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 .
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on May 28th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on January 29th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 2 & 11 have been amended and Claim 21 has been newly-added. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-21 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, rendering them moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “the preamble is not merely an intended use, it should be construed as if in the balance of the claim”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant argues “the preamble of claim 1 which explicitly recites a “hydrogen fueling station including a cryogenic pump hydraulic system, the cryogenic pump hydraulic system comprising” gives meaning and vitality to the claim”, but this is simply incorrect. As the Examiner stated in the previous office action, these two limitations in the preamble are merely intended use for the pump hydraulic system and do not distinctly define the structure of any of the claim limitations; as such, they are not interpreted as further limiting the structure of the recited invention; refer to MPEP 2111.02, which states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”. In this instance, the body of the claim lacks any limitations directed to a hydrogen fueling station or cryogenics at all, and as such, as noted in the previous office action, the preamble clearly does not distinctly define the structure of any of the claim limitations. Stated another way, there is nothing in the body of the claim for the preamble to “distinctly define the structure of” because the body has no limitations to cryogenics or hydrogen fueling stations. This is because, as noted in the previous office action, the preamble is not defining the structure of the invention, but instead is merely reciting a desired and/or intended use of the claimed hydraulic system. Finally, the phrase “cryogenic pump hydraulic system” itself doesn’t even require a cryogenic pump. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the preamble merely recites intended use for the pump hydraulic system and does not distinctly define the structure of any of the claim limitations. As such, the preamble is not interpreted as further limiting the structure of the recited invention, in accordance with MPEP 2111.02. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0025874 to Lehmann et al. in view of US 2023/0332585 to Drube.
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
1544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 11, and with particular reference to Figures 1-7 (Fig. 1 annotated by the Examiner immediately above), Lehmann et al. (Lehmann) discloses:
1. A hydrogen fueling station including a cryogenic pump hydraulic system (4; Fig. 1) (Lehmann discloses a concrete pump hydraulic system 4 (paras. 2, 44), but does not disclose use in a hydrogen fueling station or that his pump is for cryogenics; however, these two limitations in the preamble are merely intended use for the pump hydraulic system and do not distinctly define the structure of any of the claim limitations; as such, they are not interpreted as further limiting the structure of the recited invention; refer to MPEP 2111.02, which states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”), the cryogenic pump hydraulic system comprising: a first hydraulic cylinder (2) including a first hydraulic piston (7), the first hydraulic piston separating a first low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston from a first high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston; a second hydraulic cylinder (3) including a second hydraulic piston (8), the second hydraulic piston separating a second low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder above the second piston from a second high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder beneath the second piston; at least one first hydraulic volume source (5) configured to selectively communicate fluid between the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion (via valves 12, 13, 23, 24; para. 44); a first controllable valve (26) configured to selectively place the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion in fluid communication with at least one low-pressure line (Fig. 1 above; para. 44); a second controllable valve (17 or 12) configured to selectively place at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion (para. 44; Figs. 6-7); and a third controllable valve (18 or 13) configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the second high pressure portion (para. 44; Fig. 3).
11. A pump hydraulic system (4; Fig. 1) comprising: a first hydraulic cylinder (2) including a first hydraulic piston (7), the first hydraulic piston separating a first low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston from a first high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston; a second hydraulic cylinder (8) including a second hydraulic piston (3), the second hydraulic piston separating a second low pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder above the second piston from a second high pressure portion (Fig. 1 above) of the second hydraulic cylinder beneath the second piston; at least one connecting line (22) configured to place at least one first hydraulic volume source (5) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion (via valves 12, 13, 23, 24; para. 44); a first controllable valve (26) configured to selectively place the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion in fluid communication with at least one low-pressure line (Fig. 1 above; para. 44); a second controllable valve (12) configured to selectively place at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion (Figs. 6-7); and a third controllable valve (13) configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source (6) in fluid communication with the second high pressure portion (Fig. 3; para. 51); wherein there is no check valve between the second controllable valve and the first high pressure portion (Figs. 1-7), and wherein there is no check valve between the third controllable valve and the second high pressure portion (Figs. 1-7).
While Lehmann discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not specifically disclose that the first and second pistons respectively include first and second piston seals separating the high/low pressure portions, as claimed.
However, providing a seal on a hydraulic piston of a pump hydraulic system in order to separate high/low pressure portions within a cylinder is vastly well known in the art, as shown by Drube. In particular, Drube discloses another hydrogen pump hydraulic system (Fig. 1) comprising: a first hydraulic cylinder (32) including a first hydraulic piston (34), the first hydraulic piston including a first piston seal (36, 38) separating a first low pressure portion (62) of the first hydraulic cylinder above the first piston seal from a first high pressure portion (54) of the first hydraulic cylinder beneath the first piston seal; a second hydraulic cylinder (42) including a second hydraulic piston (44), the second hydraulic piston separating a second low pressure portion (132) of the second hydraulic cylinder above the second piston seal from a second high pressure portion (54) of the second hydraulic cylinder beneath the second piston seal; at least one connecting line (i.e. the line exiting pump 92; Fig. 1) configured to place at least one first hydraulic volume source (92) in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion (via valves 94a,b, 96a, b, & 112; paras. 33-36). Drube makes clear that through use of appropriate piston seals, the drive fluid (i.e. liquid propane) remains separated from the pumped fluid (i.e. hydrogen), thereby avoiding damaging fluid contamination (paras. 40-41). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydraulic drive system that minimizes drive/pump fluid contamination, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Drube in combination with those seen in Lehmann in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehmann’s pistons (7, 8) with the piston seals of Drube in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a pump hydraulic system that reduces the chances of fluid contamination between the drive fluid and pumped fluid, thereby enhancing system reliability.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann-Drube as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0208793 to Kroeger et al.
In regards to Claim 2, Lehmann-Drube discloses the invention of Claim 1, but does not further disclose a memory and controller, as claimed.
However, Kroeger discloses another pump hydraulic system (Fig. 3) having a memory (Fig. 6; 202) including program instructions stored therein (paras. 32-34); and a controller (200) operably connected to the memory (Fig. 6; para. 32), a first controllable valve (208), a second controllable valve (210), and the third controllable valve (212) (Fig. 6), the controller configured to execute the program instructions to control the three valves based on fuel requirements of an engine 104 (paras. 32-34). As such, to one of ordinary skill desiring a pump hydraulic system that precisely regulates operation of Lehmann’s three controllable valves via electronic programmable control, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kroeger in combination with those seen in Lehmann-Drube in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehmann’s system with the controller and memory of Kroeger in order to obtain predictable results; those results being precise control of the first, second, and third controllable valves based on need. Via this combination, Lehmann’s controller/memory would clearly be arranged to execute the control instructions to: control the first controllable valve (26) to selectively place the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line (para. 44), and control the second controllable valves (17, 18) to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the first high pressure portion to extend the first hydraulic piston, and/or to control the third controllable valve to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the second high pressure portion to extend the second hydraulic piston (para. 44).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann-Drube as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3,304,882 to Yearout.
In regards to Claim 21, Lehmann does not disclose his first/second hydraulic pistons driving first and second hydrogen pistons/cylinders of a hydrogen fueling station, as claimed.
However, Yearout clearly discloses a hydrogen supply station (Fig. 4) for providing cryogenic hydrogen to a destination (col. 1, lines 8-19), wherein first/second hydraulic pistons (91, 92) are configured to act upon first and second hydrogen pistons (15, 16) within hydrogen cylinders (17, 18) of the hydrogen supply station in only one single direction (i.e. rightward in Fig. 4; “two single acting pistons”; col. 2, lines 4-5), as claimed. Yearout makes clear that through use of such a hydraulic drive system for reciprocating cryogenic piston pumps, the control and drive mechanisms are simple and effective. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a hydrogen fuel station with a simple and reliable drive, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yearout in combination with those seen in Lehmann-Drube in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lehmann’s hydraulic pistons (2, 3) to be coupled to two respective hydrogen pistons/cylinders in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a reliable and simple means of pumping cryogenic hydrogen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 & 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose the limitation of Claim 3, including a fourth controllable valve configured to selectively place the first high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line; and a fifth controllable valve configured to selectively place the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line, wherein the first controllable valve is further configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion, the controller is further operably connected to the fourth controllable valve and the fifth controllable valve, and the controller is further configured to execute the program instructions to: (i) control the first controllable valve to selectively place the first high pressure portion and the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one second hydraulic volume source, and (ii) control the fourth controllable valve to selectively place the first high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line to withdraw the first hydraulic piston, and/or control the fifth controllable valve to selectively place the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low- pressure line to withdraw the second hydraulic piston.
Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose the limitations of Claim 12, including a fourth controllable valve configured to selectively place the first high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line; and a fifth controllable valve configured to selectively place the second high pressure portion in fluid communication with the at least one low-pressure line, wherein the first controllable valve is further configured to selectively place the at least one second hydraulic volume source in fluid communication with the first low pressure portion and the second low pressure portion.
Applicant’s specification makes clear that through use of the fourth and fifth valves (i.e. standby port valves), selective retraction of the hydraulic pistons is possible. Furthermore, these additional valves can be controlled during operation of the system to provide additional flushing as needed. The prior art fails to disclose as much.
Additionally, the best available prior art fails to disclose the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the first hydraulic piston is configured to act upon a first hydrogen piston in a first hydrogen pump cylinder, of the hydrogen fueling station, in only a first single direction; and the second hydraulic piston is configured to act upon a second hydrogen piston in a second hydrogen pump cylinder, of the hydrogen fueling station, in only a second single direction.
Applicant’s specification makes clear that through use of the hydraulic system to drive hydrogen pistons in a hydrogen fueling station, a hydrogen fuel system results that operates to reduce heating and/or stability issues prevalent in prior hydrogen fuel systems. The prior art fails to disclose as much.
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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights