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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 22 Dec 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 24 Sept 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mosaic and Grace et al are nonanalogous to each other and therefore their inherent differences would make them unsuitable for combining with each other. However, both Mosaic and Grace et al are relevant to moving fluid through a system and Grace et al teach using fluid potential energy to charge a battery, as taught by Grace et al (Col 1, lines 8-14). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that it is not possible to incorporate the system of Grace et al with the fuel system of Mosaic. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, the pump of Mosaic can function with the teachings of Grace et al to use fluid potential energy to charge a battery, as taught by Grace et al (Col 1, lines 8-14). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic with the valve arrangement as taught by Grace et al for the advantage of using fluid potential energy to charge a battery, as taught by Grace et al (Col 1, lines 8-14). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
With regards Honda Motor Co, Applicant first argues that Honda Motor Co is directed to utilizing the flow of a primary fluid and not an auxiliary fluid to capture energy. However, as discussed below, Honda Motor Co teaches a fuel system (Figure 2B) with an energy store (95) where energy is created (from 90) when the system is connected to a filling station (Figure 2B; ¶ 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic in view of Grace et al with the system as taught by Honda Motor Co for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (using a refilling operation to charge a power source for a pump) to yield predictable results (to utilize protentional energy of fluid to provide power for a system). Mosaic, as modified by Grace et al, teach using the auxiliary control fluid and Honda Motor Co teaches using the refilling operation to charge a power source for the pump. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that Honda Motor Co fails to teach the storing of energy. However, Grace et al teaches a valve arrangement (Figure 1) and an energy store (Battery; Figure 3), where the valve arrangement being further operable to enable a reverse direction of flow of auxiliary control fluid from the tank array through the pump (Col 4, lines 27-32), to generate energy from the pump to store in the energy store (Col 4, lines 27-32). Honda Motor Co teaches a fuel system (Figure 2B) with an energy store (95) where energy is created (from 90) when the system is connected to a filling station (Figure 2B; ¶ 24). Therefore, Grace et al teach the storing of energy and this argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosaic Technology Development PTY LTD (hereinafter “Mosaic”; WO 2013056295) in view of Grace et al (US 3947744) in further view of Honda Motor Co (EP 1722152).
Regarding Claim 1, Mosaic discloses a fuel system for supplying gaseous fuel to a power plant (abstract; Figure 1). The fuel system comprising:
a tank array (14, 16, 18 and 20 in Figure 1) comprising at least a first tank (14) and a second tank (16) configured to receive pressurised gaseous fuel for supply to the power plant (via 66 and 68 for engine 12), in use, from a filling station (connected to connection 66; abstract) when the tank array is connected to the filling station (abstract);
a source of auxiliary control fluid (42 in tank 36) for supplying auxiliary control fluid to the tank array when the fuel system is disconnected from the filling station (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 13);
a pump (60) for pressurising auxiliary control fluid supplied to the tank array when auxiliary control fluid flows through the pump in a forward direction (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 13);
a valve arrangement (44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56 and 58) which is operable to control the supply of auxiliary control fluid to the tank array so as to control a discharge of the gaseous fuel from the tank array (Figure 1),
but fails to expressly disclose an energy store; and
the valve arrangement being further operable to enable a reverse direction of flow of auxiliary control fluid from the tank array through the pump, when the fuel system is connected to the filling station, in use, to generate energy from the pump to store in the energy store.
Grace et al teaches a valve arrangement (Figure 1) and an energy store (Battery; Figure 3), where the valve arrangement being further operable to enable a reverse direction of flow of auxiliary control fluid from the tank array through the pump (Col 4, lines 27-32), to generate energy from the pump to store in the energy store (Col 4, lines 27-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic with the valve arrangement as taught by Grace et al for the advantage of using fluid potential energy to charge a battery, as taught by Grace et al (Col 1, lines 8-14).
Mosaic, as modified by Grace et al fails to expressly disclose when the fuel system is connected to the filling station in use, to generate energy from the pump to store in the energy store.
Honda Motor Co teaches a fuel system (Figure 2B) with an energy store (95) where energy is created (from 90) when the system is connected to a filling station (Figure 2B; ¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic in view of Grace et al with the system as taught by Honda Motor Co for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (using a refilling operation to charge a power source for a pump) to yield predictable results (to utilize protentional energy of fluid to provide power for a system).
Regarding Claim 2, Mosaic discloses wherein the valve arrangement includes, for each tank of the array, an inlet one-way valve (44) which is operable to control the supply of auxiliary control fluid to the associated tank (page 11, line 28-page 12, line 2) in one direction at a time and an outlet one- way valve (52) which is operable to control the supply of auxiliary control fluid from the associated tank to the source of auxiliary control fluid in one direction at a time (page 12, lines 2-5).
Regarding Claim 5, Mosaic discloses where the valve arrangement (44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56 and 58) is operable by means of an electronic control unit (62; page 13, lines 24 – 33 disclose closing valve 44 based on reading a pressure spike at 62).
Regarding Claim 6, Mosaic discloses wherein the power plant (12) is an internal combustion engine of a vehicle (abstract; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Mosaic fails to expressly disclose wherein the gaseous fuel is hydrogen.
Honda Motor Co teaches a fuel system (Figure 2B) where the gaseous fuel is hydrogen (¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic in view of Grace et al with the system as taught by Honda Motor Co for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (using hydrogen as the fuel source) to yield predictable results (to provide fuel to an engine of a vehicle).
Regarding Claim 8, Mosaic discloses a method for supplying gaseous fuel from a fuel system to a power plant (abstract; Figure 1). The method comprising:
receiving pressurised gaseous fuel from a filling station in a tank array (from 66 to 14, 16, 18 and 20), when the fuel system is connected with the filling station (abstract);
pressurising auxiliary control fluid from a source of auxiliary control fluid (from 36) by a pump (60) when the auxiliary control fluid flows through the pump in a forward direction;
supplying pressurised auxiliary control fluid to the tank array so as to discharge gaseous fuel from the tank array to the power plant, when the fuel system is disconnected from the filling station (page 12, line 28-page 13, line 13); but fails to expressly disclose enabling, under the control of a valve arrangement, a reverse direction of flow of auxiliary control fluid from the tank array through the pump, when the fuel system is connected to the filling station, so as to generate energy from the pump for storage within an energy store.
Grace et al teaches a valve arrangement (Figure 1) and an energy store (Battery; Figure 3), where the valve arrangement being further operable to enable a reverse direction of flow of auxiliary control fluid from the tank array through the pump (Col 4, lines 27-32), to generate energy from the pump to store in the energy store (Col 4, lines 27-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic with the valve arrangement as taught by Grace et al for the advantage of using fluid potential energy to charge a battery, as taught by Grace et al (Col 1, lines 8-14).
Mosaic, as modified by Grace et al fails to expressly disclose when the fuel system is connected to the filling station in use, to generate energy from the pump to store in the energy store.
Honda Motor Co teaches a fuel system (Figure 2B) with an energy store (95) where energy is created (from 90) when the system is connected to a filling station (Figure 2B; ¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic in view of Grace et al with the system as taught by Honda Motor Co for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (using a refilling operation to charge a power source for a pump) to yield predictable results (to utilize protentional energy of fluid to provide power for a system).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosaic Technology Development PTY LTD (hereinafter “Mosaic”; WO 2013056295) in view of Grace et al (US 3947744) in further view of Honda Motor Co (EP 1722152) in further view of Safronovs (US 20100163135).
Regarding Claim 4, Mosaic, as modified by Grace et al and Honda Motor Co, teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly teach wherein the valve arrangement includes, for each tank of the array, a fuel inlet one-way valve which is operable to control the supply of gaseous fuel to the tank array.
Safronovs teaches a fuel system (Figure 1), with a tank array (1 and 2) and a valve arrangement (16-19) wherein the valve arrangement includes, for each tank of the array, a fuel inlet one-way valve (16 and 18) which is operable to control the supply of gaseous fuel to the tank array (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mosaic as modified by Grace et al and Honda Motor Co with the valve arrangement as taught by Safronovs for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (using one-way valves to fill fuel tanks) to yield predictable results (to fill and drain fuel tanks).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753