Fox Venturi Products each teach the sonic choke and through the combination of prior art references, the plurality of sonic chokes would provide the same benefits as seen in claim 13 as the result of the sonic chokes containing similar structures.
Claims 4, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Fukunaga in further view of Egan and Montgomery (US 20220196323 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) controls the flow of hydrogen (Column 8, Lines 22-31) for hydrogen vehicle refueling (Column 6, Lines 1-4).
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein the plurality of the sonic chokes controls the flow of hydrogen minimizing heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss, thereby resulting in reduced cooling costs associated with hydrogen vehicle fueling.
Montgomery teaches a cryogenic containment system, comprising:
wherein the nozzle controls the flow of hydrogen minimizing heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss, thereby resulting in reduced cooling costs (Paragraph [0044], the nozzle allows for the cooling of hydrogen gas while removing latent heat).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include the nozzle controls the flow of hydrogen minimizing heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss, thereby resulting in reduced cooling costs as taught by Montgomery with the motivation to bring the hydrogen to a desired pressure.
Miller, Egan, and Montgomery each teach the sonic choke and through the combination of prior art references the plurality of sonic chokes would provide the same benefit of reduced cooling costs associated with hydrogen fueling as seen in claim 4 as the result of the sonic chokes containing similar structures.
Regarding Claim 8:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) controls the flow of hydrogen (Column 8, Lines 22-31) for hydrogen vehicle refueling (Column 6, Lines 1-4).
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein the sonic choke controls the flow of hydrogen, thereby minimizing heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss and resulting in reduced cooling costs associated with hydrogen vehicle fueling.
Montgomery teaches a cryogenic containment system, comprising:
wherein the nozzle controls the flow of hydrogen, thereby minimizing heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss and resulting in reduced cooling costs (Paragraph [0044], the nozzle allows for the cooling of hydrogen gas while removing latent heat).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include the nozzle controls the flow of hydrogen, thereby minimizing heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss and resulting in reduced cooling costs as taught by Montgomery with the motivation to bring the hydrogen to a desired pressure.
Miller, Egan, and Montgomery each teach the sonic choke and through the combination of prior art references the plurality of sonic chokes would provide the same benefit of reduced cooling costs associated with hydrogen fueling as seen in claim 8 as the result of the sonic chokes containing similar structures.
Regarding Claim 14:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) controls the flow of hydrogen (Column 8, Lines 22-31) for hydrogen vehicle refueling (Column 6, Lines 1-4).
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein the plurality of sonic chokes controls the flow of hydrogen minimizes heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss, thereby resulting in reduced cooling costs associated with hydrogen vehicle fueling.
Montgomery teaches a cryogenic containment system, comprising:
wherein the nozzle controls the flow of hydrogen minimizes heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss, thereby resulting in reduced cooling costs (Paragraph [0044], the nozzle allows for the cooling of hydrogen gas while removing latent heat).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include the nozzle controls the flow of hydrogen minimizes heating associated with Joule-Thompson effects of hydrogen pressure loss, thereby resulting in reduced cooling costs as taught by Montgomery with the motivation to bring the hydrogen to a desired pressure.
Miller, Egan, and Montgomery each teach the sonic choke and through the combination of prior art references the plurality of sonic chokes would provide the same benefit of reduced cooling costs associated with hydrogen fueling as seen in claim 14 as the result of the sonic chokes containing similar structures.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Fukunaga in further view of Egan and Cohen (US 8418732 B2).
Regarding Claim 5:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5).
Miller and Fukunaga do not teach:
wherein a flow rate of one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke is different than another sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke.
Egan teaches:
a flow rate is adjustable for the plurality of sonic chokes (Paragraph [0038]).
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein a flow rate of one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke is different than another sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke.
Cohen teaches blending compressed gases, comprising:
a flow rate (Column 9, Lines 48-53 and Column 10, Lines 9-14, the mass flow rate is the flow rate) one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke (130, Figure 1, the critical flow venturi is the sonic choke) is different than another sonic choke (138, Figure 1) in the plurality of the sonic choke (Colum 6, Lines 45-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include a flow rate one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke is different than another sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke as taught by Cohen with the motivation to control the mass flow rate of the gas while having some pressure recovery.
Regarding Claim 12:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5).
Miller and Fukunaga do not teach:
wherein a flow rate of one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic chokes is different than another sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic chokes.
Egan teaches:
a flow rate is adjustable for the plurality of sonic chokes (Paragraph [0038]).
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein a flow rate of one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic chokes is different than another sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic chokes.
Cohen teaches blending compressed gases, comprising:
a flow rate (Column 9, Lines 48-53 and Column 10, Lines 9-14, the mass flow rate is the flow rate) one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic chokes (130, Figure 1, the critical flow venturi is the sonic choke) is different than another sonic choke (138, Figure 1) in the plurality of the sonic chokes (Colum 6, Lines 45-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include a flow rate one sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke is different than another sonic choke in the plurality of the sonic choke as taught by Cohen with the motivation to control the mass flow rate of the gas while having some pressure recovery.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Fukunaga in further view of Egan and Tom (US 20050016186 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) have no moving parts (Figure 2, the sonic chokes have no moving parts).
Miller and Egan do not teach:
wherein the system has no moving parts and provides a safe by design flow control system that requires fewer layers of protection than are required for a variable area valve based flow control system.
Fukunaga teaches:
The compressed hydrogen vehicle fueling system (500, Figure 1).
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein the system has no moving parts and provides a safe by design flow control system that requires fewer layers of protection than are required for a variable area valve based flow control system.
Tom teaches a gas charging system, comprising:
wherein the system has no moving parts (Paragraph [0073], the system (10) had minimal moving parts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to include the system has no moving parts as taught by Tom with the motivation to simplify the charging process which will reduce the cost of operations and maintenance.
Miller and Egan each teach the sonic choke. Through the combination of prior art references the system would have the ability to provide a safe by design flow control system that requires fewer layers of protection than are required for a variable area valve based flow control system since the structure is similar as the structure required in the claim to achieve the same benefit seen in claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Fukunaga in further view of Egan and Yamaguchi (US 20190301678 A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Miller discloses:
the plurality of sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) and a fueling hose assembly (28 and 48, Figure 5, the dispensing hose and hose couplers are the fueling hose assembly).
Miller and Egan do not teach:
wherein a plurality of flow control valves is opened in response to determination of a vehicle on-board storge system capacity and mass average temperature of the hydrogen measured at a fueling hose assembly.
Fukunaga teaches:
a plurality of flow control valves (34a and 34b, Figure 1, the valves are the flow control valves).
Miller, Fukunaga, and Egan do not teach:
wherein a plurality of flow control valves is opened in response to determination of a vehicle on-board storge system capacity and mass average temperature of the hydrogen measured at a fueling hose assembly.
Yamaguchi teaches a gas filling method, comprising:
wherein a flow control valve (94b, Figure 1) is opened in response to determination of a vehicle on-board storge system capacity and mass average temperature of the hydrogen measured (Paragraphs [0047], [0053], [0075], and [0089] the flow rate control valve is opened based on the target filling pressure based on the tank size (capacity) and the mass average temperature) at a fueling hose assembly (92 and 93, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller, Egan, and Fukunaga to a flow control valve is opened in response to determination of a vehicle on-board storge system capacity and mass average temperature of the hydrogen measured at a fueling hose assembly as taught by Yamaguchi with the motivation to reduce the time in order to refuel a tank of the vehicle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga (US 20210003256 A1) in view of Miller (US 5597020 A).
Regarding Claim 15:
Fukunaga discloses a method for fueling a vehicle (200, Figure 1) with compressed hydrogen (Paragraph [0046], the hydrogen is compressed), comprising:
directing a flow of compressed hydrogen (Paragraphs [0074-0075], the compressed hydrogen gas is directed to the orifices) from a plurality of hydrogen storage banks (10, 12, and 14, Figure 1) to one or more orifices (35a and 35b, Figure 1).
Fukunaga does not disclose:
One or more sonic chokes.
Miller teaches a gas dispensing system, comprising:
One or more sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 1, the sonic nozzle is the sonic choke).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fukunaga to include one or more sonic chokes as taught by Miller with the motivation to eliminate the need to measure both upstream and downstream pressures to determine the flow rate to reduce components in the system making the system more affordable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga in view of Miller in further view of Cohen (US 8418732 B2) and Fox Venturi Products (See: https://web.archive.org/web/20240901201618/https://www.foxvalve.com/venturi-flow-controls/sonic-choke).
Regarding Claim 16:
Miller discloses:
one or more sonic chokes (52 and 54, Figure 5) and a fueling hose assembly (28 and 48, Figure 5, the dispensing hose and hose couplers are the fueling hose assembly).
Miller does not disclose:
wherein use of the one or more sonic chokes as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the one or more sonic chokes, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as it flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into a vehicle storage system.
Fukunaga teaches:
as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components (Paragraph [0040], the dispenser components are the components after the orifices within the dispenser (30)) and into the vehicle storage system (202, Figure 1, the fuel tank is the vehicle storage system).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller to as hydrogen flows through downstream dispenser components and into the vehicle as taught by Fukunaga with the motivation to filter and control the flow of hydrogen to the vehicle.
Miller and Fukunaga do not teach:
wherein use of the one or more sonic chokes as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the one or more sonic chokes, enables higher hydrogen density, and lower hydrogen velocity as it flows through downstream dispenser components and fueling hose assembly and into a vehicle storage system.
Cohen teaches blending compressed gases, comprising:
wherein use of the one or more sonic chokes (130 and 138, Figure 1, the critical flow venturi is the sonic choke) as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as it flows (Column 5, Lines 66-67 to Column 6, Lines 1-5, the density increases and the gas velocity is choked).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Miller and Fukunaga to include use of the one or more sonic chokes as a flow control device enables higher hydrogen density and lower hydrogen velocity as it flows as taught by Cohen with the motivation to control the mass flow rate of the gas while having some pressure recovery.
Miller, Fukunaga, and Cohen do not teach:
wherein use of the one or more sonic chokes as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the one or more sonic chokes.
Fox Venturi Products teaches a sonic choke and critical flow venturi, comprising:
wherein use of the one or more sonic chokes as a flow control device provides up to 90 % pressure recovery downstream of the one or more sonic chokes (Paragraph after the Question: How does a Pressure Drop or
∆
P
A