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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation “the second fraction is less than or equal to 10%, preferably less than or equal to 1% of the first fraction”. The use of “preferably” renders this claim indefinite, since it is unclear which range of fraction is required to anticipate the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2011 117481 (Iwatani) (provided by the applicant).
In Re claim 1 Iwatani discloses an inline cooling system (figure 4) for controlled delivery of a gaseous substance, in particular hydrogen (Paragraph 1), comprising a conduit (5) for transporting the gaseous substance from a gas supply unit (17) to an outlet (connected to filling container 18), wherein the gas supply unit is configured to supply the gaseous substance in a pressurized form (Paragraph 28); a primary variable flow regulator (14) arranged along the conduit, a secondary variable flow regulator (10) arranged along the conduit, at least one heat exchanger (6) arranged along the conduit between the primary and secondary variable flow regulator, a control unit (11) configured to control the primary variable flow regulator and the secondary variable flow regulator.
The limitation that, in a fueling mode of operation, the primary variable flow regulator restricts the flow of the fuel more than the secondary variable flow regulator is considered a statement of intended use which is anticipated by Iwatani since Iwatani could perform this use.
The limitation of claim 3 that the secondary variable flow regulator be configured to, in an initialization mode, gradually open until a pressure inside the conduit has equalized with a pressure connected to the outlet, is considered a statement of intended use and is anticipated by Iwatani, since the Iwatani apparatus could perform this intended use.
In Re claim 12 Iwatani discloses a control unit (11) configured to control the primary and secondary variable flow regulators based on a demand for the gaseous substance at a dispenser (based on pressure readings from element 16).
The limitation of claim 14 is considered a statement of intended use which is anticipated by Iwatani, since the pressure regulators of Iwatani could be used to cause the claimed pressure drop.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwatani.
In Re claim 4 Iwatani discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose an equal diameter of conduit throughout the heat exchanger and outside of the heat exchanger. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to maintain the conduit diameter constant through the Iwatani apparatus, since the effects of variable diameter flow paths on fluid transfer were well known at the effective filing date of the invention, and so one of ordinary skill in the art would know to select the conduit profile which provided the desired flow characteristics.
In Re claim 5 Iwatani discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a fixed conduit diameter from the primary flow regulator, through the heat exchanger, to the secondary flow regulator. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to maintain the conduit diameter constant through the Iwatani apparatus, since the effects of variable diameter flow paths on fluid transfer were well known at the effective filing date of the invention, and so one of ordinary skill in the art would know to select the conduit profile which provided the desired flow characteristics.
In Re claim 6 Iwatani discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a fixed conduit diameter between any flow of fluid components. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to maintain the conduit diameter constant through the Iwatani apparatus, since the effects of variable diameter flow paths on fluid transfer were well known at the effective filing date of the invention, and so one of ordinary skill in the art would know to select the conduit profile which provided the desired flow characteristics.
In Re claim 7 Iwatani discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a conduit length between the heat exchanger and the secondary variable flow regulator greater than 10 meters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a conduit between the heat exchanger and the secondary variable flow regulator of over 10 meters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 13 Iwatani discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a flow restriction fraction of a second pressure regulator being less than or equal to 10% of a flow restriction fraction of a first pressure regulator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the pressure regulators of Iwatani to create the claimed respective pressure reduction fractions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 15 Iwatani discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a heat exchanger shaped like a torus. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make use of any known heat exchanger shape when constructing the Iwatani apparatus, since the shape of the heat exchanger does not affect the function of the device.
Iwatani as applied to claim 1 above performs the method of claim 16 during ordinary use and operation, except for the step of causing a second flow restrictor to restrict a flow more than a first flow restrictor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the flow restrictors so the second flow restrictor restricted the flow of fluid more than the first flow restrictor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PGPub 2022/0204337 discloses a hydrogen filling apparatus having a head exchanger inline to a dispenser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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 supervisor, 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 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights