DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to (wherein claims 3, 5-9, and 11-12 inherit their objections due to their dependencies) because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11, “return of auxiliary control” should be changed to --return of the auxiliary control--.
In claim 1, line 15, “enable transfer” should be changed to --enable the transfer--.
In claim 2, last line, “the auxiliary control fluid reservoir” should be changed to --the reservoir-- to maintain consistency in the naming of the structure.
In claim 4, line 3, “the auxiliary control fluid reservoir” should be changed to --the reservoir-- to maintain consistency in the naming of the structure.
In claim 10, line 2, “the separation member” should be changed to --the separation member of the first tank--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 are 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 “means” or a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and “means” or the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a “pressuring means” in claims 4-7 (understood as referring to pump 48 or equivalents thereof) and a “biasing means” in claim 10.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mosaic (WO 2013/056295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 a fuel system for supplying gaseous fuel (CNG) to a power plant 12, the fuel system comprising:
a tank array comprising at least first and second tanks 14, 16, 18, each tank 14, 16, 18 being configured to receive pressurised gaseous fuel (CNG) for supply to the power plant 12; and
an auxiliary control fluid delivery system, wherein the auxiliary control fluid delivery system comprises:
a reservoir 36 for auxiliary control fluid;
an auxiliary control fluid pipeline configured to enable supply of the auxiliary control fluid to the tank array so as to cause discharge of the gaseous hydrogen fuel held in the tank array and to enable return of the auxiliary control fluid from the tank array (via valves 52, 54, 56, 59A, 59B, as shown in Figs. 4-7);
a valve arrangement which is operable to control the supply and return of auxiliary control fluid to and from the tank array (including via supply valves 44, 46, 48 and return valves 52, 54, 56), respectively, so as to control the discharge of the gaseous fuel to the power plant 12, the valve arrangement comprising a control valve arrangement (comprising return valves 64, 65 and/or return valves 59A, 59B) operable to close the reservoir 36 of auxiliary control fluid from the auxiliary control fluid pipeline to enable transfer of the auxiliary control fluid between the first and second tanks 14, 16 without re-entering the reservoir 36 (such as during a refueling of at least one of the tanks, as shown in Figs. 12-13 and discloses in pg. 17, line 22- pg. 18, line 1); and
wherein each of the first and second tanks 14, 16 includes a separation element to separate the auxiliary control fluid from the gaseous fuel within the respective tank (such as a bladder, as disclosed on pg. 16, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 2, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the valve arrangement includes, for each of the first and second tanks 14, 16, an inlet one-way valve 44, 46 (because the valves only open for flow in one direction to supply the respective tanks 14, 16, like the applicant’s one-way valves 54, 58, which are understood by the specification and drawings to be selectively actuated rather than acting as conventional one-way valves, also known as check valves, nonreturn valves, or backflow preventers) for controlling the supply of auxiliary control fluid to the associated tank 14, 16 and an outlet one-way valve 52, 54 (which operate like the inlet one-way valves 44, 46, but for exhausting fluid from the tanks 14, 16, and like the applicant’s outlet one-way valves 56, 60) for controlling the supply of auxiliary control fluid from the associated tank 14, 16 to the auxiliary control fluid reservoir 36.
Regarding claim 3, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the separation element includes any one of a membrane, a bladder, a diaphragm, a piston or a bellows arrangement (specifically a bladder, as disclosed on pg. 16, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 4, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the auxiliary control fluid pipeline comprises an auxiliary control fluid supply line between the auxiliary control fluid reservoir 36 and the tank array, and wherein the auxiliary control fluid supply line is provided with a pressurising means 60 to pressurise the supply of auxiliary control fluid to the tank array.
Regarding claim 5, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the pressurising means 60 is operable in a first state in which auxiliary control fluid flowing through the auxiliary control fluid supply line is pressurized (such as supplying fluid to the tanks 14, 16, as shown in Figs. 2 and 4) or is operable in a second state in which auxiliary control fluid flowing through the auxiliary control fluid supply line is not pressurised (such as when the tanks 14, 16, 18 are refueled, as shown in Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 6, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the control valve arrangement is operable in either a first state or a second state, and is configured such that in the first state (such as when the reservoir 36 supplies fluid to any of the tanks 14, 16, 18, such as in Figs. 2 and 4), the reservoir 36 is in fluid communication with the auxiliary control fluid pipeline and, in the second state (such as during refueling of the tanks 14, 16, 18, in which the tanks are in communication with each other to transfer auxiliary control fluid between each other, as shown in Figs. 12-13), the reservoir 36 is closed from the auxiliary control fluid pipeline and there is no fluid communication therebetween, and wherein the pressurising means 60 is selectively operable in either the first state or the second state in dependence on the state of the control valve arrangement.
Regarding claim 7, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the pressurising means 60 is configured to be in the second state (off) when the control valve arrangement is in the second state (such as during refueling of the tanks 14, 16, 18, as shown in Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 8, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the control valve arrangement (comprising return valves 64, 65) is located at an outlet of the reservoir 36 (because the return valves 64, 65 are downstream of the reservoir 36).
Regarding claim 9, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the control valve arrangement (comprising return valves 64, 65) is located intermediate the outlet of the reservoir 36 and a junction (indicated in the annotation of Fig. 12 below) between the auxiliary control fluid supply line and an auxiliary control fluid return line to the reservoir (because the control valve arrangement/valves 64, 65 are located on the line connecting the junction to the line downstream of the reservoir 36, and as shown in the refueling process in Fig. 12, fluid flows between/intermediate the junction and the line downstream of the reservoir 36).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Junction of supply and return lines)]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 that the power plant 12 is an internal combustion engine 12 of a vehicle (pg. 11, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 gaseous fuel in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG), but lacks teaching that the gaseous fuel is hydrogen. However, hydrogen isn’t seen as defining over the structure of the prior art (MPEP 2115).
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosaic in view of Robson (US 2014/0290972).
Regarding claim 10, Mosaic discloses a first tank of a tank array in which the tank contains two different fluids separated from each other by a separation member, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that the tank array is provided with a biasing means which acts on the separation member to oppose movement thereof during a filling phase of the fuel system so as to store energy within the biasing means for use during a discharge phase of gaseous fuel from the first tank.
Robson teaches in Fig. 8 and paragraph 244 a tank array 403 that is provided with a biasing means 450 which acts on the separation member 405 to oppose movement thereof during a filling phase of the system so as to store energy within the biasing means 450 for use during a discharge phase of output fluid/hydraulic fluid from the first tank 403.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tanks disclosed by Mosaic to include biasing means acting on the separation member to oppose movement thereof during filling of the tank with the gaseous fuel and in support of discharging the gaseous fuel, as Fulton similarly teaches hydraulic fluid, which reduces the amount of force that the auxiliary control fluid needs to apply to the separation member to discharge the output fluid/gaseous fuel, so the output of the pump and/or the amount of auxiliary control fluid can be minimized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious, in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 13, transferring at least some auxiliary control fluid from the first tank to the second tank via the auxiliary control fluid pipeline, without re-entering the reservoir, so as to control the discharge of gaseous fuel from the second tank.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Mosaic discloses in Figs. 1-16 transferring at least some of the auxiliary control fluid from the first tank 14 to the second tank 16 via the auxiliary control fluid pipeline (such as Fig. 13 shows), without re-entering the reservoir 36, but lacks teaching that the transfer controls the discharge of gaseous fuel from the second tank 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753