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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that the election is made “without traverse” but also includes a bare bones conclusory statement that there is no burden. This conclusory statement is not a traversal as it is entirely unsupported by facts and the election explicitly states it is without traverse. Accordingly, the election is treated as such.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 23 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of the claims 8-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Each of Claims 8-12 is directed to a method or process. Each of claims 13-20 is directed to an apparatus or a machine. As such, each of Claims 8-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 8-20 recites an apparatus or method for controlling hydrogen fueling for hydrogen fueled mobility.
Specifically, independent Claim 8 (and its dependent claims) recites a hydrogen fueling method based on an artificial neural network for a hydrogen fueled mobility that comprises:
acquiring or receiving a current state measurement value (acquiring a current state measurement value is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, namely a rule or instruction followable by a human, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity; and/or an observation, which is grouped as a mental process);
predicting a next state value based on an output of an artificial neural network receiving the current stat measurement value as input (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process); and
generating a fueling control command for hydrogen fueling based on a pressure ramp rate for the next stat value (additional element).
Additionally, independent Claim 13 (and its dependent claims) recites a hydrogen fueling control apparatus for a hydrogen fueled mobility that comprises:
a processor (additional element); and
a memory configured to store at least one program instruction (additional element),
wherein the processor executes the at least one program instruction (additional element) is configured to:
acquiring or receiving a current state measurement value (acquiring a current state measurement value is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, namely a rule or instruction followable by a human, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity; and/or an observation, which is grouped as a mental process);
predicting a next state value based on an output of an artificial neural network receiving the current stat measurement value as input (making a judgement or evaluation in the human mind, which is grouped as a mental process); and
generating a fueling control command for hydrogen fueling based on a pressure ramp rate for the next stat value (additional element).
As indicated above, each of independent claims 8 and 13 recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent claims 9-12 and 14-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
As identified above, independent claim 8 and its respective dependent claims 9-12 include the additional element of generating commands (claims 9-12) and a compressed hydrogen storage system (claim 9). Independent claim 13 and its respective dependent claims 14-20 include generating commands (claims 14-20) and a compressed hydrogen storage system (claim 15). Per Applicant’s specification, the hydrogen fueling control apparatus is nothing more than a general purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of Applicant’s specification).
The above-identified abstract idea in independent claims 8 and 13 and their respective dependent claims 9-12 and 14-20 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG because these claims include no additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these claims recite any additional elements that serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, none of these claims recite any additional elements that add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the claimed apparatus or method amounts to simply implementing the above-identified abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 8 and 13 and their respective dependent claims 9-12 and 14-20 are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 8 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims 9-12 and 14-20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 8-20 is directed to an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 8-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
As identified above, independent claim 8 and its respective dependent claims 9-12 include the additional elements of a generating commands (claims 9-12) and a compressed hydrogen storage system (claim 9). Independent claim 13 and its respective dependent claims 14-20 include generating commands (claims 14-20) and a compressed hydrogen storage system (claim 15).
Applicant’s specification in paragraph [0084] states that the high-pressure hydrogen storage tank is widely known. The compressed hydrogen storage tank is an additional element that does not add significantly more as it is used to hold hydrogen for the hydrogen fueled mobility.
Per Applicant’s specification, the hydrogen fueling control apparatus is nothing more than a general purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of Applicant’s specification, wherein the hydrogen fueling control apparatus may be implemented in a form of a computing system). In other words, the hydrogen fueling control apparatus (the claimed “the hydrogen fueling control apparatus” in independent claim 13 identified above and claim 8 for the generating step) are used to implement the above-identified abstract idea (e.g. mental process and method of organizing human activity).
Additionally, as claimed, the control unit merely performs the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of the Applicant’s specification, the hydrogen fueling control apparatus is described as a form of computing system that can be any data processing device which includes a memory and a processor electronically connected to the memory that stores program instructions to acquire a current state measurement, predict a next state value based on an ANN, and generate a control command based on a PRR for the predicted value.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the term “the hydrogen fueling control apparatus” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device (i.e., a control unit as described in paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239]) which implements the claimed acquiring, determining, and generating commands identified above. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves (generic recitation of a control unit or no recitation of a control unit) and the specification (does not disclose specific structure of the control units), that the control units require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the above-identified steps of the claimed apparatus and process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the control units to operate. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph since this hardware (i.e. control unit) performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computing arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware (i.e. control unit) is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computing industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the control unit because it describes the control unit in a manner that indicates that the control unit is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The above-identified limitations of claims 8-20 amount to implementing the above-identified abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the hydrogen fueling control apparatus as described in paragraphs [00230], [00233-00235], and [00239] of Applicant’s specification). Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and method of organizing human activity of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, claims 8-20 are directed to applying the above-identified abstract idea on a computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of claims 8-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of claims 8-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 8-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 would be allowable once the 101 rejection is overcome. In order to do so a step of actually controlling the dispenser or a valve or some other element based on the determined control should be added to the independent claims, assuming no new matter would be introduced by any such amendment.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Handa (2015/0184804) discloses a hydrogen fueling control method that includes receiving a current stat measurement value, predicting a next state value, and generating a fueling control command based on predicted value (para.65). However, Handa fails to explicitly disclose the prediction is based on artificial neural network. While artificial neural networks are generally known, there is no teaching or disclosure in the prior art to use them in this specific way, in the examiner’s opinion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy P. Kelly whose telephone number is (571)270-7615. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET) on Monday, Thursday, and Friday.
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 M 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.
/Timothy P. Kelly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights